|

Erin Walcek Averett and Derek B. Counts: Scaling Religious Practice from Landscape to Artifact: Digital Approaches to Ancient Cyprus

1. Introduction[1]

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Although now hidden by the sprawl of modern cities and towns and the aggressive reclamation of land by farmers and shepherds, sanctuaries were once a persistent feature across Cyprus’ ancient landscapes (fig. 1). During the first millennium BCE religious centers occupied prominent locations in and around both coastal and inland urban centers, as well as in secondary towns, especially in the agriculturally rich plains of the Mesaoria in southcentral Cyprus. Yet, the importance of Cypriot sanctuaries extends far beyond their physical footprints, which are often simple, open-air precincts delineated by stone and mudbrick walls. Cypriot cult spaces articulated a variety of complex relationships from the entanglement of foreign and local religious iconography to the negotiation of socio-economic identities and perhaps even the boundaries of political authority. The paucity of textual evidence, however, requires an understanding of Cypriot religion almost entirely derived from material remains. Common archaeological features of Iron Age sanctuaries include boundary walls, intramural buildings, altars and hearths, ceramic assemblages (including vessels and lamps), faunal remains (from animal sacrifice and feasting), coins, glass and, especially, limestone and terracotta sculpture of varying sizes displaying a range of both human and divine iconography. Nevertheless, the intricacies of Cypriot Iron Age belief systems and the nature of Cypriot cults, including even the theonyms used to evoke the divinities worshipped in the island’s sanctuaries, remain elusive.

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Figure 1

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Because of their rich and distinctive physical remains, which are often signaled above ground by fragmentary sculpture, Cypriot sanctuaries have been a focal point of research since they were first discovered, recorded, and plundered in the nineteenth century. Still, not surprisingly, the shortcomings of early antiquarian exploration,[2] coupled with twentieth-century looting, urban development, and inaccessibility (in the case of sites located in the Turkish Occupied area), continue to derail a complete study of Cypriot ritual spaces. Moreover, the sheer quantity of material excavated from these sanctuaries—disbursed far and wide across the world’s museums, as well as throughout the many regional museums on the island—is overwhelming and not easily organized or published using traditional methods of archaeological recording and analysis.

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 The recent adoption of a suite of digital tools, however, is transforming the way scholars capture, analyze, archive, curate, and share archaeological data.[3] Likewise, this shift is also pushing the boundaries of traditional publication in archaeology as scholars find new and more dynamic online platforms and, simultaneously, harness digital publication as a way to provide open access to research and stimulate public dialogues.[4]

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 After a brief overview of the ways in which the practice and material products of Cypriot Iron Age religion have been captured through traditional archaeological inquiry, this chapter explores the ways in which digital tools have begun to reshape our approach to religious practice on the island. Our examination begins at a wider angle, highlighting how digital technologies enhance our ability to view sites, including religious sites, within a broader island-wide context. We end, however, with a narrower, micro-level of analysis, where digital tools are providing nuanced views of individual practice, ritual behavior, and votive objects. Most importantly, we hope to show not only how digital tools have aided and enhanced our interpretations of Cypriot material culture, but also how such tools have allowed us to formulate new research questions that should provide valuable contexts for application by researchers confronting similar data sets in different archaeological or cultural contexts.

2. Iron Age Cypriot Religion

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 There are no detailed, ancient literary descriptions of Cypriot sanctuaries. For example, the famed second-century CE travel writer, Pausanias, did not visit Cyprus and therefore we lack the sort of peripatetic musings that revealed the twilight of religious life at many sanctuaries in mainland Greece. Morever, the epigraphic record is scarce compared to mainland Greek sanctuaries. Local inscriptions from Cypriot sanctuaries, while useful, are often fragmentary, short, and rarely identify specific deities (especially before the fifth century BCE) or ritual practices, tending instead to read as generic formulae of pious worshippers. Scholars of Cypriot religion thus have little with which to augment the archaeological record. Luckily, since the nineteenth century, sanctuary remains and an astonishing array of votive objects discovered through antiquarian exploration and, later, systematic excavation have shaped an “archaeology of religion” for the island.[5]

7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Cypriot sanctuaries consisted primarily of a stone and mudbrick enclosure wall defining sacred areas of varying sizes, complemented by interior structures as well as features associated with a variety of pyrotechnic (e.g., altars and hearths) and other activities. Located in and around urban centers, but also in more isolated sites away from towns, these sacred precincts were important spaces for the display of votive art and the private and public performance of the rituals of Cypriot religion. Indeed, the arrangement of space within the sacred precincts, coupled with votive objects and other cult paraphernalia found within these areas, reveals a range of activities that occurred inside: banqueting, music and dancing, processions, and the offering of prayers and gifts. Votive sculpture in limestone and terracotta displayed in sanctuaries often acted as proxies for worshippers, providing constant prayer to the god or, more simply, represented a gift given with the intent of receiving good fortune in return—such reciprocity was at the heart of votive religious practice in the ancient Mediterranean and Near East.[6] These votive sculptures, therefore, represented a primary vehicle for interaction with the god, acting as a physical attendant to ephemeral prayers. Ranging in size from a few centimeters to two meters, male and female depictions of human worshippers display a wide-range of garments, headgear, and jewelry; they carry an equally wide variety of hand-held attributes (e.g., vessels, birds, animals, branches, weapons, etc.). In addition, divine and otherworldly epiphanies are found in images of male and female deities, as well as uncanny representations of monsters and fantastical creatures. Worshippers sacrificed animals (e.g., sheep, goat, and cows), but also prepared feasts of food and drink, accompanied by burnt incense, music, and dancing. A limestone relief discovered in a sanctuary in the area around ancient Golgoi, near the modern town of Athienou where our project is based, pictorially narrates, in striking episodic detail, the vast range of sights, smells, sounds, and sensations that one might feel in the presence of the god: worshipping and offering gifts to the seated god, dancing, and feasting (fig. 2). And based on several decades of research on the religious, political, socio-economic, and artistic importance of Cypriot sanctuaries, we now understand these sacred spaces—both large and small, rural and urban—as key places for ancient Cypriots to encounter the divine, express social status and wealth, control resources, mediate local and foreign cultural influences, and negotiate political power.

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Figure 2

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 For the most part, documentation of Cypriot sanctuaries has been restricted to site-specific publications of plans and artifact descriptions with illustrations and photographs, usually in black and white and with one view. While the relationship between features and artifacts is often provided, the nature of the documentation, coupled with traditional publication strategies, has limited the ability of researchers to bring together multiple data sets (e.g., geospatial, artifact, metadata, external/linked data, etc.) or ask more nuanced questions about the way sites develop, function, and change over time. Likewise, a more complete picture of an individual site’s place within a regional or island-wide context is often overlooked. The result has been a rather static and unimaginative approach to the archaeology of religion in Cyprus that detaches objects and loses context in a flurry of gazetteers and catalogues.

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 There are rather compelling exceptions in the secondary literature on Cypriot sanctuaries, which include some imaginative visual (and even one literary) narratives of cult activity in Cyprus during the Iron Age. These narratives counter the difficulties in reconstructing the Cypriot religious environment based solely on object lists and site descriptions and further illustrate the severe limitations of traditional publication formats to visualize archaeological contexts. As early as the nineteenth century, the amateur archaeologist Max Ohnefalsch-Richter produced a groundbreaking monograph that catalogued, analyzed, and compared 72 sanctuaries (including their locations, architecture, and finds). He also attempted to reconstruct what he imagined a Cypriot sanctuary at Idalion looked like in its “twilight,” accompanied by a narrative description (fig. 3).[7] Set in a wooded, idyllic landscape in the midst of stone precinct foundations, scattered fragments of sculptures and a few fully-preserved standing votaries imaginatively illustrate the sacred precinct after its destruction as viewed through the eyes of the excavator.[8] In addition to votive sculptures, the sacred space is dominated by a pyramidal-shaped baetyl, while votive masks hang on trees around the precinct (recalling Ohnefalsch-Richter’s own interpretation of their use at another site at Idalion, but creatively inserted here). A group of contemporary Cypriots in the background adds a living element to the otherwise cluttered, yet neglected, remains of the sanctuary’s afterlife. Ohnefalsch-Richter’s juxtaposition of the ancient with the contemporary brings ancient Cypriot worship to life by connecting the ancient stone proxies directly to the local nineteenth-century population.[9] Three men in traditional Cypriot vrakas (trousers)–one with a pickaxe–recall local workmen who would have excavated with Ohnefalsch-Richter; joining them is a lone female in white, whom Ohnefalsch-Richter himself links to the ancient statues in the foreground by noting their similarity in dress.[10]

11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Figure 3

12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Twentieth-century scholars were still struggling to offer a proper visualization of the complexity of image, space and context in Cypriot sanctuaries. The 1929 scientific excavation of the rural sanctuary of Ayia Irini in the north by the pioneering Swedish Cyprus Expedition (SCE) (fig. 4) revealed an astonishing in situ discovery of more than two thousand terracotta statues (ranging from life-size statues to figurines), arranged in concentric semi-circles around a limestone altar, upon which sat a spherical, aniconic stone.[11] The excavation photographs provided a hitherto unparalleled and unadulterated snapshot of a sanctuary in action and the impact of the SCE’s discovery at Ayia Irini on modern perceptions of Cypriot ritual space cannot be overestimated. While the excavations at Ayia Irini complemented earlier, antiquarian accounts of sanctuaries lined with votaries flooding the sacred space, the distinct and orderly arrangement of sculptures around the altar—larger figures at the back and smaller figurines in the front—inspired both the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia) and the Medelhavsmuseet (Stockholm, Sweden) to reproduce the discovery in their respective galleries with statues arranged in a semi-circular pattern according to scale, maintaining a recreation of how the stautes were originally found.[12] Reflecting the post-excavation agreement to divide the finds equally between the two countries, each museum displayed roughly half of the total Ayia Irini assemblage (ca. 1000 figures); in Sweden, the focal point remained the enigmatic spherical stone, which was retained by the Swedes after the division of artifacts. Interestingly, in 2009, when the Medelhavsmuseet reinstalled its Cypriot galleries, a mirror was added behind the stautes, which offers vistors a creative visualization of the full assemblage.[13]

13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 Figure 4

14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 Nevertheless, traditional print publications still found it challenging to articulate votive statuary in sanctuaries using 2D drawings and photographs. In his publication of the sculptures from the sanctuary of Apollo at Idalion, Reinhard Senff offered his own reconstruction of a Cypriot sanctuary. Drawing on the plans of the earlier excavation of the sanctuary by Robert Hamilton Lang,[14] Senff constructed a small model and placed a selection of the sculptures (represented by paper cut-outs on stands) within the sacred precinct; this hypothetical visualization allows one to appreciate the distribution of statues within the sacred space, as well as the likelihood of both open and partially-covered “stoas,” or gallery-like spaces (fig. 5).[15] More importantly, Senff “populated’ the space of the sanctuary, activating the lifeless sculptures from their passive museum display and static catalogue entries. Senff’s simple, yet admirable, attempt to visualize the Idalion sanctuary in 3D underscores once again the limitations of working with significant, but essentially static, data sets and paper publication formats.

15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 Figure 5a

16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 Figure 5b

17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 In her preface to the publication of the Archaic Precinct at the Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion, Diana Buitron-Oliver also attempted to reconstruct, this time through written narrative, not only the Cypriot religious landscape, but also the highly structured, yet personal, acts of religious practice:

18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 Now, in the distance, the man could see smoke rising and knew he was close to the sanctuary. Relief that his long journey was nearly over became mixed with apprehension of having to face the god and his priests. He had made the journey to ask for the god’s help, for prosperity for his herds and crops, and also to give thanks for his good fortune so far, for his growing family and his expanding possessions. Approaching the outskirts of the sanctuary, he noticed the massively built stonewall encircling the sacred area. As he approached, the man passed potters and coroplasts displaying pots and figures of all sizes …The coroplasts displayed statuettes of men wearing conical helmets, or human or bull masks, and other figures carrying small animals or musical instruments…In back of the displays were larger and more expensive, hollow statues of figures wearing long tunics, some them armed with swords…Local farmers had brought another popular offering: lambs and kids, new-born or very young, whose piteous bleating could be heard amidst the clamor of the artisans and groups of food sellers. The man had brought with him an object he wished to present to the god: an arrow with a bronze point, a token of thanks for safety in battle…Soon the pilgrims were admitted into the sanctuary by a priest wearing a mask and dressed in long, dark robes… As the pilgrims approached, the priests moved and swayed to the slow, solemn beat of drums, pipes, and cymbals played by other priests and attendants…the smell of incense and burning flesh permeated the air and the rhythmic music was hypnotic, inducing a sort of awed trance in the pilgrims. The priests called the pilgrims forward one by one, questioning each man on what he hoped for from the god and what he had to offer. According to the response, the priest directed the pilgrim to a specific area in the sanctuary. The man with the arrow and young kid was directed to the south end of a narrow platform that ran through the circular altar. There he surrendered the kid which was quickly slaughtered and cut into portions…The man also placed his arrow on the altar amid many other similar gifts. As he looked around, he saw mounds of offerings, vases and terracotta figures like the one he himself had purchased, neatly arranged in groups of like objects, around the circular altar, along the length of the platform, and on the smaller altars of the sanctuary. Satisfied and pleased that the goal of this long trip was accomplished, the man was escorted to the sanctuary gate…[16]

19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 Like the visual representations of Ohnefalsch-Richter and Senff, Buitron-Oliver’s literary trope includes details that cater specifically to the archaeological discoveries of that site, yet nevertheless attempt to populate and enliven the sanctuaries that dominated the physical landscape of Cyprus in antiquity. These attempts offer important, even if hypothetical, insights into Cypriot cult and the experience and functioning of sanctuaries, as well as create a context for the ritual objects found within them. New digital technologies, however, now offer new ways for scholars to visualize religious landscapes, sanctuaries, and the objects used within them.

3. Digital Approaches to Cypriot Religion

20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 New digital tools and approaches have enhanced our understanding of Cypriot sanctuaries. In some ways the emergence of something termed “digital” archaeology as methodologically or analytically novel is misleading;[17] from its beginnings, archaeology has always adopted/adapted new technology to record, measure, organize, and analyze data. Unlike many other disciplines that fall into the broader category of “digital humanities,” archaeology occupies a rather unique place (or, better, a bridge?) at the intersection between the humanities, social sciences, and the natural/material sciences.[18] Such connections and collaborations have introduced a wide range of digital tools into archaeological practice at different levels of analysis from regional surveys that look at landscape and ancient ecology to site- and object-based queries that search for patterns of production and cultural interaction. Similar to their impact in other corners of the digital humanities, the scalability of digital applications in archaeological research has provided a robust means to examine both large and small data sets.

21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 With the increasing adoption of new digital technologies in Cypriot archaeology, especially field-based, mobile computing, we are also witnessing the emergence of ‘born-digital’ data (i.e., data derived directly from digital tools rather than existing data digitized), which has prompted important shifts in both the interpretation and dissemination of research. And while these newer digital approaches have yet to produce a paradigm-shifting moment in the broader discipline,[19] there is little doubt that the data they have produced has allowed us to ask new research questions (or approach old questions differently) and, more importantly, has transformed the nature, reproducibility, scalability, and accessibility of archaeological data itself. In fact, the true promise of the digital humanities is the ease with which one is able to reproduce and analyze data within different interpretive frameworks and at different levels of resolution, but also to compress scales (landscape, site, object) into a single, integrated picture.

22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 The impact of the gradual but steady deployment of digital technologies in archaeological research on the island can be witnessed in several projects. While no means exhaustive, the following examples help illustrate the use of digital approaches at differing scales of resolution to answer different questions, but also help us consider the potential for digital archaeology to reshape the study of Cypriot sanctuaries. The results of survey projects like the Troodos Archaeological and Environmental Survey Project (TAESP), published a little over a decade ago, provided a comprehensive “big picture” view of how landscapes (including religious landscapes) develop, change, and adapt over time. TAESP implemented an array of digital technologies to build a robust archaeological and geomorphological data set that addressed human occupation in the survey area (ca. 160 km2) from the Neolithic to modern period; the results included a comprehensive landscape data set (e.g. land use patterns, communication networks, soils and sediments, vegetation, water, and resource exploitation) combined with interpretive approaches grounded in landscape theory. While the accumulation of large and diverse data sets has always been a feature (and, perhaps a bug!) of excavation and survey, TAESP was one of the first projects constructed with a solid digital backbone that combined analyses of large data sets (GIS) with interpretive approaches.[20] Notably, TAESP was also the first project on the island to harness the potential of digital data, as well as digital platforms for dissemination, to publish their results in an online, open-access article that linked data, discussion, and interpretation to an interactive GIS and integrated data archive.[21] As important as these results have been for the archaeology of Cyprus, TAESP’s digital component and its accessibility via an online archive represent an early “fulfillment” of the on-going promise of the digital humanities to create, curate, and disseminate information in an open platform.

23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 Two ongoing projects in Cyprus are employing digital technologies to understand better the relationship between sacred sites and their environmental and urban contexts. Maria Iacovou and colleagues implemented the Palaepaphos Digital Atlas in 2002-2003, with a goal of creating a digital “umbrella,” which also functions as a heritage management tool for the ancient kingdom of Palaepaphos that combines a GIS linked to an entity-related geo-database combined with a multi-sensor geophysical survey. The Digital Atlas, coupled with the creation of a digital land relief map, enabled a more precise understanding of the diachronoic land use of the area surrounding the Sanctuary of Aphrodite in Palaepaphos through sophisticated spatial and temporal landscape analysis. Most significantly, using this high-resolution data, Iacovou and her team discovered that much of the archaeologically-rich areas surrounding the sanctuary were not designated as protected parcels by the Department of Antiquities and thus could potentially be destroyed by new urban development. This ultimately led to the Palaepaphos Urban Landscape Project (PULP) in 2006, whose aim was to harness cutting-edge digital methods to reassess the urban zones of Palaepahos and explore how the Aphrodite sanctuary related spatially and functionally to the ancient city using multiple scales of analysis (micro, medium, and macro). PULP made use of a multidimensional digital platform with GIS that organized archaeological and cartographic information in a relational database in addition to advanced documentation and imaging technologies, including Global Satellite units, UAVs, and geospatial analyses. Through harnessing the power and potential of digital tools and data, PULP has dramatically altered our understanding of the relationship between the famed goddess sanctuary and the urban core of Palaepaphos.[22]

24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 Another ongoing, region-based project with a particular focus on sacred spaces, is the Settled and Sacred Landscapes of Cyprus project (under the aegis of the Unlocking Sacred Landscapes project), [23] which implements digital technologies and integrated data sets to enrich our understanding of religious landscapes in the Xeros River Valley and beyond.[24] This initiative also uses GIS to explore the diachronic use and the relationship between sacred landscapes and political structures from the Iron Age through Hellenistic rule and into the Roman and Early Christian periods. Such large-scale projects provide the social, cultural, and environmental contexts for deeper understanding of the role of religious spaces through time and point the way forward for more comprehensive syntheses of the island’s religious landscapes.

25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 The transition by Cypriot scholars to innovative, integrated, and open publications of archaeological data has been slow, with some noteworthy exceptions. For example, William Caraher, David Pettegrew, and Scott Moore followed TAESP’s lead in making their data open and available via an online digital repository[25] for the Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project (PKAP) and even “retrofitted” their first excavation volume to provide an open-access, linked digital version.[26] PKAP’s integration of digital data and publication foreshadows our own attempts, described below, to harness the agile and dynamic nature of digital data to change how we study and present Cypriot religion.

26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 Going from a regional to a site scale, digital tools have been applied to specific sites to provide creative ways of visualizing and recreating the use and construction of buildings and spaces, including sacred spaces. Paralleling the approaches above, which utilize digital platforms to organize and query large data sets, Nicholas Blackwell and James Johnson isolated depositional patterns for specific object types discovered at the sanctuary of Athienou-Malloura and analyzed them using GIS.[27] As Blackwell and Johnson note, at a basic level GIS functions as a database management system to plot and examine spatial relationships among data points; nevertheless, its powerful analytical functions allow for the integration of multiple layers of data that has the potential to answer a series of problem-based research questions about sanctuary use across both space and time. In the case of the Malloura sanctuary, a series of hypotheses were “tested” to illustrate the potential of digital tools to address long-standing questions about the relationship between artifact findspots and Cypriot ritual behavior within sanctuaries (fig. 6). The authors acknowledged that some questions were more difficult to address (e.g., social status or the origin of worshippers [local vs. visitor]); nevertheless, the merging of artifact and geospatial data clearly identified distinct clusters of symbolically-charged objects (e.g., divine images, ritual objects), as well as clusters of distinct ritual activity associated with the practice of Cypriot religion.[28]

27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 Figure 6

28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 Another example, the “Modeling the Past” project, created virtual walkthroughs of buildings and associated objects excavated by the Princeton Archaeological Expedition to Polis at the site of Polis Chrysochous on the northwest coast of Cyprus, with a specific use for both research and education.[29] Two important Iron Age sanctuaries in Polis at the locales of Peristeries[30] and Maratheri[31] are brought to life through 3D visualization technology, allowing for enhanced understanding of visitor movement and experience in the sanctuary and have allowed the excavators not only to propose, but also to reconstruct virtually the spaces and a selection of associated artifacts. The project originated from a multi-disciplinary course at Princeton for an exhibition on the site, “City of Gold,” but the long-term goal includes using the recreations for a permanent exhibition of objects in Cyprus and the creation of an interactive web application.[32]

29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 Digital tools now allow for architectural and artifactual recreations of fragmentary material previously executed by artists or through physical models in more interactive and dynamic platforms that allow for a more immersive experience of sanctuaries (for an innovative and compelling look at the application of emergent AR [augmented reality] and VR [virtual reality] technologies to stage and map in virtual space “counterfactual histories” based on archival data, see Kaplan and Schiff, this volume).[33] This approach has the potential to be expanded to allow users to experience multiple scales where in theory they start with a large regional map and have the ability to zoom into a specific sanctuary, and from there they can experience the architecture and setting of the sacred area including models of artifacts found there.

4. 3D Modeling on the Athienou Archaeological Project

30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 Both the Malloura GIS and Polis 3D projects discussed above intentionally overlay site and object in their digital approaches to the material remains of Cypriot religion. In fact, at the level of individual artifact, digital visualization tools can be used to improve documentation, research, and publication of objects; likewise, these data can be easily re-integrated into larger site and landscape projects via digital platforms. Since 2014, the authors have co-directed an innovative 3D documentation and publication project (under the umbrella of Davidson College’s Athienou Archaeological Project, AAP, mentioned above), which fits well into this larger trend of exploring new technologies to document, understand, and analyze the material remains of the Cypriot past, including ancient religion (several papers in the volume focus on how digital tools are helping map material manifestations of religion in the past and in the present, e.g., Bielo and Vaughn; Pettit and Yang; Bingenheimer). AAP has been documenting the cultural landscape of the Malloura Valley in the hinterland of Cyprus through pedestrian survey and systematic excavation since 1990 (fig. 7). The Malloura Valley was occupied for nearly 3,000 years, beginning in the early first millennium BCE; our investigations have unearthed domestic, religious, and funerary contexts, with an impressive assemblage of material remains.[34] In 2014, AAP started experimenting with new visualization technologies to document the ancient past at Malloura at multiple scales from landscapes, to features, to artifacts. Although multiple sites have been excavated, the focus of excavations for the past 20 years has been an impressive rural sanctuary, which has yielded thousands of objects from its long use beginning in the eighth century BCE and continuing into the fourth century CE (fig. 8).

31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 Figure 7

32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 Figure 8

33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 The artifact assemblage from the sanctuary includes ceramic vessels, coins, animal bones, and other cult objects, as well as close to 4,000 pieces of figural limestone and terracotta sculpture, which are critical for reconstructing Cypriot cult practices and beliefs given the dearth of inscriptions or textual references (figs. 9a-b). The sculptures, the material remains of dedications of local and, perhaps, even visiting worshippers, depict human, divine, and animal figures ranging in size from several centimeters to over-life-size. Given the quantity and importance of these limestone and terracotta votive offerings, we initiated our digital project to create 3D models with three primary goals in mind:

  1. 34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0
  2. to document artifacts three-dimensionally to supplement traditional 2D photographs and illustrations;
  3. to enable remote study of artifacts and to test (via digital tools) whether or not fragments of sculpture could potentially join together;
  4. to allow for dynamic, open, linked, and interactive methods of disseminating information, from academic publication to public education and outreach

35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0 Our work was conducted with the permission of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, who supports our ultimate aspiration of opening up the privileged experience of working with ancient artifacts to the broader scholarly and public communities (in this respect, the anxieties and issues regarding digital colonialism, access, and looting that Floyd and Promey, this volume, discuss have not yet become a focal point in the documentation and visualization of Cypriot cultural heritage).

36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0 Figure 9a

37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 Figure 9b

4.1 Methodology

38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 0 We identified structured light scanning as the best technology to meet our research goals. Structured light technology entails the projection of a series of parallel light stripes onto an object; based on the displacement of the stripes, as viewed through the camera, the system can identify and retrieve the 3D coordinates on the surface of any object in view. This technique is a type of range-based modeling, which collects the surface geometry of the artifact as an absolute measurement (i.e., a feature measuring 7.5 cm on the artifact will be 7.5 cm on the digital model). 3D acquisition via structured light stands in contrast to image-based modeling systems such as photogrammetry, in which the scale of the resulting model is relative. In our case, structured light technology offered the right combination of high metric accuracy and photo-realistic texture at an efficient speed of production, with minimal post-processing. After an informative, but rather challenging pilot season where we used a DYI approach in collaboration with colleagues at the University of Kentucky,[35] we researched and ultimately selected GoMeasure3D’s HDI R1X structured light scanner (https://gomeasure3d.com/hdi/advance/) as an optimal system. The complete scanner set-up (which included an automated turntable to increase efficiency, hard cases for international transport, and a high-performance laptop) cost approximately $17,000 (supported by an internal grant program at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee). In particular, the system matched our particular research and publication goals, which required a fast scanner and user-friendly post-processing format (to create the models) and, more importantly, a high-resolution output. Primary scanning with the HDI R1X began in 2015 at the Larnaka Archaeological District Museum and at the Kallinikeion Municipal Museum in Athienou (fig. 10). At its most efficient, the scanner generates 1.1 million points per scan, with a normal accuracy range of 65 to 125 microns. One specific benefit of this system is the ability to change the field of view, allowing us to capture a wide range of artifact sizes – from roughly 5cm to 65cm. The output is a model with high resolution – around 1.5 million faces for a medium size object – and accurate photo texture. Once set up and properly calibrated, a complete scan, including post-processing, can be achieved in less than 3 minutes.

39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0 Figure 10

4.2 The AAP 3D Models

40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 0 Why 3D? 3D models provide numerous benefits for studying votive offerings that are simply not provided by traditional illustrations and figures. For example, since 3D models produced from structured light technology retain their absolute geometry, they can be digitally measured using tools available in open access visualization software, such as MeshLab, Blender, Unity, or Sketchup. 3D software also allows one to adjust lighting or turn off the photo-texture to accentuate variations in surface details like inscriptions, tool marks, or fingerprints that might otherwise be invisible to a camera or even the naked eye when studying objects in person (fig. 11). In addition, 3D models allow viewers to experience objects three dimensionally through rotation and zoom at any scale, providing unlimited remote access for investigation at much more depth than 2D photographs. The ability to study, measure, and manipulate objects more closely replicates the physical experience of studying the artifacts firsthand than photographs or illustrations, which provide only selected views.[36] Finally, digital models allow users to join—virtually—broken pieces of sculpture as single pieces (fig. 12). All of these advantages have immense implications for secondary research applications as well as for public outreach and education.

41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 0 Figure 11

42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 0 Figure 12

4.3 Transforming Born-Digital 3D Data into Digital Publication

43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0 One of our primary goals from the beginning of this project was to incorporate 3D data into our final publication volumes for the site of Athienou-Malloura, and to do this in an open, transparent, and dynamic format that does not detach artifacts from their archaeological contexts. While the potential of 3D models to enhance the documentation and analysis of archaeological material is tremendous, the difficulties in publishing these in a holistic and reproducible way remain challenging. Due to the nature of the 3D data, traditional print publications are simply not an option. Instead, our 3D scanning project will culminate in a digital, open-access interactive catalogue of a representative selection of limestone and terracotta sculptures recovered from the Malloura sanctuary together with a series of essays detailing our methods in addition to providing analysis of this body of material: Visualizing Votive Practice: Exploring Limestone and Terracotta Sculpture from Athienou-Malloura Through 3D Models.[37] Just as traditional catalogues utilize a photographic image or illustration to accompany the formal description and analysis, the Visualizing Votive Practice digital catalogue will include an embedded visualization interface, which will allow the user direct interaction with the 3D artifact model. This publication will thus retain a traditional framework for publishing the Malloura sculptures but, significantly, will be born digital and open access through a Creative Common license (see Floyd and Promey, this volume, who also discuss the benefits of combining aspects of analogue and digital publication formats). Thus, information on the archaeological context, formal description, and analysis will now be accompanied by high resolution, photorealistic 3D digital models, providing new information and a dynamic visualization platform for researchers not available through 2D images. Comparative material, when available via open-access licenses (e.g., the Cypriot collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, recently placed in public domain) and even secondary literature (e.g., antiquarian volumes available via the Internet Archive) will be directly linked within the object commentaries, giving the reader instant access.

44 Leave a comment on paragraph 44 0 Published jointly by the University of North Dakota Digital Press and the American Schools of Oriental Research, the core platform of our open-access digital publication is Adobe Acrobat, which allows for the creation of robust 3D PDFs. Adobe’s PDF format is easily accessible through the full suite of licensed Adobe products or the free-to-download Adobe Reader DC® and its 3D visualization tools. In tandem with this digital book, however, higher resolution models and their associated metadata will be published online by Open Context (https://opencontext.org/). This will provide a stable repository for the published 3D data by providing Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for each artifact and its associated metadata. Significantly, the linked data published through Open Context in database form will be queryable, enabling researching to aggregate different information from this aspect of the publication than from the PDF monograph.

45 Leave a comment on paragraph 45 0 Our experimental approach to collaborative, open-access publication engages in the ongoing discussions of best practices in publishing 3D data and new approaches to disseminating archaeological data and will set (we hope) an important precedent for future archaeological publication. More importantly, we envision the volume and digital publication as providing a substantial and dynamic resource for the study of Cypriot religion, ritual, and sanctuaries (for more discussion on the advantages of digital publication models see, for example, Bielo and Vaughn and Promey and Floyd in this volume).

5. Future Directions

46 Leave a comment on paragraph 46 0 The urge to recreate the past through visual representation is not new. After all, we experience the world around us in 3D and so it is only natural to replicate this experience to understand the past as well. Visualizing fragmentary artifacts and buildings and imagining past landscapes and sites has always been part of the creative process of archaeology—a process that interprets, but also humanizes events that took place long ago.[38] After all, archaeology is as much about reconstructing the parts we don’t know as it is presenting the parts we do. Archaeologists have traditionally utilized whatever tools were available to achieve this end: narrative or even poetic description, photography, illustration, artistic reconstructions, physical models, and now digital tools. The “turn to the digital” thus in some ways does not represent a radically new approach, but is simply the newest tool to aid in envisaging the past (see Floyd and Promey, this volume, with a similar view against a radical break with past practices in digital publication and on the significance of digital tools to render three-dimensional artifacts more dynamically, realistically, and accurately).

47 Leave a comment on paragraph 47 0 At the same time, however, the tools we use impact and shape the knowledge we create.[39] Digital technologies offer new ways to see, record, interpret, and present the past. Thus, the use of new tools allows us to ask new research questions that enhances, not replaces, traditional scholarship on Cypriot votive religion. As we have demonstrated, our 3D visualization project was the direct result of a need for more dynamic ways of recording and studying artifacts. Attempts to create 3D renderings of Cypriot art began in the late 1990s (using QuickTime VR), developed for Apple, which allowed for three-dimensional, multi-angle viewing of artifacts); in particular, the Cobb Institute of Archaeology provided web-based views of artifacts from the Pierides Museum in Larnaka.[40] AAP was also an early adopter of 3D imaging in the early 2000s, showcasing a series of artifacts for web-viewing. Still, such early attempts to capture the materiality of objects were in some ways superficial, their primary purpose was to display objects on websites without too much concern for contextual information, metadata, accurate geometry, or visualization tools that allow for more nuanced examination let alone proper data archiving. This mirrors the larger divide that persists today in the applications of digital tools to humanistic inquiries. Noting the divide between scholars who use digital technologies in studying traditional humanities subjects and those who use the methods of the contemporary humanities in studying digital objects, Kathleen Fitzpatrick states, “Those differences often produce significant tension, particularly between those who suggest digital humanities should always be about making (whether making archives, tools, or new digital methods) and those who argue that it must expand to include interpreting.[41] Our 3D project ambitiously melds these two goals in creating an open, stable, and linked archive of votive statuary from our site in addition to harnessing this data to yield new insights and interpretations not only of our sanctuary but of Cypriot religion more broadly.

48 Leave a comment on paragraph 48 0 The future of scholarly study of Cypriot religion is bright. A new generation of scholars has already begun to explore the true potential of digital approaches to enhance the study of the Cypriot past broadly and the religious landscape more specifically. Likewise, at the same time archaeologists are looking to new, open-access platforms for publication, institutions are increasingly turning to open science models to allow access to objects/data, as well as research.[42] On a large scale, digital tools allow for the collection of extensive data sets, but more importantly they also allow for linked, open data that can be analyzed, compared, and interpreted in myriad ways. On the one hand, more regional-scale projects across the island will enhance our picture of the Cypriot religious landscape and allow more comparative analysis across regions and sites; on the other hand, projects like ours that focus on specific sanctuaries or specific classes of religious materials are beginning to provide higher-resolution, granular details of ritual and cult activity. These two approaches (at a macro to micro scale) are transforming our understanding of Cypriot Iron Age religion.

List of Figures

49 Leave a comment on paragraph 49 0 Figure 1 Map of Mediterranean with island of Cyprus. (Google Maps).

50 Leave a comment on paragraph 50 0 Figure 2 Limestone votive relief depicting worshippers at a sanctuary, Cypro-Classical period, 4th century BCE. Sanctuary at Golgoi-Ayios Photios, Cyprus. (Inv. no. 74.51.2338. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, The Cesnola Collection, Purchased by subscription, 1874–76 [https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/241892]).

51 Leave a comment on paragraph 51 0 Figure 3 Max Ohnefalsch-Richter’s artistic reconstruction of sanctuary of “Aphrodite” at Idalion. (After Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, vol. 2: pl. LVI).

52 Leave a comment on paragraph 52 0 Figure 4 Swedish Cyprus Expedition excavation photograph of terracotta votive statues and figurines found in-situ placed in a semicircle around the altar. (Wikimedia Commons).

53 Leave a comment on paragraph 53 0 Figure 5 Model reconstruction of the sanctuary of Apollo at Idalion. (ⓒ Reinhard Senff).

54 Leave a comment on paragraph 54 0 Figure 6 GIS map of votive distribution in the Athienou-Malloura Sanctuary. (After Blackwell and Johnson 2011).

55 Leave a comment on paragraph 55 0 Figure 7 Map of Cyprus with AAP project area in red rectangular. (Map by D. Massey).

56 Leave a comment on paragraph 56 0 Figure 8 Plan of the Athienou-Malloura Sanctuary, 2013. The excavation units are labeled with EU numbers in corner. (drawing by R. Breuker, updated by K. Garstki, ⓒAAP).

57 Leave a comment on paragraph 57 0 Figure 9a-bTerracotta votive figurine of a chariot model (AAP-AM-1218+1459+2007, Kallinikeion Municipal Museum, Athienou, ⓒ AAP) and limestone statuette of Zeus-Ammon (AAP-AM-184, Larnaca District Archaeological Museum, ⓒ AAP).

58 Leave a comment on paragraph 58 0 Figure 10 The AAP 3D project set up in the Bronze Age gallery of the Larnaka District Archaeological Museum (with tourists interested in process), 2016. (Photo by E. W. Averett).

59 Leave a comment on paragraph 59 0 Figure 11 Image showing different viewing options for models (digital measuring, full rotation, texture off to display tools marks and inscriptions).

60 Leave a comment on paragraph 60 0 Figure 12 Two fragments from a life-size limestone male statue, preserving the sandaled feet on a base, digitally joined (AAP-AM-3900, Larnaca District Archaeological Museum, ⓒ AAP).

Works Cited

61 Leave a comment on paragraph 61 0 Averett, Erin.Walcek, Jody M. Gordon, and Derek B. Counts, eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks, ND: The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota, 2016.

62 Leave a comment on paragraph 62 0 Blackwell, Nicholas G., and James A. Johnson. “Exploring Sacred Space: GIS Applications for Analyzing the Athienou-Malloura Sanctuary.” In Crossroads and Boundaries. The Archaeology of Past and Present in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus, edited by Michael K. Toumazou, P. Nick Kardulias, and Derek B. Counts, 291–302. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2011.

63 Leave a comment on paragraph 63 0 Buitron-Oliver, Diana. The Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion: Excavations in the Archaic Precinct. SIMA 109. Jonsered: Paul Åström, 1996.

64 Leave a comment on paragraph 64 0 Caraher, William. “Understanding Digital Archaeology.” Archaeology of the Mediterranean World, https://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/understanding-digital-archaeology/, 2015.

65 Leave a comment on paragraph 65 0 Caraher, William. “Announcing the Digital Edition of Pyla-Koutsopetria I: A Free Download.” Archaeology of the Mediterranean World. https://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/announcing-the-digital-edition-of-pyla-koutsopetria-1-a-free-download/, 2017.

66 Leave a comment on paragraph 66 0 Caraher, William, R. Scott Moore, and David Pettegrew. “Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project I: Pedestrian Survey.” Open Context (2013). DOI: https://doi.org/10.6078/M7B56GNS.

67 Leave a comment on paragraph 67 0 Caraher, William, R. Scott Moore, and David K. Pettegrew. Pyla-Koutsopetria I: Archaeological Survey of an Ancient Coastal Town. Linked Version. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6GB7K

68 Leave a comment on paragraph 68 0 Carraro, Filippo, Alessandra Marinello, Daniele Morabito, and Jacopoo Bonetto. “New Perspectives on the Sanctuary of Aesculapius in Nora (Sardinia): Froom Photogrammeetry to Visualizing and Querying Tools.” Open Archaeology 5 (2019): 263–73.

69 Leave a comment on paragraph 69 0 Connelly, Joan B. “Standing Before One’s God: Votive Sculpture and the Cypriot Religious Tradition.” Biblical Archaeology 52 (1989): 210–18.

70 Leave a comment on paragraph 70 0 Counts, Derek B. “Review of Antoine Hermary and Joan Mertens, The Cesnola Collection of Cypriot Art: Stone Sculpture 1st rev. ed. (New York, 2015).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 378 (2017): 242–44.

71 Leave a comment on paragraph 71 0 Counts, Derek B., Erin W. Averett, and Kevin J. Garstki. “A Fragmented Past: (Re)constructing Antiquity through 3D Artefact Modeling and Customised Structured Light Scanning at Athienou-Malloura, Cyprus.” Antiquity 90 (2016): 206–18.

72 Leave a comment on paragraph 72 0 Counts, Derek B., Erin Walcek Averett, Kevin J. Garstki, and Michael K. Toumazou. Visualizing Votive Practice: Exploring Limestone and Terracotta Sculpture from Athienou-Malloura through 3D Models. Boston and Grand Forks: The American Schools of Oriental Research and The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota, forthcoming.

73 Leave a comment on paragraph 73 0 Dikaios, Porphyrios. A Guide to the Cyprus Museum. Nicosia: The Cyprus Government Printing Office, 1947.

74 Leave a comment on paragraph 74 0 Edgeworth, Matt. “Multiple Origins, Development, and Potential of Ethnographies of Archaeology.” In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice. Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth, 1–19. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2006.

75 Leave a comment on paragraph 75 0 Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. “The Humanities, Done Digitally.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew Gold, 12–15. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012.

76 Leave a comment on paragraph 76 0 Forte, Maurizio. “Introduction to Cyber-Archaeology.” In Cyber-Archaeology. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2177, edited by Maurizio Forte, 9–14. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2010.

77 Leave a comment on paragraph 77 0 Forte, Maurizio. “Cyber Archaeology: A Post-virtual Perspective.” In Between Humanities and the Digital, edited by Patrik Svensson and David T. Goldberg, 295–309. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2015.

78 Leave a comment on paragraph 78 0 Garstki, Kevin, ed. Critical Archaeolgy in the Digital Age. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, forthcoming.

79 Leave a comment on paragraph 79 0 Gill, Christopher, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, eds. Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

80 Leave a comment on paragraph 80 0 Given, Michael, Hugh Corley, and Luke Sollars. “Joining the Dots: Continuous Survey, Routine Practice and the Interpretation of a Cypriot Landscape (with interactive GIS and integrated data archive).” Internet Archaeology 20 (2007): https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.20.4

81 Leave a comment on paragraph 81 0 Given, Michael, A. Bernard Knapp, Jay Noller, Luke Sollars, and Vasiliki Kassianidou. Landscape and Interaction: The Troodos Archaeological and Environmental Survey Project, Cyprus. Vol I, Methodology, Analysis and Interpretation. London: Council for British Research in the Levant, 2013.

82 Leave a comment on paragraph 82 0 Given, Michael, A. Bernard Knapp, Jay Noller, Luke Sollars, and Vasiliki Kassianidou. Landscape and Interaction: The Troodos Archaeological and Environmental Survey Project, Cyprus. Vol 2, The TAESP Landscape. London: Council for British Research in the Levant, 2013.

83 Leave a comment on paragraph 83 0 Gjerstad, Einar, John Lindros, Erik Sjöqvist, and Alfred Westholm. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. II, Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927-31. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 1935.

84 Leave a comment on paragraph 84 0 Göransson, Kristian. “The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, The Cyprus Collections in Stockholm and the Swedish Excacvations After the SCE.” Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotees 42 (2012): 413-16.

85 Leave a comment on paragraph 85 0 Gordon, Jody M., Erin W. Averett, Derek B. Counts, Kyo Koo, and Michael K. Toumazou. “Mobile Computing in Archaeology: Exploring and Interpreting Current Practices.” In Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: the Potential of Digital Archaeology, edited by Erin W. Averett, Jody M. Gordon, and Derek B. Counts, 1–32. Grand Forks, ND: The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota, 2016.

86 Leave a comment on paragraph 86 0 Houby-Nielsen, Sanne. “Annual Report of the Medelhavsmuseet 2005-2008.” Medelhavsmuseet. Focus on the Medterranean 4 (2009): 123-44.

87 Leave a comment on paragraph 87 0 Huggett, Jeremy. “Archaeology and the New Technological Fetishism.” Archeologia e Calcolatori 15 (2004): 81–92.

88 Leave a comment on paragraph 88 0 Huggett, Jeremy. “Challenging Digital Archaeology.” Open Archaeology 1 (2015): 79–85.

89 Leave a comment on paragraph 89 0 Huggett, Jeremy. “A Manifesto for an Introspective Digital Archaeology.” Open Archaeology 1 (2015): 86–95.

90 Leave a comment on paragraph 90 0 Iacovou, Maria. “Palaepaphos: Unlocking the Landscape Context of the Sanctuary of the Cypriot Goddess.” Open Archaeology 5 (2019): 204–34.

91 Leave a comment on paragraph 91 0 Kansa, Eric, Sarah Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds. Archaeology 2.0: New Tools for Communication and Collaboration. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, 2012.

92 Leave a comment on paragraph 92 0 Lake, Mark. “Open Archaeology.” World Archaeology 44:4 (2012): 471–78. DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2012.748521

93 Leave a comment on paragraph 93 0 Lang, Robert H., and R. Stuart Poole. “Narrative of Excavations in a Temple at Dali (Idalium) in Cyprus.” Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature 11 (1878): 30–54.

94 Leave a comment on paragraph 94 0 Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Second edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.

95 Leave a comment on paragraph 95 0 Levy, Thomas, ed. “Cyber-Archaeology.” Special issue, Near Eastern Archaeology 77.3 (2014).

96 Leave a comment on paragraph 96 0 Morgan, Colleen, and Holly Wright. “Pencils and Pixels: Drawing and Digital Media in Archaeological Field Recording.” Journal of Field Archaeology (2018): 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2018.1428488

97 Leave a comment on paragraph 97 0 Ohnefalsch-Richter, Max. Kypros, the Bible, and Homer. Oriental Civilization, Art and Religion in Ancient Times. Elucidated by the Author’s Own Researches and Excavations During Twelve Years Work in Cyprus. 2 vols. London: Asher & Co, 1893.

98 Leave a comment on paragraph 98 0 Papadopoulos, Costas, Yannis Hamilakis, Nina Kyparissi-Apostoolika, and Marta Díaz-Guardamino. “Digital Sensoriality: The Neolithic Figurines from Koutroulou Magoula, Greece.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal (2019): 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271.

99 Leave a comment on paragraph 99 0 Papantoniou, Giorgos, and Athanasios Vionis. “Landscape Archaeology and Sacred Space in the Eastern Mediterranean: A Glimpse from Cyprus.” Land 6 (2017). doi:10.3390/land6020040

100 Leave a comment on paragraph 100 0 Pillsbury, Joanne, ed. Past Presented. Archaeological Illustration and the Ancient Americas, edited by J. Pillsbury. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2012.

101 Leave a comment on paragraph 101 0 Roosevelt, Christopher, Peter Cobb, Emanuel Moss, Brandon Olson, and Sinan Ünlüsoy. “Excavation is Destruction Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice.” Journal of Field Archaeology 40 (2015): 325–46.

102 Leave a comment on paragraph 102 0 Senff, Reinhard. Das Apollonheiligtum von Idalion. Architektur und Statuenausstattung eines zyprischen Heiligtums. Jonsered: Paul Åströms, 1993.

103 Leave a comment on paragraph 103 0 Serghidou, Anastasia. “Imaginary Cyprus. Revisiting the Past and Redefining the Ancient Landscape.” In Cyprus in the 19th Century AD. Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium December 1998, edited by Veronica Tatton-Brown. Oxford: Oxbow. 21–31, 2001.

104 Leave a comment on paragraph 104 0 Shanks, Michael, and Connie Svabo. “Archaeology and Photography: A Pragmatology.” In Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of Modernity. Archaeological Orientations, edited by A. González-Ruibal, 89–102. Milton Park, Albingdon: Routledge, 2013.

105 Leave a comment on paragraph 105 0 Sjöqvist, Erik. “Die Kultgeschichte eines cyprischen Temenos.” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 30 (1933): 308–59.

106 Leave a comment on paragraph 106 0 Smith, Joanna S., and Szymon M. Rusinkiewicz. “Modeling the Past for Scholars and the Public.” International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era 2:1 (2013): 167–94.

107 Leave a comment on paragraph 107 0 Tatton-Brown, Veronica, ed. Cyprus in the 19th Century AD. Fact, Fantasy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium December 1998. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001.

108 Leave a comment on paragraph 108 0 Toumazou, Michael K., P. Nick Kardulias, and Derek B. Counts, eds. Crossroads and Boundaries: The Archaeology of Past and Present in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 65. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2011.

109 Leave a comment on paragraph 109 0 Toumazou, Michael K., Derek B. Counts, Erin W. Averett, Jody M. Gordon, and P. Nick Kardulias. “Shedding Light on the Cypriot Rural Countryside: Investigations of the Athienou Archaeological Project in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus, 2011–2013.” Journal of Field Archaeology 40.2 (2015): 204–20.

110 Leave a comment on paragraph 110 0 Ulbrich, Anja. “An Archaeology of Cult? Cypriot Sanctuaries in 19th century Archaeology.” In Cyprus in the 19th Century AD. Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium December 1998, edited by Veronica Tatton-Brown, 93–106. Oxford: Oxbow. 2001.

111 Leave a comment on paragraph 111 0 van Straten, Folkert T. “Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries.” In Oxford Readings in Greek Religion, edited by Richard Buxton, 191–226. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

112 Leave a comment on paragraph 112 0 Zubrow, Ezra B. W. “Digital Archaeology: A Historical Context.” In Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory, edited by Thomas L. Evans, 10–32. New York: Routledge, 2006.


113 Leave a comment on paragraph 113 0 [1] We would like to thank Michael Toumazou, Director of the Athienou Archaeological Project, for his continued support for this 3D project. We also wish to acknowledge the work of our collaborator, Kevin Garstki, who among other intellectual contributions has assumed a primary role in the creation and curation of our 3D models. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Marina Solomidou-Ieronymidou, the Director of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, for permission to scan artifacts, and to Anna Satraki (archaeological officer at the Larnaka District Archaeological Museum and Noni Papasianti (curator of the Kallinikeion Municipal Museum of Athienou) for graciously accommodating our team during our summer scanning sessions. We wish to thank Reinhard Sneff for permission to use images of his models. Of course this ongoing project would not have been possible without generous funding and support from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Research Growth Initiative grant and a FRACAS award), and Creighton University (George F. Haddix Faculty Research Grant, College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Summer Research Grant, a Kripke Center for Religion and Society grant, and a Scheerer grant from the Department of Fine and Performing Arts), and Davidson College and the Athienou Archaeological Project.

114 Leave a comment on paragraph 114 0 [2] See Veronica Tatton-Brown, ed., Cyprus in the 19th Century AD. Fact, Fantasy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium December 1998. (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001).

115 Leave a comment on paragraph 115 0 [3] For recent overviews of the impact of “digital archaeology,” see e.g. Kevin Garstki, ed., Critical Archaeolgy in the Digital Age. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, forthcoming); Erin Walcek Averett, Jody M. Gordon, and Derek B. Counts, eds., Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. (Grand Forks, ND: The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota, 2016); William Caraher, “Understanding Digital Archaeology.” Archaeology of the Mediterranean World (https://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/understanding-digital-archaeology/, 2015); Maurizio Forte, “Introduction to Cyber-Archaeology,” in Cyber-Archaeology. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2177, ed. Maurizio Forte (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2010): 9–14; Maurizio Forte, “Cyber Archaeology: A Post-virtual Perspective,” in Between Humanities and the Digital, ed. Patrik Svensson and David T. Goldberg (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2015): 295–309; Jeremy Huggett, “Archaeology and the New Technological Fetishism,” Archeologia e Calcolatori 15 (2004): 81–92; Jeremy Huggett, “Challenging Digital Archaeology,” Open Archaeology 1 (2015): 79–85; Jeremy Huggett, “A Manifesto for an Introspective Digital Archaeology,” Open Archaeology 1 (2015): 86–95; Thomas Levy, ed. “Cyber-Archaeology,” Special issue, Near Eastern Archaeology 77.3 (2014); Christopher Roosevelt, Peter Cobb, Emanuel Moss, Brandon Olson, and Sinan Ünlüsoy, “Excavation is Destruction Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice,” Journal of Field Archaeology 40 (2015): 325–46; Ezra Zubrow, “Digital Archaeology: A Historical Context,” in Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory, ed. Thomas L. Evans (New York: Routledge, 2006): 10–32.

116 Leave a comment on paragraph 116 0 [4] Eric Kansa, Sarah Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, eds., Archaeology 2.0: New Tools for Communication and Collaboration (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, 2012); Mark Lake, “Open Archaeology,” World Archaeology 44:4 (2012): 471–78; William Caraher, “Announcing the Digital Edition of Pyla-Koutsopetria I: A Free Download,” Archaeology of the Mediterranean World (https://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/announcing-the-digital-edition-of-pyla-koutsopetria-1-a-free-download/, 2017).

117 Leave a comment on paragraph 117 0 [5] For the beginning of an interest in the material remains of religion with the excavations of Ohnefalsch-Richter (Max Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, the Bible, and Homer. Oriental Civilization, Art and Religion in Ancient Times. Elucidated by the Author’s Own Researches and Excavations During Twelve Years Work in Cyprus, 2 vols. [London: Asher & Co, 1893]), see Anja Ulbrich, “An Archaeology of Cult? Cypriot Sanctuaries in 19th century Archaeology,” in Cyprus in the 19th Century AD. Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium December 1998, ed. Veronica Tatton-Brown (Oxford: Oxbow, 2001): 93–106.

118 Leave a comment on paragraph 118 0 [6] Erik Sjöqvist, “Die Kultgeschichte eines cyprischen Temenos,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 30 (1933): 308–59; Joan Connelly, “Standing Before One’s God: Votive Sculpture and the Cypriot Religious Tradition,” Biblical Archaeology 52 (1989): 210–18; Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, eds., Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); Folkert van Straten, “Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries,” in Oxford Readings in Greek Religion, ed. Richard Buxton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000): 191–226.

119 Leave a comment on paragraph 119 0 [7] Max Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, the Bible, and Homer. Oriental Civilization, Art and Religion in Ancient Times. Elucidated by the Author’s Own Researches and Excavations During Twelve Years Work in Cyprus, vol. 1 (London: Asher & Co, 1893): 399–402, vol. 2: pl. LVI.

120 Leave a comment on paragraph 120 0 [8] Anja Ulbrich, “An Archaeology of Cult? Cypriot Sanctuaries in 19th century Archaeology,” in Cyprus in the 19th Century AD. Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium December 1998, ed. Veronica Tatton-Brown (Oxford: Oxbow, 2001): 98–99.

121 Leave a comment on paragraph 121 0 [9] On the antiquarian tendency to discover unbroken links from antiquity to the present, juxtaposing images of ancient artifacts with living local inhabitants and even modern tools of excavation, see Anastasia Serghidou “Imaginary Cyprus. Revisiting the Past and Redefining the Ancient Landscape,” in Cyprus in the 19th Century AD. Fact, Fancy and Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium December 1998, ed. Veronica Tatton-Brown (Oxford: Oxbow, 2001): 23–24.

122 Leave a comment on paragraph 122 0 [10] Max Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, the Bible, and Homer. Oriental Civilization, Art and Religion in Ancient Times. Elucidated by the Author’s Own Researches and Excavations During Twelve Years Work in Cyprus, vol. 1 (London: Asher & Co, 1893): 399.

123 Leave a comment on paragraph 123 0 [11] Einar Gjerstad, John Lindros, Erik Sjöqvist, and Alfred Westholm, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition II. Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927-31 (Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 1935): 777–91.

124 Leave a comment on paragraph 124 0 [12] Kristian Göransson, “The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, The Cyprus Collections in Stockholm and the Swedish Excacvations After the SCE,” Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotees 42 (2012): 413-16; Porphyrios Dikaios, A Guide to the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia: The Cyprus Government Printing Office, 1947): 60.

125 Leave a comment on paragraph 125 0 [13] Sanne Houby-Nielsen, “Annual Report of the Medelhavsmuseet 2005-2008,” Medelhavsmuseet. Focus on the Medterranean 4 (2009): 123-44.

126 Leave a comment on paragraph 126 0 [14] Robert Lang and R. Stuart Poole, “Narrative of Excavations in a Temple at Dali (Idalium) in Cyprus,” Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature 11 (1878): 30–54.

127 Leave a comment on paragraph 127 0 [15] Reinhard Senff, Das Apollonheiligtum von Idalion. Architektur und Statuenausstattung eines zyprischen Heiligtums (Jonsered: Paul Åströms, 1993): pl. 2a-b.

128 Leave a comment on paragraph 128 0 [16] Diana Buitron-Oliver, The Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion: Excavations in the Archaic Precinct. SIMA 109 (Jonsered: Paul Åström, 1996): xix-xx.

129 Leave a comment on paragraph 129 0 [17] See, most recently, Jeremy Huggett, “Challenging Digital Archaeology,” Open Archaeology 1 (2015): 80–81.

130 Leave a comment on paragraph 130 0 [18] Jeremy Huggett, “A Manifesto for an Introspective Digital Archaeology,” Open Archaeology 1 (2015): 87–88.

131 Leave a comment on paragraph 131 0 [19] Jody Gordon, Erin Walcek Averett, and Derek B. Counts, “Mobile Computing in Archaeology: Exploring and Interpreting Current Practices,” in Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: the Potential of Digital Archaeology, ed. Erin Walcek Averett, Jody Gordon, and Derek B. Counts (Grand Forks, ND: The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota, 2016): 1-32; contra Christopher Roosevelt, Peter Cobb, Emanuel Moss, Brandon Olson, and Sinan Ünlüsoy, “Excavation is Destruction Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice,” Journal of Field Archaeology 40 (2015): 325–46.

132 Leave a comment on paragraph 132 0 [20] Michael Given, Bernard Knapp, Jay Noller, Luke Sollars, and Vasiliki Kassianidou, Landscape and Interaction: The Troodos Archaeological and Environmental Survey Project, Cyprus, vol. 1, Methodology, Analysis and Interpretation (London: Council for British Research in the Levant, 2013); Michael Given, Bernard Knapp, Jay Noller, Luke Sollars, and Vasiliki Kassianidou, Landscape and Interaction: The Troodos Archaeological and Environmental Survey Project, Cyprus, vol. 2, The TAESP Landscape (London: Council for British Research in the Levant, 2013.

133 Leave a comment on paragraph 133 0 [21] Michael Given, Hugh Corley, and Luke Sollars, “Joining the Dots: Continuous Survey, Routine Practice and the Interpretation of a Cypriot Landscape (with interactive GIS and integrated data archive),” Internet Archaeology 20 (2007).

134 Leave a comment on paragraph 134 0 [22] For a recent overview, with references to earlier publications, see Maria Iacovou, “Palaepaphos: Unlocking the Landscape Context of the Sanctuary of thee Cypriot Goddess,” Open Archaeology 5: 204-34.

135 Leave a comment on paragraph 135 0 [23] http://www.ucy.ac.cy/unsala/

136 Leave a comment on paragraph 136 0 [24] Giorgos Papantoniou and Athanasios Vionis, “Landscape Archaeology and Sacred Space in the Eastern Mediterranean: A Glimpse from Cyprus,” Land 6 (2017): 40. doi:10.3390/land6020040.

137 Leave a comment on paragraph 137 0 [25] William Caraher, R. Scott Moore, and David Pettegrew, “Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project I: Pedestrian Survey,” Open Context, 2013: DOI: https://doi.org/10.6078/M7B56GNS.

138 Leave a comment on paragraph 138 0 [26] William Caraher, “Announcing the Digital Edition of Pyla-Koutsopetria I: A Free Download,” Archaeology of the Mediterranean World. https://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/announcing-the-digital-edition-of-pyla-koutsopetria-1-a-free-download/, 2017; William Caraher, Scott Moore, and David Pettegrew, Pyla-Koutsopetria I: Archaeological Survey of an Ancient Coastal Town. Linked Version (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6GB7K.

139 Leave a comment on paragraph 139 0 [27] Nicholas Blackwell and James Johnson, “Exploring Sacred Space: GIS Applications for Analyzing the Athienou-Malloura Sanctuary,” in Crossroads and Boundaries. The Archaeology of Past and Present in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus, eds. Michael Toumazou, P. Nick Kardulias, and Derek B. Counts (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2011): 291–302.

140 Leave a comment on paragraph 140 0 [28] Nicholas Blackwell and James Johnson, “Exploring Sacred Space: GIS Applications for Analyzing the Athienou-Malloura Sanctuary,” in Crossroads and Boundaries. The Archaeology of Past and Present in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus, eds. Michael Toumazou, P. Nick Kardulias, and Derek B. Counts (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2011): 300.

141 Leave a comment on paragraph 141 0 [29] Joanna Smith and Szymon Rusinkiewicz, “Modeling the Past for Scholars and the Public,” International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era 2:1 (2013): 167–94; see also http://polis-cyprus.princeton.edu/BD7/index.html#

142 Leave a comment on paragraph 142 0 [30] http://polis-cyprus.princeton.edu/BD7/index.html

143 Leave a comment on paragraph 143 0 [31] http://polis-cyprus.princeton.edu/AH9/

144 Leave a comment on paragraph 144 0 [32] For a more recent example of the use of new digital tools to map and visualize a sanctuary outside Cyprus, see Filippo Carraro, Alessandra Marinello, Daniele Morabito, and Jacopoo Bonetto, “New Perspectives on the Sanctuary of Aesculapius in Nora (Sardinia): Froom Photogrammeetry to Visualizing and Querying Tools,” Open Archaeology 5 (2019): 263-73.

145 Leave a comment on paragraph 145 0 [33] For a recent exploration of the use of digital models to create sensory experiences, see Costas Papadopoulos, Yannis Hamilakis, Nina Kyparissi-Apostoolika, and Marta Díaz-Guardamino, “Digital Sensoriality: The Neolithic Figurines from Koutroulou Magoula, Greece,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal (2019): 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271.

146 Leave a comment on paragraph 146 0 [34] Michael Toumazou, P. Nick Kardulias, and Derek B. Counts, eds., Crossroads and Boundaries: The Archaeology of Past and Present in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 65 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2011); Michael Toumazou, Derek B. Counts, Erin Walcek Averett, Jody Gordon, and P. Nick Kardulias, “Shedding Light on the Cypriot Rural Countryside: Investigations of the Athienou Archaeological Project in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus, 2011–2013,” Journal of Field Archaeology 40.2 (2015): 204–20.

147 Leave a comment on paragraph 147 0 [35] Derek B. Counts, Erin Walcek Averett, and Kevin Garstki, “A Fragmented Past: (Re)constructing Antiquity through 3D Artefact Modeling and Customised Structured Light Scanning at Athienou-Malloura, Cyprus,” Antiquity 90 (2016): 206–18.

148 Leave a comment on paragraph 148 0 [36] On the use of digital models to replicate the physical experience of handling artifacts, see Costas Papadopoulos, Yannis Hamilakis, Nina Kyparissi-Apostoolika, and Marta Díaz-Guardamino, “Digital Sensoriality: The Neolithic Figurines from Koutroulou Magoula, Greece,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal (2019): 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271.

149 Leave a comment on paragraph 149 0 [37] Derek B. Counts, Erin Walcek Averett, Kevin Gartski, and Michael Toumazou, Visualizing Votive Practice: Exploring Limestone and Terracotta Sculpture from Athienou-Malloura Through 3D Models (Boston and Grand Forks, ND: ASOR and The Digital Press at The University of North Dakota, forthcoming).

150 Leave a comment on paragraph 150 0 [38] Joanne Pillsbury, ed., Past Presented. Archaeological Illustration and the Ancient Americas (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2012); Michael Shanks and Connie Svabo, “Archaeology and Photography: A Pragmatology,” in Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of Modernity. Archaeological Orientations, ed. Alfredo González-Ruibal (New York: Routledge, 2013): 89–102.

151 Leave a comment on paragraph 151 0 [39] Colleen Morgan and Holly Wright, “Pencils and Pixels: Drawing and Digital Media in Archaeological Field Recording,” Journal of Field Archaeology (2018): 1–16. DOI:

152 Leave a comment on paragraph 152 0 10.1080/00934690.2018.1428488; Matt Edgeworth, “Multiple Origins, Development, and Potential of Ethnographies of Archaeology,” in Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice. Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, ed. Matt Edgeworth (Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2006): 1–19; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Second edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).

153 Leave a comment on paragraph 153 0 [40] The most recent iteration of this online catalogue, now 30 years old, is found here: http://www.cobb.msstate.edu/dignew/Pierides/index.htm

154 Leave a comment on paragraph 154 0 [41] Kathleen Fitzpatrick, “The Humanities, Done Digitally,” in Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. Matthew Gold (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012): 12–15.

155 Leave a comment on paragraph 155 0 [42] e.g., Derek B. Counts, Review of Antoine Hermary and Joan Mertens, The Cesnola Collection of Cypriot Art: Stone Sculpture 1st rev. ed. (New York, 2015). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 378 (2017): 242–44.

Source: https://opr.degruyter.com/digital-humanities-and-research-methods-in-religious-studies/erin-walcek-averett-and-derek-b-counts-scaling-religious-practice-from-landscape-to-artifact-digital-approaches-to-ancient-cyprus/