eTheses Repository - University of Birmingham

people at certain times, a meeting place for a particular purpose when not only that intention
was fulfilled, (a celebration and thanks for harvest), but when also information was
exchanged, relationships renewed, disputes settled, friendships cemented and gods
worshipped. The sacred and the profane were neither separate nor disconnected.
Close by, approximately five kilometres distant, the site of Nestani-Paniyiristra (30) (Map
6.3) also gives opportunity to look at aspects of the landscape, although evidence for the
period in question is dubious. Sherds of the early Mycenaean period LHI-II have been found,
but none from any later periods until Classical and Hellenistic times. However, near the
eastern gateway, walls incorporated into the later Hellenistic fortifications associated with
Philip II were considered Mycenaean in character by Hope Simpson (1965, p.39, 40 site 88)
and a copious spring on the rocky hill was taken as additional support for the place being
home to a Mycenaean settlement. It may well be that the Hellenistic walls followed, to some
extent, those of the LBA.
What is particularly striking about the landscape surrounding Nestani-Paniyiristra is the
prominent outcrop of Kentraki to the southeast, just below which is the Monastery of
Yoryoepikosi and the modern village of Nestani (see Fig.6.18). This is a rock, which through
its imposing qualities invites speculation on possible attachment to myth and legend, visible
and recognisable from the surrounding area. Even without activity between 1300 and
700BCE on the site of ancient Nestane of the Classical and Hellenistic period, this feature of
the landscape would have been part of peoples’ knowledge and understanding of the area as
they moved through it. What is noticeable about this particular feature in relation to the site
of Nestani- Paniyiristra is how the well-preserved eastern gateway seems to mimic the rock.
It appears to be aligned very closely to it, which is exaggerated by the ruined nature of the
walls, but reconstructed both features still share an angle (Fig.6.19 and Fig.6.20). If this was
257