Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200–900 BC 9781407310206, 9781407339986

Citation preview

BAR S2421 2012 Lantzas Settlement and Social Trends

B A R

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200–900 BC

Katie Lantzas

BAR International Series 2421 2012

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200–900 BC

Katie Lantzas

BAR International Series 2421 2012

ISBN 9781407310206 paperback ISBN 9781407339986 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310206 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgments Abstract

iii v vii viii

Chapter One: Introduction 1.2 Geographical Background 1.2.1 The Argolid 1.2.2 The Methana Peninsula 1.3 Summary 1.4 Methodology 1.4.1 Theoretical Approach 1.4.2 Material Evidence 1.5 Conclusions

1 2 2 5 6 6 7 7 8

Chapter Two: Historical Conceptions of the “Dark Age” 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The Periodization of History and the Creation of the Dark Age 2.3 Classics, Modern Greek History and the Greek Dark Age 2.4 The Term Dark Age 2.5 The Process of Collapse 2.6 Collapse and the Dark Age 2.7 Traditional Definitions of the Greek Dark Age 2.8 Conclusions

9 9 9 10 12 12 13 13 16

Chapter Three: The Built Environment 18 3.1 Introduction 18 3.1.2 Architecture and Ideology: Before “The Collapse” 18 3.2 Methodology 19 3.3 Data 19 3.3.1 Argos 21 3.3.2 Asine 23 3.3.3 Midea 27 3.3.4 Mycenae 30 3.3.5 Tiryns 34 3.4 Analysis 38 3.5 Conclusions 41 Chapter Four: Mortuary Contexts and Practices 42 4.1 Introduction 42 4.1.2 Mycenaean Mortuary Practices 42 4.1.3 Terminology and Methodology 43 4.2 Data 45 4.2.1 Prosymna 47 4.2.2 Dendra/Midea 50 4.2.3 Mycenae 53 4.2.4 Tiryns/ Profitis Ilias 57 4.2.5 Asine 58 4.2.6 Argos 60 4.2.7 Summary 64 4.3 Cumulative Mortuary Contexts vs. Individual Mortuary Contexts 64 4.4 Vessel Inhumations 68 i

4.5 Cremation 4.6 Conclusions

71 74

Chapter Five: Ceramic Material 5.1 Introduction 5.1.2 Ceramic Production as Organized by the Palatial Administration 5.1.3 Storage as Organized by the Palatial Administration 5.2 Methodology 5.3 Data 5.3.1 Kylikes 5.3.2 Stirrup Jars 5.3.3 Pictorial Vessels 5.3.4 Pithoi 5.3.5 Summary 5.4 Iron Age Ceramic Production 5.5 Storage as Organized by Iron Age Communities 5.6 Conclusions

75 75 75 77 77 78 81 82 83 84 85 85 87 88

Chapter Six: Metal Objects 6.1 Introduction 6.1.2 Metalworking as Organized by the Palatial Administration 6.2 Methodology 6.3 Data 6.3.1 Summary 6.4 The Values of Metals 6.5 Economic Aspects: Production, Exchange and Deposition of Metals 6.5.1 Production 6.5.2 Exchange 6.5.3 Deposition 6.6 Conclusions

90 90 90 91 92 98 99 100 100 101 102 104

Chapter Seven: Conclusions Appendix One: Map and Catalogue of Sites Appendix Two: Catalogue of Mortuary Contexts Bibliography

106 108 111 129

ii

List of Figures Figure 1 The Argolid and the Methana Peninsula showing sites inhabited during this period from which I have drawn my data. Figure 2 Map of the Methana Peninsula. Figure 3 A map of the Methana Peninsula showing LBA - IA sites and their functions. Figure 4 Plan of Haghios Konstantinos with main sanctuary rooms, A, B and C (After Hamilakis and Konsolaki 2004, Figure 2). Figure 5 Map of sites in the Argolid identified through surface survey or rescue excavations. Figure 6 Sites in the Argolid identified through surfaces survey or rescue excavation with evidence for Iron Age reoccupation. Figure 7 Plan of the apsidal house (after Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 228). Figure 8 Plan of Terrace 9 and Citadel Wall. LH IIIB 2 represented in black (From Walberg 2007). Figure 9 Plan of Terrace 10. LH IIIB 2 represented in black and LH IIIC represented in dark grey (From Walberg 2007). Figure 10 Plan of the megaron building at Midea (From Walberg 1995, Figure 1). Figure 11 Plan of Rooms XIX, XIV, XVII and XX along with the pit, bench and platform (From Walberg 2007, Figure 58). Figure 12 Plan of the Granary (From Wace 1949, Figure 3). Figure 13 Plan of House Psi (Ψ) and House Omega (Ω) and their relation to the House of Columns (After Mylonas 1968, Figure 9). Figure 14 Plan of Building T (From Maran 2000, Figure 1). Figure 15 A plan of the Lower Citadel from LH IIIC Early through Late (From Mühlenbruch 2007, Figure 2 after Kilian 1981, Figure 5). Figure 16 The location of the dam in relation to Tiryns. 1) The course of the Manessi River during Neolithic through LH IIIB 2; 2) the natural diversion that occurred during LHIIIB 2; 3) the artificial diversion that was created after the LH IIIB 2 natural diversion occurred (From Zangger 1998, Figure 3). Figure 17 The location and concentration of LH IIIB 2 through EG mortuary contexts in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula. Figure 18 The location of Prosymna in relation to other sites discussed in detail. Figure 19 Distribution of chamber tombs at Prosymna. Blue indicates chamber tombs in use from LH IIA through LH IIIB 2; Orange indicates chamber tombs in use from LH IIIA 1 through LH IIIB 2; Yellow indicates chamber tombs in use from LH IIIA 2 through LH IIIB 2; Brown indicates chamber tombs in use from LH IIIB 2 through LH IIIC (After Blegen 1937, Plate 1). Figure 20 The locations of Dendra and Midea in relation to other sites discussed in detail. Figure 21 The location of Mycenae in relation to other sites discussed in detail. Figure 22 Map of Mycenae and surrounding area with chamber tombs indicated in black (From Maggidis and Stamos 2006, Figure 2). Figure 23 Location of the current excavations at Mycenae. Taken from the citadel (photo: Prof. Chr. Maggidis). Figure 24 Early Geometric inhumation from Lower Town at Mycenae (photo: K. Lantzas). Figure 25 The location of Tiryns and Profitis Ilias in relation to other sites discussed in detail. Figure 26 The location of Asine in relation to other sites discussed in detail.

iii

3 6 20 21 22 23 26 28 29 29 30 31 33 35 36

39 44 50

51 52 54 56 57 58 59 61

Figure 27 Map of the chamber tombs discovered on the Barbouna Hill. Brown indicates LH IIB – LH IIIC Late; Blue indicates LH IIIA 1 – LH IIIC; Tan indicates LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIC M; Yellow indicates LH IIIC (After Frödin and Persson 1938, Figure 131). Figure 28 The location of Argos in relation to other sites. Figure 29 Location of the chamber tombs in the Deiras cemetery. Brown indicates chamber tombs in use during LH IIIA 2 through LH IIIC L; Blue indicates chamber tombs in use during LH IIIB through LH IIIC Late; Yellow indicates chamber tombs in use during LH IIIC through LH IIIC Late (After Deshayes 1966, Plate I). Figure 30 Total number of individual and cumulative mortuary contexts in the Argolid. Figure 31 Location and quantity of chamber tombs in the Argolid with evidence of post-palatial use. Figure 32 The chronologically latest chamber tomb inhumations from chamber tombs relevant to this study. Figure 33 The location and quantities of vessel inhumations. Figure 34 A comparison of quantities of chamber tombs and vessel inhumations over time. Only vessel inhumations that have been securely dated to a single chronological phase have been included. Figure 35 The location of inurned cremation contexts dating to the LH IIIC period. The tumulus at Chania contained 8 inurned cremation burials and the Tripolis Street Tumulus contained 36 inurned cremation burials. Figure 36 LH IIIB 2 conical kylix from Mycenae (From French and Stockhammer 2009, Figure 5.3). Figure 37 LH IIIC Middle jar from Tiryns with chariot scene (From Crouwel 2006, Figure 1). Figure 38 Krater sherds from the West Gate Area at Midea. The sherd on the left possibly depicts a boar’s tusk helmet and the sherd on the right possibly depicts a chariot scene (From Demakopoulou 2006, Figure 25). Figure 39 Late Helladic IIIC Late pithos from Mycenae (From Lacy 1967, Figure 90c). Figure 40 A Late Helladic IIIC deep bowl from Mycenae (From Wace 1956, Figure 2). Figure 41 Plan of Unit IV-1 at Nichoria (From McDonald, et. al. 1983, Figure 18-3). Figure 42 Totals of metal objects found in the three main depositional contexts. Note that numbers should be considered approximate due to subjective quantities, such as “a few” or “several”, having been occasionally used in publication. Figure 43 A breakdown of published metal objects by functional type. It should be noted that these totals should only be considered approximate due to variables in publication, such as not discussing specific quantities. Figure 44 A comparison of quantities of different functional categories recovered from mortuary contexts and hoards. Figure 45 Mylonas’ Hoard discovered between two large stones (From Mylonas 1966b, Figure 67). Figure 46 Location of the Poros Wall Hoard (from Taylour 1955, Figure 3). Figure 47 Objects from the Poros Wall Hoard (a) Ingot fragments; (b) Knives; (c) Chisels, adze, hammer, drill and double axe; (d) Dagger; (e) Cauldron handle (From Stubbings 1954, Plate 2).

iv

62 63

65 66 67 68 70

71

72 81 83

84 84 85 86

92

93 94 96 97

98

List of Tables Table 1 The settlement history of Mycenaean sites in the Argolid (based on Eder 1998, Figure 9). 4 Table 2 Table demonstrating material features and practices of the Mycenaean palatial ideology in the Argolid. 7 Table 3 Chronological chart of the traditional divisions of Greek prehistory. 11 Table 4 The use dates and sizes of the Late Bronze Age through Iron Age sites on the Methana Peninsula. The asterisk next to Stravolongos indicates that site size could not be determined (Mee and Forbes 1997, 158). 20 Table 5 Sites in the Argolid identified during surface survey projects and rescue excavations. Note that estimations of site sizes are often unavailable. Again “use dates” are the chronological dates for the site suggested by the publication and “ceramic dates” are more specific dates for material, which is relevant to this study. 22 Table 6 A visual representation of the construction and use dates of LBA – IA built structures at Asine. 24 Table 7 A visual representation of the construction and use dates of LBA – IA built structures at Midea. 27 Table 8 A visual representation of the construction and use dates of LBA – IA built structures at Mycenae. 31 Table 9 A visual representation of the construction and use dates of the LBA – IA built structures at Tiryns. 34 Table 10 Types of mortuary contexts in use throughout LH IIIB 2 through Early Geometric. 43 Table 11 Total numbers and percentages of mortuary contexts from selected sites, which are mentioned in the text and date to the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Iron Age. 44 Table 12 Detailed demographic data for the Argolid organized chronologically with major chronological divisions highlighted. 45 Table 13 Demographic chart showing aggregated age categories. The shaded chronological periods have been selected for detailed analysis. 46 Table 14 Fully aggregated demographic table for the mortuary contexts from the Argolid 47 Table 15 Demographic data from mortuary contexts at Mycenae. 48 Table 16 Demographic data from mortuary contexts at Tiryns. 48 Table 17 Demographic data from mortuary contexts at Asine. 49 Table 18 Types of mortuary contexts in use throughout LH IIIB 2 through Early Geometric periods. 49 Table 19 Dates for the construction of and final inhumation in chamber tombs at Prosymna with evidence of use during this period. 50 Table 20 Types of mortuary contexts in use at Prosymna during LH IIIB 2 through EG. 52 Table 21 Types of mortuary contexts in use at Dendra during the LH IIIB 2 through EG. 53 Table 22 Types of mortuary contexts in use at Mycenae during the LH IIIB 2 through EG. 54 Table 23 Dates for construction of and final inhumation in chamber tombs at Mycenae with evidence of use during this period. 55 Table 24 Types of mortuary contexts in use at Tiryns during the LH IIIB 2 through EG. 59 Table 25 The types of mortuary contexts in use at Profitis Ilias during LH IIIB 2 through EG. 60 Table 26 Dates for the construction of and final inhumation in chamber tombs at Prof. Ilias with evidence of use during this period. 60 Table 27 The types of mortuary contexts in use at Asine during the LH IIIB 2 through EG. 61 Table 28 Dates for the construction of and final inhumation in dates chamber tombs at Asine with evidence of use during this period. 62 Table 29 The types of mortuary contexts in Argos during the LH IIIB 2 through EG. 64 v

Table 30 Dates for the construction of and final inhumation in chamber tombs at Argos with evidence of use during this period. 64 Table 31 Quantities of vessel inhumations dating to the Late Bronze through Iron Age at specific sites. 65 Table 32 Total of types of mortuary contexts in use throughout the Argolid and Methana Peninsula during the LH IIIB 2 through Iron Age. 66 Table 33 Dates for the construction of and final inhumation in chamber tombs relevant to this study, organized from earliest to latest inhumation. 69 Table 34 Table illustrating the presence or absence of specific ceramic shapes throughout the study period. 79 Table 35 Ceramic assemblages from palatial mortuary contexts at Mycenae and Prosymna. 79 Table 36 Ceramic assemblages from mortuary contexts at Mycenae and Prosymna, which were in use throughout periods of palatial instability. 80 Table 37 Ceramic assemblages from post-palatial and Iron Age mortuary contexts. 81 Table 38 Chronological periods during which the kylix was in use. 82 Table 39 Chronological periods during which the stirrup jar was in use. 83 Table 40 Functional categories of metal objects dating to LH IIIB 2 through Early Geometric. 92 Table 41 The presence or absence of metals that have been identified in specific chronological periods. 93 Table 42 Metal objects recovered from palatial mortuary contexts. 94 Table 43 Metal objects recovered from mortuary contexts in use throughout the LBA through IA transition. 94 Table 44 Metal objects recovered from post-palatial mortuary contexts. 95 Table 45 Hoards dated to the Late Bronze through Iron Age and their functional category. 95

vi

Acknowledgments I would like to express my thanks to my supervisor, Prof. John Bennet, who provided the constant support that helped shape this PhD into something better than it would have been without his insight and feedback. I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Sue Sherratt, for her encouragement and the support that helped me write the kind of PhD that I wanted to from the beginning, particularly when it pertained the thorny issue of the ceramic material from this period. In addition I would like to thank my examiners, Prof. Chris Mee and Dr. Jane Rempel, for an interesting and enjoyable viva and for comments that helped me prepare this monograph for publication. I would like to acknowledge and thank Diane Palmer at the Interdisciplinary Centre of the Social Sciences at Sheffield for her help with the GIS aspect of this project; Prof. Andrew Chamberlain for his invaluable assistance with modeling the mortuary data presented in Chapter 4; Prof. Chris Mee for answering my questions about the Methana Survey Project and Dr. Despina Margomenou and Dr. Despo Pilidies for discussing storage vessels. I would also like to thank Rik Vaessen for our fruitful discussions on the concept of Dark Ages and his comments on Chapter 2, Will Gilstrap for his assistance while I was away from Sheffield and Dr. Rachel Fox for providing me with relevant sections of her unpublished PhD. Producing this PhD has been a long time in the making and I would like to offer my sincerest gratitude to Prof. Christofilis Maggidis for introducing me to archaeology and for all of the opportunities he has given me. I would also like to thank Prof. Molly Anastassiathe-Maggidis for teaching me Greek, which made some of this research easier than it would have been, and for her moral support. I would also like to acknowledge the support of long time friends and colleagues Allison Cuneo, Jenn Danis and, especially, Sarah Peterson for commenting on various chapters. Thank you for all your help and providing some much needed distraction every summer. Most importantly I would like to acknowledge the unwavering support of my mother, Mary Lantzas. From the very beginning you believed in me and never questioned my path or choices. You have put up with me being away more often than not, but never once did you complain about not seeing me enough or the massive phone bill. I never would have gotten this far without you and I can’t begin to tell you how much your support means to me. This is dedicated to you, mom, with all my love and thanks.

vii

Abstract The central concern of my research is the ideology and socio-economic practices of the communities in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula that existed during approximately 1200 BC through 900 BC. A thorough examination of mortuary practices, the built environment, ceramic material and metal objects demonstrate that during this transitional period an ideological shift took place alongside complex socio-economic developments. An analysis of the material evidence does not indicate poverty and disorganization as has been previously argued. Rather, it illustrates the active formation of a new ideology and socio-economic practices that privileged the individual and the domestic unit over the larger corporate group. I begin by briefly presenting the geographic and research background for these two regions. I then discuss how the concept of a Greek “Dark Ages” came in to being and why it is no longer a relevant or useful term. My analyses of the mortuary evidence and built environment demonstrate that, following the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial administration, the remaining communities maintained and developed practices that promoted the individual or the domestic unit. Analysis of specific examples from the ceramic material and metal objects dating to this period are used to discuss specific activities, such as production and exchange. Evidence from this data illustrates that these activities had, in all probability, taken place outside the direct control of the Mycenaean palatial administration and continued without substantial interruption throughout this period. This re-appraisal of the material culture dating from the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Early Geometric period combines new theoretical approaches to collapsed societies and, rather than simply presenting a catalogue of archaeological remains, attempts to reconstruct the ideology and socio-economic practices of Iron Age communities in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula.

viii

Chapter One: Introduction

The aim of this monograh is to examine specific categories of material evidence, particularly the mortuary evidence, built environment, ceramic material and metal objects, in order to understand the ideological and socio-economic developments that occurred in the Argolid and Methana Peninsula during approximately 1200 BC through 900 BC. I begin from the premise that the Mycenaean palatial administration promoted and espoused an ideology and practices that privileged the corporate group. Directly following the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial administration, the remaining communities were presented with an opportunity to renegotiate this ideology and create practices that best served their needs. Rather than examining the subsequent changes in the material record in terms of simple “continuities” or “discontinuities”, I consider them to be evidence for conscious choices made during this formative process.

location as the focus of socio-economic and ritual activities, many different structures housed these activities. The combination of domestic, industrial, religious and storage spaces within the same building or in close proximity to it indicates that individual households had taken more direct control of these activities and were engaged in practices that ensured the stability and success of the domestic unit. Thus far, the discussion has focused on the formation of a new ideology and the material indices of this change. However, an ideological change cannot take root if it does not support and, in turn, is not supported by socio-economic practices. Therefore, I have examined the production, consumption and deposition of ceramic material and metal objects in order to discuss the socio-economic practices of Late Bronze through Iron Age communities. Considerable amounts of scholarship have been devoted to the typological and stylistic developments of the ceramic material from this period.1 Therefore, I have chosen not to focus on these issues, but rather on developments in the organization of the ceramic industry and aspects of production and consumption. Obviously, the collapse of the palatial administration removed a bulk consumer of this product. However, very little actually changed in the production, use and deposition of ceramic material. This stability suggests that production prior to and after the collapse took place outside the direct control of the palatial administration, which is supported by Linear B evidence.

The ideological shift away from the corporate group towards the individual or the domestic unit can be approached through the analysis of mortuary practices and the built environment. Many previous mortuary practices were retained during and after the collapse of the palatial administration because they were an integral part of deeprooted beliefs and, therefore, not as easily influenced by socio-political or economic disturbances as other aspects of the material record. However, closer analysis demonstrates that the mortuary practices associated with the palatial ideology, such as overtly lavish burials and cumulative inhumations within built tombs, were eventually abandoned. New developments in this arena, particularly cremation and individual as opposed to cumulative inhumations, illustrate the increasing conceptual importance of the individual.

Metal objects, which are most commonly recovered from mortuary contexts and hoards, can be analyzed on several levels. In this section I discuss both the physical objects and their multiple levels of value. First, I outline the organization of metalworking under the palaces. I then present metal objects from mortuary contexts and hoards and demonstrate that, in a situation similar to the ceramic material, very little changed in the production, use and deposition of metal objects. This conclusion reinforces the suggestion that many economic activities were taking place outside the direct control of the palatial administration. The existence of exchange and production outside the control of the palatial administration contributed to the continued existence of communities following the collapse.

The continued habitation in and around palatial centers, particularly at Tiryns, following the collapse of the palatial administration suggests that there was lingering currency in the physical manifestation of the palatial administration and that the leadership of the remaining communities chose to co-opt these symbols in order to legitimize their power. Over time, however, the power of this symbol (the physical remains of the palatial centers) faded. Subsequently, these locations were gradually abandoned as the emergent ideology and socio-economic practices took shape and were reinforced by continued maintenance on the part of the growing communities. Evidence from the built environment indicates that instead of having one central and bounded

See, for example, Desborough 1952; Vitale 2006; French and Stockhammer 2009. 1

1

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Despite the fragmentary nature of the material record, it is possible to form a sufficiently detailed picture of communities during the Iron Age and to redress many of the preconceptions regarding this period. An analysis of the mortuary evidence, built environment, ceramic material and metal objects does not indicate poverty and disorganization as many scholars have previously argued, but the active formation of new organizing principles that were constructed to serve the needs of the existing communities in the wake of the collapse of the palatial administration.

This approach can be attributed to two factors: first, to date, there is no single site or chronological period that dominates the research agenda; and second, as a peninsula, Methana presents a naturally predetermined research area. Even though it lacks the stratified material from excavated sites, a recently published survey project (Mee and Forbes 1997) provides a detailed overview of settlement activity in the region. By examining the material evidence from Methana, it is possible to discuss how regions outside the direct control of a palatial center reacted to the collapse and developed over time.

Before I present the material evidence, I review the archaeological and historical background of the Argolid and Methana Peninsula. Then, I examine how the concept of a Greek “Dark Ages” came to be and why it is no longer a relevant or useful term in Chapter 2. Then, I present a detailed examination of the archaeological evidence in Chapters 3 through 6, which have been gathered from regional survey projects and published excavation reports. Following this, I conclude with a summary of the ideology and socio-economic practices of Iron Age communities in Chapter 7.

By expanding my discussion to include a region beyond the Argolid, while at the same time limiting it to only two distinct geographical areas, I hope to achieve a more balanced and holistic understanding of this period, which benefits from the differences and strengths of the material record from both regions. In the remainder of this chapter, I briefly review the physical environment of the Argolid and its major sites and introduce the Methana Peninsula, its research history and major sites. 1.2.1 The Argolid

1.2 Geographical Background

The Argolid plain is one of the few lowland alluvial plains in the Peloponnese, which was, and remains, extremely fertile. The plain measures approximately 14.0 km across by 21.0 km in length and is relatively isolated from other regions by mountain ranges (Zangger 1998, 189; Morgan and Whitelaw 1991, 80-81). These features make the Argolid, like the Methana Peninsula, a bounded and definable geographic area (Morgan and Whitelaw 1991, 81).

I have chosen to examine the material remains from the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula (Figure 1), two regions that have received very different treatment by archaeologists. Despite the comparative lack of evidence dating to the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Early Geometric periods from Methana in relation to the Argolid, there are several advantages in comparing and contrasting two regions with different research histories.

The acme of Mycenaean palatial culture occurred during the Late Helladic IIIA through IIIB periods. Prior to this, a number of settlements had vied for access to and control of land and resources. By this period, the most successful of these sites, Mycenae, Tiryns and Midea, had succeeded in consolidating their power and flourished (Shelmerdine and Bennet 2008, 289).

The Argolid,2 considered the heartland of the Mycenaean koine, is one of the most excavated and researched regions in Greece. This is due in large part to the presence of several Mycenaean palatial centers. With excavation and research traditionally focused on Bronze Age remains, succeeding periods have suffered from a lack of attention. Frequently, past excavations removed the physical traces of later occupation without so much as a mention or sketch in excavation diaries or published reports. However, the advantage of this considerable amount of scholarly attention is that the Argolid contains several thoroughly excavated sites that provide a wealth of well-studied material from a range of chronological periods. In addition, survey projects, such as the Berbati-Limnes Survey and the Southern Argolid Exploration Project, have identified a number of smaller settlements, which somewhat balances our view of the region.

At the end of the Late Helladic IIIB period a number events occurred that destabilized the established socio-economic organization. It is important to emphasize that no single event caused the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial centers. The effects of both natural disasters and social unrest occurring within a very short period of time on the highly centralized and specialized economic structure of the palatial centers triggered a critical breakdown and eventually caused an irrevocable systems collapse (Maggidis 2009, 397; Deger-Jalkotzy 1996, 716). While there is still some terminological debate over the period in which these disturbances took place, a destruction horizon toward the end of the Late Helladic IIIB 1 is apparent at the citadels of Mycenae and Tiryns.

Rather than being fragmented by research projects like the Argolid, the Methana Peninsula has been treated as a whole by both archaeologists and ethnographers (Forbes 2007; Mee and Forbes 1997; Wright 2004a, 115-116).

At Mycenae the houses outside the citadel walls, which include Panagia Houses I and II and the buildings of the

For a list of sites inhabited during this period and from which I have taken my data see Appendix One.

2

2

Introduction

Figure 1 The Argolid and the Methana Peninsula showing sites inhabited during this period from which I have drawn my data.

Oil Merchant Group, were destroyed at this time. This last group of buildings appear to have been particularly important to palatial administration, based on the diversity of finds and the presence of Linear B documents (Iakovidis, French, et. al. 2003, 53; Eder 1998, 31). At Tiryns, Kilian (1988, 134) has attributed the destruction within the citadel walls in this period to an earthquake and destruction by fire is visible in Area LXI. It is reasonable to assume that following these events, palatial organization and activities would have been disrupted and that resources and manpower would have been diverted away from everyday tasks in order to undertake repairs and reconstruction (Eder 1998, 39; Warren and Hankey 1989, 100; Shelmerdine 2001; 334; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 34).

During the Late Helladic IIIB 2, major construction projects were undertaken at Mycenae, Tiryns and Midea. At Mycenae and Tiryns, the Cyclopean walls were extended and included access to a secure water supply (Shelmerdine 2001, 334-336). Fortifications were also constructed at Midea and small rooms were erected in the courtyard to the west of the megaron in order to provide additional space, which was perhaps used for storage or other specialized activities (Walberg 2007, 197). Despite the previous disturbances, the overall picture of the palatial centers during LH IIIB 2 is one of wealthy, stable administrative complexes that had control over considerable natural resources and were capable of organizing and mobilizing a large workforce.

3

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 1 The settlement history of Mycenaean sites in the Argolid (based on Eder 1998, Figure 9).

However, as Shelmerdine (2001, 372) states, the construction of massive fortification walls and the securing of basic provisions was not a practical response to the threat of geological disaster and is more indicative of a growing sense of instability. This is further supported by the construction of administrative spaces, such as the House of Columns, within the citadel walls at Mycenae and the abandonment of those administrative areas that were located outside the safety of the fortifications (Dickinson 2006, 43; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 31; French 2002, 99). Perhaps the abandonment of administrative buildings outside the walls indicates a shift towards increased centralization and control of the palatial economy and a growing sense of palatial insecurity.

have been attributed to earthquakes (Walberg 1999a, 159) (Table 1). However, the “final destruction” ca. 1200 BC is distinct because of its relatively concurrent and widespread nature.

Large scale building projects, such as the extension of the citadel walls, served to display and promote the wealth and power of the palatial elite. However, these activities most likely strained the material and economic resources controlled by the palaces and further unbalanced palatial organization (Maggidis 2009, 410). Furthermore, it seems that these construction projects, particularly the extension of the fortification walls, indicate preparations for impending conflict or at least increasingly polemic competition between groups of elite (Loader 1998, 156-157; Iakovidis 1999, 2003).

At Mycenae, this earthquake caused the collapse of settlement outside the citadel walls and the destruction of the Cult Center, the House of Columns and South House (Eder 1998, 33; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 30; 35). The same earthquake caused extensive destruction to the citadel walls at Tiryns and houses in the Unterburg (Eder 1998, 39). Signs of the earthquake are apparent in nearly every trench excavated on the Lower Terraces at Midea, particularly in those located next to the citadel wall on the northwest slope (Walberg 1999a, 157; 160).

There is some debate as to whether the period in which this catastrophe occurred should be termed Late Helladic IIIB 2 Late or Transitional Late Helladic IIIB2/Late Helladic IIIC Early. This confusion arises solely from conflicts in ceramic terminology. Whichever label one chooses, it does not change the fact that a major earthquake took place at the end of the Late Helladic IIIB 2 period causing major destruction at the three principal palatial centers (Zangger 1994, 210).

Traditionally, research has focused on charting the development of these palatial centers. However, with the increase in and subsequent publication of many survey projects, it is now possible to examine how these events affected developments in regional settlement patterns, as well as aspects of material culture outside the realm of the palaces (Cherry and Davis 2001, 146). There is considerable archaeological evidence for increased population and

It is evident that earthquakes and other destructive events were not uncommon in the Bronze Age. Mycenae and Tiryns suffered damage from earthquakes on several different occasions ranging from the mid-thirteenth century to the first quarter of the eleventh century BC (Zangger 1994, 193; 210). There is also evidence for three destruction events at Midea during the end of the Bronze Age, which

4

Introduction

prosperity during the LH IIIB period and the landscape around the palatial centers was densely settled (Wright 2004a 117; 121-122; Betancourt 1976, 42; Eder 1998, 27).

it within the geographical scope of several major political and economic centers, such as Mycenae, Argos, Corinth and Athens, all of which held dominant status at one point or another throughout the history of this region. While some Late Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery suggests stylistic connections with the Argolid and Attica, it appears that Methana, despite its advantageous location, has been generally ignored. This is perhaps due in part to its topography and geology (Konsolaki 2002, 25; Mee and Forbes 1997, 2; 57; James, Mee and Taylor 1994, 395).

After the destabilization of the palatial administration came the abandonment of sites, such as Berbati and Prosymna, at approximately 1200 BC. These sites appear to have been abandoned without any sign of destruction, thus raising many questions about the reasons behind this development. Evidence from the different regional survey projects, such as the Southern Argolid Survey Project and the BerbatiLimes Archaeological Survey, all support a significant decline in the amount of material dateable to the LH IIIC period and, therefore, a decline in the number of extrapalatial settlement sites (Runnels and van Andel 1987, 316; Schallin 1996, 173; Wells 1996, 177).

The physical geography of Methana is strikingly different to that of the Argolid because the peninsula is largely volcanic and this activity has left an elevated and rugged landscape marked by steep slopes and rocky tracks of land. This is especially true of the west coast. While the slopes of the east coast are more subtle, there is no plain here either due to the cliffs that line most of the coast. Flatland is limited to a few small upland basins located between lava domes, the plain of Throni, which is the most fertile in Methana and the coastal plain at the opening of the valley near Palaiokastro (Mee and Forbes 1997, 2-3; 5; James, Mee and Taylor 1994, 396). The peninsula consists mainly of a conglomeration of lava domes and flows, which peak at an elevation of 740 masl at Chelona (Mee and Forbes 1997, 5; James, Mee and Taylor 1994, 396). Methana is further isolated from the mainland by the nature of its connecting isthmus. This narrow strip of land, approximately ¾ to 1 km long and less than 300 m wide has been described as “…a large block of barren, rugged limestone…” and is an easily defensible connection to the mainland (Forbes 1982, 52; Mee and Forbes 1997, 5).

This apparent decline in the number of settlement sites does not necessarily indicate widespread depopulation of the area. It is possible that during this period populations concentrated at a few important sites, which may have been the case at Tiryns. At the beginning of the Late Helladic IIIC the size of this area increased and the plan of the settlement was later modified (Killian 1988a, 150). Maran argues that the reconstruction program and expansion at Tiryns could have been initiated by the emerging post-palatial elite because of an increase in population at a location, which could have been seen as relatively stable (Maran, 2004; 2000). Following the destabilizing events that occurred in the Argolid during the Late Helladic IIIB period, writing, specialty crafts and monumental architecture were lost and there appears to have been no attempt to recover them. This suggests a loss of the need for these aspects of material culture and a rejection of the Mycenaean palatial centers and what they symbolized (cf. Sherratt 2001).

The fastest and most reliable connections between the Methana Peninsula and areas both within and outside the southern Argolid are sea-routes. This also appears to have been the case in antiquity, despite the fact that Vathy provides the only natural harbor on the peninsula (Forbes 1982, 70; Mee and Forbes 1997, 5).

The absence of the symbols of Mycenaean palatial culture does not mean that life at the lower levels of society was impoverished, disorganized or culturally backward. It was the palatial elite and their infrastructure that were most directly affected. Life in the lower strata of Mycenaean society seems to have been less directly impacted. This leads to the suggestion that changes in the ideology and socio-economic practices of the core unit of society occurred more naturally, rather than abruptly or drastically.

The physical characteristics of Methana have also limited scholarly engagement with the peninsula. The first archaeological exploration was undertaken in the early twentieth century as something of a side note. German linguist and archaeologist Michael Deffner travelled there in 1908 to stay at the thermal baths on the orders of his doctors and then later returned to undertake a survey of the region (Mee and Forbes 1997, 2; Stroszeck 2003, 90).

1.2.2 The Methana Peninsula

Subsequently, Hamish Forbes (1982) conducted ethnographic research, which, while detailing modern farming practices, also provides a useful summary of the landscape and region. Most recently, Mee and Forbes (1997) carried out and published the results of their intensive survey, which built on this previous research. It is this most recent work and the research and excavations of E. Konsolaki that provide the material basis for this study.

“Methana”, as noted by Hamish Forbes (1982, 430431), “has never been of any except the most peripheral importance to the main thread of the history of Greece and even the basic outlines of its historical fate are largely unknown” (Figure 2). It is a small, mountainous peninsula that has been characterized by its isolation, despite occupying a central position at the entrance of the Saronic Gulf. This placed

After three full seasons of intensive survey, more than 100

5

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 2 Map of the Methana Peninsula.

sites distributed throughout the peninsula were recorded (James, Mee and Taylor 1994, 395). Being a 50 sq. km peninsula, Methana offered the opportunity of conducting a very thorough survey due to its size. However, due to the rugged terrain, the presence of dense scrub and modern villages, only 21% of the peninsula was intensively surveyed. Approximately 30% was left unexplored, most of which was areas affected by volcanic activity, urbanization or characterized as unproductive limestone. The remainder of the peninsula, which was predominantly limestone, volcanic formations and villages, was covered through extensive survey (Mee and Forbes 1997, 33).

Late Helladic period there was a modest increase in size, coinciding with the rise of the Mycenaean palatial centers. During the Late Helladic period, settlements tended to be located on the east side of the peninsula, with the exception of Palaiokastro, and on prominent hills. In this period the number of sites remained the same. However, the size of these sites increased indicating an increase in population (Mee and Forbes 1997, 52; 54). In contrast to the Argolid, however, the number of sites increased during the Iron Age. 1.3 Summary Comparing Methana and the Argolid, two locations with dissimilar histories, research agendas and geographic features may, at first, appear to be a study in contrasts. However, using material from these two regions in this study provides complementary data and a broader view of life during the Bronze Age to Iron Age transition. While Methana lacks a dominant palatial center, it provides useful comparative data for settlements and while many sites on Methana have not had the benefit of long-term excavations, sites from the Argolid can provide this kind of detail. Thus, through the combined analysis of these regions, a more balanced view of the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age in the overall region can be achieved.

Of the recorded sites, my research is concerned with those that were occupied from the Late Helladic IIIC through the Iron Age, roughly 1200 – 900 BC.3 In order establish a chronological framework for these sites, a representative sample of diagnostic artefacts, most commonly ceramic material and lithics, was taken. This sample was then verified later by subdividing the specific site and sampling separately from each section, using the ceramic material to date the site (Mee and Forbes 1997, 35; 38). Artefact density counts were also used to determine the site size. These were taken at fixed intervals from the perceived center until the number of artefacts was consistently less than two per square meter.

1.4 Methodology

In some respects, the settlement pattern on Methana mirrors the settlement pattern in the Argolid. From the Middle to 3

This section outlines the theoretical framework for and material culture used to examine the socio-economic and

Again, refer to Appendix One for a survey database of sites.

6

Introduction

Table 2 Table demonstrating material features and practices of the Mycenaean palatial ideology in the Argolid.

ideological changes that took place during the Late Bronze through Iron Age transition. I will explain developments in the material record as indices of the active formation of a new ideological and socio-economic framework, which was, initially, focused on the individual. I will also explain why particular categories of material evidence have been selected for detailed analysis and briefly present their Mycenaean palatial characteristics, which will be elaborated upon in the subsequent chapters.

individual and collective actions are focused on the maintenance and perpetuation of the established ideology. This creates an identifiable and continuous material culture. In times of instability or stress, the ideology is likely to be questioned, challenged or renegotiated (Jenkins 2004, 6-7). When there is dissatisfaction with an established ideology then the social, political, economic and ritual practices that comprise this package are open to revision, which can lead to change in the material culture.

1.4.1 Theoretical Approach

The relative homogeneity and stability in Mycenaean palatial material culture is indicative of the acceptance, maintenance and perpetuation of an ideology in which the corporate group and hierarchy were paramount. The socio-economic and ritual practices that comprised this ideology functioned to reinforce and support the palatial administration. While the palatial administration functioned, there was no need to question their practices or ideology. However, during periods of instability and when the Mycenaean palatial centers collapsed individuals would have questioned the effectiveness of the previous ideology and practices. It is possible that after the disturbances that took place during the Late Helladic IIIB and Late Helladic IIIC periods, communities living under the palatial administration began to question and reject an ideology and socio-economic practices that supported the larger corporate group rather than the individual. The eventual failure of the palatial package necessitated the establishment of new practices and a new ideology that better represented postpalatial communities. This formative process is apparent in a careful examination of four specific categories of material culture.

The central concern of this work is to demonstrate that the developments in the material record and settlement pattern of the Argolid and Methana Peninsula are indicative of ideological and socio-economic changes. Therefore, it is important to define ideology, and specifically discuss a Mycenaean palatial ideology, and demonstrate how an ideology and socio-economic practices are connected. An ideology is a set of beliefs that form the background and structuring principles of human behavior. Ideology is not consciously formed all at once or within a single moment, but is the product of repeated actions. Through everyday unconscious actions people confront and shape their present circumstances. In doing so, they create a set of recognizable actions and physical objects in order to cope with the problems of living (Bourdieu 1977, 77-79; Jenkins 1992, 69-71; 75; Gosden 1994, 34-35). Communal agreement on and repetition of these actions creates conscious group practices, which lead to a distinct package of social, economic and ritual behaviors that, collectively, can be referred to as an ideology. Once constructed, individual and group behaviors follow a number of courses based on the maintenance, perpetuation and modification of the ideology.

1.4.2 Material Evidence There is a reflexive relationship between practice, material culture and ideology. Practices shape and influence ideology and material objects, while ideology shapes and is apparent in the material residues of individuals and communities,

During times of socio-economic and political stability,

7

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

which are archaeologically recoverable (Barrett 1994, 1-5). Ideology and practices can be defined through an examination of: (a) architectural heritage, arts and crafts, oral and literary traditions and lifestyle; (b) knowledge and skills; and (c) beliefs and values (Mani 2002, 3). In order to discuss a palatial ideology, previous studies have particularly focused on these features (Bennet 2008, 151) (Table 2).

These categories are not directly associated with palatial or later ideology, but are ubiquitous aspects of material responses to the conditions presented that demonstrate a response specific to the time and place in which these physical objects and practices were created and used. Analysis of developments evident in the remains of from the built environment and mortuary contexts will be used to discuss ideological developments during this period, while an analysis of ceramic material and metal objects will demonstrate changes in socio-economic structures and organization. A summary of all categories of material evidence will then demonstrate the broader developments taking place during this transitional period and how ideological and socio-economic developments are linked.

The socio-economic practices of the palatial administration are as indicative of an ideology that supported the corporate group and its hierarchy as the material culture. The palaces functioned as redistributive centers where commodities from production areas outside the palace entered the economy through gift giving, trade, obligatory donations and taxes. The resources accumulated were then exchanged or disbursed as payments, raw materials for production or as offerings (Shelmerdine and Bennet 2008, 291).

1.5 Conclusions After the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial administration, the communities located at and in close proximity to these sites were presented with an opportunity to establish a set of practices that would promote stability and provide the basis for individual and group identification. This emerging ideology stood in contrast to the previous Mycenaean palatial ideology. Rather than emphasizing the corporate group and functioning to create and support an established hierarchy, the ideology of communities living during this period placed increasing emphasis on the individual and the domestic unit.

The palatial administration was most interested in the materials and finished products that could be traded in long distance contexts or could reinforce their status through their prestige value. It was the access to prestige goods and materials, both domestically produced and from the longdistance trade routes, that supported the claim to elevated status and leadership exercised by the palatial elite (Bennet 2007, 190-191; 206-207). Palatial interests were largely invested in the production and acquisition of goods that promoted the palace as the center of activity and the palatial elite as privileged members of the society.

“The archaeological record (or the way we read it) tends to be clearer on matters of corporate ideologies mapped in large patterns than a lived experience” (Langdon 2008, 33). However, ideologies are created beginning at the level of individual practice and entrenched through acceptance and repetition within the household and then the larger community. Therefore, while broader cultural patterns may be easier to identify, it is crucial to begin an analysis of ideology and socio-economic practices at the individual and household levels (Langdon 2008, 11-12).

In contrast, the palatial administration took only a selective interest in domestic economic activities and, while the palatial elite were consumers of goods produced by local independent craftsmen or workshops, they did not exercise strict control over the organization of production or the structuring of avenues of commerce that provided for the extra-palatial communities. Linear B evidence indicates that the palaces supplied man (or animal) power and land or raw materials to local producers with the expectation of finished products, harvested produce or livestock in return (Halstead 2007, 67).

In subsequent chapters I use evidence from the previously mentioned material categories to demonstrate that when confronted with the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial administration, communities maintained the socioeconomic and ritual practices and aspects of material culture that emphasized and supported the individual or domestic unit as opposed to the corporate group.

I have chosen to analyze material remains from the built environment, mortuary contexts, ceramic material and metal objects because these are categories of evidence that occur uninterrupted from the Late Bronze through Iron Age.

8

Chapter Two:

Historical Conceptions of the “Dark Age” Amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius and no less keen were their eyes, although they were surrounded by darkness and dense gloom Mommsen 1942, 227

2.1 Introduction

symbols, such as writing, figural art and monumental architecture, prehistorians have paid little attention to this period. In addition, as there was little sign of the development of the city-state structure early in this period and no literary records to supplement the scant material remains, Classical archaeologists and ancient historians have looked upon it as a poor distant cousin, slightly familiar but with little to recommend itself.

The concept of a Dark Age has a long and complicated history. This term, with its inherent implications of poverty and decline, has been applied to a number of chronological periods from varying geographical regions. This chapter unravels the intellectual and social history of the term Dark Age, its application in Aegean archaeology and the relationship between this label and post-collapse societies.

Disciplinary divides between not only archaeologists and historians, but also between prehistorians and classicists, have kept the Dark Age of Greece firmly within an academic no man’s land. However, recent changes in research objectives and theoretical frameworks along with the discovery of new material have facilitated the critical analysis of this period. Aside from searching for answers to the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial administration or the formation of the city-state, there are many questions that can be asked of this period and its material.

The term “Dark Age” is frequently used to describe transitional periods with supposed socio-economic or political instability and a scarce or poorly understood material record. The implications of this term not only create bias against periods labeled as such, but also assign superiority to the preceding and succeeding phases. However, if we remove the pejorative label and re-examine the concept of “collapse” and “post-collapse” societies, then a more balanced examination of such periods is possible (Tainter 1999, 888-889; McAnany and Yoffee 2010).

This chapter reviews the periodization of history, with particular emphasis on traditional cultural and chronological definitions of the Dark Age and how this period has been associated with the collapse of complex societies. In addition, an analysis of research objectives and the frameworks in which scholars operate demonstrates how conceptions about this period have been influenced and how more recent theoretical approaches can provide a fresh perspective, advancing the study of the Dark Age from material syntheses to archaeological narratives.

While the label “Dark Age” lingers in Greek prehistory, other areas of historical and archaeological scholarship have replaced it with neutral descriptors. Along with this development, the study of periods traditionally classified as “Dark Ages” have also undergone a slow transformation. Initially, these periods were seen as degenerate, impoverished and not worth studying: “Post-collapse societies are to many scholars an annoying interlude, their study a chore necessary to understand the renaissance that follows” (Tainter 1999, 988). This is particularly true of the Dark Age of Greece, which was created because prehistorians lost interest in the periods after the collapse of the palatial administration circa 1200 BC and historians began their examinations with the introduction of textual evidence circa 750 BC. However, there is now an interest in studying these periods of social transition in order to answer broader questions of social development such as, how, and indeed if, societies collapse, survive and continue.

2.2 The Periodization of History and the Creation of the Dark Age Time and its divisions are fundamental to the study of history, but these periods, which form the framework in which events and material are chronologically systematized, create their own problems (Shanks and Tilley 1992, 7). Stages and periods are constructed in order to organize archaeological evidence so that it can be interpreted. This interpretation then allows for the analysis of cultural and material changes over time. These periods can be based on the presence or absence of a particular feature or set of seemingly related features (Rowe 1962, 40-41): “To our post-Renaissance, and especially Victorian and 20th century

The Greek Dark Age is chronologically defined as approximately 1100 through 800 BC and is culturally bracketed by the Late Bronze Age and the Geometric period. Since it lacked the perceived social complexity of the Bronze Age palatial centers and their intrinsic material

9

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

eyes, the past has little meaning unless neatly ordered into a linear sequence...” (Manning 1998, 311).

as Submycenaean, Protogeometric (Early, Middle, and Late) and even groups I-IV, which are based on material excavated from major sites (Lemos 2002, 7).

The division of history into sequential linear periods is best expressed as the practice of periodization. Periodization can be defined as the division of time at specific points and the characterization and linkage of those units based on common threads, which allows for the expression of differences between phases (Morris 1997, 96). It is effective and convenient to employ these distinctions in the organization and categorization of prehistory and its material remains, but there are pitfalls that scholars must recognize.

The problem with using these different labels to define subsets of time during the same period is that there is little in the way of stratified material to confirm these divisions and many of these distinctions have been based solely on the ceramic material from one or two sites. The subdivision of time also presents an over-refined chronological scheme based on ceramic development, which further complicates the discussion of this period. However, with established chronological periods and subdivisions, like Iron Age, Early, Middle and Late Protogeometric and Geometric, it is curious that period from approximately 1200 BC through 900 BC is subject to such a broad and negative term. The question of why the term Dark Age has remained in use, particularly in light of the available evidence, must then be asked.

The labels that scholars have applied to periods of history carry with them certain connotations. For example, the connotations of the terms “Classic” and “Classical” are positive and, conversely, the connotations surrounding the Dark Age can be nothing other than negative (Nelson 2007, 192). Due consideration should be given to how the past can be observed objectively, how much of the past is available for observation and, fundamentally, why critical questioning of how archaeologists approach the material and culture is necessary (Shanks and Tilley 1992, 8). In order to objectively and conscientiously engage with the past, these divisions, whether based on absolute or relative chronology or changes in material culture, must not be considered as disconnected periods of history and the language employed to define them should be absent of interpretational bias. There must also be a critical awareness of the role of the researcher and the cultural or historical biases that have affected scholarly attempts to understand the past (Redman 1999, 48).

2.3 Classics, Modern Greek History and the Greek Dark Age The importance of Classical Greece to modern Europe, an educational framework based on Classical Studies and the importance placed on access to the ancient world via material and textual evidence has had a profound impact on scholarly research, which has, in turn, influenced and been influenced by social and political developments. In this section I discuss the complex relationship between Greece and the rest of Europe and how this relationship affected and is affected by academic engagement with the material culture and history of Greece.

With Thomsen’s formal proposal of the Three Age System, the divisions of a Stone, Bronze and Iron Age gained widespread acceptance in prehistoric archaeology, particularly in regions that had not been dominated by powerful historical traditions, such as the legacy of 5th century Athens or the legacy of the Roman Empire (Gräslund 1981, 45; Heizer 1962, 259). This model highlights both the technical developments and the order in which they occurred in Europe (Gräslund 1981, 49). The practical consequences of this system cannot be overlooked. The Three Age System was a chronology with an explanation that could be understood by everyone, it was technical without being overly-complex and allowed for the organization of material in museums, providing clarity and additional context for non-specialist viewers (Schnapp and Kristiansen 1999, 32).

The relationship between Classical Greece, its archaeology and European identity is long and complicated to say the least (Athanassopoulou 2002, 279). During the Ottoman Empire, many Greek speakers found themselves resident in other parts of the Ottoman Empire and the European states. This population had grown in both wealth and prominence and was a voice for independence from Ottoman rule. In gathering support for Greek independence and the intervention of western European countries, the glories of fifth century BC democratic Athens and Classical Greek achievements were brought to the fore. Subsequently, the struggle for independence was recast as a struggle between the birthplace of the enlightened West and a barbarian “other” (Gallant 2003, 21). However, the romanticized view of Greece held by those typically outside Ottoman Empire who professed a love of Classical Greek culture and ideals (the Philhellenes) did not fit with the current state of the country. This contributed to tension between visions of Greece’s glorious Classical past and the reality of the Ottoman and, eventually, postOttoman present. Western Philhellenic visitors did not see the idealized Classical Athenian in the modern population (Gallant 2003, 20-24). These Philhellenes saw themselves as the protectors and advocates of Classical ideals, keepers

In the field of Aegean archaeology, time has further been divided into tripartite phases (Early, Middle and Late, I, II, III or A, B, C for example). In many cases, these divisions are straightforward. The Greek Dark Age and the period leading up to it (1200 – 900 BC), however, are plagued by several significant chronological and terminological issues (Manning 1998, 315; Whitley 2001, 61) (Table 3). Within this period there exist a number of different phases, such

10

Historical Conceptions of the “Dark Age”

Table 3 Chronological chart of the traditional divisions of Greek prehistory.

of true Greek tradition, which stemmed particularly from the fifth century BC and was entirely removed from earlier cultures.

the origin of Europe and that access to this world could only be gained through the original Greek texts. Following the educational reforms of Humboldt in the 1880s, the study of ancient Greece became a foundation course in schools and many universities and from there permeated state institutions (Guthenke 2008, 93-94). Subsequently, “[o] ver the course of a century and more, German philhellenism moved from left, to liberal, to right, and from the fetish of young outsiders to the credo of aged academicians” (Marchand 2003, 6).

The establishment and propagation of an idealized Greece through both German academia and its emulation by other institutions and travel to Greece by wealthy Westerners were important to the notion that European identity originated with Classical Greece (Morris 1994, 18-20). The idea that Greece was a powerless nation dependent on its glorious past for influence and respect appealed to the Bildungsbürger, or educated middle class. This was a new breed of young man who believed that change could be wrought through intellect and hard work, and also fitted well with Greece as model for Romanticism (Marchand 2003, 5-6).

American and French academic institutions emulated this model (Shanks 1996, 68). Travel to Greece was also seen as a way to be inspired and enlightened by the classical past. “From the middle of the eighteenth century, the Grand Tour (first to Italy, and soon to Greece and Turkey) became a mode of social distinction and cultural exploration”, those privileged enough to have the leisure time to study the legacy of Greece and Rome set themselves apart from others

German scholarship propagated the notion that an idealized Greece, best exemplified by fifth century BC Athens, was

11

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

and claimed the past as theirs by undertaking these trips (Schnapp and Kristiansen 1999, 22). The claim to Hellenic cultural history and ideals by the West was further solidified and complicated by these pseudo-academic holidays and Western aid in the Greek War for Independence (1821-30).

that despite the great achievements of the Roman Empire, its inhabitants labored in darkness because the light of Christ (a popular and common metaphor) had yet to enter the world (Mommsen 1942). Petrarch separated history into that which was glorious and classical and that which was culturally and artistically lacking. He used the period before Christianity became the official state religion or when Rome began to decline under non-Roman emperors as the points of division (Mommsen 1942, 237). Subsequently, the humanists of the fifteenth century AD claimed this concept of Dark Ages and Middle Ages. However, they believed that they were the light and supported the rebirth of Classical culture (Mommsen 1942, 122; Nelson 2007, 193). This concept of the glorious and classical was, as I have discussed in the previous section, used to reinforce distinctions between periods of Greek history.

Prior to 1870 there was no concept of a Dark Age. Previous conceptions concerning this period can be summarized by the title of a section from Grote’s A History of Greece (1846) “Intervening blank between legend and history”. Grote stated: “According to the received chronology, [the legendary periods of Greek prehistory] are succeeded by a period, supposed to comprise three centuries, which is almost an entire blank, before we reach authentic chronology and the first recorded Olympiad- and they thus form the concluding events of the mythical world, out of which we now pass into historical Greece…” (Grote 1846, 43). For Grote, then, there was no history before 776 BC. The distinction between the Greece of epic poetry as told by Homer, which was heroic and fictional and post-776 BC history would be changed by two important events: Schliemann’s remarkable discoveries at Troy and Mycenae and the synchronization at approximately 1200 BC of the Egyptian 19th Dynasty with the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial centers by Flinders Petrie (Morris 1997, 97; 2000, 77).

Petrarch had described the centuries after the fall of Rome as a time of darkness, but the term Dark Ages has come to mean different things and has been used to describe different periods. The term often refers to a period in which literacy and writing declined practically to the point of disappearing (Tainter 1999, 1025). In the case of Greece, classical philologists and historians employed the term Dark Age due to the lack of written records. However, neither the lack of written records nor the term “Dark Age” accurately describes the socio-economic or cultural developments and conditions of this period.

Later developments, such as the decipherment of Linear B and the accretion of post-Mycenaean archaeological material, altered the relationship between the Mycenaean and post-Mycenaean and the Classical and Prehistoric periods. Historians and archaeologists now allocated more attention to the Dark Ages (Morris 1997, 115) and both these new discoveries and the subsequent shift in research caused a change in the interpretation of the lines that had been drawn through history at 1200 and 700 BC respectively. However, “[t]he notion of profound discontinuities around 1200 and 700 BCE has survived more or less intact from the 1890s to the 1990s…” (Morris 1997, 97-98).

This then begs the question, how can something that had been incredibly exclusive, such as the ability to read and write, function as the definitive characteristic of an entire historical period? In fact, most of the definitions of this period are based on the lack of what scholars perceived to be the hallmarks of civilization, such as writing, monumental architecture and complex infrastructure (Laing and Laing 1979, 13). Therefore, for many historians the concept of a Dark Age conjures images of squalor, poverty and strife. 2.5 The Process of Collapse

In this section I have outlined the relationship between Greek history and prehistory and various academic disciplines. This has illustrated how a focus on a glorious past, either the Mycenaean Bronze Age or Classical Greece (particularly fifth century BC Athens), has created a Greek “Dark Age”. In the subsequent section, I evaluate the term “Dark Age” in relation to the archaeological evidence and examine the association between this term and post-collapse societies.

When scholars discuss Dark Age societies, they are actually discussing post-collapse societies. Therefore, it is important to understand how the process of collapse occurs. Tainter (1988, 5) describes collapse as “a recurrent feature of human societies”, but what exactly is affected by collapse and how? Tainter (1999, 989-990) also confines collapse to socio-political institutions, with visible symptoms occurring in material culture, stating that: “Civilizations do not collapse; specific political structures do”. This clarifies what is affected, but not collapse itself.

2.4 The Term Dark Age The term Dark Age and the periodization of time into discrete units have a long history that still affects modern scholarship. Petrarch, writing in the 1330s, believed that after the fall of Rome and until Europe could recover Rome’s greatness there were centuries of darkness, which characterized the age in which he lived. He also believed

Collapse is certainly not a single event, but a process of the breakdown of interconnected systems. Generally, this breakdown occurs when the dominant social or political group can no longer collect, organize and distribute resources to the supporting population (Yoffee 2003, 13).

12

Historical Conceptions of the “Dark Age”

The inability of the dominant group to provide for the population is obviously a symptom of greater economic troubles, which would have also impacted the amount of material wealth that the elite could have accumulated, which affected their ability to stage displays of wealth and power. Both the inability to function for the benefit of the greater community and the decline in material wealth and status symbols would affect the ability of the ruling elite to maintain control. This would create an opportunity to call into question their authority, which would, in turn, contribute to creating a sense of instability. Numerous events have been cited as the cause for the collapse of different civilizations. It must be stressed that societies do not collapse because of one factor. Often, both disadvantageous environmental and socio-political events must occur in combination to cause such a drastic failure of socio-economic, political and cultural institutions. For example, climate change, which affects crop yields, creates the need to make short-term decisions in order to fix the problems of the moment. This trigger combined with the maintenance of the wealth and status of the elite seems to have played a part in the collapse of different complex societies (Rice 2003, 218).

this theoretical background collapse naturally seems like a catastrophe, the least desirable outcome of social evolution. However, collapse and its outcome warrant a re-examination absent of previous assumptions. Complex, hierarchical and highly centralized states have only emerged within approximately the last 5,000 years of human existence and, therefore, are historically and statistically rare. Small, selfsufficient communities have been the more common sociopolitical unit. Therefore, collapse is not a degenerative event, but a return to the more common condition of simple social and political structures that lack the strain of supporting complex hierarchies (Tainter 1999, 991). When collapse is not viewed as the worst possible fate to befall society, Dark Ages can be seen as periods characterized by small social groups supporting themselves and not as stagnant, bleak periods fraught with extreme poverty and danger. The notion that collapse and its outcomes are not as negative as previously assumed is reinforced by considering the process of collapse as a recurrent feature in social development and not as the end-point of society (Tainter 1988, 5; Yoffee 2003, 2). We should keep in mind that it is structures and institutions that collapse and not people. Considered in this way, collapse seems less of a traumatic break with the previous social order. There was depopulation and instability, but communities remained after the event, supported themselves in smaller settlements and then redefined themselves while creating new ideologies and practices.

Collapse causes socio-economic and cultural insecurity, which is frequently accompanied by depopulation and a simplification of previous hierarchical structures. While the previous social and political complexity was necessary to support increasing populations, it was so costly, in terms of maintenance, to non-industrial societies that it could only effectively operate for a limited period. In addition, with collapse and the subsequent simplification of political structures, the highest-ranking political office was often entirely lost and the demand for high status items dramatically decreased. Thus, what continued in the wake of collapse were socio-economic practices and basic structures that could have been easily supported by the remaining communities (Tainter 1999, 1021-1024).

2.7 Traditional Definitions of the Greek Dark Age It is important to recognize how the Greek Dark Age has traditionally been defined, both chronologically and culturally, how this period has been shaped by modern academic traditions and how these views are changing in light of more recent publications, excavations and survey projects.

2.6 Collapse and the Dark Age Having briefly discussed the process of collapse and its aftermath, it is obvious why scholars refer to the period in which post-collapse societies existed as Dark Ages. Widespread depopulation, abandonment of settlements and an impoverished material record are features of Dark Ages and there is a negative contrast between that which collapsed and what followed. By analyzing fundamental assumptions about social evolution, the reasons behind the bias against these periods become apparent.

The definition of periods based on traits they do not possess and the importance of written records to historians and classical archaeologists have created the concept of a Dark Age in Greece just as much as the scarcity of the archaeological record. The Mycenaean palatial centers had collapsed, taking with them the physical signs of social complexity and advanced technologies, such as writing and monumental architecture. With the disappearance of these institutions and distinctive material remains, the archaeological record becomes scarce and difficult to interpret. In consequence, this period has long suffered from a lack of sustained scholarly engagement.

Social complexity has long been seen as the culmination of a set of processes undertaken in order to achieve the optimal conditions in which groups can operate and ensure their continuation (Tainter 1988, 3). Thus, the collapse of societies is seen as going against both 19th century AD ideas of unilineal social evolution and the modern assumption that “…great complexity (that is, civilization) is a desirable condition of human affairs” (Tainter 1999, 989). Against

Social, cultural and material developments have long been perceived as factors to be explained by archaeology and much attention has focused on state formation and complex civilization. These are aspects which have been perceived as being absent from the Greek Dark Age and,

13

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Murray’s Early Greece (1980): “The result of the collapse of Mycenaean culture was a dark age, lasting for some three hundred years. Discontinuity with the past was virtually complete…” (10). However, Finley (1981, 6970) believed that because Mycenaean civilization was not totally destroyed continuities existed between the fall of the Mycenaean palatial centers and subsequent historical periods. He viewed this period as a step forward with new developments, particularly in metalworking and in the socio-political arena.

therefore, academic interest only returns with the formative processes that occurred just prior to the Archaic period, the re-emergence of representational art and formation of the polis (Shanks and Tilley 1992, 53). Explaining events prior and subsequent to the Dark Age has often been cited as the reason for its study. Comprehensive and critical analyses of this period are crucial to the understanding of how the previous palatial system failed, why it was never restored and how the polis eventually came to take its place (Whitley 2000, 388-389). However, this period should also be examined in order to answer more basic questions, such as how communities structured and ordered themselves in order to ensure their continued existence and how these communities defined themselves culturally. In moving beyond the fascination with the preceding and succeeding periods, perhaps scholarship can address these broader concepts as well.

The 8th century BC is generally considered the end of the “Dark Age”. Since the publication in 1937 of Ehrenberg’s When Did the Polis Rise? the transition to the institution of the polis has been dated to the eighth century when writing, monumental architecture and wealthy burials reappear (Morris 2003, 274; Ehrenberg 1937, 156). Just as Snodgrass (1971) had made 1100 BC a distinct break, so too had he and Murray (1980) distinguished the eighth century as another chronological and cultural turning point. Particularly Snodgrass’s “…interpretation of the period as a “structural revolution” (1980: 15-84) has shaped all subsequent scholarship” (Morris 2005, 2). Referred to as the “Greek Renaissance”, 1 the descriptions and conceptions of the eighth century are diametrically opposed to those characterizing 1100 BC and later. In addition to the previously mentioned signs of revitalization, others, such as an increase in population, a renewal of long-distance trade, economic development and the emergence of the city-state, were apparent at approximately 750 BC (Morris 2000, 7879). The works of Homer and Hesiod also supplemented the material record and another distinctive and relatively homogenous pottery style emerged, defining a whole period. The increase in the quantity of material remains and the availability of literary evidence made this period more accessible than the previous.

1100 BC has frequently been cited as the beginning of the Dark Age (Desborough 1972, 11; Snodgrass 1989, 23; Whitley 1991, 8). It was at this time that the aforementioned defining characteristics of Mycenaean palatial culture were thought to have disappeared from the material record. On this point, two seminal works, Snodgrass’ The Dark Age of Greece (1971) and Desborough’s The Greek Dark Ages (1972), agreed. For these two scholars, it was at this stage that the Aegean deviated from the rest of the Mediterranean and strayed into darkness. A lasting consequence of these works is that a sharp and distinct break was created. That which was defined as Mycenaean was not only separated from the subsequent and perceived lesser material culture, but prehistory was more completely divided from what is considered properly classical as well. This placed the Iron Age in limbo, certainly not the Bronze Age, but also not historical in the sense that there were written records or that there were known chronological dates for particular events (Desborough 1972, 29; Morris 2000, 96; Morris 1994, 15).

However, it is the connection with later Classical Greece that initially attracted scholarly attention to the intervening stage between Greek prehistory and history. The material and cultural links between this period and the Classical period are unbroken and more substantial, lending an extra sense of importance to the eighth century BC. European culture or “Europeanness” found its origin in an idealized Classical Greece (Morris 1994, 20) and this in turn had developed from the Archaic period and not from the cultural regression that characterized the previous age: “… the Iron Age, while so clearly set off from what had preceded it, cannot be regarded simply as the beginning of the new era of historical Greek civilization either: it is too sharply divided from the Archaic period that followed it” (Snodgrass 1987, 171-172). However, there has always been the suggestion that a Mycenaean legacy existed even in the earliest periods of historical Greece (Tsountas and Manatt 1969, 324-325).

Despite reinforcing these divisions, their approach, particularly that of Desborough, was unique in that his synthesis bridged a gap that is hinted at when a reviewer of The Greek Dark Ages considered it a “…most interesting idea to treat these centuries [SubMycenaean, Protogeometric, and Geometric] as a unity” (Symeonoglou 1975, 147). However, Coldstream’s subsequent Geometric Greece (1977) further perpetuated the absolute distinction between periods and the pejorative models of the Dark Age. Despite being primarily concerned with the succeeding period, he employed the metaphor of darkness and dawn to draw comparisons between the heroic Mycenaean period, a subsequent period of “…poverty, isolation, and illiteracy, when representational art was virtually unknown” (17) and, finally, the Geometric period. While continuing to characterize the conditions of this period as degenerate, Coldstream also emphasized the importance of the Geometric period as the beginning of later developments. Subsequently, this idea of a hermetic division between Mycenaean and Archaic is typified by

For the general use of this term and view of this period see Hägg (ed.) 1983, where the Greek Renaissance comprises the title of the conference proceedings. 1

14

Historical Conceptions of the “Dark Age”

Recently scholars have been more receptive to the idea of transitional stages and more subtle growth or decline as opposed to the dramatic breaks that characterized either boundary of the Dark Age, even going so far as to question whether the events at approximately 1200 BC and the beginning of the eighth century BC actually define the Iron Age as a distinct period (Morris 2000, 78). Foxhall (1995, 248) even argues for the existence of complex political organizations with a hierarchical structure during this time. With a retrospective analysis of previous work and a view to progress, Snodgrass (1987, 188) concluded that much of the previous research, including his own work, overemphasized the negative aspects of this period.

from the palatial Mycenaean to the Archaic period based on the archaeological history of specific sites. Six distinctive sites, which the authors feel were representative of the different stages in the Dark Age, were used to analyze the changes and developments leading up to the rise of the citystate. The aim of the publication - “…to validate the claims of the Greek Dark Age in the eyes of a broad readership interested in the processes of change, particularly in antiquity” (Thomas and Conant 1999, xi) - demonstrates the change in attitude towards this period among scholars. While a new approach to the study of the Iron Age is certainly needed, it is unfortunate the authors do not include survey data and present an out-dated and simple model of social evolution: after the collapse of the palatial administration, unsophisticated societal groups followed and from these more complex societies eventually developed (Cherry 2002, 1617). Citadel to City-State presents the material evidence, but neglects to advance the study of this transitional period beyond an overview of specific sites.

This reconsideration is more obvious in the foreword to the second edition of The Dark Age of Greece (2000). While no new information is presented in the core text and Snodgrass still maintains the assessment of the material record as poor, it is significant to note that he regrets the use of the term Dark Age in the title. He also recognizes both negative connotations of the label and the fact that the term Iron Age would have emphasized both the aim of the publication and the technological and material changes that took place during this period (Snodgrass 2000, xxiv). However, the previous research and its legacy still maintain an influence over current work. Whitley’s Style and Society in Dark Age Greece (1991, 8) maintains that: “[t]he main interest in the Dark Age (1100-700 BC) is not that it followed the Mycenaean but that it preceded Archaic and Classical Greece. The immediately post-Mycenaean period, though important, is of lesser significance…”. Nevertheless, he too eventually emphasizes the importance of understanding this period in its entirety (Whitley 2001, 77).

Presenting a detailed picture of life during the Iron Age based on all the available material evidence and a new theoretical approach is the most important contribution of Archaeology as Culture History (2000). Morris advocates a novel view of the Dark Age, with respect to both scholarly development and the material record. He does not believe that archaeology, particularly Classical Archaeology, and cultural history are mutually exclusive disciplines, but sees great similarities between the questions practitioners in these fields are seeking to answer. Morris applies developments in the study of material culture to Iron Age Greece in attempting to work through many of the difficulties that this period presents. In the section “Inventing the Iron Age”, the author discusses the developments in Dark Age scholarship providing a thorough disciplinary history to keep in mind when evaluating much of the research.

New material uncovered during excavations and survey projects has also contributed to a better understanding of this period. Beginning in the 1980s archaeological surface survey became an increasingly important aspect of research in the Aegean. As well as identifying undiscovered sites and placing known sites in a broader context, regional survey has also shed light on peripheral areas that have received little attention (Cherry 1994, 92, 99). Despite the difficulties in recovering and identifying material dating to the Iron Age, these survey projects have greatly increased understanding of settlement in different regions in the Aegean.

Unlike other treatments of this period, Morris sees an inherent value in studying the Iron Age for its own sake. He argues, “…one of the things which makes Iron Age Greece interesting is the creation there of social systems which restricted the power of wealth and delivered unheard-of freedoms to ordinary male citizens, while simultaneously buttressing gender, ethnic, and cosmological boundaries” (Morris 2000, 309-310).

With the publication of excavations at sites like Lefkandi and Nichoria, the influx of survey data and the publication of Archaeology as Culture History (Morris 2000), which supports new approaches to the study of the material remains of the Iron Age, there has been a movement away from presenting a brief and generalized overview based on limited material to the construction of a more articulated narrative history of this period (Haggis 2001, 131).

Another review that includes this period, Whitley’s The Archaeology of Ancient Greece (2001), demonstrates how the material remains from the period 1000-300 BC can be studied in order to answer a range of historical questions, but with more of a focus on the Archaic and Classical periods. Much of the early discussion in this book covers the same topics and developments as Archaeology as Cultural History. While the focus of Archaeology as Cultural History is the Iron Age, this period forms only a small section of The Archaeology of Greece. Whitley concludes his discussion with the eighth century BC “…when the cumulative effect

This approach was previously attempted by Thomas and Conant’s publication, Citadel to City-State (1999), in which they endeavored to reconstruct a narrative of the transition

15

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

of various long-term processes of transformation began to be felt” (Whitley 2001, 101). This is where Whitley also breaks with previous scholarship. He believes that the traditional indices of the eighth - century renaissance, such as population increase, increased long-distance trade, the appearance of sanctuary sites and votive offerings, new artistic styles, the reintroduction of writing and the rise of the polis, all had their roots prior to the eighth century (Whitley 2001, 98-101).

record and the discipline of archaeology. This is a vein in which the academic practice of archaeology in Greece should continue. If we are ever going to answer the broader questions of cultural development then we must consider the archaeological material as telling a connected, but not necessarily linear, narrative. The material record of the Iron Age is sparse, particularly when it comes to settlement evidence, but this should not deter scholarly interest. Rather, it should challenge and excite, the way it did in the study of the collapse of the Southern Lowland Maya. “The Dark Ages, by their very nature, exercise a fascination and present a challenge. What really was happening? How far, by the use of all the available evidence, ….can we recover the course of events or even in a small degree understand the atmosphere of the age?” (Desborough 1972, 12). With developments in the field of archaeology, such as intensive and extensive survey, more thorough and standardized recording procedures and changes in theoretical and methodological frameworks, there is now a substantial body of evidence at our disposal for constructing cultural and historical narratives, to really engage with the material in order to begin to answer some of the most pressing questions in Aegean archaeology.

In this section I have focused on how archaeologists have approach the analysis of this period. It is clear that the majority of scholarship has approached this period either from the perspective of the end of the Late Bronze Age or a foreword to the rise of the polis. However, recent work, particularly by Morris (2000), has begun to shift the focus and examine the material culture of this period on its own, rather than in contrast to proceeding and succeeding phases. What remains, then, is to integrate the Greek “Dark Age” into discussions of other post-collapse societies in order to arrive at a more holistic understanding of the phenomena of societal collapse. 2.8 Conclusions

A critical point for the re-evaluation of this material and its presentation is neutrality. As has been suggested, the term Dark Age should be phased out and replaced with Iron Age. The term Dark Age is not commonly used to define cultures further to the East, which, during the same time, experienced similar events to those occurring in Greece and the appropriateness of this term for the Aegean was questioned by some scholars as early as 1971 (Snodgrass 1971, 1). As has been demonstrated, other post-collapse periods that were also assigned this label have been subsequently re-evaluated and given new definitions, which better described a chronological position or particular event.

The necessary division of history, and likewise the archaeological record, into manageable and understandable units has created separate and distinct periods that now seem almost disconnected from one another. This is particularly true of the periods in which post-collapse societies existed. These periods were frequently labeled as a “Dark Age” and have been separated from what came before and what follows, but time does not flow this way, nor is this the way in which civilizations develop. With this practical division came the separation of scholarship into different specialist areas as well. Much may be learned through both the analysis of the archaeological record with a larger historical background in mind and dialogue between specialists in different chronological areas and geographic regions. In the case of the Iron Age, scholarly divides have contributed to the misunderstanding of this period just as much as the scarcity of material remains.

Archaeologists and historians must also reconsider the ways in which the process of collapse is addressed. Indeed, catastrophic events, such as natural disasters or economic upheavals, often trigger this process. However, it should not be considered the worst possible outcome of social development. Socio-political and economic structures collapse, but people continue to survive, re-organize their communities and continue the day-to-day process of living. Therefore, the process of collapse can be viewed as a return to simpler socio-political structures. Subsequently, when collapse is considered in this way, post-collapse societies, which have become associated with Dark Ages, seem less bleak. It is in these periods that some of the most important historical developments have begun and more recent historical and archaeological scholarship has recognized this.

Renfrew’s “Great Divide” is still apparent in the schism between Classical Archaeology and Prehistory, which he felt had been partially bridged by Mycenaean studies (1980, 292). However, I believe that the division has only been transferred to divide cultures with characteristics denoting high civilization and simpler cultures, which seemingly lack complex social structures. Much has been done to redress this issue, including the re-evaluation of previous research and the discovery of new material and, in many cases in other periods, archaic labels and preconceptions have given way to objective terms and thorough re-assessments.

With this background in mind, as well as the scholarly developments pertaining to this particular period of Greek history, the term Iron Age certainly seems a more representative label for this period, which, because of a

Works like Archaeology as Cultural History and The Archaeology of Ancient Greece have made strides in rethinking the various issues, which exist in both the material

16

Historical Conceptions of the “Dark Age”

reconsideration of previous research and new material, appears to have been less culturally backward and materially and technologically impoverished. Detailed analysis of specific material features and cultural practices in the

regions of the Argolid and Methana Peninsula demonstrate that communities continued in the wake of the collapse of the palatial administration and created an ideology and socio-economic practices that best served their needs.

17

Chapter Three: The Built Environment

3.1 Introduction

3.1.2 Architecture and Ideology: Before “The Collapse”

In the previous chapters I have outlined my aims and methodology, paying particular attention to the types of material evidence available for analysis. In this chapter I examine the evidence from the built environment, which includes buildings, rooms and their contents, public works and evidence from surface survey projects.

“Architecture not only reflects social and political structures but it also actively participates in maintaining them…” and is another aspect of material culture that can be used to display wealth, power and status (Schoep 2004, 260-261 original emphasis). The connection between ideology and architecture begins with the construction process. Throughout this process choices are made as to what message to convey and how to achieve the advertisement, acceptance and perpetuation of the message (Maran 2006a, 10-11).

The goals of my analysis of the built environment are: first, to show the locations of sites in use throughout the Late Bronze through Iron Age; second, where possible, to discuss what types of activities were taking place at them; and third, to use evidence from the built environment to suggest the organization and structure of Iron Age communities. While many sites remained in the same location prior to, during and after the collapse of the palatial administration, as evidenced by continuity in the use and location of mortuary contexts, this event triggered the need for socio-economic re-organization and the creation or modification of the built environment to suit those new structures and practices.

With specific reference to the Mycenaean palatial centers and surrounding monuments, the conscious choice to employ particular materials and styles on a monumental scale advertised the Mycenaean palatial ideology throughout the landscape of the Argolid. The construction of all or part of the Mycenaean palatial centers, tholoi and bridges in recognizable monumental ashlar and pseudoashlar conglomerate blocks demonstrated the wealth of the palatial group, their access to resources and technical skill and dominion over the landscape and residents. The perpetuation of this technique and material in bridges, terrace walls and tholos tombs located throughout the landscape advertised the palatial ideology at a distance from the palatial centers (Wright 1987, 174; 177-181).

Analysis of the Late Bronze through Iron Age built environment is important because it balances a picture that has been based, to date, mainly on mortuary studies. However, and more importantly, the built environment was created through a series of deliberate decisions and so through careful reading and interpretation of this evidence it is possible to discuss the ideology and practices that underpinned the decision-making process (Sanders 1990, 45-46). The built environment had a reciprocal relationship with the ideology and economic practices of a particular community in that they influenced and were influenced by each other.

The socio-economic organizing principles, as well as the ideology, are clearly represented in the architectural plans and spatial organization of the palatial centers, particularly the megaron (Kilian 1988b). Architectural features, such as the monumentality of the fortification walls and entranceways, the location of the megaron in a highly visible area and the increasingly restricted access to this area, reinforced the socio-economic and political position of the wanax and ruling elite (Cavanagh 2001, 121). The monumentality of the palatial centers in the Argolid was not only an advertisement of the power of the ruler in commanding wealth, labor and natural resources, but was also an ideological “…cloak that the ruling elite wrap around themselves, and in which they symbolically envelop their retinue, clients and commoners” (Wright 2006, 37). The general arrangement of the megaron with its large central room, great hearth, throne and four columns focused attention on the wanax and the administrative organization

Before I present the data, I briefly discuss how the built environment was manipulated in order to advertise a Mycenaean palatial ideology. As this topic has been addressed in detail before, this discussion is simply intended to provide a background to the subsequent analysis of the Late Bronze through Iron Age built environment with reference to why communities chose to remain in certain areas and how they may have structured themselves and their built environment in relation to the highly visible monumental architecture of the preceding period (see Loader 1998; Wright 1987 and Kilian 1988b on Mycenaean architecture and ideology).

18

The Built Environment

of the economy, religion and political control (Kilian 1988b, 291-293).

discuss the built structures and their contents are at each site chronologically.

As a physical reminder of the dominant socio-economic and ideological form of organization, architecture is a powerful medium (Sanders 1990, 45-46). However, “[m] eanings change, and the interpretation of monuments often escapes the intentions of those who build them” and the collapse of the palatial administration would have changed interpretations of and responses to the palatial remains (Bradley 2002, 83; 112-113). Therefore, while the same kin groups inhabited the areas in and around the remains of the palatial centers, as demonstrated by an analysis of the use of chamber tombs, how these communities viewed and interpreted the built environment would have changed substantially in the wake of the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial administration.

3.3 Data A number of Late Bronze through Iron Age sites were identified by Mee and Forbes (1997) during survey work on the Methana Peninsula (Figure 3; Table 4). In Table 4, the category “use dates” provides the chronological periods of habitation as identified by Mee and Forbes 1997. The category “ceramic dates” has been included in an attempt to provide the more specific use dates relevant to this study. The “ceramic dates” are based on the ceramic material identified during surface survey, also based on Mee and Forbes (1997). The only site from this list that appears to have been completely abandoned at the end of the Late Bronze Age was Haghios Konstantinos, MS 13. This site has been identified as a Mycenaean settlement and sanctuary (Mee and Forbes 1997, 128; Hamilakis and Konsolaki 2004, 136) (Figure 4).

Following my discussion of the data, which illustrates the locations of sites and discusses the relevant rooms and buildings, as well as their contents, I focus on how the meaning of the Mycenaean palatial centers changed after the dissolution of palatial administration and how communities responded to this event.

Mycenaean religion was used in combination with access to land and resources, prestige goods and military strength to legitimize political power (Whittaker 2001, 355; Albers 2001, 132-133). Therefore, the abandonment of this ritual site at the beginning of the Late Helladic IIIC period strongly suggests that the palatial ideology was failing even outside the core region. That this site was not re-occupied until the Classical period also indicates that there was very little to be gained from an association with Mycenaean religion or power on Methana.

3.2 Methodology In this chapter I present three main types of evidence: built structures; contents or furnishings; and evidence from surface survey projects. Built structures include rooms, houses and public works, such as the Tiryns dam. However, while the presence of individual walls or terraces indicates construction activity, I have chosen to limit this discussion to excavated rooms or buildings. I have done this in order to focus on excavated and published structures that can contribute to an understanding of the nature of the Late Bronze through Iron Age built environment. Contents or furnishings include the ceramic material, if any, found within built structures, as well as altars, benches and hearths.

As illustrated by Table 4, five of the identified sites (Palaiokastro, Oga, Haghios Georgios, Nissaki and Vromolimni) appear to have been occupied throughout the Late Bronze through Iron Age transition based on the evidence of ceramic material dating to these periods. Instead of experiencing a decrease in settlement size during this period, Palaiokastro and Oga, which have evidence of Mycenaean occupation, actually appear to have increased in size (Mee and Forbes 1997, 122-123; 126-127; 146-148; Foxhall 1995, 246).

I have included the contents or furnishings of rooms and buildings in order to suggest the function of these built structures and, therefore, the types of activities that were taking place within and around them. In the case of ceramic material, this also helps to establish the chronology of the built structures.

In addition, four sites, Haghios Nikolaos, Magoula, Kypseli and Stravolongos, appear to have been established during the Iron Age. Based on the quality and type of pottery and the size of the site, Haghios Nikolaos has been identified as a possible cemetery, perhaps connected with Magoula. Magoula and Kypesli have been identified as possible settlements and, while Stravolongos has been dated to the Roman – Late Roman periods, the presence of limited Iron Age ceramic material requires an explanation because it is unlikely that these sherds originated at another site due to this site’s location and the surrounding landscape (Mee and Forbes 1997, 143-144; 158).

The inclusion of surface survey data in a chapter on the built environment may seem out of place, but this information demonstrates the presence of sites in areas that have not been the focus of excavation, such as the Methana Peninsula and locations in the Argolid not connected with a palatial center. The following discussion of the data begins with the presentation of the locations of habitation activity, which includes sites discovered through surface survey. Then, I

A number of Late Bronze through Iron Age sites have been

19

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 3 A map of the Methana Peninsula showing LBA - IA sites and their functions.

Table 4 The use dates and sizes of the Late Bronze Age through Iron Age sites on the Methana Peninsula. The asterisk next to Stravolongos indicates that site size could not be determined (Mee and Forbes 1997, 158). Survey Code

Use Dates

Ceramic Dates

Site Size in ha

LH Size in ha

IA Size in ha

MS 13

EH/ LH/ A - Med.

LH IIIB –C

0.64 ha

---

---

MS 10

N–T

PG; EG

---

1.10 ha

2.30 ha

Oga

MS 67

EH - Med.

PG; EG

---

1.12 ha

2.10 ha

Haghios Georgios

MS 124

EH - IA/ C - Med.

IA

1.50 ha

---

---

Haghios Nikolaos

MS 11

IA – C

IA

0.01 ha

---

---

Magoula

MS 60

IA – HE

PG; EG

1.80 ha

---

---

Nissaki

MS 103

EH - IA/ C – HE

IA

0.48 ha

---

---

Kypseli

MS 68

IA – A

IA

0.03 ha

---

---

Stravolongos

MS 116

R – LR

IA

N/A*

---

---

Vromolimni

MS 106

LH - IA/ C – HE

LH IIIB- C; IA

0.07 ha

---

---

Site Haghios Konstantinos Palaiokastro

20

The Built Environment

Figure 4 Plan of Haghios Konstantinos with main sanctuary rooms, A, B and C (After Hamilakis and Konsolaki 2004, Figure 2).

identified by the Southern Argolid Survey Project (1995) and the Berbati- Limnes Survey (1996) (Figure 5; Table 5). Unlike the situation on the Methana Peninsula, only two sites (Pyrgouthi and FS 202) appear to have been first established after the collapse of the palatial administration. Pyrgouthi, which was originally identified during the Berbati- Limnes Survey, seems to have been a substantial settlement located in the Berbati Valley. While original assessment of the surface remains suggested that the Hellenistic period was the main period of occupation and the best-preserved phase, subsequent excavation determined that this was actually the Late Antique period. However, excavations also revealed habitation phases dating from the Late Helladic IIIC to Early Roman period (Penttinen 2005, 12-14).

rescue excavations or surface survey seem to have been abandoned during the final phases of the Late Helladic IIIB 2 or into the middle of the Late Helladic IIIC period. It also seems that many of these sites experienced later Iron Age re-occupation (Kazarma, Berbati, Kandia, Iria, Sambariza Magoula, FS 20, FS 43, FS 306 and Ermioni) (Figure 6).

Only three sites (Kandia, Iria and FS 20) have evidence for continuity throughout this period. Excavation on the hill of Iria revealed Late Helladic buildings and a cistern, which was filled with debris. Close inspection of the ceramic material from the cistern revealed a quantity of burnt LH IIIC sherds and it appears that the building was destroyed by fire at the beginning of this period (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 50).

The settlement pattern presented provides a general overview of where activities were taking place. For more detail about the nature of these activities and associated socio-economic practices it is necessary to focus specifically on the excavated and published sites from the Argolid, namely Argos, Asine, Midea, Mycenae and Tiryns.

The remainder of the sites that were identified during

Due to widespread building activity from later periods,

While the decrease in the number of settlements in the Argolid coincides with the collapse of the palatial administration, the Methana Peninsula presents a different scenario. Survey evidence suggests the presence of new Iron Age sites, continuity between Late Bronze and Iron Age occupation and limited abandonment. However, further research is needed in order to more clearly define the nature of these sites and their use dates.

3.3.1 Argos

21

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 5 Map of sites in the Argolid identified through surface survey or rescue excavations.

Table 5 Sites in the Argolid identified during surface survey projects and rescue excavations. Note that estimations of site sizes are often unavailable. Again “use dates” are the chronological dates for the site suggested by the publication and “ceramic dates” are more specific dates for material, which is relevant to this study. Site

Use Dates

Ceramic Dates

Kazarma

EH II – LH IIIB/ PG/ C/ H

PG

Berbati

N/ EH – LH IIIB 2/ EG

LH IIIB 2; EG

Kandia

EH II/ MH - LH IIIC; G/ H

LH IIIC

Iria

N/ EH II/ MH – LH IIIC/ G/ C/ H

LH IIIC

Sambariza Magoula

EH I - MH/ LH/ PG/ EG?/ MG?/ LG - Mod.

PG

Prof. Ilias Pk. 1

LH/ Mod.

LH IIIC

FS 14

LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIB/C

LH IIIB/C

FS 20

LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIC M/ G/ A

LH IIIC – LH IIIC M

FS 202

PG

PG

FS 43

LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIB 1/ LH IIIC E

LH IIIC E

FS 306

LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIB 1

LH IIIC E

Kotena Cava

FN – EH/ LH/ Med. - Mod.

LH IIIC

Ermioni

EH - MH/ LH

LH IIIC

Pyrgouthi

LH IIIC – E. Roman

LH IIIC Mid; EG; IA

22

The Built Environment

Figure 6 Sites in the Argolid identified through surfaces survey or rescue excavation with evidence for Iron Age reoccupation.

many of the Iron Age architectural remains that undoubtedly existed at Argos have been destroyed and very little of that which has been discovered has been fully published (Fagerström 1988, 21).

based on the associated ceramic material. Unfortunately, these constructions remain unpublished (BCH 1958, 168; Lemos 2002, 138; Dickinson 2006, 120). No building foundations were found in the general location of the silver refining furnace, but there were many sherds. The end of the workshop has been dated to the Late Protogeometric period based on the discovery of later burials in the area (Desborough 1972, 161-162).

House 1, discovered in the area of the Aphrodision, has been dated to the Late Helladic IIIB/ C period based on the discovery of two floor layers and their associated ceramic material (Hiesel 1990, 103-104). The building was in a poor state of preservation due to the construction of a later Roman channel running diagonally through it and the location of the entrance could not be determined. However, the external dimensions measure 14.50m by 4.0m (Hiesel 1990, 103). The Late Helladic IIIB floor level was covered with a layer of ash and then large pebbles and an oval shaped hearth were placed on top of this layer (Hiesel 1990, 104).

3.3.2 Asine A number of rooms and buildings ranging in date from the Late Helladic IIIC through Protogeometric periods have been discovered at Asine (Table 6). The site provides the best example of settlement architecture for this period. However, almost no floor levels or undisturbed deposits were identified during the excavations. Therefore, the dating of these structures has been based on the relative stratigraphic position of their walls and associated finds (Dietz 1982, 19). This has allowed for several reinterpretations (most by recently Sjöberg 2003). While the excavation reports and re-assessments (specifically Dietz 1982 and Sjöberg 2003) present a relatively complete picture of the excavated architectural features, the material is highly fragmentary and incomplete. The remains consist mostly of low walls, which were constructed on top of the debris from earlier occupation and were often disturbed by later Geometric remains (Mylonas Shear 1968, 279).

Evidence suggests that the area southwest of the modern city was inhabited during the Protogeometric period. Other than mortuary contexts, the only examples of occupation are foundations dating to the Protogeometric period and one Early Geometric apsidal house, which was located near the southern cemetery. This is the earliest known Iron Age domestic building at Argos (BCH 1954, 314; BCH 1956, 677; Lemos 2002, 138). There is some evidence for industrial activity in addition to the settlement remains. Two ovens and a furnace for refining of silver were discovered. These installations have been dated to the Early Protogeometric period

House G was not entirely excavated, but enough information is available to discuss the functions of the

23

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 6 A visual representation of the construction and use dates of LBA – IA built structures at Asine.

major rooms and the building as a whole. Rather than being regarded as a single building House G appears to have been part of a building programme that was in progress throughout the Late Helladic IIIC period (Sjöberg 2003, 190). The external dimensions of this structure are 11.20m by 12.10m, while the total area of the building is approximately 101.0m2, with Rooms 31 - 32 occupying 37.0m2, Rooms 33 – 34 occupying 8.0m2 and Room 35 occupying 24m2 (Hiesel 1990, 84).

House G actually increased in size during its periods of occupation, which, perhaps, indicates the increasing importance of those associated with this building.

It appears that House G was built over House F, which had been constructed during the Late Helladic IIIA period. While the plans of the two buildings were relatively similar, House G was the larger of the two structures. When House G replaced F, the orientation of the building was also altered so that the building had a North-South orientation with the new entrance placed in the north wall (Mylonas Shear 1968, 280; Hiesel 1990, 84). Originally dated to LH IIIB, Sjöberg (2003, 188; 185) re-dated the house to LH IIIC Middle based on a reanalysis of published and unpublished pottery and the original excavation diaries, which often present information inconsistent with later published reports. This house was in use from the Late Helladic IIIC through Protogeometric periods and contained nine rooms labeled 29 (XXVIIII) through 36 (XXXVI).

Room 32 contained a bench and a hearth, which were situated in the northeastern section of the room and a fireplace in the southeastern section. The figure known as “the Lord of Asine” and a deposit of vessels were discovered close to the bench in the northeastern section of the room.

Room 30 shares a wall with Room 32 and, while Mylonas Shear (1968, 280) says that these two rooms were connected, neither she nor Sjöberg mention the presence of a doorway or stairs actually forming the connection between the two.

Hägg (1981) has published a more thorough account of the sanctuary in House G (Room 32) based on the original excavation diaries, photographs and drawings, the catalogue of finds and the excavated sherd material. He noted several major deficiencies in this record, including a lack of drawings or photographs of the finds in situ. The excavation diary entry dated 10 April 1926 describes the bench with which the cult objects and pottery were associated. It was said to have “...consisted of earth mixed with pebbles, with a fill reminiscent of blue clay, but according to the author of the diary - probably consisting of compressed charcoal and ashes” (Hägg 1981, 93). This layer contained most of the pottery that was discovered. A sketch made several days later depicts a bench built of flat stones measuring 60.0cm long by 56.0cm wide and 30.0cm tall. To the east of the bench an upside down jug with a

The largest rooms of this structure were Rooms 30, 32 and 35. Room 30, which had a lime plaster floor, may have been an extension or later addition. This room was connected to Room 29 by a small staircase (Sjöberg 2003, 188). This indicates that even if Room 30 was originally an independent structure, as Sjöberg (2003, 190) also suggests, it was eventually deliberately incorporated into the building programme. The continued building activity suggests that

24

The Built Environment

broken bottom was found and the deposit of figurines and pots was located to its west.

interpreted as a ceramic kiln (Sjöberg 2003, 192-193). However, their size, location, the lack of associated ceramic material consistent with the ceramic industry and the lack of hardened burnt soil underneath and around the structure do not support this interpretation.

Contrary to published reports, Hägg’s detailed examination of the original records reveals that rather than having been swept from the bench, these deposits were made deliberately. It seems now that this structure is not a “bench” in the traditional sense of the word, nor does it appear to be like other benches from cult contexts. However, the material associated with it is similar to the types of objects found around other benches (Hägg 1981, 93).

As is the case with House G, it appears that the plan of House H was also modified over time. The building phases followed very closely on each other and re-used features of the older structures, particularly the eastern part of the house, the use of which continued into the Geometric period (Sjöberg 2003, 193). Of additional interest is the fact that in this area, all ceramic phases from Mycenaean to Geometric were attested without interruption, thus supporting the argument that settlement activity continued undisturbed through the Bronze Age to Iron Age transition (Sjöberg 2003, 193).

Room 35 was separated from Rooms 30 and 32 by the smaller Rooms 33 and 34 (Mylonas Shear 1968, 280). Mylonas Shear suggests that these rooms were storage areas based on their size and lack of visible doorways (Sjöberg 2003, 188; Mylonas Shear 1968, 283-284). House G appears to have been a large, multi-functional complex. Mylonas Shear (1968, 282-286) explains the presence of several large rooms associated with smaller rooms as representing separate establishments located under one roof. This building is similar in plan to the megaron at Midea and Building T at Tiryns in that it had two roof support bases along a central axis and no hearth (Walberg 1995, 89). Sjöberg prefers to interpret the entire complex as the living space of the local elite. She suggests that while the size of the building indicates that an extended family group lived there, the size and plan considered together with the presence of a cult area suggest that this was an elite domestic unit (Sjöberg 2003, 191). Perhaps the group that inhabited House G established and then solidified their claim to elite status through direct access to or inclusion of both a cult area and stored goods.

House I measured 8.20m/10.70m by 9.50m/10.40m, with the main room, Room 46, measuring 5.0m/6.10m by 6.40/7.20m. This structure was relatively well preserved except for the eastern walls, which were largely missing. The construction of House I was originally dated to LH IIIB but has been re-dated to LH IIIC Middle with evidence of activity through the Protogeometric period, making it contemporary with House G. This building is roughly square in plan and contained eight rooms (Sjöberg 2003, 193).

House H has been dated to LH IIIC and was in use until the Geometric period (Sjöberg 2003, 192). The building measures approximately 10.40m by 6.40m. The exact size remains unknown, as does the location of the entrance, because the northern part of the structure is not preserved (Hiesel 1990, 70). Both House H and House G were in use throughout the same periods and it seems likely that House H was an extension or continuation of the general building programme in the Lower Town (Sjöberg 2003, 193). The building was in a poor state of preservation and only three distinct rooms, 37, 38 and 39, were identified (Mylonas Shear 1968, 287).

Two smaller rooms, 43 and 44, were located at the rear of the building. These two rooms, and possibly Room 41, have been interpreted as storage areas based on their small proportions. This grouping of a large central room surrounded by smaller rooms resembles the arrangement of Houses G and H (Mylonas Shear 1968, 290; Sjöberg 2003, 196).

Room 46, which had a single column base located approximately in the center, was most probably the main room, based on its size and central location. Room 47 was originally interpreted as a long narrow room, but has now been identified as a corridor (Sjöberg 2003, 194).

Room 43 also contained an installation that was originally identified as a ceramic kiln. As was the case with the possible kiln in House H, this installation was also placed against a wall and was supposedly similar in form to the other, but more complex. It should be noted that only fragmentary diary entries provide evidence of this structure and that no sketches or photographs were made and even associated ceramic material is lacking (Sjöberg 2003, 194; 1997, 93). To further complicate matters this clay structure was partly destroyed when it was discovered and there is no mention of the condition of the soil under or around it (Sjöberg 2003, 194). Again considering the size and location of this installation, lack of material associated with the ceramic industry and the lack of hardened burnt soil, it is most likely that this is an oven rather than a kiln.

Room 37, which contained a single column base, was connected to Room 38 by a small doorway. Room 38, like the other rooms in House G, was perhaps a storage area. However, it is not possible to determine the extent of this room (Sjöberg 2003, 192). The largest room, 39, measured 5.0m by 10.0m making it equal in area to the main room of the Late Helladic IIIB 2 House of the Columns at Mycenae (Mylonas Shear 1968, 288). Two column bases were discovered in the center of the room and a hearth or oven was located against the east wall. This installation, and a similar one discovered in House I, was originally

25

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Many of the previously discussed structures were used continuously throughout the Protogeometric period. Foundations and remains of several other buildings, the construction of which date to the Protogeometric period, were discovered in the Lower Town as well. As is evident from the discussion of the previous remains, there are many problems with the recording, dating and later analysis of this material: “To complicate matters further, there were no pure Protogeometric layers and often contexts were disrupted as a result of continued activities in the area, seeming growing more violent from Geometric (layer 4) onwards” (Wells 1983, 19). While the relative sequence of construction during this period is clear, the length of occupation of specific structures cannot be determined in detail, making the correspondence between chronological phases and construction events difficult (Wells 1983, 25).

wall or one building constructed on top of the other as a replacement. It has been argued (Wells 1983, 88; Dietz 1982, 42) that there were two separate apsidal buildings. However, the remains are scarce and one structure has only been partially excavated. “In possibly rapid succession, two large rectangular constructions with one short end fashioned as an apsis were erected in the Karmaniola area, with 74L preceding 74N-IM” (Wells 1983, 88). Both buildings had a NNWSSE orientation, were constructed of mudbricks on a raised stone socle and had pitched roofs. Wells (1983, 89) argues that 74N-IM immediately succeeded 74L and used the same material for an almost identical building. However, Mazarakis Ainian (1997, 68-69) argues that these two structures are, in fact, one building: “The exact alignment and depth of both foundations, the presence of only one floor, plus the fact that mud brick from the superstructure was observed only in association with the outer foundation, could mean that the inner foundation was a bench set along the inner face of the wall” (Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 69). Very few remains were discovered in this building, which consisted of a single room (Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 70; Dietz 1982, 51).

Building 70Q-T was a domestic structure built during the final phases of the Late Helladic IIIC period and inhabited throughout the Protogeometric period (Wells 1983, 25). It probably had mudbrick walls, which were a common feature in Mycenaean architecture (Wells 1983, 33). Building 71I-IJ was similar in shape and construction to Building 70Q-T and also had clay floors and a mudbrick superstructure. It is noted by Wells (1983, 82) that this building probably also contained a hearth

This building was surrounded by several Protogeometric graves containing the skeletons of adults and children and a pithos buried a few meters to the north, which may have been a center of ritual activity (Wells 1983, 29). Wells describes this as a sacrificial area because the area to the south of the pithos is bordered by sections of burnt clay and the soil in the areas west and northeast contained high levels of fat. The identification of vessels that could be used for the pouring of libations and as containers for offerings in this context further supports the identification of this as a ritual space.

At some point during the Protogeometric period, an apsidal structure (Figure 7) was constructed at Asine. The structure measures 11.50m by 7.80/8.0m (Fagerström 1988, 2324). There is some debate as to whether the architectural remains represent a single building with a bench along the

It appears that the extant remains represent a single apsidal building with a bench. Based on the size of the apsidal building, it has been interpreted as an elite dwelling (Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 70). However, other than an association with a ritual area, there is little to support this theory. A more conservative interpretation is that the apsidal structure represents the dwelling of a large domestic unit. Located to the north of this building is “the Rectangular Oikos” which was a single-roomed structure with rounded corners and measured 6.0m by 4.0m (Dietz 1982, 57; Fagerström 1988, 22-23). The floor of this building was constructed of clay and pebbles. The building has been dated to the Early Protogeometric period and it has been theorized that, based on its poor construction and lack of hearth, it was only occupied seasonally or that it housed a poor family (Fagerström 1988, 23). However, I argue that there is no reason to support the theory that this building was occupied seasonally. It seems unlikely that only one building in the settlement would have been seasonally occupied when so many other structures

Figure 7 Plan of the apsidal house (after Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 228).

26

The Built Environment

associated with year-round habitation were present. Since the room contained only simple domestic pottery and a spindle whorl, any function could be assigned to it (Dietz 1982, 46-47). The lack of finds inside the structure suggests that “the Rectangular Oikos” may not have been a building for habitation. Perhaps it was used for industry or storage of goods or surplus in smaller portable vessels or non-ceramic containers. The only addition to this building was a pit in the floor level in the northern section, of which two stone courses were preserved (Dietz 1982, 45).

constructed of small, unworked limestone blocks. This room was renovated during the LH IIIC period and it contained both luxury items and domestic goods (Walberg 1998, 87; 2007, 62). “In Rooms II, VIII and IX, a thick ash layer was found covering a LH IIIB floor. On this floor were a number of objects including a cooking-plate, a stone tripod vessel, a collection of blue glass paste jewelry in the shape of the figure-of-eight shield and a piece decorated with an ivy motif…There were also five bone implements with sharpened ends, spindle whorls, figurines, figurines, lead vessels and stone tools” (Walberg 1999b, 890).

Building activity and occupation at Asine continued throughout the Late Helladic IIIC through the Protogeometric and there is considerable evidence for unbroken continuity from earlier Mycenaean periods. It is difficult to assign primary functions to the attested buildings. Many seem to be simple domestic structures of varying sizes. Some have hearths and benches and some possibly contain household industries or cult spaces. The built environment at Asine represents direct evidence of a community continuing to build and re-build as necessary with clear evidence for social differentiation in the size, contents and function of the built structures. It also demonstrates that, instead of having a large single location as the focus of socio-economic and ritual practices, buildings of the same function were replicated throughout the site. This suggests that domestic units were more directly in control of these activities and that these activities operated on a smaller scale during this period as opposed to the pervious period.

Room VIII, located near the fortification wall, was assigned a cultic function based on its resemblance in size and plan to Room 110 at Tiryns and the items that were found inside. Several figurines and figurine fragments were found in this room. Four figurines were discovered in the 13th century BC earthquake destruction layer and a nearly complete miniature Tau-shaped figurine was discovered on the floor. An additional six figurines were discovered in the lower level of the corridor (Demakopoulou and DivariValakou 2001, 182-183). Room VIII was located next to Room XXXII, which contained a hearth and a “miniature tripod ‘offering table’” as well as a figurine and terracotta stand. These associated installations and finds support the interpretation of this area as a shrine complex (Walberg 2007, 62-63). Terrace 9 also contained the remains of LH IIIC floors, which were discovered above the LH IIIB 2 occupation levels. However, no walls have been discovered leading the excavators to suggest that they were removed during Roman occupation of the site (Walberg 2007, 63).

3.3.3 Midea The citadel of Midea occupied, like the other palatial sites, a strategic position atop a high conical hill overlooking the Argive plain (Demakopoulou 2007, 65). The excavations of the Lower Terraces, located on the north and east slopes of the citadel have uncovered several rooms and buildings that attest to occupation after the destruction that occurred during LH IIIB (Table 7).

Terrace 10 (Figure 9) also contained architectural remains dating from LH IIIB 2 through LH IIIC. Two phases of construction are evident in Room IV, of which walls 1 (111, 112), 2 (113, 118) and 3 (106) remain. The base of wall 1 connects with the floor layer of stratum 3 North, which is a floor layer dated to LH IIIC. This paved floor continued to the south and was sealed at the time of the LH IIIC destruction. It was not disturbed by later building activities and no intrusive material was discovered during excavation (Walberg 1998, 91). More importantly, the two walls originally numbered 111 and 112, which comprised Wall 1, were placed directly on top of each other. Wall 111 was dated to LH IIIC and Wall 112 was dated to LH IIIB based on associated finds and stratigraphic position. Thus,

Terrace 9 (Figure 8) contained architectural remains dating from the LH IIIB through LH IIIC periods (Walberg 1998, 87). This area has been referred to as the Shrine Area and included rooms containing luxury and cult goods. Room II, which was disturbed by the later construction of a Roman wall, was dated to LH IIIB 2 and originally

Table 7 A visual representation of the construction and use dates of LBA – IA built structures at Midea.

27

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 8 Plan of Terrace 9 and Citadel Wall. LH IIIB 2 represented in black (From Walberg 2007).

it appears that those who undertook the rebuilding of this area during LH IIIC made a point of copying the plan of the previous architecture (Walberg 1998, 91).

changes took place during the LH IIIC period (Walberg 1995, 87-89). Similar changes took place in House G at Asine and in Megaron W at Tiryns. It has been suggested that these architectural changes indicate the diminished symbolic importance of the central hearth, which I discuss in further detail below after I present the built environment at Mycenae and Tiryns.

Terrace 10 also contained the Megaron Area (Figures 9 and 10), which was originally constructed during LH IIIB and measured 14.0m by 7.50m (Walberg 1999b, 887). The original construction consisted of a large main room and smaller room at the back (Walberg 1995, 87). The main room was then enlarged during the Late Helladic IIIB period, while the back room was made smaller by the addition of a transverse wall and a new floor was laid (Walberg 1995, 87). Not only were there substantial repairs and leveling after the earthquake in LH IIIB, but the interior of the megaron was drastically renovated as well.

The arrangement of the hearth with surrounding columns in megara is considered a feature of early palatial architecture and was associated with rituals surrounding the wanax. These later changes suggest that this particular ideology represented by the importance of the hearth was no longer important and that ritual practice was changing (Walberg 1995, 90; Walberg 2007, 66-67; Kilian 1988b, 291-302). Another possibility is that when these buildings were renovated a pitched, rather than flat, roof was used, which required a row of central supports as opposed to four columns arranged around the hearth. However, there is no conclusive evidence for a change in roof types (Walberg 1995, 89-90). This type of construction seems to be the

The previous hearth and four surrounding columns were removed and replaced by a central row of columns that divided the room into two. There is also no evidence for a new hearth. In addition a new floor was laid and an exterior retaining wall added to bolster the building (Walberg 1995, 87). Stratigraphic and ceramic evidence indicates that these

28

The Built Environment

Figure 9 Plan of Terrace 10. LH IIIB 2 represented in black and LH IIIC represented in dark grey (From Walberg 2007).

Figure 10 Plan of the megaron building at Midea (From Walberg 1995, Figure 1).

29

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 11 Plan of Rooms XIX, XIV, XVII and XX along with the pit, bench and platform (From Walberg 2007, Figure 58).

Late Bronze Age. Second, in a situation similar to Asine and Tiryns, the renovations of the megaron structure did not include a large central hearth. After presenting the remainder of the evidence from Mycenae and Tiryns, I discuss this change in further detail to support the shift away from a corporate group ideology.

predecessor to the type of interior arrangement that became popular during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods and is apparent in building T at Tiryns and Building C in the Karmaniola area of Asine (Walberg 2007, 67). West of the Megaron Entrance, a bench or platform was constructed next to one of the parapet walls of the shaft located in Room XVIII (Figure 11).

3.3.4 Mycenae

The platform was constructed during LH IIIC and its function is unclear. Like many other benches and platforms, it has been theorized that it served a religious purpose. However, since there is no other evidence to support this theory, I agree with the excavators’ other interpretation that this platform was used as a stand for those who fetched water from the nearby shaft, which may have functioned as a well (Walberg 2007, 68-69).

During the Late Bronze Age, Mycenae appears to have been the dominant palatial enter. During the Late Helladic IIIB 2 and IIIC periods, there is evidence for the leveling and reuse of certain areas and the renovation and reuse of particular buildings, but not on the same scale or with the same organization as the building activity at Tiryns. Ceramic material also provides evidence of continued activity in certain buildings, but, in general, architectural remains dating after LH IIIB 2 are scarce (Table 8).

An analysis of the changes in the Late Bronze Age built environment at Midea reveals two key points: first, that the renovations that took place did so in a manner consistent with the previous architectural plan. This indicates a population familiar with the previous architectural arrangement inhabited Midea throughout the end of the

The Granary (Figure 12) was located just within the Lion Gate. This building measured 17.40m by 7.40m/14.40m and was named for the carbonized plant remains discovered in the basement. However, the actual function remains unknown (French 2002, 78; Hiesel 1990, 145). There

30

The Built Environment

Table 8 A visual representation of the construction and use dates of LBA – IA built structures at Mycenae.

were two stages of construction and the basement is still preserved. Wace (1949, 57) dates the original construction of the Granary to LH IIIA, with a reconstruction during LH IIIB 2 or LH IIIC Early. This structure contained a ground and second floor, two basement rooms and a staircase. Both the basement rooms and the corridors were used as storage space (Wace 1949, 56). During the latest construction phase the building was extended to the east. The basement level was reached by a staircase and windows, which were located in the west and south faces of the building, admitted light to this area. “The fact that the terrace on which the Granary stands abuts against the citadel wall and that there is no passage along the wall at this point has been taken as an indication that it was built after the devastation of 1200 BC” (French 2002, 79). The South House, or Citadel House Area as it was known during excavation, comprises several distinct buildings crowded together. The South House was located adjacent to the Citadel Wall and was originally constructed during the LH IIIB period. It measured 13.90m by 15.40m (Hiesel 1990, 85). The South House Annex was added in between this building and the main road. This building was originally constructed during the LH IIIB 2 period and measured 11.80m by 11.30m (Hiesel 1990, 160). Only the basement walls of the South House remain. Wace (1949, 66) initially noted that a thin layer of Iron Age, Archaic and Hellenistic debris existed above the South House. To the south of this structure were the Room of the Fresco, The Temple and

Figure 12 Plan of the Granary (From Wace 1949, Figure 3).

31

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

the Megaron, which were all constructed after the South House. Floor deposits from the individual buildings are rare, making the interpretation of their function difficult (Taylour 1981, 14).

1

and earth floor was laid and the stairway covered with plesia (Moore and Taylour 1999, 22-23). In the northeast corner of this room a hearth and clay bin dating to LH IIIC were also discovered (Taylour 1981, 46).

Following widespread destruction of the area during LH IIIB 2, the first attempts at reconstruction were, according to Taylour (1981, 11), not substantial and they either rested directly on destruction debris or reused the tops of earlier walls for their foundations. In other locations, the debris was cleared to approximately the floor level of the earlier buildings. Following this first attempt, there appear to have been well-planned and well-built constructions overlying most of the western section of this area (Taylour 1981, 11). Subsequently, there was significant terracing in this area. Following a final destruction sometime during the LH IIIC period, several Protogeometric graves were cut into the debris here.

The most important and substantial construction that took place in this area during LH IIIC Early was an oblong room built in the area previously occupied by Antechamber 38. It was a freestanding structure with an earth floor and white plaster was discovered on the interior of the northwest wall. In the same corner of the building a small rectangular platform, identified as an altar, was discovered. In front of the southern wall was a hearth, which was used throughout this period (Thomatos 2006, 182-183). An additional room to the northeast of this building was also in use during LH IIIC. It had a hearth and in the northern corner two circular constructions were sunk into the floor, one of which contained three vessels dating to LH IIIC. This room also contained ivory fragments, gold leaf and fragments of bronze. This area has been interpreted as either a luxury goods workshop or a holding place for objects used during cultic activities (Thomatos 2006, 183).

There is widespread evidence of terracing and reuse in this area during the Late Helladic IIIC period. However, the functions of these remains are difficult to interpret (Taylour 1981, 37). Within the South House Annex was discovered a hearth constructed from two mudbricks laid on their edges and a possible column base (Taylour 1981, 30). The upper courses of buildings dating to LH IIIC were also discovered in this area and then removed in order to examine earlier occupation activity (Taylour 1981, 37).

The House of Columns, constructed during the Late Helladic IIIB 2 period, was situated on the lower slopes east of the palace and adjacent to the workshops (Mylonas Shear 1968, 256). The building was named after the five column bases located at the west façade of the building and the two larger bases leading to a room with a hearth. This room was originally believed to be the vestibule, giving access to the main room of the house. However, it now appears that the walls that had been thought to divide the two rooms belong to House Psi.

The five different buildings that constitute the Cult Center were located south of the Citadel House. In this area, postpalatial activity occurred in Tsountas’ House, the Temple Complex and the Room of the Fresco. Tsountas’ House was located to the southeast of the Temple Complex. It was originally constructed during the Late Helladic IIIB period and measured 16.20m by 18.0m (Hiesel 1990, 125). During the Late Helladic IIIC, a small house or room furnished with a hearth and two columns was constructed over the LH IIIB structure (Hiesel 1990, 125-126; Thomatos 2006, 183). It has been proposed that this structure constituted domestic living space for those using the Temple Complex (French 2002, 87).

The House of Columns was a large building measuring approximately 50.0m by 20.0m and there was evidence for plaster on the walls and pressed clay flooring throughout (Mylonas Shear 1968, 256). It is difficult to reconstruct the exact plan of this building because of later construction activity in this area. The entrance to the building faced northeast and two large conglomerate blocks flanked a small paved porch, after which was the large conglomerate threshold and door (Wace 1949, 91-92). A long corridor led to the court, around which the rooms were arranged.

The Temple Complex remained in use for some time after the destruction on the citadel. Two phases, IX and VII, correspond to LH IIIB 2 and LH IIIC respectively (Moore and Taylour 1999, 1). Overlying this structure was evidence of a terrace wall constructed during LH IIIC (Taylour 1981, 37). The door of Room 19 was sealed off in LH IIIB 2 after the destruction event that affected most of this area (Moore and Taylour 1999, 22). The west wall of the Temple was also reused during LH IIIC (Moore and Taylour 1999, 22).

To the north, and located beyond the court, was the megaron, a stairway leading to an upper floor and an inner room (Mylonas 1966b, 78). The location of the megaron did not allow direct access from the main entrance of the building. Rather access was controlled through a series of sharp left turns: “To reach the front of the megaron porch from the front door a visitor has to turn sharply to his left to enter the court, and then turn again sharply to his left to enter the court through which access to the megaron proper was gained” (Wace 1949, 92).

The Room of the Fresco was originally constructed during LH IIIB 1 and it measured 12.70m by 9.2m (Hiesel 1990, 76). The room was minimally refurbished after the LH IIIB 2 earthquake. Although the plan did not change, a plesia

1

32

Plesia is a particular type of clay.

The Built Environment

The basement of this building was reached via a ramp and the extant contents further contradict the original assumption that this was a purely domestic building (Wace 1949, 92; Mylonas 1966b, 78). A number of stirrup jars, including one with an inscription (Fragments Z204 and Z205; Bennett 1953, 437) were discovered in the east basement room and a row of pithoi was discovered in the northern basement room standing in situ against the walls (Mylonas 1966b, 78; Wace 1949, 95). Mylonas Shear (1968, 267) notes that a large quantity of conglomerate was used in the construction of this building and this is an unusual feature in private houses. The fact that the Artisans’ Quarters were connected to this building by a door and the well-organized plan of the building indicate that the House of Columns was certainly more than a private domestic dwelling (Iakovidis 1977, 120-121). This building was destroyed by fire at the same time as the east wing of the palace, during Late Helladic IIIB 2 or IIIC Early (Mylonas 1966a, 426). Following the fire that destroyed the workshops nearby, parts of the building were reconstructed. However, the renovated areas were not as spacious as the previous rooms (Mylonas Shear 1968, 262). During the renovations, the door that connected this building with the Artisans’ Quarters was walled-up and the megaron area was divided into smaller rooms. The building remained in use throughout the LH IIIC period and appears to have been abandoned at the end of this period without further destruction (Iakovidis 1977, 121-122; Mylonas 1968, 33). House Psi (Figure 13) was built on top of the east wall of the House of Columns (Mylonas 1968, 33-35). This building was constructed during LH IIIC Early and had a main room that measured approximately 5.60m by 3.75m (Mylonas 1968, 35). It was a megaron- shaped structure possibly with an added portico. The floor of this house was made of plesia, earth and lime and furnished with a fireplace that was paved with pottery belonging to the LH IIIB 2 (Mylonas 1968, 33-35; Thomatos 2006, 185).

Figure 13 Plan of House Psi (Ψ) and House Omega (Ω) and their relation to the House of Columns (After Mylonas 1968, Figure 9).

demonstrate that, after the Late Helladic IIIB 2 period, the House of Columns replaced the megaron as the focus of socio-economic and possibly ritual activity for a time. This is similar to developments at Tiryns, which are discussed below. The remains of this building were then renovated and used in the construction of two smaller buildings, Psi and Omega, during LH IIIC Early. Houses Psi and Omega seem to be representative of the types of structures built after the collapse of the palatial administration. Pre-existing buildings were often renovated with little changes, except to be made smaller or more simple in plan or to include a hearth. However, as I demonstrated in my discussion of mortuary contexts and practices, the citadel of Mycenae appears to have been the focus of Iron Age mortuary activity as individual mortuary contexts ranging in date from LH IIIC Late through Early Geometric have been discovered in the remains. Therefore, while architectural evidence for the Protogeometric and Early Geometric periods may be lacking, the mortuary evidence clearly demonstrates that a community was living in the vicinity of or, even, perhaps within the former palatial center itself.

House Omega (Figure 13) was constructed after House Psi over the corridor, court and megaron of the House of Columns (Mylonas 1968, 37; Thomatos 2006, 184-185). It consisted of a large room, 7.0m long by 5.70m wide, flanked by a smaller room to the west and a main room with two columns in antis. This room has been dated to the LH IIIC period based on ceramic material (Thomatos 2006, 185). “Its proportions, its capacity, and its character indicate that it is one of the important structures of the IIIC period; apparently a building erected to replace the destroyed central unit of the east wing of the palace” (Mylonas 1968, 37). Mylonas noted that LH IIIC sherds were discovered in the stones of the foundation. This building also reused the remains of previous walls that formed the House of Columns. The developments in the built environment at Mycenae

33

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 9 A visual representation of the construction and use dates of the LBA – IA built structures at Tiryns.

3.3.5 Tiryns

the foundations of an earlier building on the Upper Citadel during LH IIIC (cf. Maran 2000).

The architectural remains at Tiryns (Table 9) present a picture that contrasts sharply with settlement development at the other palatial sites and why this should be so is puzzling. While the other palatial centers experienced a decline in occupation and activity, there was considerable construction activity on the citadel of Tiryns. Previously, it was believed that there was a significant break in settlement activity on Upper Citadel after the destruction of the palace. Originally, Building T had been dated to the 8th or 7th century BC and the buildings of the Unterburg were believed to be part of a refuge settlement. However, the excavations directed by Kilian demonstrated that no such break in settlement existed and Building T dated to the Late Helladic IIIC period. This date has been further supported by a series of radiocarbon dates, which place construction around approximately 1200 BC (Maran 2000, 10-12). Furthermore, he demonstrated that the settlement in the Unterburg was well organized and extensive (Kilian 1988, 135; Maran 2004, 276).

The new structure was built over the eastern half of the ruins of the previous megaron and deliberately incorporated the base of the throne of the earlier building, which is striking considering the fact that the debris from the previous building was only selectively cleared (Maran 2000, 13). The deliberate intention to include the previous throne is also supported by the discovery that the floor levels of the two buildings were roughly similar (Maran 2000, 13; 2001, 115). Unlike the previous megaron, Building T consisted of a roughly square porch to the south and an elongated room divided into two sections by a central row of columns. Benches were situated along the inner faces of the walls of the porch (Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 159). While no hearth was discovered, a smooth stone slab in front of the “throne” could have served as a platform for a portable hearth or brazier. This stone slab was set in place during the LH IIIC and covers the location of the previous hearth (Maran 2000, 4-5; 2001, 113-114). The “throne” would have been immediately visible upon entering the building providing direct visual access to its occupant (Maran 2001, 118). Both the deliberate omission of a large central hearth and the rearrangement of space into a long room with two aisles are similar to the architectural changes at Midea during this period (Walberg 1995).

While reconstruction in the area of the Unterburg was extensive, Building T and its associated structures represent the only architectural evidence on the Upper Citadel that post-dates the destruction of this area. However, these structures were built on the partially leveled ruins of the previous megara (Maran 2004, 276). In a situation similar to that at Midea, it appears that those who undertook the limited building programme on the Upper Citadel were familiar with the previous architectural plan.

Another intriguing aspect of this reconstruction is that it appears that a storage area was included in the renovations. The impression of a row of twelve storage vessels was discovered along the outside of the north wall of Building

Building T (Figure 14), originally referred to as the Narrow Megaron, appears to be the only instance of the reuse of

34

The Built Environment

Figure 14 Plan of Building T (From Maran 2000, Figure 1).

35

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

T (Thomatos 2006, 189). Maran (2001, 118) believes that these pithoi were set in place after the destruction of the palace. This would make them indirectly accessible from Building T because there was no entrance in the northern wall (Maran 2001, 118). Therefore, if this storage area and contents were controlled by the users of Building T then the act of accessing this area would have been highly visible because whoever was placing in or retrieving goods from the pithoi would have had to exit and walk around Building T.

more widespread and varied in form than that which took place on the Upper Citadel (Figure 15). During the Late Helladic IIIB period the Lower Citadel contained large twostorey buildings on a north-south orientation, referred to as corridor houses. Some of these gave access to the casemates and there was little room for courtyards. Access from this area to the Upper Citadel seems to have been restricted and the corridor houses were probably multi-purpose buildings that served as houses, storage areas and workshop space (Mühlenbruch 2007, 244). The situation in LH IIIC appears to have been very different. While reconstruction took place almost immediately after the destruction, the form and function of built spaces did not continue the previous architectural traditions (Mühlenbruch 2007, 244; Maran 2004, 277).

Maran (2001) links these physical changes to changes in the political organization. The deliberate use of the previous throne would connect the new political order to the previous. However, the deliberate exclusion of a large central hearth reinforces his suggestion that the WanaxHearth ideology had been abandoned. Therefore, while the reuse of certain features would help legitimize the position of the elite, there would also be a reminder that a new form of political organization had taken over (Thomatos 2006, 189).

During LH IIIC Early, building activity was restricted to the western terrace and comprised temporary rooms and structures, such as Room 10a. During this period Room 119, which functioned as a shrine, another small building

The other renovation in this area, which took place around the same time as the construction of Building T, was the transformation of the altar in the Great Court in front of Building T (Figure 14) from a round to a square structure resembling a platform (Maran 2001, 115). The earlier circular altar, which dated to the LH IIIB period, was enclosed by a square stone platform during the LH IIIC period and was renovated again during this period, as a rectangular platform was added (Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 159-161). The proximity of the altar to Building T suggests a connection between the users of Building T and ritual practices. Being situated in a large courtyard, these could have been witnessed by many people. While the construction activity on the Upper Citadel is limited, the physical remains provide the most complete and well-studied evidence for political and religious organization after the collapse of the palatial centers. However, Maran takes a pessimistic view of the developments, especially when compared to previous buildings. Rather than emphasizing the creation of a monumental building around 1200 BC, after the destruction by earthquake and fire, he focuses on the lack of concentrated reconstruction on the Upper Citadel. Above all, this is demonstrated by the modest construction of Building T in comparison to the Great Megaron as well as the limited clearance of the Upper Citadel from the debris of the catastrophe, symbolizing the inability of the upper class of postpalatial Mycenaean Tiryns to carry out an ambitious building program comparable, for instance, to the one in the mid of the 13th century B.C. Maran (2001, 120-121).

Figure 15 A plan of the Lower Citadel from LH IIIC Early through Late (From Mühlenbruch 2007, Figure 2 after Kilian 1981, Figure 5).

Construction activity in the Unterburg was considerably

36

The Built Environment

and a kiln were constructed. This shrine was the only building to remain in use during the Late Helladic IIIC Middle (Mühlenbruch 2007, 244). The function of these earliest constructions demonstrates both the importance of cult and the desire to resume activities that would provide for the community.

This room measured 2.2m by 4.0m and presumably fulfilled the same function as Room 110, as it also contained ceramic figurines (Hiesel 1990, 55). The walls of the middle room were extended and a new doorway was added, creating a megaron - like structure. This building was furnished with a bench against the rear wall, near which a figurine was discovered. There was also a hearth close to the south wall and near this an amphora and cup were discovered (Thomatos 2006, 191).

During subsequent periods, houses were simple singlestorey structures with single rooms. The plan of the settlement remained unchanged until LH IIIC Late (Mühlenbruch 2007, 245). In the northwest area of the settlement there existed three overlapping settlement horizons, each grouped around a courtyard. Significant construction activity even took place in the Lower Town, outside the citadel.

Also built against the fortification wall to the south of Room 110a was Room 112. This building was part of the large construction project that took place at the end of the Late Helladic IIIC Late (Mühlenbruch 2007, 246). In between Room 112 and 110a a stone-lined hearth, which contained three zoomorphic figurines, was discovered (Thomatos 2006, 191).

Bau VI, which has been dated to the LH IIIB 2, was destroyed by an earthquake at the end of LH IIIB 2 (Hiesel 1990, 138). It was reconstructed and labeled Bau VIa by the excavators. Bau VIa reused the walls of Bau VI.

Room 115 was also built against the citadel wall immediately north of Room 110a (Mühlenbruch 2007, 246). This room measured 11.30m by 5.7/6.1m (Hiesel 1990, 23). There were two rows of posts located within this structure. Two stone slabs were located in the southeast corner, one that was vertical and one that was horizontal. Faience and glass beads and a Psi-shaped figurine were discovered on top of the horizontal stone slab. Two sets of clay horses and a clay bird were also discovered near the wall (Thomatos 2006, 191). It seems that this whole area may have housed both domestic and ritual spaces. Mühlenbruch (2007, 246) suggests that this room was “...a hall for the cult of the elite.” However, there is little evidence to support the connection of this particular room with local elite. Its plan and associated finds are not particularly different to household shrines or cult areas present at sites such as Asine.

Bau VIa, which probably had an upper storey and followed in the palatial tradition, was constructed during the Late Helladic IIIC Early period (Mühlenbruch 2009, 314). This building formed the eastern boundary of a courtyard known as Hof 1, which was larger than the palatial courtyard and on the edge of which the shrine Room 117 was built (Mühlenbruch 2007, 245). Bau VIa contained three rooms and had an entrance from the northwest, which opened through a small room onto the courtyard (Mühlenbruch 2009, 314; Thomatos 2006, 191). With its exceptional plan, close proximity to a large courtyard and shrine, Bau VIa may have been inhabited by those who organized the rebuilding of the Lower Citadel (Mühlenbruch 2007, 245). Room 117, which dates to the LH IIIC Early period, was the earliest of three sanctuaries that were located in the Unterburg. It was a rectangular building measuring 2.90m by 2.80m and had an entrance facing onto a courtyard. The building was furnished with a platform located against the rear wall with a niche in the center. Miniature vessels, a rhyton, Psi-shaped figurines and the arms of a large figure were all discovered in the building (Hiesel 1990, 55-46). A column was located in the center of the room and three additional columns were located against the facade of the building (Whittaker 1996, 1629).

Room 224, a single-storey mudbrick structure, was located further north along the fortification wall. Several hearths, all dated to LH IIIC Middle, were discovered in different locations throughout the room. A clay bench on the back wall, a stone bench along the north wall and a clay bin near the entrance, which contained traces of burnt organic matter, were also dated to this period (Thomatos 2006, 192). Room 106/106a was also located against the fortification wall. This was a two-room complex measuring 8.20m by 6.4m with a south entrance (Hiesel 1990, 33). It was built during LH IIIC Middle and continued to be used until the end of the LH IIIC. This complex is particularly important because it provides some of the only conclusive evidence for small-to-medium scale industry. This room contained at least three pithoi, which were set in stone slabs on the ground. There were also two circular pits lined with clay and, near the wall shared by the two rooms, a mudbrick tub-like construction. Room 106a was furnished with a square kiln. Located in the southeast corner of the room, this furnace was associated with melted lead fragments and an object made of obsidian that was described as a saw. This

Room 110 was constructed during LH IIIC Middle and replaced Room 117. While it had the same plan as the previous building, it was shorter, measuring 2.2m by 3.2m and had clay floors (Hiesel 1990, 22; Whittaker 1996, 1629). A stone foundation covered with clay was also discovered against the fortification wall. This has been identified as a cult bench, based on the presence of several figurines and fine ware vessels (Thomatos 2006, 191). During the Late Helladic IIIC Middle period, Room 110 was destroyed and immediately replaced by Room 110a, which reused the western section of the previous stone foundation.

37

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

room also contained a hearth near the entrance. “Among other finds made in the rooms were a deep bowl, a trefoil jug, a stirrup jar, four kraters, and many stirrup jar stoppers, one which had a seal with a goat impressed nine times on it” (Hiesel 1990, 33; Mühlenbruch 2007, 246; Thomatos 2006, 193). The associated finds and installations of Room 106/106a give the impression of an area entirely devoted to metalworking and storage.

considerable investment of materials, time and labor. In order to prevent another flood event, a long channel was dug which, redirected the flow south-southwest. The soil from the channel was then apparently used to build a dam, which was approximately 10.0m high. This dam was then strengthened on both sides by Cyclopean walls (Zangger 1998, 206; Balcer 1974, 147). Unlike Mycenae and Midea, there was considerable reconstruction and renovation at Tiryns during the Late Bronze through Iron Age transition. This, along with the construction of the Tiryns dam, suggests that there was a considerable amount of socio-economic and political organization present there during the Late Helladic IIIC period. However in a situation similar to that at Asine, domestic, storage, ritual and industrial areas were located within close proximity or within the same building. There is even replication of elite status structures, Building T and Megaron W. Whether these represent competing social groups remains to be seen. The Late Bronze through Iron Age built environment at Tiryns is a clear example of the decentralization of socio-economic and ritual practices as controlled by the palace and the increasing role of domestic units in these activities.

Kammer 4 (KO 4) was located on the southeast side of the Lower Citadel and built into the fortification wall during the transition between LH IIIB and LH IIIC. The building had a clay floor and there was evidence for a hearth. This space was interpreted as a work area with storage space for domestic goods (Thomatos 2006, 194). A Lower Town existed outside the walls of the citadel. There is evidence of houses in the southeast and northeast sectors dating to the Late Helladic IIIC period, including significant buildings (Thomatos 2006, 194). Full-scale and detailed excavation of this area is difficult because of the significant flood deposits, which, most probably, cover more buildings in the Lower Town. The most important building in the Lower Town is Megaron W, which is located in the southeast section of the settlement beneath the East Galleries. This building measured 20.80m by 8.50m.

3.4 Analysis The main points that arise from an examination of the Late Bronze through Iron Age built environment are: while the palatial administration ceased to function, the actual sites of the palatial centers remained as a focal point of activity; and that instead of the existence of a single location for socioeconomic and ritual practices, represented by the palatial centers, there were a number of locations within Iron Age sites that served these functions.

It was built following the major destruction in LH IIIB and ceramic material from within the building indicates it was in use during LH IIIC. This building was a megaron-like construction with a porch, main room and rear chamber. The main room of this structure is larger than that of Building T and contained a central row of columns, indicated by three flat unworked stone bases. It had a packed-earth floor and a hearth, which was made of clay and had an upper surface formed by a single layer of sherds (Mylonas Shear 1968, 265). Painted plaster was also discovered in the area of this building (Thomatos 2006, 195). A bronze chisel with a deer antler handle was also discovered in Megaron W (Hiesel 1990, 64). This structure was not completely excavated, but the layout was similar to administrative buildings at Mycenae (Mylonas Shear 1968, 265).

I begin this discussion with a synthesis of developments at Mycenae, Tiryns, Midea and Asine in order to demonstrate these two points. Then I discuss the repetition of specific features at these sites. Following this I address the question of why the areas around the Mycenae and Tiryns remained the focus of activity during the Late Bronze through Iron Age transition. The examination of these themes supports the overall argument of this monograph, which is that after the collapse of the palatial administration, there was an ideological shift away from the corporate group toward the individual or the domestic unit.

Another aspect of the built environment is evidence for large-scale public works. This is represented by the dam located 4.0km east of the citadel in an area that has been described as poor in drainage and, therefore, had a higher water table (Loader 1998, 101-102) (Figure 16). Around 1200 BC this stream shifted to the north of Tiryns and deposited up to 4.0m of coarse alluvium over the eastern parts of the LH IIIB settlement (Zangger 1998, 189). After this event, but before the construction of the LH IIIC buildings in the lower town, the dam was constructed and the stream re-routed (Zangger 1998, 207).

During the Late Helladic IIIB 2 the megara at Mycenae and Tiryns were abandoned and replaced by other largescale buildings, the House of Columns and Building T respectively. At Midea, an attempt was made to renovate the megaron after the destruction that took place during this period. During reconstruction and renovation at these sites, which took place after the LH IIIB 2 earthquake, large communal hearths were deliberately excluded from the new building plans.

This was no simple construction project. It required a

The fixed monumental hearth in the center of the megaron

38

The Built Environment

Figure 16 The location of the dam in relation to Tiryns. 1) The course of the Manessi River during Neolithic through LH IIIB 2; 2) the natural diversion that occurred during LHIIIB 2; 3) the artificial diversion that was created after the LH IIIB 2 natural diversion occurred (From Zangger 1998, Figure 3).

surrounded by four columns was one of the most characteristic features of Mycenaean palatial architecture. There was striking uniformity in the construction and design of hearths at Mycenae, Tiryns and Pylos (Tournavitou 1999, 833). Palatial hearths were always fixed in a central position, surrounded by four wooden columns and circular in design. At Pylos and Tiryns the core of the hearth was clay, while at Mycenae the core was constructed of stone. In all cases an outer layer of fine plaster was applied, decorated and frequently renewed (Tournavitou 1999, 833). Through its uniformity of design, central location and associated ritual activities, the large central hearth came to represent the core of the Mycenaean palatial administration and reinforced the corporate group ideology.

Following the dissolution of the palatial administration, the large central hearth and four columns were no longer included in the reconstruction and renovation of buildings at Midea, Tiryns and Mycenae. Instead, hearths were small circular structures and there is the possibility that metal braziers were also used as portable hearths (Tournavitou 1999, 833). Walberg (1995, 89) suggests that the absence of a large central hearth and four columns may have been due to the replacement of the flat roof by a pitched roof, which may have been more resistant to damage. However, there is little evidence to support the argument that a pitched roof was more resistant to earthquake damage (Walberg 1995, 89-90). Instead, when considered with the proliferation of smaller hearths and the possibility of portable hearths, it seems that the removal of the hearth and four columns

39

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

during a present in which the Mycenaean palatial ideology was actively being formed and maintained and for a future that would recognize these places as a focal point for these beliefs and practices. Indeed, those living within a generation or two of the collapse of the palatial administration, which are represented by those who continued to dispose of their dead in the chamber tombs that were in use throughout this period, would still have recognized these places as the focal point of the previous ideology. Later generations would recognize these places as foci of mytho-historic activity.

demonstrates that what these features symbolized was no longer important to those who undertook the renovations (Walberg 1995, 90; 2007, 66-67; Kilian 1988b, 291-302). Another feature of the Late Bronze through Iron Age built environment is the replication of buildings or rooms with specific functions. The built environment at Tiryns and Asine provides details to support the argument that the palatial ideology was replaced by a new set of beliefs and practices that privileged and supported the individual and the domestic unit. During the Late Helladic IIIB period, domestic structures at Tiryns were large, two-storey buildings that left little room for courtyards where other activities could take place. In subsequent periods, houses became smaller and courtyards more frequent. Industrial, cult and storage areas were interspersed with, or located in, domestic buildings. A similar pattern of small houses surrounded by storage and cult areas is apparent at Asine as well. House G, which may have been the dwelling of an elite household, demonstrates the general pattern of smaller subsidiary rooms, possibly used for storage, grouped around a larger central room. Multiple areas for storage and religious activity replaced the palatial center as the focus of activity. These changes give the sense that more activities were organized and undertaken by individual household units rather than members of a social hierarchy.

Studies of oral tradition provide insight into how transitions like this may have taken place and how much time would have elapsed for this transition to take place. Vansina (1973; 1985) demonstrated that in societies without writing, the passing of time was based on ecological or sociological events and that these events were used as a point of reference. Forbes (2007, 210), during ethnographic fieldwork on the Methana Peninsula noted that, “… features in the landscape acted as ‘prompts’, reminding [the Methanites] of their store of knowledge about their own pasts in different contexts”. Despite Methanites’ flexible definitions of present time, which is considered to be within three generations, past time, which is more than three generations, and understanding of chronology, their descriptions of the meanings associated with different structures in the built environment made it clear that they were very much aware of the changes that affected their lives and those of the previous generations (Forbes 2007, 275).

It is also important to consider the reasons why communities remained in and around the remains of the former palatial centers. This choice was influenced by both practical and symbolic factors. The continued habitation or reuse of former palatial sites, particularly Tiryns, was not only part of a deliberate plan to appropriate previous ideologies or practices through an association with the physical remains, but was also dictated by practical factors. Completely abandoning the areas around the former palatial centers would have been both risky and costly in terms of finding new locations to settle and constructing new dwellings.

I suggest that those living during the Late Bronze through Iron Age transition had an understanding of time and the past similar to that which Forbes (2007) describes for modern residents of Methana. The agricultural or ritual calendar probably structured the passage of time for LBA through IA communities, while features of the built environment, geological or major socio-economic events served as aides-memoir for the recollection of the past (Forbes 2007, 285).

Therefore, while it is possible that communities remained in the same areas because they wanted to maintain an association with their immediate past, a number of practical factors, such as access to arable land and water, and the uncertainty and cost of moving, must also be considered when discussing the choice made by domestic units to remain in the same area (Khatchadourian 2007, 56). Whatever the rationale behind the choice to remain in the same area, the physical remains of the former palatial centers were a highly visible point in the landscape, which would have been recognized and interpreted by the remaining communities.

The destruction of a Mycenaean palatial center would be a reference point for the destabilization of that social system and ideology in the area. There would be the time before the destruction event, the period within which it occurred and the time after the destruction took place. After several generations, the time before and during this event would be relegated to distant memory, while the time after the event would continue to evolve. As time elapsed, the presence of these remains would have been experienced and contextualized in a different way by later generations and, even if the remains of the palatial centers had previously signified one ideology or event, the passage of time and features of memory and oral tradition would allow for alternative interpretations and re-evaluations. However, no matter how the built environment was interpreted, a connection between the physical remains and those inhabiting the area continued to exist.

“Monuments lead double lives. They are built in the present but often they are directed towards the future. For later generations, they come to represent the past” (Bradley 2002, 82). The Mycenaean palatial centers, especially Mycenae and Tiryns, had a highly visible presence in the landscape even after the destructive events that contributed to their decline. The palatial centers were constructed

40

The Built Environment

3.5 Conclusions

represented by the palatial centers, which influenced or administered socio-economic and ritual activities, many domestic units were involved in these activities.

As I demonstrated in the previous chapter, Iron Age mortuary practices emphasized the individual or the domestic unit and a variation on this theme is also apparent in the built environment. I suggested that the palatial architecture created, reinforced and transmitted the Mycenaean palatial ideology (Locock 1994, 1) and that when the palatial centers collapsed there was an opportunity for reconstruction and renovation of the built environment in order to create areas more suitable for the socio-economic organization of the remaining communities.

In subsequent generations, architectural forms changed further with the reintroduction of apsidal buildings. The built environment at Asine and Tiryns, where there were multiple rooms or buildings of the same function and industrial, domestic, ritual and storage areas were located within close proximity to or even within the same building. This indicates that individual household units were more directly involved with these activities. The decentralization of these activities and the increasing importance of the individual are best demonstrated through an analysis of the mortuary evidence, ceramic material and metal objects dating to this period, which are the topics for the next three chapters of this study.

The renovation of specific administrative, industrial and cult areas during LH IIIC indicates that these communities were already beginning to establish a new ideology and socio-economic practices that suited their new situation. Instead of the existence of one large corporate group, as

41

Chapter Four: Mortuary Contexts and Practices

4.1 Introduction

evidence for more detailed analysis. Trends in the mortuary evidence, such as the rise in individual as opposed to cumulative mortuary contexts,2 the increasing number of vessel inhumations and the reintroduction of cremation, are all indicative of an ideological shift away from the corporate group and towards the increasing importance of the individual or, at the least, the choice to distinguish the individual in death.

Metcalf and Huntington (1991, 25) have emphasized the fact that death foregrounds not only mortality, but also the most fundamental social and cultural values that provide the framework by which people live their lives. Previous studies of the Late Bronze Age through Iron Age mortuary data have tended to overlook these aspects, focusing instead on the presentation of grave types and forms of disposal, on the lack of elaboration in grave offerings, differing levels of continuity with the palatial period and demographic changes (Hägg 1977, 1980; Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 8997; 103-136; Morris 1987). Consequently, only recently have developments in the mortuary evidence been related to ideological changes and the development of new socioeconomic practices or structures (Voutsaki 1998; Morris 1989).

4.1.2 Mycenaean Mortuary Practices Mourning, the deposition of grave goods and a final libation, enjoy such longevity that their continued presence in the Aegean mortuary record, whether attested to by physical remains or iconographic evidence, indicates more about the basic human responses to death than ideological or socio-economic developments. Therefore, while it can be demonstrated that these features were common in all periods of the Bronze Age through Iron Age transition, I have chosen to focus my discussion on other aspects of mortuary practices.

Rather than list developments in the mortuary arena as “continuities” or “innovations”, I examine the totality of this evidence, which has been gathered primarily from published excavation reports and specialist studies,1 in order to demonstrate how post-palatial communities maintained and developed practices that privileged the individual and how these developments are a feature of a more general shift away from large corporate group ideologies and structures.

Cumulative inhumations in chamber tombs and tholoi, which may have contained the remains of a single lineage group deposited over time, have been cited as a defining feature of Mycenaean palatial mortuary practices (Dickinson 1994, 222-227). This form of disposal is so frequently referred to in this way that it is necessary to state that other types of mortuary contexts, including individual inhumations in cists, pits and vessels, were not unknown during this period. Lewartowski (2000, 111) recorded a total of four cist graves, three pit graves, three pit-cave/ - shaft graves and two graves of an unknown type for the Late Helladic IIIA 1 through Late Helladic IIIB period in the Argolid. The use of some chamber tombs until the Late Helladic IIIC Late period has also been cited as evidence for a continued association with the Mycenaean palatial ideology (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 135).

Voutsaki (1998, 41-42), with specific reference to the Argolid, views mortuary practices as being integral in creating and reinforcing social realities. Building on this argument, I suggest that the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial centers presented an opportunity for the establishment of new ideologies and forms of socioeconomic organization by communities no longer subsumed within a palace-dominated system. In the generations following the collapse, communities had to engage with the newly established ideology, practices and recently established social statuses that formed part of life during the Iron Age.

Mycenaean mortuary practices have also been characterized by lavish displays of wealth, both in the amount of time and material spent on tomb construction and in the quantity and quality of grave goods (Cavanagh 2008, 337). In fact,

I first present a brief overview of Mycenaean mortuary practices and discuss general trends in the Late Bronze and Iron Age data. I then examine the mortuary data from specific sites, highlighting particular aspects of this

“Mortuary contexts” is the term used throughout this chapter to discuss the general practice of disposing of the dead. My terminology and methodology are made explicit in the subsequent section prior to my presentation of the data. 2

For a survey catalogue of published burials and bibliography see Appendix Two. 1

42

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Table 10 Types of mortuary contexts in use throughout LH IIIB 2 through Early Geometric.

so much of the discussion of Mycenaean burial practices has centered on wealthy chamber tombs and tholoi, that the overall picture has probably been skewed. The use of extramural cemeteries rather than intramural mortuary contexts and a preference for inhumation as opposed to cremation or vessel inhumations are also defining characteristics of Mycenaean mortuary practices.

Geometric mortuary contexts has been represented and mapped on a GIS. Individual mortuary contexts, regardless of the number of occupants, have been counted as one unit (Figure 17; Table 11).3 Each cumulative mortuary context (specifically chamber tombs, tholoi and tumuli) has also been counted as one unit, regardless of the number of occupants. This is intended to prevent the skewing of specific periods. For example, were tumuli counted based on the number of individual mortuary contexts included within the larger cumulative structure there would be 52 mortuary contexts ranging in date from LH IIIC Middle through Protogeometric, even though this is the cumulative mortuary context referred to as the Tripolis Street tumulus in Argos. Counting each cumulative mortuary context as a single unit also prevents confusion when comparing the distribution of mortuary contexts throughout the Argolid and, later, discussing the number of chamber tombs as opposed to vessel inhumations.

4.1.3 Terminology and Methodology Due to certain constraints, such as differential preservation, recovery and publication practices, the mortuary evidence from the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Early Geometric periods remains fragmentary and, at times, difficult to interpret. Mortuary contexts have primarily been identified in the vicinity of major sites. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the distribution of mortuary contexts across the landscape. In addition, there is no consistency in the analysis and publication of the mortuary contexts that have been discovered. This should not act as a deterrent, but does influence the types of analyses that can be reasonably applied to this material.

In cases where mortuary contexts, particularly chamber tombs and clusters of individual mortuary contexts in Argos, have been discussed in such a way as to make the dating of individual occupants problematic, I have assumed that at least one individual belongs to one of the periods included in this study.

For this discussion I use the term “mortuary contexts” to discuss the general method and type of disposal. This includes, but is not limited to, chamber tombs, tholoi, tumuli, cist and pit graves, cremation, inhumation and exposure. Individual mortuary contexts are defined as cists, pits, vessels and trench and pit graves. Cumulative mortuary contexts are defined as tholoi, tumuli and chamber tombs (Table 10).

I have also recorded the type of mortuary contexts in use throughout the Argolid. Also, when possible, I have also recorded the number of individuals included in the mortuary contexts, their biological sex and age. The categories of “male”, “female” and “unknown” have been used by the original excavators to discuss the biological sex of individuals and are relatively unproblematic.

When discussing specific examples, the form of disposal (cremation or inhumation) and type (cist, pit, chamber tomb) are used in combination. Therefore, it is possible to discuss tholoi and chamber tomb inhumations and cremation tumuli in relation to trends in cumulative mortuary contexts. However, chamber tombs and tholoi are referred to without reference to the form of disposal based on the general understanding that cremation was not associated with these mortuary contexts. Conversely, the distinction between vessel cremations and vessel inhumations is always made because this type of mortuary context was used in both forms of disposal.

In the case of age, however, little has been determined beyond assigning skeletal material to the broad categories of “infant”, “child”, “adult” and “unknown”, which have been used in the original published reports. In order to discuss demographic trends and the possibility of differential treatment based on age or sex, it has been assumed that It is well-established that mortuary contexts, such as cists and pits, were intended for a single occupant. However, there are cases in which multiple bodies were interred in a single cist or pit. This does not alter the fact that these are individual mortuary contexts in the sense that they were intended for one use at a specific moment and for one occupant. 3

The location and concentration of LH IIIB 2 through Early

43

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 17 The location and concentration of LH IIIB 2 through EG mortuary contexts in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula.

Table 11 Total numbers and percentages of mortuary contexts from selected sites, which are mentioned in the text and date to the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Iron Age.

44

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Table 12 Detailed demographic data for the Argolid organized chronologically with major chronological divisions highlighted.

“infant” refers to an individual from birth to one year of age, that a “child” is from one to fifteen years of age and an “adult” is sixteen or over. This is based on the observation that growth ceases around sixteen years of age.4

In Table 12, the major chronological periods depicted in bold present mortuary contexts that have only been broadly categorized, rather than a total number gathered from the subdivisions of the particular periods. The high number of LH IIIC M – PG individuals indicates the single cumulative mortuary context known as the Tripolis Street Tomb in Argos.

4.2 Data I recorded a total of 323 mortuary contexts from the Argolid and Methana Peninsula.5 The presence of a possible cemetery at Haghios Nikolaos on Methana was attested to by the type and quality of pottery identified during the survey (Mee and Forbes 1997, 127).6 However, because this site was identified during surface survey there is no information pertaining to the type or number of mortuary contexts. Therefore, this discussion and the data presented, both in the following text and tables, focus entirely on the Argolid (Table 12).

The apparent lack of mortuary contexts dating to the Late Helladic IIIB 2 period reflects the prevalence of cumulative mortuary contexts, which were in use across multiple chronological periods and contained individual inhumations that can possibly be attributed to this period. However, there is a lack of securely dated single inhumation mortuary contexts dating to this period in the Argolid. The apparent lack of mortuary contexts dating to the Middle Protogeometric period can also be explained in a similar manner. Individual mortuary contexts dating to this period have been discovered primarily at Argos, often in close proximity to other Protogeometric and later examples. However, due to the nature of rescue excavations, which account for most of the Iron Age material discovered in and around the modern city, and limited publication,

I would like to thank Prof. Andrew Chamberlain for bringing this to my attention. 5 The remaining ten mortuary contexts ocurr in isolation throughout the Argolid and one mortuary context represents the possible cemetery on the Methana Peninsula. 6 I would like to thank Prof. Christopher Mee for discussing the quality of the pottery from Haghios Nikolaos with me. 4

45

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 13 Demographic chart showing aggregated age categories. The shaded chronological periods have been selected for detailed analysis.

these mortuary contexts tend to be discussed as groups. Therefore, clusters of mortuary contexts are bracketed by their earliest and latest examples.

chronological periods with age data for all categories can be presented (Table 13). Age data from all categories are available for Late Helladic IIIA 1 through the LH IIIC Middle period. This chronological grouping represents examples from chamber tombs. The Late Protogeometric through Early Geometric category and the Protogeometric through Archaic category represent clusters of mortuary contexts that have been discussed as a group for which age data are available. Age data are also available for the LH IIIB through LH IIIC period, the LH IIIC Early and Late periods and the Protogeometric, EPG and LPG periods and the Early Geometric period. While it is possible that the LH IIIA 1 through LH IIIC Middle and PG through Archaic groups contain examples outside the chronological boundaries of the study period, the sample size is so small that it is unlikely to skew the results of this basic analysis.

Some observations regarding demographic trends and the possibility of differential mortuary treatment based on the data from the Argolid are possible. Rarely are there enough osteological data to discuss demographic composition and population numbers at specific sites or any differential treatment based on biological sex. However, the overall picture is one of approximately equal representation of adult men and women and children. However, it is possible that infants are underrepresented due to taphonomic or selective processes. In order to discuss demographic trends across the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age transition, age categories have been aggregated to “adults” and “children and infants” based on the previously mentioned assumption that “adults” are individuals sixteen and older and “infants and children” are individuals fifteen and younger.7 In addition to combining the “infants” and “children” into one age category, only

These chronological periods are then combined into two general categories: LH IIIA 1 through LH IIIC Late and Early Protogeometric through Early Geometric.8 This distinction has been made for two reasons: first, in order to facilitate comparison; and second, because sometimes it is not possible to date specific numbers of individuals from cumulative mortuary contexts to a single chronological period. 8

The distinction of “adult” at the age of 16 is based on skeletal development and I would like to again thank Dr. Andrew Chamberlain for discussing age categorisation with me. 7

46

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Table 14 Fully aggregated demographic table for the mortuary contexts from the Argolid

Table 14 illustrates that throughout both the LH IIIA 1 through LH IIIC Late and Early Protogeometric through Early Geometric periods approximately equal proportions of adults and children and infants were disposed of in archaeologically visible mortuary contexts.

combined chronological and age categories due to the sample sizes, the available raw totals demonstrate that approximately equal proportions of adults and children and infants were disposed of in archaeological visible mortuary contexts.

This conclusion can be further supported by comparing the data that I have presented with the Coale and Demeny “West” model life tables (Coale, Demeny and Vaughan 1983; Chamberlain 2006, 32). Triantaphyllou (2001) successfully applied the “West” level five table, in which life expectancy was 30 years of age, to skeletal data from Late Bronze Age, Bronze Age through Iron Age and Iron Age cemeteries in Central and Western Greek Macedonia and I use this same table for my analysis.

Table 18 illustrates the occurrence of specific types of mortuary contexts throughout the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age transition in the Argolid. Excluding the Tripolis Street tumulus, which was in use until the Protogeometric period, and the 1926 Tholos at Dendra, which collapsed after the LH IIIC Early period, but was reused during the Early Geometric, cumulative mortuary contexts go out of use after the Late Helladic IIIC Late. Having discussed general trends in the mortuary data, I present evidence from Prosymna, Dendra and Midea, Mycenae, Tiryns and Profitis Ilias, Asine and Argos in order to discuss how communities at these sites responded to the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial administration. Prosymna and Profitis Ilias were selected to illustrate the decline and eventual disappearance of the chamber tomb in the Argolid. Dendra was selected in order to demonstrate the occasional reuse of palatial mortuary contexts and the scarcity of evidence for activity at and around the citadel of Midea after the collapse of the palaces. Mycenae, Tiryns, Asine and Argos were selected because the majority of mortuary contexts recorded and discussed from the Argolid were discovered at these sites (as demonstrated in Table 11).

This comparison demonstrates that when life expectancy is 30 years of age and stable population growth is between zero and one percent,9 approximately equal proportions of adults and children and infants (which can be determined as between 47% and 58% respectively) were disposed of in archaeologically visible contexts. Therefore, it can be assumed that, with the exception of infants,10 no subset of the population was being actively selected for differential treatment. Mycenae, Tiryns and Asine (Tables 15, 16 and 17) were selected for demographic analysis because these sites represent the mortuary contexts of physically distinct and identifiable communities. Argos was excluded because there is no reliable way to demonstrate which communities were using which areas for their disposal. Profitis Ilias, the chamber tomb cemetery associated with Tiryns, was excluded because only one skeleton of the 29 total was assigned to an age category. Prosymna and Dendra were also excluded on the same grounds. While I have not

A detailed examination of the mortuary evidence from these sites indicates a shift away from the importance of the collective and towards the individual, a conclusion that is supported by a number of specific features, such as the rise in the number of individual mortuary contexts, and practices that promoted and preserved individuality in death.

Population growth of 1%, which would mean a doubling of the population every 63 years (Chamberlain 2000, 30-31), cannot be inferred for this period from either the mortuary or architectural evidence as total numbers of individuals and settlement and house sizes are frequently unknown or unavailable due to lack of completely excavated sites and structures. 10 As has been mentioned, infants are notoriously difficult to identify in the archaeological record. This is due to three main factors: first, infant bones are more affected by post-depositional factors than child or adult bones; second, there is the possibility that communities did not provide archaeologically visible mortuary contexts for this set of the population; third, it is possible that, due to the nature of infant skeletal remains, they could be overlooked if the appropriate excavation techniques were not applied. However, in some cases it has been possible to identify infant skeletons and these have been noted in the above data. 9

4.2.1 Prosymna Prosymna (Figure 18) is located 9.1 km east - southeast of Mycenae and 13 km northeast of Argos on the eastern edge of the Argive plain. Due to the presence of the Argive Heraion near the settlement, there has been considerable focus on the later phases of activity at this site. However, chamber tombs dating to the earlier phases of the Late Bronze Age were discovered northwest of the Late Helladic settlement, which is in the area of the later sanctuary (Hall

47

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 15 Demographic data from mortuary contexts at Mycenae.

Table 16 Demographic data from mortuary contexts at Tiryns.

48

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Table 17 Demographic data from mortuary contexts at Asine.

Table 18 Types of mortuary contexts in use throughout LH IIIB 2 through Early Geometric periods.

49

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

1995, 578-579; Antonaccio 1992, 89). Blegen (1937, 132) dated the use of the cemetery to the Late Helladic II through Late Helladic IIIB periods.

IIIB period and the final inhumation was dated to the Late Helladic IIIC Early period (Table 19). These chamber tombs were located in each of the three different geographical groups originally identified by Blegen (1937) and it appears that no one grouping went entirely out of use until the deposition of the final inhumation in Tomb XX (Figure 19). Biological sex data are not available for the skeletal material and only two of the fifteen skeletons were identified as children.

Eleven chamber tombs contained evidence of use at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Tombs XXVIII, III and VI were constructed during the Late Helladic IIA period and the last inhumation occurred during the Late Helladic IIIB 2 period. Tomb XXXIII was constructed during LH IIIA 1 and the final inhumation was also dated to LH IIIB 2. Tombs XXXVI, XIX, IX, XXII, XV and X were constructed during LH IIIA 2. The final inhumations in these mortuary contexts were also dated to the Late Helladic IIIB 2 period. Only Tomb XX was constructed during the Late Helladic

Table 20 clearly illustrates that the only attested mortuary context at Prosymna was the chamber tomb. The chronological range of individual mortuary contexts within chamber tombs and the lack of any mortuary contexts later than LH IIIC Early, from which there is only a single example, is the earliest chronological evidence from the Argolid for the decline in popularity and eventual abandonment of the chamber tomb. This type of mortuary context continued to be in use at Mycenae and at Profitis Ilias until LH IIIC Middle and at Argos and Asine until LH IIIC Late. Being on the fringes of several major centers it is possible that Prosymna fell heavily under palatial influence and, therefore, reacted early and profoundly to the collapse of the palatial administration, breaking sooner with the palatial ideology. 4.2.2 Dendra/Midea Unlike the other palatial centers, no mortuary contexts dating to this period have been discovered within the remains of the citadel of Midea, which is located on the eastern edge of the Argive plain approximately equidistant from Mycenae and Tiryns (Demakopoulou and DivariValakou 1999, 205) (Figure 20). At Dendra, the associated cemetery located one km west of the citadel, there is very little evidence for mortuary activity during this period (Persson 1942, 17). The only mortuary context dating to this period is an Early Geometric adult inhumation located in the walling of the

Figure 18 The location of Prosymna in relation to other sites discussed in detail.

Table 19 Dates for the construction of and final inhumation in chamber tombs at Prosymna with evidence of use during this period.

50

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Figure 19 Distribution of chamber tombs at Prosymna. Blue indicates chamber tombs in use from LH IIA through LH IIIB 2; Orange indicates chamber tombs in use from LH IIIA 1 through LH IIIB 2; Yellow indicates chamber tombs in use from LH IIIA 2 through LH IIIB 2; Brown indicates chamber tombs in use from LH IIIB 2 through LH IIIC (After Blegen 1937, Plate 1).

1926 Tholos (Table 21). The 1926 Tholos was constructed during the Late Helladic IIIB period and appears to have been abandoned and then collapsed after the LH IIIC Early period (Persson 1931, 66). However, it seems that this mortuary context was the focus of later activity. A Late Helladic IIIC Middle deep bowl with two handles was discovered in the upper layer of the fill created by the collapse of the chamber. Later, the Early Geometric adult inhumation in a pit was dug into the walling of the door to the tholos (Persson 1931, 31; 41).

reuse of these mortuary contexts indicates that members of a community were attempting to establish or capitalize on an association with the past. In addition, it is possible that through the reuse of this mortuary context a community was attempting to claim this particular area as their own by interring one of their members within a previously constructed mortuary context. Evidence of later visitation to Mycenaean mortuary contexts is present at some of the chamber tombs in Argos as well and these cases are perhaps some of the earliest evidence for what has been variously characterized as hero worship or ancestor cult (cf. Antonaccio 1995).

The construction of a later pit within the wall of an earlier tholos tomb suggests that while cumulative mortuary contexts were no longer popular, there was still some currency left in these features of the Mycenaean palatial ideology. While the chronological gaps between the use of these mortuary contexts and the later activity demonstrates rediscovery rather than continuity, the visitation to and

The presence of so little evidence for any type of architectural activity after the Late Helladic IIIB 2 period at Dendra and Midea leads to the conclusion that the community, which either remained after the collapse of the palatial center or moved into the area at a later date,

51

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 20 Types of mortuary contexts in use at Prosymna during LH IIIB 2 through EG.

Figure 20 The locations of Dendra and Midea in relation to other sites discussed in detail.

52

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Table 21 Types of mortuary contexts in use at Dendra during the LH IIIB 2 through EG.

was small and perhaps utilized a form of archaeologically invisible disposal. However, if this site had been the focus of intensive ritual activity or hero cult, then more evidence from later periods would be expected.

There are five chamber tombs from different previously established Mycenaean chamber tomb cemeteries (Figure 22) with evidence of continued use until the Late Helladic IIIC Middle period. However, Table 22 and Table 23 clearly demonstrate that cumulative mortuary contexts ceased to be used at Mycenae by the Late Helladic IIIC Late period.

4.2.3 Mycenae

Chamber tomb G- III from Gortsoulia, located northeast of the citadel on the southern slope of Profitis Ilias, contained seven inhumations within the chamber and two within niches, α′ and β′, located in the dromos. These individual mortuary contexts were most probably intended for infant inhumations, a conclusion that is supported by the lack of skeletal material and the presence of grave goods, such as Psi figurines and a limited amount of pottery (Shelton 2000, 37). The construction of this chamber tomb has been dated to the LH IIIA 1 period and the final inhumation within this context has been dated to LH IIIC Middle, which is consistent with the abandonment of chamber tomb constructions and burials throughout the Argolid (Shelton 2000, 36; 38).

A significant number of mortuary contexts dating to both the Late Helladic IIIC and Early Geometric periods have been discovered at Mycenae, which is located approximately 6.0 km north of Argos on a prominent hill overlooking the Argive plain (Figure 21). While there is little architectural evidence that can be securely dated to the Late Bronze through Iron Age, mortuary activities within the remains of the citadel suggest that the community living in this area maintained a claim to the site by placing their mortuary contexts within the palatial ruins. The mortuary evidence relevant to this study at Mycenae dates from the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Early Geometric periods. Throughout this period adults of both sexes, as well as children and infants were inhumed in a variety of mortuary contexts, which include chamber tombs, pits and cists and vessel inhumations (Table 22). These mortuary contexts were located within the palatial ruins, in previously established cemeteries and within the emerging settlement outside the walls of the palatial center.

Chamber tomb P- I, located in the cemetery on the Panagia ridge below the church of the same name, was constructed during LH IIIA 2 (Shelton 2000, 51). The final inhumation within this mortuary context has been dated to LH IIIC Early. Three children and one adult were definitively identified from the skeletal material, although the existence of additional skeletal material belonging to children was also implied in the publication. The presence of fragmentary

53

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 21 The location of Mycenae in relation to other sites discussed in detail.

Table 22 Types of mortuary contexts in use at Mycenae during the LH IIIB 2 through EG.

54

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Table 23 Dates for construction of and final inhumation in chamber tombs at Mycenae with evidence of use during this period.

and incomplete skeletal material in a cluster along the north side of the chamber indicates that the chamber had been cleared to make room for additional occupants. The type of grave goods, which included a high number of complete and fragmentary figurines, and the fact that only one adult skeleton was identified, suggest that this mortuary context was used almost exclusively for the disposal of children. Clearly, children were important to the group that used this chamber tomb. This is also supported by the almost complete segregation of children from other members of the population in this cemetery (Shelton 2000, 54).

the Kalkani hill, is one of the rare chamber tombs that was constructed and used entirely during the Late Helladic IIIC period (Shelton 2003, 36). No age or sex data are available for the occupants of this tomb. Chamber tomb 532 was located in the Kalkani cemetery. The chamber contained two layers of highly disturbed bones and ceramic material. Wace determined that fifteen inhumations could be dated to the Late Helladic III period. Despite the highly disturbed nature of this mortuary context, a Late Helladic IIIC Middle stirrup jar was discovered among the remains of the skeletal material that had been dated to the Late Helladic III period (Wace 1939, 113; Thomatos 2006, 149).

Chamber tomb 502, located in the Third Kilometre cemetery was constructed during the Late Helladic III period. The earliest inhumations were moved to the northeast side and west corner of the chamber. Eight complete vessels were associated with the final inhumation and, as Wace (1939, 6) describes them, they “…belong to the Granary Class”. He further elaborates on the significance of this particular find:

Cist, pit and vessel inhumations ranging in date from the Late Helladic IIIC Late through Early Geometric periods have been discovered within the remains of the palatial center itself. Areas used for placement of individual mortuary contexts, which contained adults of both sexes and infants and children, include the Citadel House and Citadel House Area, the Temple Complex, the area near the Lion Gate, and the North Quarter. Even buildings outside the citadel walls, which are assumed to have been associated with the palatial administration, such as Panagia House III and the House of the Sphinxes, were re-used as locations for individual mortuary contexts. The placement of mortuary contexts within palatial remains is not repeated at any of the other citadels to such a degree. Only Tiryns boasts a small number of individual mortuary contexts located in the Unterburg.

According to the stratification [of the Granary building within the citadel walls] the Granary class of L.H. III ware was in use just before and just after the fall of Mycenae…The evidence of this tomb, where the finding of some broken vases of Granary Class in the north corner shows that there was more than one interment during this period… If a Mycenaean family could continue to use the same tomb down to, and perhaps after, the fall of Mycenae, there could hardly have been a violent change of population

Considering the lack of architectural evidence from within the citadel walls, the presence of mortuary activities suggest that the remaining communities changed the meaning of this area by altering its primary function. It is as if the postpalatial communities at Mycenae colonized this area with their dead in order to maintain a connection to this area and to prohibit anyone from using the citadel and associated houses for political, administrative or even domestic purposes again. The area within the citadel walls was no longer the seat of authority and a place for the living.

(Wace 1939, 6). The continued use of chamber tombs during the Late Helladic IIIC period at Prosymna, Asine and Argos further supports Wace’s original conclusion that there was no dramatic change in population after the collapse of the palatial administration not just at Mycenae, but other sites throughout the Argolid as well. Grave B from Alepotrypa, located on the southeast slope of

55

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 22 Map of Mycenae and surrounding area with chamber tombs indicated in black (From Maggidis and Stamos 2006, Figure 2).

56

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Figure 23 Location of the current excavations at Mycenae. Taken from the citadel (photo: Prof. Chr. Maggidis).

Instead, it became an area for the dead and the placement of mortuary contexts within the palatial ruins could be seen as a symbolic representation of the collapse of the formerly resident palatial administration.

Helladic IIIC Early through the Early Geometric periods have been discovered in and around the citadel of Tiryns, located at the southern end of the Argive plain on a low hill (Papademetriou 2001, 6) (Figure 25). Types of mortuary contexts include cist, pit and vessel inhumations of adults of both sexes, as well as infants and children. Table 24 demonstrates the wide variety of mortuary contexts in use at Tiryns during the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Early Geometric periods.

Excavations in the field south of the Oil Merchant group, east of the Chavos Ravine and west of the Treasury of Atreus have been underway since 2007 (Figure 23). In 2008 an Early Geometric cist grave was discovered in the NW section of the site. This individual mortuary context contained an adult inhumation accompanied by four complete and one broken vessel. The skeleton was adorned with a bronze pin located on the right shoulder and a bronze ring. The cist grave inhumation is located against the outside wall of a building, which has not yet been fully explored. Nevertheless, this individual mortuary context is tentative evidence for habitation in the area and mortuary activity outside the walls of the citadel (Lantzas 2008; Figure 24).11

The chamber tomb cemetery on Profitis Ilias, located east of Tiryns on a large hill (Figure 25) has been identified as the cemetery for the palatial population at Tiryns. Six chamber tombs have evidence of use during this period and none have been dated later than the Late Helladic IIIC Middle (Table 25 and Table 26). The preference for chamber tomb inhumations at this site is clear and the final use of this form of cumulative mortuary context in the Late Helladic IIIC Middle period agrees with the general trend at Mycenae.

4.2.4 Tiryns/ Profitis Ilias

Analysis of the ceramic material from these chamber tombs indicates that they were in use throughout this period (Rudolph 1973, 38-40). It seems that, in a situation similar to Mycenae, there was no dramatic population change and that the kin-groups, presumably located at Tiryns itself, continued to inhume their dead in these cumulative mortuary contexts. When considered with the evidence for

Individual mortuary contexts ranging in date from the Late It is possible that a small community existed within the former citadel and disposed of their dead there. However, the architectural evidence from the former citadel dating to this period is too fragmentary to support this conclusion. 11

57

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 24 Early Geometric inhumation from Lower Town at Mycenae (photo: K. Lantzas).

settlement activity and an attempt at social differentiation via the deposition of the Tiryns Hoard (both to be discussed in detail in subsequent chapters), the continued use of chamber tombs seems to indicate that a social group at Tiryns was trying to manipulate features of the palatial administration for their own benefit.

Alkestis Papademetriou (2003, 717) examined the postpalatial mortuary contexts within and around the citadel of Tiryns. She noted that while cist and pit inhumations were prevalent in all periods, the use of vessel inhumations became much more common during the Protogeometric period. This type of individual mortuary context has been discovered at Mycenae and Argos as well. Vessel inhumations never became more popular than cist or pit inhumations. However, like the general rise in individual mortuary contexts, this form of disposal was used to promote and preserve individuality.

Unlike at other sites, the post-palatial population at Tiryns maintained distinct areas for the placement of their individual mortuary contexts, rather than inhuming them around the palatial remains. Nevertheless, there are a few occurrences of single inhumations within settlement remains. These areas are the Stadt-West area, the area of the modern prison, in Location H and a cluster in the west of the acropolis (Papademetriou 2003, 713-716). Stadt-West is the only area in which graves and settlement remains were located together (Papademetriou 2003, 716).

4.2.5 Asine Unlike the other sites, there is very little mortuary evidence dating to the earliest periods of this study at Asine, which is located approximately 11.0 km southeast of Argos on the coast (Figure 26; Table 27). Table 27 demonstrates the limited variety of mortuary contexts at Asine, as well as the existence of one of the latest inhumations in a cumulative mortuary context in the Argolid, which was placed in Chamber Tomb 1 and has been dated to LH IIIC Late (Frödin and Persson 1938, 151-188; Mountjoy 1996; Alden 1981, 251) (Table 28).

While I have clearly demonstrated that equal proportions of adults and infants and children were disposed of in archaeologically visible mortuary contexts, the 46 total mortuary contexts from Tiryns, which contained 54 individuals, does not represent a complete population or even a statistically significant sample of the population that must have existed in order to have undertaken such extensive post-palatial renovations and occupied this site throughout an approximately 300 year long period.

Six chamber tombs with evidence for use throughout the Late Bronze Age were identified in Necropolis I on

58

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Figure 25 The location of Tiryns and Profitis Ilias in relation to other sites discussed in detail.

Table 24 Types of mortuary contexts in use at Tiryns during the LH IIIB 2 through EG.

59

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 25 The types of mortuary contexts in use at Profitis Ilias during LH IIIB 2 through EG.

Table 26 Dates for the construction of and final inhumation in chamber tombs at Prof. Ilias with evidence of use during this period.

period and, based on an analysis of the mortuary remains, its community clearly identified more with an ideology that emphasized the individual rather than the group.

the Barbouna Hill (Figure 27), located northeast of the settlement (Frödin and Persson 1938, 151). In a situation similar to the chamber tomb cemetery on Profitis Ilias, not all of the chamber tombs on the Barbouna Hill were used continuously. In both Tomb 1 and Tomb 2 there was a gap in use between the LH IIA 2 and LH IIIC periods (Alden 1981, 251).

4.2.6 Argos As I have previously mentioned, approximately 44% of all published graves dating to the study period are located at Argos, which is located approximately 8.2 km northeast of Tiryns in a central location in the Argive plain (Figure 28). This is a product of both the continual rescue excavations in the modern city and the beginning of increased activity that has been documented during the 8th century BC.

Within the settlement at Asine, cist inhumations are the most prominent type of individual mortuary context throughout the Protogeometric period. They contained adults of both sexes, infants and children. Pit inhumations were also discovered and contained adults of both sexes and children as well.

Mortuary contexts range in date from Late Helladic IIIC Early to Early Geometric, although there is little evidence for mortuary activity in the earliest periods of this study. Mortuary contexts include chamber tomb inhumations, inurned cremations in trench and hole graves and in vessels within a tumulus, vessel inhumations and cist and pit inhumations (Table 29). Adults of both biological

Perhaps because of its distance from the major palatial centers, the Mycenaean palatial ideology that privileged the corporate group over the individual was slow to take hold and was never strongly reinforced. Asine later became the focus of settlement activity during the Protogeometric

60

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Figure 26 The location of Asine in relation to other sites discussed in detail.

Table 27 The types of mortuary contexts in use at Asine during the LH IIIB 2 through EG.

61

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 28 Dates for the construction of and final inhumation in dates chamber tombs at Asine with evidence of use during this period.

Figure 27 Map of the chamber tombs discovered on the Barbouna Hill. Brown indicates LH IIB – LH IIIC Late; Blue indicates LH IIIA 1 – LH IIIC; Tan indicates LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIC M; Yellow indicates LH IIIC (After Frödin and Persson 1938, Figure 131).

62

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Figure 28 The location of Argos in relation to other sites.

sexes, infants and children are all attested to in the mortuary record. However, infants and children have been identified much less frequently than adults.

the use of these chamber tombs as locations for cremation burials because no residues could be associated with the proposed cremation vessels.

There are four chamber tombs with evidence of use in this period and all are located within cemeteries established during the Late Bronze Age (Table 30). Like Asine, none of these cumulative mortuary contexts were in use later than the Late Helladic IIIC Late period (Hägg 1974, 18-27; Lemos 2002, 13). In a pattern similar to that at Tiryns, vessel inhumations do not occur until the Early Protogeometric period.

The complete EPG amphora discovered in Tomb XXXIII was located on top of a layer of disturbed human bones and seems to have been a burial gift placed in the tomb later (Hägg 1987, 206). Indeed, this would parallel the case at Midea, where an Early Geometric bowl was discovered with a chamber tomb. The broken EPG amphora discovered in tomb XXIV could have been for an infant and was possibly broken to accommodate the corpse. However, the only evidence to support this is the lack of any human bones associated with this vessel and it could just as easily have been a later addition to this mortuary context (Hägg 1987, 209).

The four chamber tombs were located in the Mycenaean cemetery at Deiras (Deshayes 1966, 39-69) (Figure 29). It appears that Tomb XIV was abandoned after the Late Helladic IIIB period, only to be reused during the Late Helladic IIIC Late (Deshayes 1966, 45- 46). Conversely, Tomb XVII was used without interruption from the Late Helladic IIIB through Late Helladic IIIC Late (Deshayes 1966, 54). Deshayes (1966, 67) originally proposed that Tombs XXIV, the use of which predates this study, and XXXIII were reused during the Early Protogeometric period after their chambers had collapsed as locations for cremation burials. However, Hägg (1987) re-examined the contextual evidence and convincingly argued against

In addition to the chamber tombs and numerous individual mortuary contexts, Argos has the greatest concentration of vessel inhumations. At least, 13 vessel inhumations have been discovered. Although, this number is a minimum estimate because vessel inhumations from a range of later dates (Protogeometric through Early Geometric) have been discovered in close proximity to other individual mortuary contexts and, consequently, were discussed as a group rather than as individual mortuary contexts. Therefore,

63

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 29 The types of mortuary contexts in Argos during the LH IIIB 2 through EG.

Table 30 Dates for the construction of and final inhumation in chamber tombs at Argos with evidence of use during this period.

the reintroduction of cremation. This ideological change would have affected and been apparent in socio-economic practices and organization as well.

specific quantities were not mentioned when these examples were published (Table 31). One of the earliest examples of cremation, the Tripolis Street Tumulus, was also discovered in the modern city of Argos. Both vessel inhumations and inurned cremation burials are discussed in further detail to support the increasing importance of the individual.

In order to substantiate this line of reasoning more completely, I examine other aspects of the material record from this period in subsequent chapters. However, before this can be accomplished, these particular aspects of the mortuary record need to be examined more completely, citing specific examples from the major sites and broader region.

As of yet, no Mycenaean palatial center has been discovered at Argos. Therefore, it is possible that the palatial ideology was not deeply entrenched there or, perhaps, new members of the community who moved into the area after the collapse of the palatial centers introduced or fostered a new ideology, which privileged the individual over the collective.

4.3 Cumulative Mortuary Contexts vs. Individual Mortuary Contexts The increase in the number of individual inhumations as opposed to cumulative inhumations has traditionally been viewed from two opposing standpoints. Snodgrass (2000, 145-147; 153) argued that the increasing use of cist graves was indicative of a new intrusive culture, while Desborough (1972, 266) argued that the use of cist and pit graves was a revival of Middle Helladic mortuary practices that had been suppressed by the Mycenaean palatial culture. Table 32 illustrates the total number of known cumulative and individual mortuary contexts in use throughout this period

4.2.7 Summary Mortuary evidence from major sites throughout the Argolid indicates that during the Late Bronze Age through Iron Age transition, an ideological shift took place. The rise in the importance of the individual, as opposed to the collective, is attested to by the increasing number of individual mortuary contexts, the increasing use of vessel inhumations and

64

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Figure 29 Location of the chamber tombs in the Deiras cemetery. Brown indicates chamber tombs in use during LH IIIA 2 through LH IIIC L; Blue indicates chamber tombs in use during LH IIIB through LH IIIC Late; Yellow indicates chamber tombs in use during LH IIIC through LH IIIC Late (After Deshayes 1966, Plate I).

Table 31 Quantities of vessel inhumations dating to the Late Bronze through Iron Age at specific sites.

in both the Argolid and Methana Peninsula. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine the type of the probable burials at Haghios Nikolaos on Methana and the occurrence of two mortuary contexts from Argos was noted in a preliminary report, which did not include further details.

that a new population was not essential for the spread of individual inhumation in these forms. An analysis by discrete chronological periods, as presented in Figure 30, clearly demonstrates the transition from cumulative to individual mortuary contexts during this period.

However, cist and pit inhumations were also in use during the Bronze Age. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume communities throughout the Late Helladic periods were familiar with this type of individual mortuary context and

Wright (2008a) has recently discussed the social and political rationale behind the widespread use of the chamber

65

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 32 Total of types of mortuary contexts in use throughout the Argolid and Methana Peninsula during the LH IIIB 2 through Iron Age.

Figure 30 Total number of individual and cumulative mortuary contexts in the Argolid.

tomb. Rather than suggesting that the introduction and proliferation of the chamber tomb was due to a change in preferences, he argues that it was indicative of changing socio-economic and political realities (Wright 2008a, 144). I apply this approach to the decline and disappearance of cumulative mortuary contexts.

developments in the material record, including the mortuary evidence, as a continuing renegotiation of ideologies and practices in response to changing conditions rather than a series of sudden and disjointed changes (Wright 2008a, 145). Chamber tombs became relatively widespread throughout the Argolid by the Late Helladic III period and became a feature of the palatial ideology in which the corporate group identity was more important than that of individuals (Wright 2008b, 238; Wright 2008a, 149). While some kingroups continued to inhume their dead in chamber tombs until the Late Helladic IIIC Late period (Figure 31), very few chamber tombs were constructed in the Late Helladic IIIC period and no new chamber tombs were constructed after the Late Helladic IIIC period. I argue that this is due

The transition from cumulative to individual mortuary contexts is one example of a fundamental ideological shift that supported and was supported by the social, political and economic organization of Iron Age communities. Before presenting more detailed material evidence, it is necessary to insist that artificial boundaries are not placed between the Late Bronze and Iron Age. Instead, the Late Bronze and Iron Age communities should be considered as part of a social continuum. Through this approach, it is possible to discuss

66

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Figure 31 Location and quantity of chamber tombs in the Argolid with evidence of post-palatial use.

contexts in use during the Bronze Age through Iron Age transition and the overall quantity and distribution of chamber tombs that this particular form of cumulative mortuary context was associated with the palatial ideology. After the collapse of the palatial centers, communities, in general, no longer associated with chamber tomb inhumation. The latest examples, which have been dated to LH IIIC Late can be explained in two ways. First, Argos and Asine, due to their location, may not have reacted as strongly against the collapse of the palatial centers as sites such as Profitis Ilias and Prosymna, which were directly associated with the palatial centers. It is also possible that if lineage groups used the same chamber tombs for an extended period of time, then the individuals that chose

in part to the association of chamber tombs with the palatial ideology. Figure 32 shows the latest inhumations within chamber tombs at the above site, while Table 33 displays the use dates for all the chamber tombs in the Argolid that were in use throughout the Late Bronze Age through Iron Age transition. Figure 32 and Table 33 illustrate that by LH IIIC M, the chamber tombs closest to and at Mycenae have fallen out of use and that chamber tombs further away from this palatial center remain in use much longer. It is clear from an examination of the types of mortuary

67

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 32 The chronologically latest chamber tomb inhumations from chamber tombs relevant to this study.

to inhume their deceased in these mortuary contexts did so because of filial rather than socio-political associations.

the chamber tomb and only generally discussed the increase in the number of individual mortuary contexts, this section focuses on the increase in numbers of vessel inhumations. This development further demonstrates the prevalence of individual mortuary contexts during this period and the importance of the individual as opposed to the corporate group.

Another implication arising from my detailed analysis of chamber tombs in the Argolid with evidence for use after the collapse of the palatial administration is that if chamber tombs did, in fact, contain kin-groups, then there is direct continuity of population at Mycenae, Tiryns, Asine and Argos before, during and subsequent to the collapse of the palaces.

In this type of individual mortuary context, which was used for both adults and children, the body of the deceased was placed within a storage vessel and interred in a pit. Like cist and pit inhumations, this particular type of individual mortuary context has antecedents in the Middle Helladic period, during which a number of pithos burials were carried out (Boyd 2002, 69).

4.4 Vessel Inhumations While the previous section has focused on the decline of cumulative mortuary contexts with particular reference to

68

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Table 33 Dates for the construction of and final inhumation in chamber tombs relevant to this study, organized from earliest to latest inhumation.

I have chosen to focus solely on inhumations in vessels as opposed to inurned cremations, which, while also a type of mortuary context and practice that promoted the individual, used the vessels for different reasons.

afford to dispose of these vessels, which required the skill of a specialist potter. It could be that pithoi were considered too costly or useful to be disposed of in this manner. However, this seems less likely because of the presence of pithos fragments in the ceramic material collected from the settlement and the presence of a Protogeometric pithos deposited in a ritual pit.12

Figure 33 illustrates the relative quantities of vessel inhumations discovered at Mycenae, Argos and Tiryns. No vessel inhumations from this period have been discovered at Asine or Prosymna. The community that used Prosymna as a cemetery during the Late Bronze Age, used chamber tombs exclusively and perhaps the lack of vessel inhumations is due to the fact that this area was abandoned for a time. At Asine, however, the community tended to utilize other forms of single inhumation burials. Perhaps this particular community maintained a preference for inhumation within cist and pit graves prior to and throughout the Late Bronze Age.

The earliest vessel inhumation in this study is a Late Helladic IIIC Early vessel inhumation from Mycenae. Vessel inhumations become increasingly common throughout the Bronze Age through Iron Age transition, particularly during the Protogeometric period, as illustrated by Figure 34. Vessel inhumations have been discovered individually or This association has been made based on the presence of ceramic shapes typically used in ritual contexts and the high quantity of fat and ash in the surrounding soil (Wells 1983, 29). 12

It is also possible that the community at Asine could not

69

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 33 The location and quantities of vessel inhumations.

included in groups with other types of mortuary contexts, particularly in locations throughout the modern city of Argos. For the latter half of the Middle to Late Minoan periods, Branigan (1993, 66) argues that the appearance of vessel and larnax inhumations in otherwise cumulative mortuary contexts was an attempt to maintain the individuality of the deceased (see also Boyd 2002, 70). This is perhaps the case in Argos where vessel inhumations were included in larger groups of inhumations over a period of time.

deceased as the use of a pithos would have increased the memorability of the funeral. Vessel inhumations can also be considered as a form of wealth disposal. This may not be obvious at first, but one needs to consider the amount of time and expertise needed to construct pithoi and other large-scale storage vessels. The choice to use storage vessels reflects access to pots that would require a specialist to produce, material wealth and sacrifice on the part of the contributor of the vessel. This attributed wealth to the deceased individual or their domestic unit and could be seen as a conspicuous display of wealth or, if the associated household was not particularly wealthy, the use of a storage vessel could be viewed as a sacrifice. Once these vessels were used in the mortuary arena they were removed from general use and their symbolic meaning was altered. All of these considerations

I suggest that during the Late Helladic IIIC period this type of mortuary context is an example of the ideological shift away from the palatial identity to one focusing on the individual and, in cases where it occurred alongside other contexts, it also preserved the individuality of the

70

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

Figure 34 A comparison of quantities of chamber tombs and vessel inhumations over time. Only vessel inhumations that have been securely dated to a single chronological phase have been included.

indicate that pithoi were “…deliberately deposited in the grave as a conscious elaboration of the funeral”, rather than used simply as a convenient container for the body of the deceased (Boyd 2002, 71).

ideological shift that privileged the individual over the larger group (Williams 2004, 417). Cremation has been attested to as early as the Neolithic period in Thessaly and there are examples from the Late Helladic IIIC in the cemetery at Perati as well (Hägg 1987, 207). Moving beyond the discussion of when cremation first appeared and where it originated from, I examine the message and impact of the act of cremation. The very nature of this rite, including cost and sensory impact, were ideal for the promotion of the individual and their associated domestic unit.

Inhumation in ceramic vessels, particularly when discovered in close proximity to other individual mortuary contexts or within a cumulative context, preserved individuality even after death. The use of storage vessels also functioned as an act of wealth disposal through which the household could gain social status. Individual inhumation burials in cists and pits and vessel inhumations were not unknown before the Iron Age, but when considered against the disappearance of cumulative mortuary contexts there is a strong case for arguing that the increasing use of individual mortuary contexts is a sign of changes in ideology rather than fashion or in amounts of wealth available for expenditure mainly in the mortuary arena.

During the Bronze Age through Iron Age transition, the earliest examples of cremation in the Argolid come from the Chania tumulus, located 2.5 km southwest of Mycenae on the ancient road from Mycenae to Argos, and the Tripolis Street tumulus located in the modern city of Argos (Figure 35).

4.5 Cremation

Both of these examples are unique because they were lavishly equipped, are the only two cremation burials in the region dating to Late Helladic IIIC and contain multiple inurned cremation burials within a tumulus, a practice which was previously unknown in this area (Hägg 1987, 211).

If the transition to individual mortuary contexts and particularly inhumations within ceramic vessels demonstrates the desire to emphasize the individual and preserve individuality, then the choice of cremation over inhumation is an even more striking example of the

71

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 35 The location of inurned cremation contexts dating to the LH IIIC period. The tumulus at Chania contained 8 inurned cremation burials and the Tripolis Street Tumulus contained 36 inurned cremation burials.

The tumulus at Chania was surrounded by a row of orthostats and contained eight cremation urns, which have been dated to the Late Helladic IIIC Middle period. However, further details remain unpublished (Hägg 1987, 211; Papademetriou 2006, 532; Lemos 2002, 157).

Two additional inurned cremations, dating to the Protogeometric period, were discovered in the modern city of Argos near Odos Kophiniotou. They were located in the same plot along with the inhumations of three adults and one child. In both cases amphorae were used as cremation urns (Whitley 2005, 20-21).

The Tripolis Street tumulus contained a total of 52 discrete mortuary contexts containing a total of 55 adults and children. These individual mortuary contexts included inhumations in cists and pits as well as the inurned cremations. Mortuary contexts within the tumulus ranged in date from the Late Helladic IIIC Middle through Late periods, with evidence for use of this area as a disposal area during the Protogeometric period. Of the 52 mortuary contexts included in the tumulus, 36 were inurned cremations and have been dated to the LH IIIC Middle and Late periods based on stylistic analysis of the cremations vessels (Piteros 2001, 101-110; Papademetriou 2006, 532533; Thomatos 2006, 166).

Disposal by cremation was a prime opportunity for promoting the importance of the individual and renegotiating social status. The performance of this rite would have taken longer than an inhumation, although the results of cremation would have been more immediately apparent to all involved. In order to accomplish a successful cremation, approximately one ton of dry timber was needed to achieve the appropriate temperature of between 820 and 900 degrees Celsius (Parker Pearson 1999, 49; Wells 1960, 35). This would have added an additional cost in time to collect and transport the wood.

72

Mortuary Contexts and Practices

In a prehistoric cremation on an open pyre, the construction of a pyre that would provide enough heat to successfully cremate a body was not only a way in which households could demonstrate access to material resources and wealth, but was also a practical consideration as an intense fire would consume the body more quickly and completely, minimizing unpleasantness.

member of the community to deceased individual (Bohnert, et. al. 1998, 16). Throughout the cremation, the body would have remained on top of the pyre, visible to the audience until the pyre slowly collapsed downwards upon itself (McKinley 1997, 134). The cremations observed in the crematorium lasted between 60 and 80 minutes, while the cremation of the sow lasted six hours not including the time it took for the bones and ash to cool. In fact, the experimental cremations required an extra day’s cooling in order to safely collect the bones of the cremated sheep (McKinley 1997, 134). Following the cremations in the crematorium, fragments of the larger human bones were still conclusively identifiable (Bohnert, et. al. 1998, 17). Like the collection of the wood, the search for bones and, in the case of the Chania and Tripolis Street tumuli, their deposition in ceramic vessels would have required an additional investment of time and material wealth in acquiring a vessel for use in storing the remains.

The flames and smoke would have been visible for a considerable distance and the intense heat would have prevented anyone from approaching too closely. However, the reactions of the body to the flames over time would still have been highly apparent. Experimental archaeology and scientific observations of modern cremations have provided evidence for how the body reacts to exposure to intense heat and flame over time. I present a highly detailed account of cremation in order to counter the sterile treatment and view of cremation burials that archaeologists tend to present. Fifteen cases of the cremation of both men and women were observed by Bohnert et.al. and the changes to the body recorded at specific intervals. These cremations took place in a modern crematorium at temperatures between 670 and 810˚ C (Bohnert et. al. 1998, 13). Additional experiments using a sow, sheep and neonatal lamb replicated a prehistoric cremation on an open- air pyre (Jonkus and Konsa 2007; McKinley 1997). The results of all three studies are complementary and provide the specific details as to how cremation altered the body and what the participants would have observed. Obviously, the pyre cremation took longer than those in the crematorium. However, in both cases the changes to the body were similar and took place almost immediately after exposure to the flames.

In his assessment of the practice of cremation, Williams points out that archaeologists tend to view cremation as a relatively quick and clean method of disposing of the body when in fact, “[t]he participation and observation of open-air cremations can be considered a veritable assault on the senses by these changes” (2004, 271). Through this analysis, it is clear that the practice of cremation directly exposed the participants to the decomposition of the human body. Far from the distant and sanitized practice of modern cremation, a prehistoric pyre cremation would have been a highly sensory and emotive event not only for the direct participants in the funeral but also for the audience and those within the vicinity of the pyre. The presence of the body and the changes that occurred would have been an undeniable focal point. As a re-emerging disposal practice, which would have initially been unfamiliar to Late Bronze and Iron Age populations, cremation provided a unique platform for the promotion of the individual and the establishment of social differentiation.

After only ten minutes of exposure, muscles contracted causing the body to assume a kneeling position and the facial area would have been charred (Bohnert, et. al. 1998, 13). After twenty minutes, the separation between the living and the dead would have increased. The intensity of the flames and changes to the body would have increased, further limiting physical proximity to the deceased (Bohnert, et. al. 1998, 14). The most dramatic changes to the body occurred between thirty and forty minutes after lighting the fire. Even at a distance the heat, smell and sight of the cremation would have assaulted the senses of the participants and surrounding audience. During this time, a much different transformation and one that is not visible during inhumation took place. After thirty minutes, the skull fractured and both the thoracic and abdominal cavities and their contents became visible. The bones of the deceased continued to contort and, after forty minutes, the facial bones were no longer covered with tissue (Bohnert, et.al. 1998, 14-16).

Despite some early evidence for the practice of cremation, it appears that, unlike in other areas of Greece, it did not become a widespread form of disposal in the Argolid until the Late Geometric period (Snodgrass 2000, 151152; Thomatos 2006, 173-174). Therefore, the rare use of cremation would have marked those who employed it as different. This is particularly the case for the Tripolis Street tumulus, where inurned cremations were discovered alongside other forms of individual mortuary contexts (Papadopoulos 2005, 394-395). Like the use of vessel inhumations, cremation emphasized the individual. The introduction of cremation during and immediately after the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial centers offered a vivid spectacle that would form a strong common memory among the witnesses that revolved around the mortuary actions of a particular household for a specific person (Williams 2004, 419). Voutsaki (1998, 44) explains the adoption of new mortuary practices as a result of either

Between fifty and eighty minutes after the start of the cremation process, the facial bones disintegrated, the internal organs were reduced to ash and the torso broke apart, thus completing the transition from recognizable

73

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

foreign influences or as a sign of changing social realities. Considering that the earliest examples of cremation in Greece date to the Neolithic and that there are cases dating to the Late Helladic IIIC period at Perati, foreign influence is not necessary to explain the appearance of cremation at this time.

tradition, they began to demonstrate an emerging ideology and set of practices that privileged the individual. The promotion of the individual or preservation of individual identity in the mortuary practices of the Late Bronze through Iron Age was also a way in which to gain status. In the mortuary arena wealth was not only represented by the quantity and quality of grave goods, but also by the expenditure of time, material and effort for a funeral. Having access to or sacrificing these forms of wealth projected the real or imagined importance of the deceased and the success of their household. Of course, while there was no recompense or immediate material gain for those who expended a great deal on the funeral, there would be a gain in prestige and status in the eyes of the community over time. These practices then formed a basis for the establishment of a new social hierarchy in subsequent generati ons.

However, the Bronze Age to Iron Age transition was certainly a period of changing social realities in which ideology and social status were open to renegotiation. The high cost in materials and time and the theatricality of a cremation presented an unparalleled opportunity to promote individuals and individual households as opposed to the collective group or lineage based associations. 4.6 Conclusions The increasing use of individual mortuary contexts and abandonment of cumulative mortuary contexts associated with the palatial identity, the increasing use of ceramic vessels for inhumation and the appearance of inurned cremations within tumuli clearly indicate that an ideological shift was taking place in response to the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial administration. In the mortuary arena, focus moved away from the representation and promotion of a larger corporate group and toward the promotion and preservation of individuality. Therefore, while many mortuary practices were still indicative of a Bronze Age

“Society does not change all at once or in one piece… And it is this unevenness, the non-contemporaneity of the social formation with itself, that preserves and produces non-synchronous, interruptive articles, spaces, acts and narratives” (Seremetakis 1994, 12). This gradual development and the emphasis on the individual can be observed in the structuring of production, exchange and consumption of ceramic material and metal objects, which I now go on to discuss in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively.

74

Chapter Five: Ceramic Material

5.1 Introduction

the role of pottery in the everyday lives of the people who produced and used these items (van der Leeuw 1999, 116; van Wijngaarden 1999, 2).

In the previous chapters, I have attempted to demonstrate that an ideological shift, which privileged the individual or domestic unit as opposed to the larger corporate group, took place. This has been demonstrated through an analysis of the mortuary contexts and architectural evidence. However, this ideological change could not have taken root unless it was reinforced by socio-economic practices that ensured the stability of the domestic unit.

I begin this discussion by briefly summarizing the role of the palatial centers in relation to ceramic production. Following Holly Morris (1986), Whitelaw (2001) and Galaty (2007; 2010), I argue it is one of bulk consumer rather than direct organizer. Then, I briefly discuss storage of commodities in ceramic containers as organized by the palatial administration. These two sections form the background for an analysis of how Late Bronze through Iron Age communities produced and used ceramic material and a comparison will further demonstrate that, although the collapse of the palatial administration removed a bulk consumer of ceramic material, there were no dramatic changes in the production, consumption or deposition of ceramic material.

Through an analysis of the production, use and deposition of Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Iron Age published ceramic material from the Argolid and Methana Peninsula, I argue in this chapter that no dramatic changes or breaks in these aspects took place during this period. I have also chosen to examine the ceramic evidence for the storage of commodities, which is an aspect of the wider economic strategies used by the palatial administration and Late Bronze through Iron Age communities.

5.1.2 Ceramic Production as Organized by the Palatial Administration

I suggest that ceramic production was only loosely regulated by the palatial administration and that both ceramic production and the storage of commodities (an activity in which many of these vessels were used) were taking place in extra-palatial contexts throughout the Bronze Age. This would account for much of the continuity in shapes and functions produced.

Several models of palatial organization have been proposed and, while the notion of the Mycenaean economy as a redistributive system which had a reciprocal relationship with outlying areas seems to account best for the evidence at hand, all models agree that Mycenaean palatial society was a complex political and socio-economic system in which important aspects of society were controlled by the ruling elite (Morris, H.J. 1986, 8).

While the primacy of ceramic material in the archaeological record has been discussed in detail,1 less attention has been paid to the production, consumption and deposition of ceramic material during the post-palatial periods until recently and rarely is this material discussed in terms of socio-economic developments.2 The largely art historical approach used in the analysis of palatial and post-palatial ceramic material is the legacy of the conception of Greek pottery, particularly Athenian Black and Red Figure vases, as objets d’art and while it has produced useful typological catalogues, it has done little to advance the understanding of

The emphasis of the aforementioned models is on how the palatial centers exercised control over the production of ceramic material, rather than the economic structures, including local extra-palatial markets for exchange (Galaty 2007, 85; Morris, H.J 1986, 26). It is these structures (which have been discussed by Morris, H.J. 1986; Bennet 2007 and Morris 2007) in which I am most interested because the production of ceramic material was never fully controlled by the palatial administration. While “[t]he palaces of the Argolid, as the largest single consumers of tableware and storage vessels, might have been of considerable importance to the production of a high-quality, highly standardized pottery in LH IIIA2/B1” (Stockhammer 2009,164), the production of everyday utilitarian ceramic material appears to have been beyond their realm of interest (van Wijngaarden 1999, 24).

See Vickers and Gill 1994 for a discussion of the emphasis placed on ceramics by modern scholars; Biers 1992 for the abundance of ceramic material in the archaeological record; and Papadopoulos 1998 and Sherratt 1999 on the how ceramic material has been used (and the potential pitfalls) in constructing relative chronologies. 2 For notable exceptions to the largely acontextual, art historical approach see Halstead and Barrett (eds.) 2004; Tournavitou 1992; 1995; Whitelaw 2001; and Crielaard et. al. 1999. 1

75

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

This is supported by the presence of the title wa-na-kate-ro ke-ra-me-u in Linear B documents from Pylos. This title, which has been understood as the “royal potter”, describes an individual dedicated to supplying the palace with ceramic material. This could either mean someone physically engaged with the production of pottery or someone functioning as a middleman between the palatial administration and local workshops (Bennet 2008, 155157).

especially because potters in this region appear to have been engaged in production for overseas consumption. Much of the discussion concerning “typical” palatial ceramic assemblages is based on the material from the pantries at Pylos. Rooms 18 through 22 contained a vast quantity of contemporaneous and well-organized ceramic. Room 19 alone contained 2,853 kylikes and the other four rooms contained 1,325 shallow angular bowls, 1,151 “teacups”, and approximately 425 dippers (Hruby 2010, 195). It appears that in Rooms 19 through 22 vessels of similar function were stored together (Hruby 2010, 195). Room 60, located southwest of the main palatial building, contained a mixture of bowls, cups, kylikes, tankards, jugs, amphorae, jars, kraters, dippers and ladles. These shapes were commonly used in the preparation and consumption of food and drink for feasts and their considerable quantity can be explained as an example of palatial storage. These vessels were used as and when needed with a considerable amount in reserve to replace used3 or broken pieces (Whitelaw 2001, 60).

There are several reasons why the palatial administration may not have been interested in directly organizing and controlling the ceramic industry. The production of ceramic material was already a very old practice prior to the establishment of the Mycenaean palatial centers and, therefore, was very difficult to gain control of or “capture” (Bennet 2008, 155). The raw materials and technological aspects of ceramic production were neither rare nor easily regulated, unlike those for metals, ivory or precious stones. In addition, ceramic vessels were not expensive to manufacture nor were the finished products considered to be prestige items in the Eastern Mediterranean milieu (Sherratt 1999, 173; Whitelaw 2001, 67; 71; Knappett 2001, 87).

Other socio-economic activities in which the palatial centers were engaged, apart from feasting and the storage of goods for redistribution, had an impact on the production of ceramic material as well. The long distance trade in which the palatial centers were involved influenced the production and consumption of ceramic material. Typological and fabric analysis has demonstrated that workshops for the production of ceramic material used in long distance trade with the Eastern Mediterranean were located in the Argolid (Sherratt 1982, 182-183). Their existence is also supported by “[t]he substantial differences between the repertoires of Mycenaean vessel types at sites in the eastern Mediterranean and in the Aegean indicate that there existed a specialized ceramic production for regions overseas” (van Wijngaarden 1999, 26). The ceramic material produced at these centers carried high- value commodities from the palaces on the long distance markets. Therefore, it seems likely that the vessels functioned as a trademark of their origin and their quality and decoration would have reflected palatial influences, if not outright demands (on the Mycenaean “trademark” see Bennet 2008).

The time depth associated with the practice of ceramic production, the wide availability of raw materials and the relative low value of the finished products support the production of ceramic materials operated on a scale from household through workshop production (van Wijngaarden 1999, 24-25). Therefore, while the palaces were directly involved with luxury goods, high value items and some agricultural production, the production of ceramic material seems to have been peripheral to their administrative concerns. The palatial centers, therefore, appear to have been interested in the production of high quality ceramic material, but for the most part, did not directly regulate this craft (Galaty 2010, 230). The ceramic assemblages from the storerooms at Pylos provide a guide for how much pottery might have been in circulation at a palatial site. At the time of its destruction, it is estimated that 8,540 vessels were in storage at the palatial center of Pylos and that the palace consumed approximately 12,000 vessels annually (Whitelaw 2001, 52; 54; 62). It has also been estimated that if this analysis was extended to include the settlement along with the palatial center, then between 37,500 and 75,000 vessels would have been in circulation at Pylos and between 612,500 and 1,225,000 pots would have been in use through the entire polity annually (Whitelaw 2001, 64).

Considering that the palatial centers were a bulk consumer of ceramic material and that the demands of the palace would have influenced ceramic production, it is interesting that there has been little discussion, until recently, of the palatial market for these goods and how the dissolution of the palatial administration would have changed market demands or how changes in the international market would have impacted the palaces (Morris, H.J 1986, 33). The majority of Mycenaean ceramic material discovered in the Eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus and the Levant was the

The quantities from the palace itself provide a comparison for what might be expected at the palatial centers in the Argolid. Based on a number of factors, such as the presence of substantial settlements and several palatial centers that presumably would have stocked pottery for use during feasts or as replacement pieces, the estimates from the polity of Pylos probably provide only minimum numbers for what might be reasonably expected in the Argolid,

The possibility that drinking vessels, particularly unpainted kylikes, were used once and then discarded should be considered, and I thank Dr. Sue Sherratt for discussing this possibility with me. This would account for their sheer quantity and pervasive presence. 3

76

Ceramic Material

result of specialized production for international exchange from the Northeast Peloponnese (Sherratt 1982, 183).

from the redistribution of commodities by the palace and from their organization of sacrifices and feasts (Halstead 2001, 47; 49).

With the socio-economic disturbances at the outset of the Late Helladic IIIB Middle period, trade routes and communication would have been disrupted and this continued throughout the remainder of the Late Helladic IIIB and LH IIIC periods (Sherratt 1982, 184-186). This affected the influence of Mycenaean goods on the international market and precipitated increasing imitations of mainland Mycenaean ceramic material in the Eastern Mediterranean (Sherratt 1982, 186-187). Perhaps the increased imitation of mainland Mycenaean pottery prior to the final collapse of the palatial centers indicates that these vessels were valued beyond the worth of their contents. Whatever the case, the increase in local imitations would have impacted ceramic production centers in the Argolid (van Wijngaarden 2002, 3; 13; 264).

While the palatial administration had an interest in the production, storage and redistribution of agricultural goods, the storage of commodities was primarily undertaken in order to provide for commensal activities sponsored by the palace and, perhaps, as a buffer against a bad agricultural season or shortfall. Storage as organized by the palatial administration did not preclude other scales of the storage of commodities practiced by domestic units, or even entire communities. 5.2 Methodology In the previous two sections, I have briefly summarized the role of the palatial administration in the production of ceramic material and in storage, which was one activity in which the palatial administration was involved and used substantial amounts of ceramic material for. In the next section I present the published ceramic material, which dates from LH IIIB 2 through the Iron Age from the Argolid and Methana Peninsula. This body of data has been gathered from published excavation reports and survey volumes.

5.1.3 Storage as Organized by the Palatial Administration The palatial administration accumulated large quantities of ceramic material for use in everyday contexts, commensal activities and as containers for commodities that may have been held for later use, redistributed or exchanged. The storage of commodities throughout the Late Bronze through Iron Age transition is another aspect of socioeconomic behavior that is indicative of the change in scale and organization.

Analysis of ceramic material dating to this period has been complicated by a number of factors. Primarily, in earlier excavations and publications a detailed ceramic chronology was not yet in place. Therefore, many pieces were simply described as LH III with no further refinement. In addition, the analysis of post-palatial ceramic material, particularly unpainted or coarse wares, was not always a research priority. This has resulted in the inconsistent representation of this material in the published literature. Also, in a situation similar to metal objects, the subject of Chapter 6, mortuary contexts provide the only closed contexts for this period. Unfortunately, well-published, securely dated and stratified settlement assemblages are lacking for this period from the Argolid and Methana Peninsula. Ceramic material dating to this period is also notoriously difficult to identify in surface survey collections. Therefore, such material has often been assigned broad chronological categories, such as LH III or Iron Age.

A central storage system, as described by Christakis (2008, 10; 1999, 4), is one in which surplus goods were collected and stored in complexes that were under the control of the administration. Other features of this type of system are large architectural complexes for the storage of surplus, an extensive labor network to provide this surplus, the manpower for the construction and maintenance of these facilities and the ability to collect and redistribute the goods in which the palatial administration had an interest. It is this storage and redistributive model that has characterized the Mycenaean palatial centers and which is evident in both the administrative records and architecture of the palaces (Shelmerdine and Bennet 2008, 296). One of the major roles of the palatial centers was to direct the acquisition and redistribution of certain types of goods, particularly those that were considered of high value or contributed to the maintenance of the palatial administration (Bennet 2007, 206; Halstead 2001, 50). In addition to reinforcing elite status through access to and control of goods and surplus, it has been assumed that this storage system also provided for the wider population in case of shortage, particularly with regards to agriculture products (Halstead 1992, 68-70; Foxhall 1995, 241). The palatial bureaucracy facilitated the production of cereals, flax and wool by contributing plough oxen and flocks of sheep and, in return, the greater community contributed human labor. In this centralized system the palatial elite benefited from the contribution of human labor and the public benefited

In this chapter, then, the chronological period “Iron Age” has been included in order to incorporate ceramic material discovered during surface survey. Also, only the broadest divisions of the Late Helladic period have been used when discussing the general presence or absence of particular shapes. This has been done for two reasons: first, to acknowledge that the ceramic record is incomplete. For example, just because certain shapes appear in LH IIIC Early, but have not been discovered for LH IIIC Middle does not mean that they were not in production; and second, I strongly believe that the over-refinement of the relative chronology obscures certain issues pertaining to the development of ideology and socio-economic practices and,

77

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

therefore, have decided to use the broadest chronological categories for the sake of simplicity.

periods. I have chosen to include only examples that have been definitively identified. While this has excluded ceramic material that has been classified as, for example, “bowl/ kylix” or “lekythos/ oinochoe”, representing only positively identified shapes covers both the range of possible shapes and chronological periods in which they occurred. For the sake of spatial economy shapes, such as “cover” and “lid”, “dipper” and “ladle”, which fulfill the same function, but have been subjectively named under different categories have been combined.

The reliance on ceramic material from mortuary contexts and lack of stratified settlement deposits, as well as the post-excavation selection of decorated fine wares and diagnostic shapes have contributed to the differential sampling, recording and publication of ceramic material dating from the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Early Geometric period. Therefore, my analysis is based on a fragmentary and problematic record. This makes the results of any quantitative or statistical analysis uninformative at best. However, these difficulties should not deter critical examination of this material, rather they inform and encourage new approaches.

Certain shapes, such as tripod cooking pots and jugs, dippers and ladles, are underrepresented in the overall body of ceramic material dating to the study period. This is due to their lack of inclusion in mortuary contexts and the general lack of post-excavation focus on coarse wares. This chart also illustrates that even though certain shapes, such as the kylix and stirrup jar, disappeared from the archaeological record after the end of the Late Helladic IIIC period this was not due to a loss of technical skill as these shapes were replaced by other vessels that fulfilled the same function.

In order to discuss how little the production, use and deposition of ceramic material actually changed during this period, I compare ceramic assemblages from palatial, transitional and post-palatial mortuary contexts. Palatial contexts are those dating to LH IIIB and earlier. Transitional contexts are those dating to LH IIIB/ LH IIIC; and postpalatial contexts are those dating to LH IIIC and later. I then discuss the presence or absence of specific shapes and functions in these contexts. Throughout this chapter, the ceramic material is broadly classified by probable function in order to discuss the particular needs that these shapes fulfilled. Tournavitou (1992; 1995) has addressed the uses of Mycenaean pottery in her analysis of the LH IIIB ceramic material from the Ivory Houses at Mycenae. In these studies, she argued for six categories of primary function: (1) storage, which she subdivided to differentiate between domestic and transport shapes based on shapes which held liquid or dry goods; (2) pouring vessels; (3) drinking vessels; (4) eating vessels; (5) cooking vessels; and (6) accessory vessels, such as ladles and dippers (Tournavitou 1995, 97). I use this terminology throughout the chapter.

In order to discuss variability in the ceramic repertoire throughout the Late Bronze Age through Iron Age transition in more detail, it is necessary to select deposits of ceramic material from similar contexts. Unfortunately, securely dated, stratified deposits from domestic contexts are lacking throughout this period. An analysis using this limited body of material would further be hampered by the differences in collecting, recording and publishing ceramic material. However, it is possible to use ceramic material from mortuary contexts for more detailed analysis. Clearly some shapes or functions will be underrepresented because they were considered inappropriate for deliberate deposition in mortuary contexts, but it is possible to discuss the presence or absence of particular shapes and infer from this what shapes were in production and circulation throughout this period.

5.3 Data

Table 35 illustrates ceramic assemblages from chamber tombs at Mycenae and Prosymna published by Wace (1939) and Shelton (2000; 1996). It is clear from this table that drinking and pouring vessels dominate the assemblages, as is the case with ceramic material from mortuary contexts of later date.

I recorded a total of 2,484 examples of ceramic material dating from the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Iron Age in the Argolid and Methana Peninsula. Examples include both complete vessels, most often recovered from mortuary contexts, vessels that have been restored during postexcavation analysis and sherds. There is little consistency in the recovery, analysis and publication of ceramic material throughout this period due to differing research questions and methodologies. In some cases, particularly when the material was recovered during survey, the broadest shape categories of “open” and “closed” and broadest chronological periods have been used. In other cases, particularly when material has been recovered from mortuary contexts, the shape and a more refined chronological period are available.

Table 36 illustrates ceramic assemblages from chamber tombs at Mycenae and Prosymna that were in use throughout the periods of palatial instability. It is important to stress again that the kin-groups that used these cumulative mortuary contexts did so throughout the socioeconomic and political disturbances and the subsequent ideological shift that began after the collapse of the palatial administration. Table 37 illustrates ceramic assemblages from strictly postpalatial and Iron Age mortuary contexts from Argos, Asine, Tiryns and Mycenae.

Table 34 illustrates the occurrence of ceramic shapes throughout the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Early Geometric

78

Ceramic Material

Table 34 Table illustrating the presence or absence of specific ceramic shapes throughout the study period. Shape

Function

LH IIIB 2

LH IIIC

PG

EG

Brazier Cauldron Cooking pot/jar Cooking stand Cover/ lid Dipper/ ladle Bird vase Jug Askos Hydria Oinochoe Kylix Cup Goblet Mug Deep bowl/ Skyphos Kantharos Krater Plate Saucer Bowl Kalathos Basin Pyxis Stirrup Jar Pithos Alabastron Amphora Amphoriskos Aryballos Jar Larnax Kernos Lekythos Feeding bottle

Cooking Cooking Cooking Cooking Accessory Accessory Pouring Pouring Pouring Pouring Pouring Drinking Drinking Drinking Drinking Drinking Drinking Drinking Eating Eating Eating Eating Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Unknown

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

Table 35 Ceramic assemblages from palatial mortuary contexts at Mycenae and Prosymna. Mortuary Context

Date

Location

Assemblage

Mycenae

Two stirrup jars; one jar

Mycenae

Two stirrup jars; one bowl; two kraters; four jugs; one cup

Mycenae Mycenae

Two alabastra; two stirrup jars One stirrup jar

Mycenae

Four kylikes; two jugs; one krater; one jar; two stirrup jars

Mycenae

One alabastron

ChT P- II

LH IIIA LH IIIB LH IIIA 2 –LH IIIB 1 LH IIIA 2 LH IIIA 2 LH IIIA 2LH IIIB 1 LH IIIA 1

ChT 513

LH III

Mycenae

One amphora; one jug

ChT 514

LH III

Mycenae

ChT 520

LH III

Mycenae

ChT 525

LH III

Mycenae

One kylix Seven kylikes; five amphorae; four jugs; three cups; two shallow bowls; one alabastron; one stirrup jar Three jugs; two amphorae; two kylikes; one deep bowl/krater; one stirrup jar

ChT P- III

LH IIIA 1

Mycenae

Two alabastra

ChT G- I ChT G- II ChT G- IV ChT PE- I ChT KN/V- II

79

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Mortuary Context ChT XXXIII ChT XIX ChT XXVI ChT IX ChT XXII ChT XV ChT X

Date LH IIIA 1 –LH IIIB 2 LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIB 2 LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIB 2 LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIB 2 LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIB 2 LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIB 2 LH IIIA 2 – LH IIIB 2

Location

Assemblage

Prosymna

Nine kylikes; five stirrup jars; 11 cups; six jugs; three goblets; two bowls; two alabastra; one askos; one shallow bowl; one feeding bottle; one deep bowl; one pyxis with lid; one piriform jar

Prosymna

Four stirrup jars; one amphora; one piriform jar; one jug; one alabastron

Prosymna

11 cups; four stirrup jars; four jugs; two alabastra; two goblets; one jar; one piriform jar; one shallow bowl; one feeding bottle

Prosymna

One jug

Prosymna

Six feeding bottles; four stirrup jars; two piriform jars; one jug; one askos; one kylix

Prosymna

One deep bowl; one shallow bowl; one piriform jar; one jug; one cup; one kylix

Prosymna

Four stirrup jars; two jugs; two bowls; one kylix; one jar; one cup; one alabastron

Table 36 Ceramic assemblages from mortuary contexts at Mycenae and Prosymna, which were in use throughout periods of palatial instability.

It is clear that vessels used in the act of consumption are the predominant functional category in all periods. It is also clear that the repertoire of potters remained relatively unchanged throughout the transition from palatial to post-palatial. However, a closer analysis of specific shapes indicates that shapes associated with the palatial administration became less popular during subsequent periods and reinforces the continuity in ceramic repertoire between periods of palatial stability and instability.

contexts from periods of palatial instability contained kylikes and 63% contained stirrup jars. However, none of the post-palatial mortuary contexts contained kylikes and only 14% contained stirrup jars. In the subsequent sections I use the decline in and eventual disappearance of kylikes and stirrup jars, ceramic shapes that were linked directly with the palatial administration, to further demonstrate the shift away from the palatial ideology. I also briefly examine the presence of pictorial vessels in order to further address ideological changes.

44% of palatial mortuary contexts contained kylikes and 66% contained stirrup jars and, similarly, 38% of mortuary

80

Ceramic Material

Table 37 Ceramic assemblages from post-palatial and Iron Age mortuary contexts. Mortuary Context

Date

Location

Assemblage

1957 XIIIb 1957 XIIIa O. Papalexopoulou cist 1926, 9 cist 1970-6 1970- 9 1970- 10 1970-14 1970- 15 1907/09, 3 1957 XXVIII

LH IIIC L EPG LPG LPG PG PG PG PG PG PG EPG

Tiryns Tiryns Argos Tiryns Asine Asine Asine Asine Asine Tiryns Tiryns

G 607

EG

Mycenae

G 603

EG

Mycenae

G 23

EG

Mycenae

One stirrup jar; one oinochoe; one jug One jug One jug; one oinochoe One amphora; one pithos; one skyphos One jug One spouted jug/possible feeding bottle One lekythos; one jug One jug; one skyphos; one oinochoe Two jugs; two skyphoi; one oinochoe One amphora One stirrup jar Four skyphoi; two amphoriskoi; nine cups; one lid; four pyxides; one aryballos; one oinochoe; two miniature trefoil-lipped oinochoi Three pyxides; two oinochoi; one miniature oinochoe; one amphora; one cup; one goblet One amphora; one lekythos

5.3.1 Kylikes Kylikes (Figure 36) were the Mycenaean drinking vessel of choice, used in elite, ritual and other contexts presumably for the consumption of wine. These vessels tend to survive in the archaeological record because the feet and stems were well constructed and withstand erosion even after breakage. These features are also easily recognizable, which may contribute to their prevalence in the published material record. While this may lead to some bias in recording, their general ubiquity is most likely due to their frequency of use, breakage and replacement (Galaty 2007, 75). There are three main types of kylikes: the rounded kylix, the carinated kylix, which is the most popular unpainted form, and the conical shaped kylix, which is the least common form (Mountjoy 2001, 81; 84). Over time, kylikes eventually became one of the standard drinking vessels for feasts and ritual activities and in these contexts may have acquired a symbolic meaning. The kylix came to symbolize palatial largesse, the ability of the palatial elite to mobilize and redistribute goods in feasting contexts.

Figure 36 LH IIIB 2 conical kylix from Mycenae (From French and Stockhammer 2009, Figure 5.3).

During the Late Helladic IIIB 2 and LH IIIC periods the varieties of kylikes in use, their varied quality and decoration suggest that this particular shape was being widely produced outside the control of a single, standardizing authority. That the production of the kylix is less standardized indicates widespread production by a number of workshops. Perhaps this demonstrates that the palatial connotations of this shape were weakening or becoming less important. It is possible that lower levels in the palatial hierarchy were attempting to use the kylix and its symbolic meaning for their own purposes. As Fox (2009, 280-282; 285-287) demonstrated in her analysis of commensal practices, the deep bowl replaced the kylix during LH IIIC. Both this change and the wide variety in form and decoration of the deep bowl demonstrate a rejection of the palatial ideology and formation of new practices and material culture that reflected and supported the ideology and socio-economic organization.

In an examination of changing patterns in feasting during this period Fox (2009, 286-287) notes the “highly conspicuous” decline in the popularity of the kylix from the Late Helladic IIIA- B period to the LH IIIC, when this form eventually disappeared (Table 38). While she links this development with changing commensal patterns associated with new forms of socio-political organization, a broader view of the socio-political and ideological changes during this period suggests that the abandonment of the kylix was symptomatic of a rejection of the palatial organization and ideology. It is worth noting that both plain and decorated kylikes follow the same pattern and are particularly rare in the Late Helladic IIIC period.4 I would like to thank Dr. Sue Sherratt for bringing this point to my attention. 4

81

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Table 38 Chronological periods during which the kylix was in use. Shape

LH IIIB 2

LH IIIC

EPG

MPG

LPG

PG

EG

IA

Kylix

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

5.3.2 Stirrup Jars

the citadel itself and have been broadly dated to LH IIIB as well (Catling et.al. 1980, 98).

An analysis of stirrup jars indicates changes both in local and international industry and trade. The stirrup jar was originally a Minoan shape and appeared on the mainland during the Late Helladic IIA period. During the Late Helladic IIIB, four types of small stirrup jar were in use: the piriform, rounded, squat and conical varieties (Mountjoy 2001, 42; 71; 80). The small versions were frequently deposited in tombs as containers for oil, perhaps perfumed oil or possibly oil specifically associated with funerary rites, while the larger forms were used as storage and transport vessels for liquids and were rarely deposited in mortuary contexts.

The fine ware examples (FS 165-185) are considerably easier to date based on stylistic analysis. The fabric of some of these examples has been described as so finely levigated as to be appropriate containers for goods used in elite gift exchange (Leonard et.al. 1993, 105). Stylistic analysis indicates that fine ware stirrup jars were exported to the East from the production centers in the Argolid, such as Berbati (Haskell 1984, 100). There is also a theory that the smallest of these vessels contained either perfumed or unscented oil for personal hygiene. In a posthumously published note, Cook ([1952] 1981, 167) suggested that the size and configuration of the small fine ware examples was ideal for containing oil for use in anointing oneself or someone else. Cook suggests that the stirrup jar was held with one hand and then tilted over the palm of the opposite hand so that oil would drip on to the palm and could then be used for hygienic purposes. This is certainly possible and would assign a highly personal significance to these vessels, which would further explain their continued inclusion in post-palatial mortuary contexts.

Like the kylix, the stirrup jar is a highly distinctive vessel shape and is also easily identifiable in the archaeological record because of the presence of specific morphological features. This shape is characterized by a non-functional central neck capped by a disc from which two handles connect to the shoulder of the vessel, which is where the functional spout is located (Haskell 1985, 221). These particular features facilitated the removal of viscous liquids, such as scented oils (Leonard et.al. 1993, 105). Contextual evidence from the House of the Oil Merchant and Linear B evidence from Pylos and Mycenae supports the identification of the stirrup jar as a vessel for containing oil (Haskell 1984, 97-98).

During the Late Helladic IIIC Early phase there was considerable continuity in the vessel shapes being produced by potters. However, three of the four types of stirrup jar: the conical form, squat form and piriform shape, were apparently discontinued (Mountjoy 2001, 90). The disappearance of three of the four forms as noted by Mountjoy (2001, 90), the decline in the number of fine ware jars being produced and the increased number of Mycenaean imitations produced in Cyprus and the Levant all reflect the unsettled conditions of the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BC (van Wijngaarden 2002, 261-262).

Stirrup jars came in many forms and, like the kylix, there was considerable variation in style, fabric and decoration. The most basic system of classification for the stirrup jar is based on ware. There is a large coarse ware variety (FS 164) and a fine ware type (FS 165-185). The choice of fabric may reflect the context in which the vessel was used and its specific function. Large coarse ware stirrup jars have been found in storage or redistributive contexts, such as those discovered in the House of the Oil Merchant, and they were used to transport bulk quantities of oil.

During the thirteenth century BC, in the Near East, at Tell es-Sai’idiyeh for example, stirrup jars were increasingly produced in local fabrics (Leonard et. al. 1993, 106-107). The imitation of the stirrup jar in local fabrics suggests that there was currency in this shape. It is possible that local imitations began to compete with and replace the Aegean stirrup jars, which would have unbalanced Mycenaean palatial involvement in long distance trade. The reduction in the number of forms being produced, the widespread variations in standard and the increase in imitations are also indicative of the dissolution of palatial influence on production and the contraction of international trade.

Also included in the group of large coarse ware stirrup jars are those that were inscribed with Linear B. For the purposes of this discussion, I briefly focus on the examples from Mycenae and Tiryns. The examples from Mycenae were discovered throughout the site in the West House, near the Poros Wall, the House of Columns, the Northeast Extension, Citadel House and Annex and near the Cult Center and all of these contexts have been dated to the Late Helladic IIIB period (Catling et.al. 1980, 98). Little contextual information is available for the fragments discovered during the 1909 and 1910 excavations at Tiryns. These examples were discovered both within and outside

With the decline in international exchange, it appears that the stirrup jar, particularly the larger forms of the vessel,

82

Ceramic Material

Table 39 Chronological periods during which the stirrup jar was in use. Shape

LH IIIB 2

LH IIIC

EPG

MPG

LPG

PG

EG

IA

Stirrup Jar

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

Figure 37 LH IIIC Middle jar from Tiryns with chariot scene (From Crouwel 2006, Figure 1).

may have lost its connection with palatial economic activity at the end of the Late Bronze Age. The smaller forms were still deposited in mortuary contexts, in keeping with their association with the individual as suggested by Cook ([1952] 1981, 167). However, the smaller shapes, which were perhaps for personal use and prevalent in mortuary contexts, also eventually disappeared from the potters” repertoire. Perhaps any symbolic meaning inherent in this shape no longer held currency or perhaps its function as a container for oil for personal use was replaced by the aryballos and its function in the mortuary arena was subsumed by the lekythos during the Late Helladic IIIC Late and Early Protogeometric periods (Leonard et. al. 1993, 105; Mountjoy 2001, 114). Table 39 illustrates the periods in which stirrup jars have been identified.

centers were increasingly less influential as consumers in the production of ceramic material and that perhaps a largescale oil industry was becoming increasingly less important or valuable. 5.3.3 Pictorial Vessels One aspect that I have yet to discuss is the abundance of decorated pottery, particularly kraters, dating broadly to the Late Helladic IIIC period. This has been because I have deliberately chosen to focus on the practical aspects of ceramic material, for example how they were used and in what contexts. However, an examination of the pictorial vessels dating to mainly the Late Helladic IIIC Middle provides information about changes in ideology and social practice (Crouwel 2006, 16) (Figure 37).

Tracing the developments in the production and use of stirrup jars indicates that while the production of oil, scented or unscented, and its export were important economic activities for the palatial administration, this was apparently not the case for the surviving communities. There is no evidence to suggest that the remaining communities carried out either activity on the same scale as the palaces. The widespread variation in production standards and the loss of three forms of this vessel also indicate that the palatial

“Kraters of whatever period clearly appealed to the pictorial painters and their patrons, as they provided relatively large surfaces for elaborate decoration in the handle zones. In addition to being large prestigious display pieces…. they will have functioned as the natural center pieces of drinking….” (Crouwel 2006, 22). As the center pieces of communal drinking activity, the scenes on the kraters would have been readily visible to the participants and would have

83

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 38 Krater sherds from the West Gate Area at Midea. The sherd on the left possibly depicts a boar’s tusk helmet and the sherd on the right possibly depicts a chariot scene (From Demakopoulou 2006, Figure 25).

served as a reminder of the Mycenaean palatial associations with martial activities. While the iconography is varied, images on kraters, such as the Warrior Krater tend to depict martial images, hunting or chariot scenes (Crouwel 2006, 19). Late Helladic IIIB 2 kraters from Midea depicted birds, chariot scenes, running animals and, possibly a boar’s tusk helmet (Figure 38) (Demakopoulou 2006).

Figure 39 Late Helladic IIIC Late pithos from Mycenae (From Lacy 1967, Figure 90c).

In addition to the Warrior Krater, mentioned above, LH IIIC Middle kraters from Mycenae also depict horses and chariots (Crouwel 1988 25-27).

storage of liquids and grains. Typically these vessels were set into the floor and, because of this and their size, were rarely moved (Mountjoy 2001, 123). Despite this they are rarely found in LH IIIC and later contexts. However, as has been discussed in an earlier chapter, over time they increasingly appear in mortuary contexts.

The abundance of pictorial kraters, and pictorial pieces in general, during the Late Helladic IIIC Middle can be explained in several different ways. Perhaps these images served as propaganda, advertising the unique status of an emerging elite during a period of instability before the end of the Late Helladic IIIB period. Whatever the motivation behind these depictions, the production, and even flourishing, of pictorial pottery during this period is a further indication that the production of ceramic material was taking place in small-to-medium sized specialist workshops.

The pithos is not a complex shape, but, because of its size, was produced by specialist potters. The skill and amount of time and material needed to construct these vessels combined with evidence of their reuse and occasional repair clearly indicate that these vessels were of considerable value (Blitzer 1990). It also seems that pithoi may have had symbolic associations with the agricultural and life-cycle, as well (Boyd 2002, 27).

While these same motifs appear on later Geometric vessels, it is not possible to say definitively whether this is a continuation of Late Helladic traditions or whether these depictions represent scenes from oral performances.

As a minimum estimate it took one potter 45 days to make six pithoi (Blitzer 1990, 71). The cost in materials, time and skill made these vessels more than just “...throwaway objects, conveniently reused in the burial context. Rather, the pithos was an object of some value deliberately deposited in the grave as a conscious elaboration of the funeral” (Boyd 2002, 71). The use of storage vessels recalled the agricultural process of planting, harvesting and consumption, which mirrors the human lifecycle (Boyd 2002, 71).

5.3.4 Pithoi I have chosen to examine pithoi as well, in order to preface a discussion of the storage behaviors of Iron Age communities. Pithoi (Figure 39) were used for the bulk

84

Ceramic Material

The small quantities of pithoi discovered in settlement contexts may be explained by the use of alternative means of storage, such as sacks, animal skins and pits dug into the ground. Some of the best evidence for storage practices comes from the site of Assiros. Evidence from this site suggests that during the Bronze Age specific buildings contained storage vessels, including pithoi set into pits in the floor. These appear to have been used for the storage of agricultural surplus. Assiros also had mudbrick “bins” for storage, which provide evidence for alternative, nonceramic, methods for storage (Jones et. al. 1986, 96; 98). Despite the presence of the pits, little evidence of the actual pithoi themselves was recovered. This suggests that members of the community salvaged the pithoi at some point. This practice might explain their presence in mortuary rather than domestic or storage contexts (Jones et. al. 1986, 98). It is also possible that the relatively small quantities of pithoi in post-palatial, non-mortuary contexts indicate that domestic units were using non-ceramic containers for storage.

An analysis of the type of shapes in circulation throughout the Late Bronze through Iron Age and their functions has opened the way for a discussion of how two aspects of socio-economic organization responded to the collapse of the palatial administration. As I have stated, an ideology cannot take root unless it is backed by and reinforces practices that support stable domestic units and communities. Therefore, I examine developments specific to the production of ceramic material and the organization of storage and use of storage vessels during the Iron Age. When compared with the previous discussion of these practices as organized by the palatial administration, it becomes clear that mechanisms for production, exchange and storage were in place and operating outside of palatial control prior to the collapse. 5.4 Iron Age Ceramic Production “Another lacuna in our knowledge of Early Iron Age pottery production concerns the (social) organization of pot making...” (Crielaard 1999, 54). The collapse of the palatial centers did not change ceramic production technology, nor did the repertoire of ceramic material undergo any drastic change (Crielaard 1999, 49). With the collapse of the palatial administration came the removal of a bulk consumer of ceramic material for everyday use and of containers for exported goods. This, then, changed the market for ceramic material and altered the scale of production. However, while the loss of this consumer may have changed the quantity of ceramic vessels that was being produced, the fact that a similar repertoire of shapes, which fulfilled the same functions, was being produced with the same technology reinforces the conclusion that the palatial centers only had a limited involvement in the ceramic industry.

With the collapse of the palatial centers and the redistributive system that the palatial administration organized, socio-economic organization became less complex. Therefore, communities did not need to maintain large, communal storage areas. Instead, individual household units stored commodities for their own use and surplus as a buffer against hardship or for use in exchange. As was demonstrated in the previous chapter, smaller areas located within or near domestic buildings, like at Asine, were used for storage. In order to maximize the amount that could be stored in these areas and/or minimize the cost of providing storage containers, it is likely that stored goods were kept in less cumbersome containers. 5.3.5 Summary

Having presented a selection of the available published data, it is possible to focus on two socio-economic activities associated with ceramic material: production and storage. This can be accomplished through careful analysis of a variety of data, including comparanda from other sites outside the Argolid.

This discussion demonstrates that no single functional category was discontinued and, if particular shapes, such as the stirrup jar or kylix, were no longer produced, then they were replaced by other shapes, such as the lekythos and deep bowl (Figure 40), which fulfilled a similar function.

Ceramic material from Nichoria provides a comparison for quantities and shapes in use in settlements during the Iron Age. A total of 828 examples, mainly sherds, could be dated based on stylistic criteria to McDonalds’s DA II phase, which is approximately 975-850 BC (McDonald, et. al.1983, 63). There are relatively few Mycenaean, let alone Iron Age, households that are well preserved and have been completely excavated and published (Whitelaw 2001, 64). However, Unit IV-1 (Figure 41) at Nichoria provides evidence for ceramic assemblages associated with an elite dwelling or multi-functional space. Unit IV-1 (in use from 975 through 850 BC) has been described as the dwelling of the chieftain, which included

Figure 40 A Late Helladic IIIC deep bowl from Mycenae (From Wace 1956, Figure 2).

85

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 41 Plan of Unit IV-1 at Nichoria (From McDonald, et. al. 1983, Figure 18-3).

a large open area that was used to host important communal functions. This interpretation is based on the size, location and arrangement of the building. While this building cannot be strictly defined as a domestic space, it was presumably inhabited by a family group and it is one of the few domestic buildings with thoroughly excavated and published undisturbed assemblages (McDonald, et. al. 1983, 18).

bowls, dominate the assemblage. Vessels for pouring, such as jugs, also occur with great frequency. Storage vessels, cooking vessels and accessory vessels are less common in the assemblage. This is probably due to several factors specific to each functional category. Storage vessels were typically not moved and, therefore, less subject to breakage, cooking vessels were not commonly deposited in mortuary contexts, nor were they used in instances where they were subject to breakage, and a small number of accessory vessels could have been used in conjunction with a greater number of serving vessels; therefore, few needed to be produced and those that were produced were not likely to have been deliberately deposited in mortuary or other contexts.

The ceramic material discovered in the floor level of Room 1 of this structure was thoroughly recorded and analyzed. 60% of this sample, based on sherd counts rather than weight, comprised coarse ware and only 40% was classified as fine ware. Vessels for the consumption of food and drink dominate the assemblage from Room 1, which also contains very few storage vessels. This assemblage contained 93 vessels with skyphoi being the most popular shape by far (approximately 63% of the total fine ware assemblage) (McDonald, et. al.1983, 26).

An analysis of the ceramic material being produced throughout this period demonstrates that there was no drastic decline in production standards or changes in the types of vessels being produced. Therefore although other evidence (such as kilns and ceramic production areas) is lacking, it is possible to suggest on the basis of the material itself that the standardized repertoire of wheelmade ceramic material indicates that small-to-medium scale potters or pottery workshops and perhaps specialist itinerant potters were the primary producers of ceramic material

At Asine a total of 970 Protogeometric vessels were recorded. While calculating actual percentages is complicated by the fact that this total represents both a sherd count and restored vessels, it is possible to say that, in general, eating and drinking vessels, such as skyphoi/ deep

86

Ceramic Material

during this period. If, as I have suggested, these producers were in place during the palatial period and catered to the palatial centers as well as the population, then the apparent continuity in the material record is quite easily explained.

these markets fulfilled the needs of the communities that the palatial administration did not address. Following the collapse of the palaces, these markets would have continued to supply the communities and are one reason why basic social and economic activities at the community level were not disrupted.

It is likely that, just as during the palatial periods, several forms of ceramic production, such as domestic production, small-to-medium scale workshops and itinerant specialists, co-existed during the Late Bronze through Iron Age.

5.5 Storage as Organized by Iron Age Communities As I discussed in an earlier section of this chapter, the storage and redistribution of goods was one of the chief concerns of the palatial administration. This system of organization has best been described by Christakis (2008, 10) as a centralized storage system in which there was a primary location for the bulk storage and redistribution of goods. Obviously, with the collapse of the palatial administration this system disappeared. However, storage remained an important activity as a buffer against shortage and uncertainty.

A domestic ceramic industry produced pottery for the needs of specific households and in times of economic hardship this pottery would have also have been sold or traded. While Peacock (1982, 23) argues that household industry most frequently developed alongside the ability to support a household through farming and in conditions of poverty, I argue that household industry existed in conjunction with other forms of economic organization and is not strictly linked to poverty. Rather, small-to-medium scale workshops and household production structures were a means through which to fulfill the needs of the communities and households.

Domestic storage was the least intensive form of storage in terms of organization. Storage at the individual household level took place independently or in conjunction with either of the two previous forms. Self-sufficient practices certainly took place even under the palatial administration and provided subsistence goods and surplus (De Fidio 2001, 17). Households and communities benefited from maintaining a certain amount of self-sufficiency and when the palatial administration failed these communities could continue with minimum disruption to their basic existence (De Fidio 2001, 24).

Following the collapse of the palatial administration and the contraction of activity in the international markets, pottery production probably continued to take place at the small-to-medium scale workshop level and catered to domestic needs with some specialized production of more difficult shapes, particularly pithoi. Individual households would have produced basic shapes, such as those used in the preparation and consumption of food and drink. The widespread availability of the raw materials needed for ceramic production and the relatively low cost of producing pottery support the theory that some households were engaged in producing pottery to fulfill their own basic needs. It is also likely that, because high quality, wheelmade vessels were still being produced, specialized potters or workshops operated at a supra-household level after 1200 BC. These specialist potters would have produced vessels that were more difficult to manufacture, such as pithoi (Crielaard 1999, 58).

Domestic- or household-level storage ensured the economic stability and independence of individual households. Successful domestic storage also contributed to perceived social status in that being able to provide for the domestic unit in lean times ensured the loyalty of the domestic unit to the householder and strengthened their position within the community (Christakis 2008, 11). The storage vessels in use during the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Early Geometric periods ranged in size from large pithoi and stirrup jars, used for the storage of commodities as a risk buffer or for trade, to small aryballoi and amphoriskoi that contained goods for personal or ritual use. The wide variety in storage shapes indicates the importance of this activity and the variety of purposes for which the stored material was used.

An overview of the ceramic industry during the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age transition suggests that small-to-medium scale workshops, itinerant potters and the household produced ceramic material. Due to the nature of this industry it was relatively unaffected by the collapse of the palatial administration. While the palatial administration and their long distance trade activities influenced production and consumption, the mechanisms were in place for communities and households to provide for themselves. The presence of extra-palatial production and markets ensured a level of stability in the ceramic industry despite the socio-economic disturbances of the Late Helladic IIIB 2 and IIIC periods.

Throughout this transitional period, pithoi or other large storage vessels did not occur in any great number in a single building suggestive of a large-scale storage complex, like those that characterize the central storage system of the palaces. However, the small empty buildings at Asine are reminiscent of those from Assiros, which contained evidence of agricultural storage. Perhaps surplus goods were being maintained in archaeologically invisible contexts during the Early Protogeometric and later periods. One striking example, however, of evidence for storage

An important aspect of socio-economic organization that has emerged from this overview is the presence of extra-palatial markets. Under the palatial administration,

87

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

vessels in situ are the twelve impressions of pithoi in the floor outside Building T at Tiryns (Thomatos 2006, 189). The indication that storage took place in this particular context is perhaps evidence for the use of stored goods for public displays of conspicuous wealth and consumption (Margomenou 2008, 206).

an average amount of goods rather than a large amount of one particular commodity (Garnsey 1988, 55). 5.6 Conclusions This chapter has been an exercise in making the most of the extant ceramic evidence. I have first presented a selection of the published ceramic material from the Late Bronze through Iron Age and then attempted to use this material to discuss two specific socio-economic practices: the production of ceramic material and storage. This discussion was deliberately structured in this way in order to move beyond a purely stylistic and classificatory analysis and redress Morgan’s (1999, 244) observation that ceramic studies have been dominated by issues of chronology, terminology and style.

The nature of post-palatial settlements, lack of large-scale storage architecture, and both the size and context of the storage vessels indicate that communities during the Bronze Age through Iron Age transition were practicing domestic storage. However, I think this is an overly simplified characterization of one method employed by communities to ensure security and satisfy a variety of other needs as there are a number of social, cultural and economic factors at work in determining which storage system to use and how.

It is evident that there existed a continuous ceramic tradition in terms of the functions of shapes that were produced, morphological development and production technology from the Late Bronze through Iron Age (Crielaard 1999, 49). The ceramic material also indicates a sustained level of basic domestic and small to medium scale workshop activity at many pre-existing sites and, especially in the case of Methana, an increase in activity or the establishment of new sites.

Domestic storage is a practice that promoted the stability of the individual and the domestic unit. Domestic units provided for themselves and stored the commodities that they acquired at a level commensurate with their needs. Rather than relying on commodities collected from others, stored in a central location and then redistributed, individual households maintained commodities for their own use or for exchange in order to acquire the goods that they could not supply.

This analysis has demonstrated that the palatial administration was only interested in the production ceramic material for their own use and as containers for goods exchanged on the international markets. The palatial administration acquired their pottery from local potters either through tithes and taxation or outright purchase. These small-to-medium scale producers, which supplied both the palace and the community, existed in conjunction with limited production controlled by the palatial administration. The existence of local markets and the existence of domestic storage and exchange mechanisms independent of the palaces were crucial in buffering the communities from the later socio-economic disturbances.

That storage vessels were not identified in great numbers in any context and that pithoi are particularly scarce is suggestive of several facts. As stated earlier, the lack of storage vessels in any great frequency in concentrated locations within sites and their general distribution indicates the use of domestic storage practices and the multi-functional nature of buildings during this period. In practical terms, the scarcity of large storage vessels indicates that bulk storage and redistribution were no longer required as a way of organizing resources and surplus. The manufacture of pithoi required a significant investment in time, resources and skill, which is attested to by the fact that these vessels were sometimes mended with lead clamps and in use for generations.5 The care taken in mending these vessels supports the suggestion that the technical requirements for making pithoi may have been restricted in availability.

Several vessel types were selected for further examination. Both kylikes and stirrup jars were closely associated with palace activities. After the collapse of the palatial administration there was a distinct decline in the production of these two shapes, which were eventually replaced by new shapes that had never been associated with the palaces. Pictorial kraters were also selected in order to demonstrate that, in some cases, ceramic material was used to promote an ideological message. In this case, LH IIIC Middle kraters with decorations, frequently depicting martial or elite scenes, were possibly used to promote a new ideology or recapture and capitalize on the ideology of the palatial administration.

The evidence demonstrates that storage was indeed taking place at a household level, but I think it is safe to assume that not every house maintained a surplus of the same goods nor did they do so at the same level because not every household unit would have produced the same agricultural goods to the same extent as other household units. The theory that households maintained a small amount of diverse surplus and were engaged in a secure, but small-scale form of storage is also supported by the prevalence of smaller shapes, such as jars, which could hold

Storage vessels, specifically pithoi, were selected for more detailed analysis because (to paraphrase Halstead and O’Shea 1989, 6), as a cultural mechanism for coping with uncertainty, storage behaviors can play an important role

I would like to thank Dr. Despoina Margomenou for bringing this point to my attention. 5

88

Ceramic Material

in the continuation and development of society. The way in which storage was organized provides information about how these communities were structured and operated. It appears that small-scale domestic storage was practiced and that goods and surplus were then shared among the larger community (Halstead and O’Shea 1989, 5; Halstead and O’Shea 1982, 93).

of the collapse of the palatial administration. Domestic storage and small-to-medium workshop production, augmented by trade or exchange and specialist potters supported domestic units. The success of these practices, then, contributed to and reinforced an ideology that placed importance on the individual or household rather than the larger group. In the subsequent chapter, I seek to further demonstrate that the production, consumption and deposition of metal objects was largely unaffected by the collapse of the palatial administration.

I have used the ceramic material as a basis for a discussion of how socio-economic practices were adapted in the wake

89

Chapter Six: Metal Objects The extent to which the beginnings of utilitarian iron use and political collapse may be seen to coincide...is partly, of course a function of the vagaries of local periodisations and their terminologies, which sometimes rest on now long-forgotten historical interpretations. S. Sherratt 2000, 82 6.1 Introduction

provenience aspects of metal objects, I follow Nakou’s (1995, 2) approach and re-assess this evidence from a socioeconomic perspective. Through a socio-economic analysis of the metal objects dating to this period I demonstrate how the organization of metal production, economic transactions involving these objects and acts of deposition express some of the changes that took place during the Late Bronze Age through Iron Age transition. In order to do this and make the most of the material evidence, I consider metal objects as commodities with multiple levels of value (Reddy 1986, 282). After discussing the levels of value ascribed to finished metal objects, I use this line of inquiry to address the aforementioned socio-economic practices.

This study began by using evidence from mortuary contexts and architectural remains to demonstrate that many of the apparent discontinuities in the material record dating from 1200 BC through 900 BC are actually indicative of an ideological shift, rather than poverty and retrenchment. During this period, increasing importance was placed on the success of the individual or the domestic unit as the basis for stable communities. However, ideology cannot take root unless it is supported by and supports successful socio-economic practices. In my analysis of ceramic material I demonstrated how little changed during this period. I attributed this stability, in large part, to pre-existing extra-palatial production and exchange. Following the collapse of the palatial administration, the same production technologies were used, the vessels that were produced fulfilled the same functions, even though there were changes in the ceramic repertoire, and ceramic material continued to be circulated, used in domestic contexts and deposited as containers for appropriate mortuary offerings.

In subsequent sections, I first present a picture of metalworking under the palatial administration and then the published examples of metal objects from the Argolid.1 This is followed by a discussion of the different levels of value ascribed to metal objects. I then discuss the role and importance of these objects in socio-economic practices and the establishment of social stratification, using specific examples from mortuary contexts and hoards. 6.1.2 Metalworking as Organized by the Palatial Administration

In this chapter, I treat metal objects much the same way. First, I briefly discuss metalworking under the palatial administration. Then, I present the published metal objects dating to this period and use evidence for their production, consumption and deposition to reinforce the dual arguments that there was an ideological shift away from the corporate group towards the individual and that socio-economic practices were adapted to support individuals or domestic units.

The evidence for palatial involvement in the metalworking industry in the Peloponnese originates mainly from Linear B documents found at the palace of Pylos. Based on the detailed recording of transactions involving metals, it seems that the palace tightly regulated the acquisition and distribution of raw materials and finished objects (Chadwick 1976, 141).

As Doonan et.al. (2007) noted, previous studies of metal objects have traditionally focused on issues of typological development, technological aspects, such as manufacturing technique, and provenience. In addition to the aforementioned research questions, metal objects have also been used to reinforce the artificial division and sharp cultural break between the Bronze and Iron Ages. However, there is an alternative approach. Rather than discussing the technology of production, typological or

Metalworking was one of the crafts organized under the ta-ra-si-ja system (Killen 2001). The Jn series of tablets provides evidence for the distribution of bronze from the palace to various smiths and, from there, back to the palace. Almost all of these tablets, which were discovered Currently no metal objects dating to this period can be identified from the Methana peninsula due to the fact that the evidence comes almost entirely from a survey project and a single rescue excavation. Further research would surely alter the current picture. 1

90

Metal Objects

in the Archives Complex, have been dated to the final administrative year before the destruction of the palatial centre around 1200 BC (Smith 1992-1993, 171).

and jewelry used by those living outside the palatial centers from collected and recycled scrap material. The Linear B evidence does not indicate whether the workshops and craftsmen listed in the tablets were specialists that produced solely for the palaces or if these were independent workshops that fulfilled obligations to the palace and also fulfilled the needs of the larger community. Holly Morris (1986, 121) suggests that a combination of the two could have co-existed. She argues that a few full-time workshops or core groups of smiths from each workshop catered to the palaces. These smiths received allocations from the palace and attended to the more technical jobs while part-time specialists joined the workshops if needed and took part in the less technical aspects of metalworking.

The Jn series of tablets not only records smiths producing for the palatial centre of Pylos and the raw material they received, but also the method used by the palatial administration to regulate the distribution of raw materials to craftsmen working outside the palace itself and the delivery of commodities to the palace (Smith 1992-1993, 171). Smiths who received an allotment of materials from the palace were described as ta-ra-si-ja e-ko-te and those who did not receive an allotment were described as a-tara-si-jo. This system demonstrates that the acquisition and distribution of (most probably) bronze was regulated by the palatial administration (Killen 2001, 163).

A review of the Linear B evidence indicates that, at least in LH IIIB Pylos, the palatial administration was directly involved in the allocation of bronze to regional workshops. Not only were the palaces consumers of the finished products, but they also organized the distribution and collection of both raw materials and the finished objects these workshops created (Morris H.J. 1986, 121). Perhaps, due to the value of the raw materials and finished objects, metalworking was an activity that was at least partially “captured” by the palatial administration (Bennet 2008, 155-157).

The first section of each tablet began with the names and locations of the smiths who received ta-ra-si-ja from the palaces. Presumably, because both the outgoing and incoming weights of metals were carefully recorded, the smiths receiving ta-ra-si-ja were obligated to return to the palace a weight in finished product equal to that which they had received. The names and locations were then followed by the ideogram that probably represents bronze and a quantity. “The accepted interpretation of these tablets is that this metal was being shipped to regional workshops for processing into objects, which were shipped back to the palace” (Morris H.J. 1986, 118-119). This demonstrates how the palatial administration and possibly the religious sector satisfied its needs for finished metal objects, but not how ordinary people gained access to these items.

6.2 Methodology Having provided a brief background to metalworking under the palatial administration, I now discuss the challenges specific to the study of metal objects from this period and then present the published data.

The Jn tablets also provide evidence for an elaborate system of control exercised by the palatial administration. In this system, typically, very small weights of highly valuable raw materials were allocated to many different smiths. Each allocation was recorded, as, we assume, was the weight of the returned finished product. In this way, no worker could defraud the palace of valuable raw materials (Killen 2001, 175).

Only a fraction of the total number of metal objects produced during the Late Bronze through Iron Age transition survives due to various processes. First, the number of recovered objects is limited by the practice of recycling, which I discuss in subsequent sections. Also, due to the value of the raw materials and finished objects it is also possible that some metal objects were removed from mortuary contexts. Finally, within archaeological contexts metal objects, with the exception of gold, are prone to corrosion, which further restricts the identification and analysis of these objects. The deterioration of metal objects in the ground may render the original form and even type of metal unrecognizable during excavation and study, which can lead to the presence of “lumps”, “pieces” or “unknown fragments” in the published accounts (Kayafa 1999, 10).

The second section of these tablets detailed smiths who were described as a-ta-ra-si-jo. The fact that the palatial administration was also concerned with smiths who did not receive an allotment from the palace suggests that metal was a controlled and regulated commodity. It also indicates that the smiths themselves were of some interest, perhaps due to their skill or the fact that their occupation may have given them status in the community, as there is evidence for smiths owning land and receiving tax exemptions (Killen 2001, 173). The term a-ta-ra-si-jo only exists in the Jn tablets. This term not only indicates that these smiths did not receive raw materials from the palace during the recorded cycle, but also that they did not receive commissions for work from the palace either (Smith 19921993, 179). Perhaps the a-ta-ra-si-jo smiths, who were not receiving allotments from the palace or producing for the palace or the religious sector, produced the tools, weapons

Unlike ceramic material, it is not as easy to date metal objects from the Late Bronze and Iron Age based on stylistic or typological criteria (Stos-Gale and Macdonald 1991, 249). Frequently, the precise period of production or dates of use cannot be determined. Therefore, the chronological periods provided by the published accounts are sometimes very general (Kayafa 1999, 404).

91

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 42 Totals of metal objects found in the three main depositional contexts. Note that numbers should be considered approximate due to subjective quantities, such as “a few” or “several”, having been occasionally used in publication.

Pre-depositional decisions, such as the choice of what to deposit and where, and post-depositional processes, such as corrosion and selective publication, have influenced the available material record and must be taken into consideration during analysis. However, rather than deterring detailed analysis these factors simply inform the kind of approach available.

Table 40 Functional categories of metal objects dating to LH IIIB 2 through Early Geometric.

6.3 Data I recorded a total of 411 metal objects, which were mostly recovered from hoards and mortuary contexts (Figure 42). The available material evidence has often been dated based on associated ceramic material. For many of the reasons mentioned above, this sample is not likely to represent a significant quantity of the metal objects in circulation during the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through Early Geometric periods. Even a cursory examination of the material record reveals significant gaps in the evidence, the most notable of which is the lack of metal vessels.

Functional Category

LH IIIB 2

LH IIIC

PG

EG

Jewelry Weapons/ Amour Tools Vessels Metalworking Unknown

+ + + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + -

+ + -

and hair spirals. These items of personal adornment were produced in every medium except for lead and were discovered in the graves of children and adults, as well as in hoards. As illustrated by Figure 44, jewelry comprises approximately 35% of the sample (a total of 144 objects). Examples of defensive amour from this period are rare. The only published examples being a bronze helmet and bronze shield boss discovered in an 11th century BC tomb at Tiryns. However, offensive weapons, such as spearheads, swords and knives, are relatively common in the archaeological record.

I categorized the metal objects into six groups based on function (Table 40; Figure 43). These functional categories represent the basic classes of objects that were created for personal use or used in the production of metal objects. They are: jewelry, weapons, amour, tools, material for or from the metalworking process, such as lumps, sheets and slag, tools, vessels and unknown objects.

Tools, which include needles, hammers and awls, are also rarely present in mortuary contexts because they were utilitarian items, which were likely to be repaired or recycled if broken. They were not considered to have been appropriate mortuary offerings and what evidence there is comes from either settlement contexts or utilitarian hoards.

A broad range of jewelry was produced during this period, examples of which are finger rings, pins, earrings, bracelets

92

Metal Objects

Figure 43 A breakdown of published metal objects by functional type. It should be noted that these totals should only be considered approximate due to variables in publication, such as not discussing specific quantities.

The considerable quantity of tools present during this period originates mainly from the utilitarian smiths’ hoards discovered at Mycenae, which I discuss subsequently. Lead pottery clamps attest to the mending of ceramic vessels, while net-sinkers, fishhooks and sickles represent tools used in the acquisition of food.

Table 41 The presence or absence of metals that have been identified in specific chronological periods.

The importance of choice and the decision to include or exclude certain objects from specific depositional contexts is particularly clear when examining the objects that were deposited in mortuary contexts as opposed to hoards. As illustrated in Figure 43, the majority of metal objects were discovered in hoards and mortuary contexts (approximately 225 total objects and 165 total objects respectively).

Metal

LH IIIB 2

LH IIIC

PG

EG

Bronze Iron

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

Lead

+

+

+

-

Gold Silver

+ -

+ +

+ -

+ -

impoverished nature of Iron Age communities when compared to the Late Helladic IIIB and earlier periods (Desborough 1972, 12; 25; Coldstream 1977, 17; Murray 1980, 16). However, a more detailed examination of a number of well-published mortuary contexts demonstrates a wide range in the quantities and types of metal objects that were included as grave goods (Tables 42, 43 and 44).

As Figure 44 illustrates, jewelry was more likely to have been included in mortuary contexts as opposed to hoards, while tools and objects used in the production of metal objects, such as lumps, fragments and slag, were more likely to have been deposited in hoards. This may be explained by the fact that more utilitarian as opposed to ritual hoards have been discovered. However, I think this trend accurately reflects the importance of including objects of personal significance or those that in some way identified the individual in mortuary contexts.

For this analysis I have used the same mortuary contexts presented in my discussion of ceramic material.

Bronze, iron, gold, lead and silver were in use to varying degrees during this period, with bronze and iron being the most common materials (Table 41).

It is clear from the preceding tables that the same types of objects were deposited in mortuary contexts throughout all periods of this study and that in periods previously characterized as impoverished, there were well-equipped mortuary contexts, such as 1957 XXVIII from Tiryns and G 603 at Mycenae.

The relaive lack of metal objects surviving in mortuary contexts has often been used to demonstrate the

Thus far, the presentation of data has focused on metal objects recovered from mortuary contexts. However,

93

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 44 A comparison of quantities of different functional categories recovered from mortuary contexts and hoards.

Table 42 Metal objects recovered from palatial mortuary contexts. Mortuary Context

Date

Location

ChT XXXIII

LH IIIA 1 – LH IIIB 2

Prosymna

ChT G- II ChT G- IV ChT PE- I ChT KN/V- II ChT XIX ChT IX ChT XV

LH IIIA 2 –LH IIIB 1 LH IIIA 2 LH IIIA 2 LH IIIA 2- LH IIIB 1 LH IIIA 2 - LH IIIB 2 LH IIIA 2 - LH IIIB 2 LH IIIA 2 - LH IIIB 2

Mycenae Mycenae Mycenae Mycenae Prosymna Prosymna Prosymna

ChT X

LH IIIA 2 - LH IIIB 2

Prosymna

ChT P- II ChT P- III ChT 520 ChT 513 ChT 514 ChT 525

LH IIIA 1 LH IIIA 1 LH III LH III LH III LH III

Mycenae Mycenae Mycenae Mycenae Mycenae Mycenae

Assemblage Two bronze fragments; one bronze flat-toothed saw; bronze tweezers; one bronze chisel; fragments of lead wire None None None None Fragment of a bronze finger ring None One bronze cleaver Three bronze spearheads; two bronze rivet heads; one bronze knife; one bronze cleaver; bronze tweezers; one bronze arrowhead; one shallow bronze basin None None Several gold necklace ornaments; one gold ring One gold ring Two silver rings Bronze awl or “bodkin”

Table 43 Metal objects recovered from mortuary contexts in use throughout the LBA through IA transition. Mortuary Context

Date

Location

Assemblage

ChT G- III ChT P- I ChT Tomb 532 ChT Tomb 502 ChT XX

LH IIIA 2- LH IIIC M LH IIIA 2- LH IIIC E LH II – LH IIIC M LH III - LH IIIC LH IIIB – LH IIIC E

Mycenae Mycenae Mycenae Mycenae Prosymna

None None One bronze pin; one bronze rod One gold disc; six gold necklace ornaments None

94

Metal Objects

Table 44 Metal objects recovered from post-palatial mortuary contexts. Mortuary Context

Date

Location

Assemblage

Grab XVI House of Tripod Vessels Tomb

LH IIIC

Prof. Ilias

LH IIIC

Mycenae

1957 XXVIII pit

EPG

Tiryns

O. Papalexopoulou cist 1970-6 1970-9 1970-10 1970-14 Cist tomb 1970- 15

LPG PG PG PG PG PG

Argos Asine Asine Asine Asine Asine

G 603

EG

Mycenae

G23 G 607

EG EG

Mycenae Mycenae

Gold plate; one silver ring Two bronze tripod cauldrons; twenty bronze double axes; one bronze tool Two iron daggers; one bronze helmet; one bronze spearhead; one bronze shield boss One bronze finger-ring None None None None One iron fibula; one iron finger-ring Three bronze pins; three bronze finger-rings; one bronze earring; one bronze fibula One iron pin; one bronze finger-ring One bronze earring; bronze finger-ring; two bronze pins

Table 45 Hoards dated to the Late Bronze through Iron Age and their functional category. Hoard

Date of Deposition

Location

Functional Category

Schliemann’s Hoard Mylonas’ Hoard Tsountas’ Hoard Poros Wall Hoard Tiryns Treasure

LH IIIB – C LH IIIB – C LH IIIB – C LH IIIB 2 LH IIIC

Mycenae Mycenae Mycenae Mycenae Tiryns

Smith’s Hoard Smith’s Hoard Smith’s Hoard Smith’s Hoard Ritual Hoard

hoards also provide evidence for what metals and types of objects were in use during this period. While I discuss the socio-economic practice and meaning behind the deliberate deposition of metal objects in hoards in a later section, I present the examples now in order to balance the discussion of the data.

(Figure 45), which has also been dated to LH IIIB-C period. This hoard was discovered in the northern area of the citadel between two massive stones, which belonged to the retaining wall for the West Road from the Lion Gate (Kayafa 1999, 53; Knapp, et.al. 1988, 247; Mylonas 1962, 406; Mylonas 1966b, fig. 67).

Schliemann’s Hoard, Tsountas’ Hoard, Mylonas’ Hoard, and the Poros Wall Hoard from Mycenae and the Tiryns Treasure represent hoards deposited during the end of the Late Bronze Age (Table 45). In this section, I present the content and the date of deposition for each specific hoard. Subsequently, in my discussion of deliberate deposition, I examine the most thoroughly published examples (the Poros Wall Hoard and the Tiryns Treasure) in further detail.

Mylonas’ Hoard contained one bronze adze, two bronze awls, one bronze chisel, three bronze sickles, four bronze double axes, one bronze spearhead, two bronze knives, three bronze daggers, one bronze ingot fragment and three bronze vessel fragments (Kayafa 1999, 53). While this hoard has recently been categorized as the hoard of a smith (Kayafa 1999, 55; Knapp, et.al. 1988, 248), Mylonas’ interpretation is worth repeating in order to demonstrate how this form of deliberate deposition was originally interpreted within the framework of the assumption that the collapse of the palace at Mycenae was caused by invaders:

Unfortunately, Schliemann’s Hoard has never been fully published and contextual details are lacking. Despite this, it is possible to list the contents and provide a general date of deposition. This hoard of bronze objects contained two wheels with four spokes, an unknown quantity of “hair pins”, one tripod vessel, two vessels, five vessel fragments, two arrowheads, four knives, one sickle and two double axes. The content and deposition of this hoard have been dated to the Late Helladic IIIB-C period, based on typological and content parallels with the Poros Wall Hoard (Kayafa 1999, 55; Knapp, et. al. 1988, 247).

These objects were evidently hidden there for safekeeping before an impending attack of the enemy by a Mycenaean who hoped to survive and regain his possessions. Apparently he perished in the attack that destroyed the palace and its approaches and his hidden treasure remained for us to discover (Mylonas 1962, 406). Tsountas’ Hoard, which was originally two separate deposits, has also been dated to the Late Helladic IIIB

Slightly more information is available for Mylonas’ Hoard

95

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

about 0.20m below the surface a hoard of bronzes. They all lay in one heap as if they had been carried in a canvas bag which perished long ago” (Wace 1953, 7). Wace originally believed that due to the presence of so many tools and scraps of bronze that this material constituted the “stock in trade” of a bronze worker. Stubbings (1954, 292-296) produced a thorough inventory and analysis of the material from this hoard (Figure 48). The weapons or tools included one dagger with narrow blade and cruciform hilt and one sword or dagger with a pronounced flat midrib. In addition to these were 6 fragments of sickles, which included a blade with short flat tang attached, a blade, a tang with one rivet-hole and the stump of a blade, a complete blade with tang attached, a blade fragment and a tang fragment. These fragments were from a type of sickle common in Mainland Greece during the Bronze Age (Stubbings 1954, 293). Several fragments of knives were also discovered and represent types that were common during the LH III period. The tang and stump of the blade of a chopper, also dated to the LH III period, were discovered, along with one double axe and one possible adze, which has typological parallels on Crete. Three fragments of chisels represent definitive tools from the Poros Wall Hoard: the cutting edge with stem connected, a cutting edge and a blade end. In addition to these was one possible drill: “A chisel or drill of similar shape and size, though more pointed, was found in Tomb 515 at Mycenae; but the type is not very frequent” (Stubbings 1954, 294). The head of a hammer, with evidence of use on both ends, was also discovered. This type of tool was quite rare, further highlighting the gaps in the surviving material record. Tweezers, which were common in mortuary contexts dating to the LH III period, were also discovered among this material.

Figure 45 Mylonas’ Hoard discovered between two large stones (From Mylonas 1966b, Figure 67).

through Late Helladic IIIC transitional period (Kayafa 1999, 51; Knapp, et. al. 1988, 246-247). This hoard was located in between the stones of a house located on the citadel of Mycenae (Kayafa 1999, 51). It is considered another example of a smith’s hoard because of its content.

Examples of metal vessels are represented by the presence of two endplates of vessel handles, perhaps belonging to a large hydria. In addition to these was part of the handle for a hydria or krater. As there was no evidence for the bodies of these vessels it is possible that the fragments were intended as scrap material for recycling and this may be the case with metal vessel fragments discovered in other hoards.

It contained nine awls, 20 chisels, 10 knives, 19 sickles, two scale pins, five pairs of tweezers, four daggers (one of which was unfinished), one sword and one sword fragment, one razor, one mirror, one gold hair spiral, one ingot fragment, one horse bit, 9 bands and more than 12 band fragments (Kayafa 1999, 52). The preponderance of tools certainly reinforces the interpretation that this was material used by a smith actively engaged in metalworking. However, the motives for the deposition remain unclear.2

Pieces that can definitely be associated with the production of finished metal objects are 12 fragments from ox-hide ingots, identified by their pitted surface and shape, four additional possible ingot fragments and 33 different sheets of bronze. In addition to these items is one rounded lump of bronze with a flat side “... as though it had solidified at the bottom of a crucible” (Stubbings 1954, 296).

The Poros Wall Hoard, located outside the citadel walls of Mycenae (Figure 46) has been dated to the Late Helladic IIIB 2 period. It was discovered during Wace’s 1952 excavation near a well-constructed wall faced with cut poros blocks located south of the Perseia Fountain House and halfway between the so-called Tomb of Aegisthus and Tomb of Clytemnestra (Wace 1953, 5-6): “…. we found at

It is tempting to suspect that, because of the relatively high quantity of smiths’ hoards and their relative dates (all during a period of socio-economic instability), Mylonas’ interpretation may be plausible. However, there is no evidence for an invasion that would trigger this sort of behavior.

In my subsequent discussion of deliberate deposition I explain in more detail the difference between the two types of hoards and the possible motives for their deposition. 2

96

Metal Objects

Figure 46 Location of the Poros Wall Hoard (from Taylour 1955, Figure 3).

The other well-published and securely dated hoard is the Tiryns Treasure, which represents a different kind of hoard. It was discovered in 1915 in the southeastern part of the Lower Town (Maran 2006b, 129). Maran (2006b) presents a detailed examination of this find, incorporating the original interpretations of the excavator as well as later observations.

contained within and outside of the cauldron (Maran 2006b, 132). The bottom of the pit was paved with small flat stones. Two damaged swords and the remains of two bronze firedogs were placed directly on top of this paving and a large cauldron, which contained many prestige objects, was then placed on top of these items. Against the outside of this cauldron were placed a Cypriote bronze tripod stand and bronze slab ingot (Maran 2006b, 134; Kayafa 1999, 61).

Unlike the Poros Wall Hoard and other hoards from Mycenae, the Tiryns Treasure did not primarily comprise utilitarian objects and its deposition within a meter deep pit appears to have been the result of a pre-planned ritual action. Much of my discussion is based on Maran’s total reconstruction of the Tiryns Treasure, which includes items

A bronze sickle and five bronze vessels, which had been stacked inside each other, were placed on the bottom of

97

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Figure 47 Objects from the Poros Wall Hoard (a) Ingot fragments; (b) Knives; (c) Chisels, adze, hammer, drill and double axe; (d) Dagger; (e) Cauldron handle (From Stubbings 1954, Plate 2).

the cauldron. The smallest of the bowls contained a large fragment of ivory and the other vessels rested within a small cauldron. A mug, which contained an iron sickle, and a tall cup without handles had been placed on top of the five vessels. Maran (2006b, 132) supports the original argument that most of the jewelry and items found in the bottom of the large cauldron had originally been placed within the tall cup. These items included a large golden signet ring, a coil of gold wire, a Hittite cylinder seal and a substantial quantity of gold and faience beads. Wheels made of gold wire strung with amber beads, small golden sockets, a smaller gold signet, several gold beads, an undecorated gold finger-ring and a finger-ring with a granulated bezel remained in the upper half of the cauldron (Maran 2006b, 132).

Of these items the amber beads, iron sickle, bulls’ heads earring pendants and the bronze Cypriote tripod stand have all been dated based on stylistic comparanda from the Late Helladic IIIC period. It is likely that the wheels made of gold wire with amber beads and the two gold finger-rings also date to this period as well (Maran 2006b, 130). 6.3.1 Summary From this basic analysis of metal objects it is clear that the types of materials in use and types of objects being manufactured and consumed remained constant throughout the Late Bronze through Iron Age. The variety in objects and metals used also contradicts the assumptions that this was an impoverished period and that the technical skills needed to produce these objects were lacking (Kayafa 2006, 215).

In addition to these items were a small broken gold palmette, a piece of gold sheet, which had been cut on one side, and three highly stylized gold bulls’ heads, which were originally the pendants from earrings, and several pieces of worked and unworked ivory (Maran 2006b, 137; 134). This entire complex was capped off by a bronze tripod turned upside down, the legs of which had been visible for some time before its discovery (Maran 2006b, 138-139).

In an examination of Late Helladic III through Early Geometric metal objects Kayafa (2006, 214) characterized LH III metal artefacts as being predominantly copperbased and that lead was frequently used as well. She then examined published chemical data from samples taken from objects from the House of the Tripod Tomb, the

98

Metal Objects

Poros Wall Hoard, LH III chamber tombs excavated by Tsountas and various objects from Mycenae and Tiryns. From a review of the chemical data she concluded that tin-bronze was the predominant alloy (Kayafa 2006, 216). While her later assemblages come from outside the Argolid (Nichoria, Kastri and Lefkandi) because assemblages of metal objects from later periods are lacking, it still provides a useful basis for comparison. During this period, tin-bronze was also the predominant alloy (Kayafa 2006, 226). This continuity suggests stability in both access to raw materials and technology. Kayafa’s conclusions (2006) contrast with the previously dominant bronze-shortage theory (Snodgrass 2001, 237-239), which argued that the increasing reliance on iron was due to the disruption of long-distance trade routes and the collapse of the palaces around 1200 BC. She demonstrates that the low and variable tin content from the Iron Age examples could have been caused by the practice of recycling bronze objects. These results suggest that access to tin was perhaps restricted in some way, but that this was not the prime motivation for the eventual replacement of bronze by iron.

During the Late Bronze Age, social status could be gained through the ability to participate in long-distance trade and the ability to acquire the raw materials for metalworking. This was one way in which the Mycenaean palatial elite established and maintained their claim to leadership positions. Evidence from the Uluburun shipwreck (circa 1300 BC) and the Cape Gelidonya wreck (circa 1200 BC) suggests that the Mycenaean palatial administration was involved in international trade and elite gift giving (Pulak 1998, 219-220). Both ships contained a wide variety of objects, including finished metal objects as cargo or equipment on board and copper and tin ingots (Pulak 1998; Bass 1961). This demonstrates the exchange of both materials and finished objects: “…whole oxhide ingots probably represent the form in which tin, like copper, was transported from primary smelting areas at the mines or from nearby processing centers to distribution and/or manufacturing centers” (Pulak 1998, 199). After the acquisition of raw materials, the process and skill of metalworking itself also added value to finished metal objects. The process of metalworking not only included the smelting, refining or hammering of the material, but any finer decorative work as well (Budd and Taylor 1995).

From my review of metal objects, it is also clear that, because many of these objects were discovered in mortuary contexts and hoards, there is a bias towards both jewelry and tools. However, the presence of jewelry in mortuary contexts dating to all periods of this study suggests that these items were included because of their personal associations with the individual and to add prestige to the individual or domestic unit through the display of wealth.

Another level of the value associated with metal objects is based on the fact that finished objects could be reused and recycled (Crowley 2008, 275). There are indications that the raw materials used for production, which were either in the form of ingots or scrap, were highly important to the palatial economy. Again, this information comes from the Linear B records discovered at Pylos. Tablet Jn 829 details small contributions of “temple bronze” to be made by local administrators in order to be reused as raw materials for making spear points and javelin heads (Chadwick 1976, 141). It seems then that the palace organized the collection of finished metal objects for reuse. It is generally assumed that the Jn tablets document bronze objects. However, it is not clear what form the metal was in when it was collected. Various forms could include ingots, scrap or finished objects.

6.4 The Values of Metals Before discussing the production, exchange and deposition of metal objects dated to this period, it is important to address the different levels of value attached to them in order to explain how these objects were used in the promotion of the individual. Modern western thought equates value with monetary worth. However, there are many other forms of value. In his appraisal of historic Greek coinage, which forms a part of a more general discussion on the role of money and alternative financial forms, Maurer (2005, 155) poses the question: “...where does such value reside- in the metallic substance itself, or in the ideas inscribed on the die and impressed in the metal?”

Unfortunately, due to the limited timeframe covered by the surviving tablets, it is not possible to determine if the collection of metal for recycling was a regular practice or was introduced in response to a metal shortage (Smith 19921993, 171-173). Chadwick (1976, 141-142) argued that the collection of metal for reuse in creating weapons indicated that there was both a threat and a metal shortage and that the palace was “...taking steps to improve its fighting strength”. However, whatever the reason for this practice, it indicates that metals were also valued for their ability to be reused. The practice of recycling finished metal objects and scrap may have also provided later smiths with a supply of raw materials after the palaces had collapsed, which restricted the available supply of metals. The mutability of metal certainly affected its value in the economic practices of

Appadurai (1986) suggests that, as commodities for use and exchange, those who commissioned and used the metal objects inscribed them with levels of value. The steps in the lifecycle of finished metal objects, from the acquisition of the raw materials to the metalworking process and use, also added levels of value to the finished object. Ultimately, then, the value resided in both the metallic substance itself and what was created from it and the individuals associated with their production, use and exchange determined both of these values. The raw materials and finished objects were valued for their relative cost in obtaining, whether through mining or trade.

99

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

6.5.1 Production

bartering, commercial trade and gift giving. The practice of recycling is also one possible reason for the apparent scarcity of metal objects in the archaeological record. The fact that metal could be reworked and changed repeatedly is in striking contrast to the properties of fired or baked clay. While one property of ceramic material is that it may only be used until it is broken,3 a metal object may be recycled into an entirely new object time and time again. For metals or finished metal objects to be removed from circulation it was necessary to physically place them in contexts in which retrieval would have been considered inappropriate, such as hoards and mortuary contexts (Bradley 1990, 36-38).

There is little evidence for the actual production of metal objects in the Argolid and no evidence on Methana during this period. However, Room 106a at Tiryns has been associated with metalworking because of the presence of a square furnace, several storage jars, melted lead and an obsidian saw (Hiesel 1990, 33). In metalworking, an obsidian saw would be used for making metal handles and the decoration or incising of the metal objects themselves.4 This suggests, if decoration and incising were taking place, that a relatively high level of technical skill was still present in the metalworking industry and items that could contribute to social differentiation based on their symbolic value were still being produced. After the collapse of the palatial centers, smiths continued to produce the same repertoire of shapes in the same materials. An analysis of pins that have been dated to the Protogeometric period demonstrates that this particular class of object retained its previous form and, in the case of many other finished metal products, an unbroken line of development can be traced throughout the Bronze Age to Iron Age transition (Lemos 2002, 108). Luxury items, such as earrings, finger rings and bracelets, continued to be produced alongside essential tools and weapons.

Metals and finished metal objects, therefore, had two layers of value, which can be broadly categorized as economic values and symbolic values. The cost of obtaining the raw material, the exchange value of the raw material or finished product and the ability to recycle these objects can all be classified under economic value. The prestige gained based on the ability to obtain raw materials or own high-status finished products, as well as the ability to dispose of these items can all be grouped under the heading of symbolic values. 6.5 Economic Aspects: Production, Exchange and Deposition of Metals

In her analysis of published metal objects from 1400 through 900 BC, Kayafa (1999; 2006) demonstrates that very little changed in the technological aspects of metal production, particular with reference to the composition of metal objects. Throughout the LH IIIA through LH IIIC periods, tin-bronze was the predominant alloy in the Peloponnese and during the Iron Age this continued to be the case (Kayafa 2006, 216; 221).

Having discussed the production of metal objects under the Mycenaean palatial administration, the specific material evidence and the value of metals and finished metal objects, it is possible to discuss the economic aspects of metals during end of the Late Bronze through Iron Age. After addressing the organization of the metalworking industry, I then analyze the role of metal objects in various exchange contexts. For this discussion, I build on the work of Mauss (1990), Morris (1986), Appadurai (1986) and Earle (2002).

Chemical analyses of objects from Nichoria dating between 1050 and 850 BC provide support for the theory that there was no actual metal shortage during this period. The XRF results for objects from Nichoria show variable quantities of tin present in the samples. In seven out of the ten samples the amount of tin ranged between 10 and 25 per cent. In one sample tin was measured at 3.8 per cent and only one sample contained no tin (Kayafa 2006, 222). This demonstrates that tin was hardly scarce at Nichoria and that “…such large additions of tin in copper did not result from the recycling of scrap material and therefore tin or ready-made bronze continued to arrive in this part of Messenia during the DA…” (Kayafa 2006, 223).

Physical evidence for the production of metal objects may be limited, but it is possible to discuss aspects of this particular craft based on the types of metals that were in use and the types of objects that were being produced. In a situation similar to the production of ceramic material, I argue that the dissolution of the palatial administration had little effect on metalworking and the use of metals and metal objects. While short-distance or localized exchange may not be readily visible archaeologically, the deposition of metal objects in mortuary contexts and hoards is an activity that provides evidence for different socio-economic and ritual practices. The deposition of metal objects in these contexts not only fulfilled moral and social obligations, but represents the destruction of wealth and it is important to explore why this should occur if indeed the Iron Age transition was such an impoverished period.

In general, throughout the Peloponnese, tin-bronze (with a variable tin content) was used extensively throughout the Late Bronze through Iron Age and while it is generally difficult to separate LH IIIA through LH IIIB objects from Late Helladic IIIC objects due to previously mentioned constraints, it appears that the only metal shortage experienced in later periods was that of gold (Kayafa 2006, 226-227; Kayafa 1999, 404).

While there is evidence for mending ceramic vessels with lead pottery clamps, this is the exception rather than the rule. Typically after breakage most ceramic objects were simply discarded. 3

I would like to thank Dr. Heidi Dierckx for discussing the role of obsidian tools in the metalworking industry with me. 4

100

Metal Objects

As previously mentioned, Kayafa’s (1999; 2006) data contradicts the previously dominant bronze-shortage theory and I have explained how the practice of recycling could have provided a continuous supply of bronze to smiths operating in the Argolid. Therefore, it appears that a bronze-shortage caused by the disruption of long distance trade routes does not account for the replacement of by iron around 1025 BC (Morris 1989, 502). Morris (1989) views this development in the context of changing mortuary practices and argues that the increasing presence of iron in these contexts represents a choice on the part of the individual, which is a further indication of new socioeconomic order. I discuss this theory in further detail within a broader discussion of deposition. However, I mention it here in order to highlight the points that smiths continued to have access to bronze via the recycling of Mycenaean bronze objects and that perhaps the choice to recycle, rather than curate, these objects and the shift to iron production are other indices of the socio-economic and ideological transition that was taking place during the Late Bronze through Iron Age.

I have already outlined the different levels of value that can be conferred on metal objects, but it is important to discuss how these layers of value were created and used in relation to exchange. These values were largely culturally determined. The exchange or market value was the most widely variable as the value of an object was largely culturally determined. The exchange value of the commodity depended directly on the context of the exchange. For example, within a particular cultural and chronological context one lump of unworked iron may have been as or more valuable than a bronze tripod or, in another context, the opposite may be true. Metal objects were used in three different types of exchange transactions: bartering, commercial trade and gift exchange. Bartering was a ubiquitous practice and could occur in conjunction with other forms of exchange transactions (Humphrey and Hugh-Jones 1992, 6). In this form of exchange transaction, one quantity of commodities was directly exchanged for another of equal or nearly equal value (Maurer 2005, 140). Economic gain was not the desired result. Rather, the acquisition of goods that could not be obtained otherwise was the primary goal.

It seems, then, that while access to certain raw materials (specifically gold) and the scale at which prestige objects were being produced may have changed, the demands of the market remained mostly the same. This reinforces the Linear B evidence, in that at least some workshops operated independently of the palatial system and, therefore, were unaffected by the collapse of the administration. The material evidence also indicates that metal objects continued to be important, particularly those personal items, such as jewelry and weapons, which could advertise individual identity.

The focus of bartering, unlike that of gift exchange, was on the demand for different specific objects rather than on the establishment or reinforcement of a social relationship between the participants. In this type of exchange the participants were essentially equal. Either party had the ability to negotiate the terms of the exchange, complete or cancel the transaction and at the end no sense of future indebtedness between participants existed. In contrast to commercial trade, the value of the goods on offer was not externally determined by variables, such as access to supply, demand and prestige value. Rather, the individual participants determined the exchange value of bartered commodities at the point of exchange. In fact, in monetary terms the two commodities may not have been of equal value. However, bartering was a transaction that was entered into in order to fulfill the needs of both parties rather than to secure excess wealth (Humphrey and Hugh-Jones 1992, 6). Therefore, bartering maintained the status quo between the parties engaged in the exchange (Appadurai 1986, 9).

6.5.2 Exchange Examples from the Homeric epics indicate that metal objects were considered gifts of the highest value and were given in a variety of contexts, such as at weddings, games and in guest-host arrangements (Morris 1986, 9). Gift exchanges, particularly those that took place at the local level, as opposed to between geographically distant participants, are archaeologically invisible. However, the presence of many high-quality metal objects in mortuary contexts suggests that metal objects were an important commodity used in the establishment and maintenance of social status.

Snodgrass (1991, 15) defines commercial exchange as “...the purchase and movement of goods without the knowledge or identification of a further purchaser”. Unlike bartering, one commodity was traded for another commodity ideally for economic advantage and, unlike in gift giving, a personal relationship between participants was not necessary. In fact, the parties involved never even needed to meet each other for this type of transaction to take place. Commercial trade was strictly concerned with the fulfillment of a particular need for impersonal economic gain (Gregory 1982, 19). As suggested by the Uluburun shipwreck, the Mycenaean palatial elite engaged primarily in commercial exchange and gift giving in order to fulfill their need for prestige items and other goods acquired through long-distance trade routes.

Commodities are defined as objects with a set of economic and symbolic values that can be exchanged, deposited or given (Appadurai 1986, 3). In contrast, gifts are items that are given in non-economic exchange contexts where compensation may be in the form of a reciprocal gift or favor. While, on the surface, gift giving appears to be a voluntary act of polite social discourse, it is, in fact, a compulsory (whether stated or implied) event that creates obligation (Mauss 1990, 3-6). Metal objects are one such commodity that can be used for both economic and gift transactions.

101

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Gift exchange, which occurred in many different social settings, was a practice in which one commodity was given in a manner consistent with social mores. Gift giving also formed or reinforced relationships of indebtedness between individuals and was one of the main arenas for social competition. It was a way to display wealth and created relationships of dependence and obligation. These relationships of obligation and dependence formed the basis for the creation of hierarchy in pre-state societies, such as those that existed during the Iron Age (Voutsaki 1995, 8).

The deliberate deposition of wealth served several different purposes and later scholarly interpretations depend on the content of the deposit and depositional context. Deliberate deposition, whether for ritual or practical purposes, represents one archaeologically recoverable aspect of the relationship between people and objects (Osborne 2004, 2). In this section, I focus on the socioeconomic aspect of this practice and its underlying meaning, which is an approach that has frequently been used to understand the creation of hoards. I also discuss both the social and economic aspects of hoarding and its manifestation in the archaeological record (Bradley 1982, 102).

Modern concepts of gifts and gift giving should not influence our view of this practice as it took place in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. “The word ‘gift’ is not to be misconstrued. It may be stated as a flat rule of both primitive and archaic society that no one ever gave anything, whether goods or services or honors, without proper recompense, real or wishful, immediate or years away, to himself or to his kin” (Finley 1977, 64). Therefore, gift exchange linked both parties through the giving, the implied promise of recompense and a sense of indebtedness until this obligation was fulfilled.

I define deliberate deposition as the intentional or purposeful act of removing specific objects from circulation by their placement in contexts in which retrieval would have been considered socially unacceptable. The importance of deposition is that it represents the end result of an active choice made by an individual or group of individuals in agreement. I will now return to Morris’ (1989) argument that the increasing quantities of iron present in the archaeological record represents the choice to use and deposit certain metals and objects as opposed to others. He further suggests that iron and iron objects functioned as both a prestige good and, because access to iron could be more closely restricted, an item that could create or reinforce unequal status as gained through access to wealth (Morris 1989, 507). In the context of this study, then, the increasing deposition of iron can be seen as a further indication of the formation of a new ideology and socio-economic practices and, more generally, the deposition of metal objects can be seen as a way for individuals or domestic units to control access to this material and gain status through its use and removal from circulation.

It has been argued that during the Late Helladic III period the centralization of resources and, by extension, political control was achieved by the emerging elite through the manipulation of gift exchanges and conspicuous consumption (Voutsaki 2001, 205; 207). In subsequent periods, regardless of the dominant political or economic structure, the practice of gift exchange would still have emphasized socio-economic differences and separated those people who had the material to give away and those who received these gifts and, therefore, were indebted to the giver in some manner. With the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial administration came the dissolution of the redistributive framework and there was limited, if any, access to the long-distance trade routes. However, metal objects were still being produced and individuals still needed to acquire them. These commodities were acquired through transactions that were based in established social relationships between individuals. As a practice that established and reinforced unequal relationships between individuals, gift giving would have played an increasingly important role in the newly developing ideology and socio-economic system of organization. Gift giving, practiced as such, in the Iron Age would have helped individuals acquire status based on their access to wealth, including metal objects, and their ability to dispose of them or use them to create a sense of indebtedness in others.

Hoards have typically been divided into two categories: those that functioned as votive deposits, which were not intended to be recovered, and those which served a utilitarian purpose or were “...temporary stores whose recovery was prevented” (Bradley 1988, 249). The deliberate act of depositing metal objects in ritual hoards and mortuary contexts, contexts in which retrieval would have been considered socially unacceptable, removed these items from circulation and can be understood as the destruction of material wealth. This was one method in which the exclusivity of prestige gifts could have been preserved (Langdon 2005, 13-14; Morris 1986, 9). Considering the scarcity of prestige items in circulation during the Iron Age, the act of wealth destruction would have been a very significant practice through which social status could be gained or reinforced. Approaching the analysis of metal objects in this way shifts focus from production and circulation to the end of the lifecycle of the object, which, in this case, is deposition (Bradley 1984, 104).

6.5.3 Deposition The various exchange practices in which metal objects were used are archaeologically invisible. While it was not the primary function of these objects to be deposited in mortuary contexts or hoards, these are two contexts in which one use of metal objects can be observed archaeologically.

The destruction of material wealth through its removal from

102

Metal Objects

in Homer as keimelion, or “treasure” that was the property of a ruling family.

circulation can be understood in two complementary ways, as suggested by Bradley (1982, 119-120; 1984, 101-104). Contexts in which this material was deposited were highly visible events and, as such, would have constituted an act through which prestige and social status could be achieved or increased. This deliberate disposal also controlled the supply of finished metal objects, stimulated production through the removal of these items from everyday use and regulated the different values of the metal objects that remained in circulation.

An analysis of the composition of the Tiryns treasure leads to the conclusion that a distinction was made between scrap and raw bronze metal, that is, the pure metal value, on the one hand, which remained outside the cauldron and the valuable raw materials and finished products on the other hand, which were arranged inside the cauldron. The range of the latter, encompassing metal drinking and eating vessels, the iron sickle-a unique object at its time- as well as jewelry, and the fact that objects of different ages are combined, fits well with what we would expect from Homeric keimelia (Maran 2006b, 140-141).

Stubbings (1954, 296) argued that the Poros Wall Hoard represented a smith’s hoard.5 In this type of hoard, the objects were valued for their qualities as metals rather than as finished objects (Bradley 1985, 692; 1990, 116). Knapp (1988, 151) further characterizes smiths’ hoards as deposits that contained broken or used objects and noncirculating goods, which were utilitarian in nature. These items were deposited in a peripheral or hidden location with the intention to recover them in the future. While some contextual details are lacking, Mylonas’ Hoard, Tsountas’ Hoard and Schliemann’s Hoard also fit the description of a smith’s hoard due to the generally utilitarian nature of the objects and their potential in the metalworking process.

It is important to consider what the motives behind the deposition of the hoard may have been. Maran (2006b, 141) suggests that because of the proximity of its find-spot to Megaron W, this hoard perhaps belonged to the group that was connected with this building. The Tiryns Treasure was deposited after the collapse of the centralized palatial administration by an individual or domestic unit, perhaps inhabiting Megaron W, seeking to make a social statement (Maran 2006b, 141). The deposition of so many prestige items was a way for the newly emerging elite to demonstrate their wealth and establish a claim to the vacant leadership position that existed at the end of the Late Bronze Age. The items included in this hoard were of the highest value, not only because of the metals that were used, but because they represented power and authority, long-distance trade relations and high technical skill. It was not only the ownership of these items that conferred status and prestige, but the act of disposal itself. When compared to mortuary contexts of the same date at Profitis Ilias and Tiryns (Grab XVI and 1971.2.1 respectively), which contained very few metal objects, the deposition of so much wealth in a single context seems to be a striking socio-economic statement.

That these types of hoards were often deposited during times of socio-economic discontinuity or periods of economic stress is a uniquely Aegean phenomenon. Snodgrass (1989, 25) notes that, “[i]t may prove hard to find other courses in European prehistory where the incidence of bronze hoards coincides so exactly with an independently attested horizon of insecurity and destruction”. So, are the hoards discovered on and around the citadel of Mycenae actually evidence for Mylonas’ (1962, 406) hostile invaders? While it is attractive to correlate the deposition of metal objects in hoards with the need to hide items in the face of insecurity, there is a less dramatic logic behind this practice. Perhaps the Poros Wall Hoard and other hoards from Mycenae represent the deliberate deposition of the material and tools of itinerant smiths who deposited excess supplies or tools while on a circuit of possible customers. This interpretation is supported by both the location of these hoards, which appear to have no ritual or symbolic significance, and the utilitarian nature of the material included in the deposits. It is tempting to hypothesize that the deposition took place because of a sense of socioeconomic insecurity, but, other than the date of the hoards, there is little to support this conjecture.

Thus far, the discussion of deliberate deposition has focused on utilitarian hoards and the deposition of prestige items in order to make a social statement. The deposition of excessive amounts of metal objects in mortuary contexts could make a similar statement. While I have presented several post-palatial mortuary contexts with variable quantities of metal objects, one mortuary context stands out in particular because of the quantity and type of objects included in it.

The Tiryns Treasure is unlike the hoards from Mycenae in both content and context. Originally it had been proposed that this find was actually loot belonging to grave robbers or the property of an antiquities collector. However, the content and structured deposition of this hoard supports the argument that it represents an example of what is described

The House of the Tripod Vessels or House of the Tripod Tomb was discovered during the bulldozing work undertaken in preparation for the construction of the Mycenae Museum. This building complex covered approximately 450 m2 at the base of the north slope of the citadel now under the entrance courtyard of the new museum (Iakovidis, et. al. 2003, 54; Kayafa 1999, 42).

The term “founder’s hoard” has also been used to describe utilitarian hoards of this nature. However, I prefer the term smith’s hoard as it is less ambiguous in nature. 5

103

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

During the Late Helladic IIIC period, seven pit graves were dug into the ruins of this building. Six of the graves were “….furnished sparsely, if at all” (Iakovidis, et. al. 2003, 54). However, one of the pit graves contained an exceptional assemblage of mortuary goods. This individual mortuary context contained two bronze tripod cauldrons, one of which was destroyed by the bulldozer, a bronze wedge-like tool and twenty bronze double axes, all located in close proximity to the legs and feet of the skeleton (Iakovidis, et.al. 2003, 54; Kayafa 1999, 42). This is an example of the deliberate deposition of wealth in mortuary contexts that goes beyond fulfilling social and moral obligations to the dead. Clearly, such a unique and lavish deposit was intended to send a message to the audience present at the funeral. However it is not just the quantity of metal objects, but also the repetition of the bronze double axe, which is a form associated with the palaces, that really intrigues. Mylonas (1966b, 169) lists the double axe as a feature of Minoan-Mycenaean religion and bronze double axes could have been used in ritual activities, such as stunning animals before sacrifice. It is difficult enough to understand why twenty of such an obvious palatial symbol were included in a post-palatial mortuary context. Examples of double axes were discovered in the Shaft Grave IV, dating to the LH I period, and depicted in a fresco fragment at Mycenae (Mylonas 1966b, 169; 171) so the palatial association seems secure.

of course, entirely speculative. What can be said with some cautious certainly is that this quantity, type (bronze) and form (double axes) of material wealth was in circulation (or, at least private possession) after the collapse of the palaces until its final deposition in this pit grave. The deliberate deposition of wealth in the form of metal objects fulfilled several functions. In the case of utilitarian hoards, there was a practical reason for this deposition. These hoards possibly represented the excess or surplus stock-in-trade of itinerant metalworkers left behind for later recovery while on a circuit of regularly visited customers. The deposition of metal objects in ritual hoards, such as the Tiryns Treasure, or conspicuously in mortuary contexts, such as the House of the Tripod Vessels Tomb, demonstrated the control of and access to prestige objects. The act of wealth disposal was used to make a social statement or support claims to elite status. In addition to the social and religious aspects of the deliberate deposition of wealth, there was an economic aspect to the deposition of metal objects in mortuary contexts and hoards. Not only did the deposition of personal items, such as jewelry and weapons, which were the most frequent forms of metal grave goods, mark the final personal transition in status (Nakou 1995, 13), but the deposition of these items was a way of controlling the supply of metal objects against their availability in the market.

This deposit can be interpreted on several levels. Primarily, it can be seen as the promotion of this particular individual and, by extension, the domestic unit associated with this person. Like those who deposited the Tiryns Treasure, this person and their domestic unit were being distinguished based on their access to the metal objects and the association of these objects with the religion of the palatial administration. However, whether the kingroup was asserting a claim to elevated status through an association with a defunct hierarchy or if this is, in fact, the final “death” of the palatial administration represented in the mortuary context of this individual remains to be seen.6

6.6 Conclusions In this chapter I have examined metal objects from a socio-economic rather than technological or typological standpoint. Examining the values of metals and metal objects and their uses in different contexts has allowed for a more detailed discussion of socio-economic practices that supported and were supported by the emerging ideology, which privileged the individual rather than the corporate group. A basic analysis of the material record demonstrates that jewelry and tools were the mostly frequently identified functional categories. This is most likely due to the fact that metal objects were most frequently recovered from mortuary contexts and utilitarian hoards. The limited nature of contexts also means that some items, such as metal vessels, are probably underrepresented in the archaeological record. Other factors contributing to the general lack of metal objects in the archaeological record are the practice of recycling, as attested to by Linear B evidence, and the fact that the collapse of the palatial administration would have restricted access to certain raw materials.

The other insight that is gained through an examination of this deposit is that the deposition of twenty bronze double axes suggests that a bronze shortage was not a concern for these communities. This is attested to by the quantity of double axes, which could just as easily have been melted down. This assumes a level of rational decision-making, which would fit with previous assumptions of the nature of post-collapse communities. However, it is entirely possible that the religious symbolism of the double axe was not lost on those who deposited them and that melting them down would have been considered highly inappropriate. This is,

I have examined how the metalworking industry was organized under the palatial administration and how this changed over time in order to meet the needs of the remaining communities. The apparent stylistic and typological continuity in the material record suggests that some independent workshops or skilled craftsmen remained

The deposition of this quantity of wealth and the type of objects raises a number of very interesting questions about when the palaces actually “collapsed”, if that term is indeed appropriate and while a discussion of that scope is slightly beyond the bounds of this study, I would encourage more scholars to question the notion of “collapse” as it pertains to Mycenaean Greece. Certainly, the work of Norman Yoffee (most recently McAnany and Yoffee 2010) has laid the groundwork for a fruitful discussion of this question. 6

104

Metal Objects

and continued to practice their trade. In the wake of the collapse of the palatial administration, the recycling of finished metal objects may have been a strategy used to ensure a continued supply of metal.

and I have attempted to address the social and economic rationale behind deliberate deposition. Not only did these acts fulfill social or moral obligations, establish unequal relationships based on material wealth and form a basis for hierarchical structure, acts of deliberate deposition were also a way in which the supply and value of metal items could be controlled.

Metal objects also played an important role in different exchange contexts. It is likely that bartering, economic exchange and gift giving co-existed throughout the Late Bronze to Iron Age. Rather than being directed by the palatial administration and conducted over long distances, the various forms of exchange took place in the framework of established social relationships between individuals.

I have approached metal objects as commodities with two levels of value, which can be categorized as economic and symbolic. Exploring the value of metal objects has led to some insights into the socio-economic and cultural practices of Iron Age communities, which technological and typological analyses may have overlooked.

For some metal objects the last event in their lifecycle was deliberate deposition in mortuary contexts or hoards

105

Chapter Seven: Conclusions

exceptionally clear at Tiryns and Asine, where several large buildings either with or surrounded by areas for religious practices, storage or production were discovered. This type of architectural plan indicates that, rather than a single entity (the palace) controlling these activities, one or several domestic units were directly controlling these socio-economic practices.

Having reviewed the available evidence from mortuary contexts, architectural remains, ceramic material and metal objects, it is clear that archaeologists can no longer blame a lack of material for non-engagement with this period. The aim of this PhD has not only been to present an updated review of archaeological evidence from the Argolid and Methana Peninsula dating from the Late Helladic IIIB 2 through the Early Geometric periods, but to reconsider how archaeologists have created a “Dark Age” and attempt a synthesis of material combined with a new theoretical approach. In this final chapter I present an overview of the developments that took place during this period, which is based on my analysis of the material evidence.

The disappearance of cumulative burials and the increase in individual inhumation burials suggest that, in death, the emphasis was now placed on the individual rather than the extended lineage group. The reintroduction of cremation was also a practice that focused attention on the individual or the particular domestic unit with which they were associated. Later, particularly during the Proto- and Early Geometric periods, inhumations within ceramic vessels continued this trend by adding memorability to the funeral through the addition of conspicuous disposal.

Prior to and during the Late Helladic IIIB 2 a number of destabilizing events, environmental, geological and sociopolitical, occurred in the Argolid. These events created an environment in which communities living around the palatial centers could question the established ideology and socio-economic practices.

Throughout this period, craftsmen, particularly potters and smiths, continued to produce the same repertoire of shapes in the same materials as were in circulation during the Late Bronze Age. This suggests that very little technological skill was lost and that the basic needs of the communities remained the same throughout. It also reinforces the logical assumption that production of these items took place either outside the control of the palatial administration (as is probably the case with ceramic material) or with minimal involvement (as is probably the case with metal objects).

At this time and throughout the Late Helladic IIIC period, communities remained clustered around the palatial centers. However, instead of attempting to rebuild that which had been lost, they began developing a new ideology and practices that privileged the welfare and development of individuals and individual domestic units. This ideological shift is exceptionally clear in changes in the mortuary evidence and evidence from the built environment. Evidence from the built environment demonstrates that storage, ritual and industrial spaces were located in close proximity or within domestic spaces. This suggests that household units took closer control of these activities and were engaged in self-sufficient practices. The central location for these activities (the palace) was replaced by a number of different locations for these activities, which further demonstrates the ideological shift away from the large corporate group. It appears that during the Late Helladic IIIC period there was very limited architectural activity on the citadels of Mycenae, Tiryns and Midea and that by the end of this period Midea had been abandoned. However, the settlement outside of Tiryns expanded at this time suggesting an increase in population.

In subsequent periods, further variations indicate the continual development of this ideology and construction of socio-economic structures that best served the new simplified communities. During the Protogeometric period the rise in the importance on the individual continued and, with the passage of time, the nature of activity at the palatial centers changed. While a community continued to inhabit the area around Tiryns, it appears the palatial remains at Mycenae were used as a location for burials, although new developments from ongoing excavations in what has come to be known as the Lower Town may yet reveal an Iron Age settlement. During the Protogeometric period, mortuary evidence and evidence from the built environment indicate that Argos and Asine were now prominent settlement locations. Perhaps this is due in part to their distance from a palatial

The increasing importance of the individual and the role of the domestic unit in controlling everyday activities is

106

Conclusions

center or maybe as the connection to the remains of the palatial centers diminished over time, individuals felt less of a connection to the landscape, as demonstrated by the abandonment of chamber tombs, and decided to settle elsewhere.

in the broader on-going debates about societal collapse, the role of environmental changes and human resilience.1 How different would our understanding of this transitional period be if the focus had not been on the perceived abandonment of the palatial centers?

By the Early Geometric period these domestic units were well-established and, in turn, supported and were reinforced by the ideology and practices that privileged the individual. Therefore, communities were engaging with this ideology and set of socio-economic practices and viewing the remains of the Mycenaean palatial centers as remnants of a glorious past, as evidenced by early examples of hero or ancestor worship at Argos and Midea.

Rather than regarding abandoned sites as the corpses of a dead society, a more appropriate metaphor is that of a shell. The living organism creates it, inhabits it, and then moves from it only to construct a new home and preserve the life inside somewhere else. Abandonment, like mobility, is a social strategy and not evidence of a social failure or “collapse” (Wilcox 2010, 137).

Survey evidence indicates that during the Iron Age there was an actual increase in the number of settlements on the Methana Peninsula. Further investigation is necessary to define more precise dates of habitation and specific functions for these sites, but the presence of previously unknown Iron Age sites away from the palatial centers presents a strong argument for a spatial and chronological expansion in research interests.

It has become obvious that a new approach to the analysis of this transitional period is needed. There is a substantial body of evidence available for study and we must begin to construct narratives based on this information. Scarcity in the material record is no longer an excuse for nonengagement. Sustained scholarly engagement and new theoretical approaches to the end of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age will continue to overturn previous assumptions about this transitional period. It is now obvious that what were previously categorized as continuities or innovations in the material record are, in fact, subtle changes that indicate the development of a new ideology and socio-economic practices that best suited the remaining communities.

Scholars have long sought explanations for the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial centers and the development of the city-state and, certainly, some of the reasons for these developments are not archaeologically recoverable. We might never have the answers to these questions. However, that should not prohibit us from, at the very least, engaging

1

107

For the most recent discussion see McAnany and Yoffee (eds.) 2010

Appendix One: Map and Catalogue of Sites

3) Berbati Location Description: On small hill dominating Berbati Valley Chronology: LH IIIC Middle Function: Tumulus containing inurned cremation burials References: Wells 1996, 177

Argolid 1) Argos Location Description: Located in Argive plain 8.2 km E of Tiryns Chronology: N, EH II, MH, LH I- IIIC; PG; Geometric; Archaic; Classical; Hellenistic Function: Probable settlement; graves References: Kanta 1975; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 44; Deshayes 1966

4) Chania Location Description: On ancient road from Mycenae to Argos; stone tumulus Chronology: LH IIIC Middle Function: Tumulus containing inurned cremation burials References: AR 1984-85, 21

2) Asine Location Description: Modern day Kastraki; located at head of bay 11 km SE of Argos Chronology: EH I-II; MH; LH I- III C; PG; Geometric: Archaic; Classical Function: Settlement and graves References: Hägg and Hägg 1973; Wells 1976; Dietz 1982; Wells 1983

5) Dendra Location Description: Located between Mycenae and Tiryns Chronology: N; EH II; LH IIA- LH IIIB- C; EG; Geometric Function: Cemetery

108

Appendix One: Map and Catalogue of Sites

References: Persson 1931; Persson 1942

14) Kazarma Location Description: Located on road to Epidaurus Chronology: LH III- LH IIIC Function: Tholos References: AAA 1968, 3, 236-238; AAA 1969, 1, 3-6

6) Ermioni Location Description: Summit and slope terraced hill; graves near modern high school Chronology: EH I-II; MH; LH; PG; Modern Function: Graves References: Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 57; Jameson et.al. 1994, 487-488

15) Kokla Location Description: 800m E of Mycenae Chronology: LH IIIA 2- LH IIIC Function: Chamber tomb References: ΑΔ 37, 83

7) Findspot 14 Location Description: Located on terraced conglomerate spur on east slope of Koutzoyanni Chronology: LH IIIA 2- LH IIIC Function: Service station References: Schallin 1996, 134

16) Kotena Cave Location Description: S slope of Mt. Kotena N of Iliokastro village Chronology: Final Neolithic; EH I, LH IIIC Function: Unknown; possible settlement area References: Jameson et.al. 1994, 521

8) Findspot 20 Location Description: Overgrown meadow west of Kephalari Rema Chronology: LH IIIA 2- LH IIIC Mid; Geometric; Archaic Function: Possible tombs References: Schallin 1996, 141

17) Midea Location Description: Eastern edge of Argive plain halfway between Mycenae and Tiryns Chronology: EH II- III; MH; LH I-III C; Classical Function: Palatial center References: Walberg 1998; Walberg 2007; Demakopoulou 2007

9) Findspot 43 Location Description: Northern slopes of Vigliza Hill facing village of Limnes Chronology: LH IIIA 2- LH IIIC Early Function: Small settlement site; possible farmstead References: Schallin 1996, 157

18) Mycenae Location Description: NE Peloponnese; 6 km N of Argos; large prominent hill Chronology: N; EH I-III; LH- LH IIIC; PG; Geometric; Archaic; Classical; Hellenistic Function: Palatial center; graves; possible settlement References: Wace 1949; Iakovidis 1977; French 2002; Iakovidis et.al. 2003

10) Findspot 202 Location Description: Below a cave shelter on S side of Klisoura gorge Chronology: PG Function: Unknown References: Schallin 1996, 164

19) Nauplio Location Description: Located on Argolic Gulf, NE Peloponnese Chronology: N, EH, LH IIIA 1- C; PG; Geometric; Archaic; Classical; Hellenistic Function: Graves; possible settlement Reference: Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 48-49

11) Findspot 306 Location Description: Located on valley bottom east of Mastos Chronology: LH IIIA 2- LH IIIC Early Function: Small settlement; possibly farmstead References: Schallin 1996, 150

20) Phychtia Location description: 3 km NW of Mycenae Chronology:LH IIIA 2- LH IIIC Mid Function: Chamber tomb References: Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 37

12) Iria Location Description: Low double hill Chronology: N; EH II; MH; LH I- IIIC; Geometric; Classical; Hellenistic Function: Settlement and graves References: Döhl 1973, 127-194

21) Profitis Ilias Location Description: Hill near Tiryns Chronology: LH II- LH IIIC Mid Function: Cemetery References: Rudolph 1971, 38-40

13) Kandia Location Description: Tiny hill N of Kandia Chronology: EH II-III; MH; LH I/II-IIIC; Geometric; Hellenistic Function: Settlement References: Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 50

22) Profitis Ilias Pk. 1 Location Description: NE of Kranidhi; prominent conical hill

109

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Chronology: LH; LH IIIB- LH IIIC; Modern Function: Settlement References: Jameson et.al.1994, 444-445

Chronology: Iron Age- Archaic Function: Possible cemetery perhaps associated with Magoula References: Mee and Forbes 1997, 127

23) Prosymna Location Description: 9.1 km SE of Mycenae Chronology: N; EH II-III; MH; LH I- LH IIIC Early Function: Cemetery References: Blegen 1937

30) Kypseli (MS 68) Location Description: E edge of peninsula between to volcano domes Chronology: Iron Age- Archaic Function: Archaic sanctuary; IA function unknown References: Mee and Forbes 1997, 148

24) Pyrgouthi Location Description: Located in Berbati Valley marked by Hellenistic tower Chronology: EG; Iron Age; Hellenistic Function: Settlement References: Hjohlman et.al. 2005

31) Magoula (MS 60) Location Description: W of Haghios Nikolaos Chronology: Iron Age- Hellenistic Function: Settlement References: Mee and Forbes 1997, 143-144

25) Sambariza Magoula Location Description: Modern village of Pigadhia; located on summit and slop of prominent hill Chronology: EH I- III; MH; LH; PG; G; Med., Modern Function: Settlement References: Jameson et.al. 1994, 484-485

32) Nissaki (MS 103) Location Description: Limestone outcrop SE of Loutra Chronology: EH- Iron Age; Classical- Hellenistic Function: Settlement References: Mee and Forbes 1997, 152-153

26) Tiryns Location Description: Located on large hill near edge of Argolic Gulf; SE of Mycenae Chronology: N; EH I-II; MH; LH I-IIIC; PG; Geometric; Archaic; Classical; Hellenistic Function: Palatial center; graves; settlement References: Kilian 1981; Papademetriou 2001; Mühlenbruch 2007

33) Oga (MS 67) Location Description: NE of Kypseli; located on low, prominent hill. Chronology: EH; LH- Hellenistic; Late Roman- Modern Function: Settlement References: Mee and Forbes 1997, 146 34) Palaiokastro (MS 10) Location Description: Located on low, prominent hill. Chronology: Neolithic – Turkish Function: Major settlement References: Mee and Forbes 1997, 122-123; 126-127

Methana 27) Haghios Georgios (MS 124) Location Description: East of Kounoupitsa Chronology: EH- Iron Age; Classical Function: Settlement References: Mee and Forbes 1997, 162

35) Vromolimni (MS 106) Location Description: Located on ridge NE of village; Broad terraces Chronology: EH; LH- Iron Age; Classical; Hellenistic; Turkish Function: Settlement References: Mee and Forbes 1997, 154

28) Haghios Konstantinos (MS 13) Location Description: East coast of peninsula; on prominent hill Chronology: LH IIIA- C Function: Sanctuary References: Konsolaki 1993, 242; Konsolaki 2002, 25-36; Mee and Forbes 1997, 128

36) Stravolongos (MS 116) Location Description: SW of Kypseli Chronology: Iron Age; Roman; Late Roman Function: Settlement References: Mee and Forbes 1997, 158

29) Haghios Nikolaos (MS 11) Location Description: Narrow, uncultivated terraces

110

Appendix Two: Catalogue of Mortuary Contexts

Haghios Nikolaos, Methana

Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Two rock crystal pin heads Age: Adults References: AAA 8:2, 259-275

Unknown number of graves identified by analysis of ceramic material discovered during survey

Published Grave Identification: Grave 2 Date: LH IIIC Late Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: AAA 8:2, 259-275

References: Mee and Forbes 1997, 127 Argos Published Grave Identification: 24 Date: LH IIIC 1 Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Adult References: Hägg 1974, 18-23

Published Grave Identification: Grave 1 Date: LH IIIC Late Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: AE 1977, 172-6

Published Grave Identification: Tripolis Street Tumulus Date: LH IIIC mid- PG Type of Grave: Tumulus w. inurned cremation, pit and cist graves Number of Graves: 52 Number of Individuals: 55 Rite: Cremation and Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron objects Age: Adults; Infants; Children Sex: Male and Female References: Piteros 2001

Published Grave Identification: ChT. XIV Date: LH IIIC Late Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Number of Graves: 2 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Deshayes 1966 Published Grave Identification: ChT. XVII Date: LH IIIC Late Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Number of Graves: 2 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Deshayes 1966

Published Grave Identification: Grave 3 Date: LH IIIC Late Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult Sex: Female References: ΑΔ 53, 109-28

Published Grave Identification: ChT. XX Date: LH IIIC Late Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Deshayes 1966

Published Grave Identification: Tomb 39 Date: LH IIIC Late Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation

111

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Published Grave Identification: ChT. XVIII Date: LH IIIC Late Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Deshayes 1966

Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: BCH 1956, 537

Published Grave Identification: BCH 1954 Date: EPG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: BCH 1954, 177

Published Grave Identification: Grave 10 Date: PG Type of Grave: Trench and hole inurned cremation Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Cremation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: ΑΔ 53, 109-128 Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Odos Kophiniotou Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult References: ΑΔ 53, 109-128

Published Grave Identification: Tomb 38 Date: EPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult References: AAA 8:2, 25-257

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Odos Kophiniotou Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult References: ΑΔ 53, 109-128

Published Grave Identification: Tomb 35 Date: EPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: AAA 8:2, 259-257 Published Grave Identification: Tomb XXXIV Date: EPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Deshayes 1966; Lemos 2002, 13

Published Grave Identification: Grave 11 Date: PG Type of Grave: Trench and Hole inurned cremation Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Cremation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: ΑΔ 53, 109-128

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in the Kazantzi Plot Date: EPG- MG Type of Grave: Cist; Pit; Trench; Vessel Number of Graves: 15 Number of Individuals: 15 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects References: ΑΔ 40, 88-91

Published Grave Identification: Grave 36 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Adult References: AAA 8:2, 259-275

Published Grave Identification: BCH 1956

112

Appendix Two: Catalogue of Mortuary Contexts

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Odos Kophiniotou Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: ΑΔ 53, 109-128

Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze objects References: Hägg 1974, 28-30 Published Grave Identification: None; Located on northern edge of modern city Date: PG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: AR 1956, 8

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on SW slope of Aspis Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 3 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: ΑΔ 40, 88-91

Published Grave Identification: None; Located at Demotikon Scholeion Danaou 27 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: ΑΔ 40, 88-91

Published Grave Identification: Grave 37 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze objects; Two paste glass beads Age: Adult References: AAA 8:2, 259-275

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in South Cemetery Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Hägg 1974, 28-30

Published Grave Identification: Tomb 1 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Iron objects; Faience double necklace Age: Adult Sex: Female References: ΑΔ 27, 192-211

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in South Quarter Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 5 Number of Individuals: 5 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze objects References: AR 1956, 9

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Koloktroni Street Date: PG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 2 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child; Infant References: ΑΔ 27, 192-211

Published Grave Identification: 204 Date: PG Type of Grave: Unknown Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: ΑΔ 29, 212-214

Published Grave Identification: None; Located near church of Ag. Ioannis Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1

Published Grave Identification: None; Located at Odos Papalexopoulou Date: PG- LPG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1

113

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Rite: Inhumation References: AR 2002-2003, 22-23

Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects References: AR 2002-2003, 22-23

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Odos Diomedous and Odos Niobes Date: PG- G Type of Grave: Cist; Vessel Number of Graves: 14 Number of Individuals: 14 Rite: Inhumation References: ΑΔ 40, 88-91; ΑΔ 41, 110-113

Published Grave Identification: Grave 3 Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Adult References: ΑΔ 53, 109-128

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Theodoropoulou plot Date: PG-G Type of Grave: Cist; Pit; Vessel Number of Graves: 5 Number of Individuals: 5 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: ΑΔ 28, 97-99

Published Grave Identification: T. 15 Date: EG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Lemos 2002 Published Grave Identification: Tomb 41 Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Adult References: AAA 8:2, 259-275

Published Grave Identification: None; Located at foot of Larissa Date: PG-G Type of Grave: Cist; Vessel Number of Graves: 6 Number of Individuals: 6 Rite: Inhumation References: Hägg 1974, 28-30 Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Saidin’s plot Date: PG-A Type of Grave: Cist; Pit; Vessel Number of Graves: 14 Number of Individuals: 14 Rite: Inhumation References: AR 1959, 6

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Odos Erakleous Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 5 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects References: AAA 3, 180-183

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in Southern Quarter Date: LPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Statuette of woman, torso preserved Age: Child References: BCH 78, 177

Published Grave Identification: Grave 19 Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Adult References: ΑΔ 53, 109-128 Published Grave Identification: Grave 10 Date: EG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Odos Papalexopoulou Date: LPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation

114

Appendix Two: Catalogue of Mortuary Contexts

Age: Adult References: ΑΔ 53, 109-128

Date: LH IIB - LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Number of Individuals: 1 dated to LH IIIC and 1 dated to LH IIIC Late Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Mountjoy 1996, 47-68

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Odos 14 Ianouariou 1883 Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects; Steatite beads References: AR 2002-2003, 22-23

Published Grave Identification: I, 2 Date: LH IIIA1 - LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Frodin and Person 1938, 115-128

Published Grave Identification: None; Located near Ag. Petros Date: EG-G Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 16 Number of Individuals: 16 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: AR 1956, 9

Published Grave Identification: I, 4 Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Frodin and Person 1938, 115-128 Published Grave Identification: I, 5 Date: LH IIIA1 - LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Frodin and Person 1938, 115-128

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Odos Papalexopoulou Date: Iron Age- PG Type of Grave: Trench; Vessel Number of Graves: 3 Number of Individuals: 3 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects References: AR 2002-2003, 22-23

Published Grave Identification: I, 6 Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Frodin and Person 1938, 115-128

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on road to Lerna Date: Iron Age- G Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 8 Number of Individuals: 8 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects; Gold spirals Age: Adult References: ΑΔ 53, 109-128

Published Grave Identification: I, 7 Date: LH IIIA2 - LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Frodin and Person 1938, 115-128 Published Grave Identification: PG 14 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132

Published Grave Identification: None; Located on Odos Kallergi Date: Iron Age- CL Type of Grave: Cist; Vessel Number of Graves: 10 Number of Individuals: 10 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: ΑΔ 53, 109-128

Published Grave Identification: 1970-13 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Adult

Asine Published Grave Identification: I, 1

115

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Sex: Female References: Wells 1976

Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Grave Goods: Yes Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Wells 1976

Published Grave Identification: PG 46 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 139

Published Grave Identification: 1972-3 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Adult Sex: Female References: Wells 1976

Published Grave Identification: PG 13 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132

Published Grave Identification: PG 44 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 139

Published Grave Identification: PG 15 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Adult References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132

Published Grave Identification: B10 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult References: Hägg and Hägg 1973, 72-74

Published Grave Identification: PG 22 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 133 Published Grave Identification: PG 31 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Adult Sex: Male References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 136

Published Grave Identification: PG 21 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132-133

Published Grave Identification: 1972-2 Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation Age: Adult; Adult Sex: Female; Female References: Wells 1976

Published Grave Identification: PG 28 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 135-136 Published Grave Identification: PG 1 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist

Published Grave Identification: 1970-10 Date: PG

116

Appendix Two: Catalogue of Mortuary Contexts

Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Adult References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 129

Published Grave Identification: PG 19 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132

Published Grave Identification: PG 2 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 129-130

Published Grave Identification: PG 3 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Adult Sex: Female References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 130

Published Grave Identification: PG 23 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 133

Published Grave Identification: PG 5 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 130

Published Grave Identification: PG 25 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics and Stag horn Age: Adult References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 134-135

Published Grave Identification: PG 9 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 131

Published Grave Identification: PG 29 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: No skeletal remains identified Rite: Inhumation References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 136

Published Grave Identification: PG 10 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Iron Object; Whorl made of Bone Age: Adult References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 131

Published Grave Identification: PG 30 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 136

Published Grave Identification: PG 11 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Adult References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 131

Published Grave Identification: PG 32 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 137

Published Grave Identification: PG 12

117

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Bronze Objects Age: Adult References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132

Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Iron Objects Age: Adult Sex: Male References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132 Published Grave Identification: PG 8 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 130

Published Grave Identification: PG 18 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132

Published Grave Identification: PG 38 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 138

Published Grave Identification: PG 27 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Button References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 135

Published Grave Identification: PG 39 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Tortoise shell Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 138

Published Grave Identification: PG 26 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 135

Published Grave Identification: PG 37 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 137-138

Published Grave Identification: B2 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult References: Hägg and Hägg 1973, 38-39 Published Grave Identification: PG 20 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Adult References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132-133

Published Grave Identification: PG 36 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 137

Published Grave Identification: PG 17 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist

Published Grave Identification: PG 24 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist

118

Appendix Two: Catalogue of Mortuary Contexts

Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Astragal Age: Adult References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 134

Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132 Published Grave Identification: PG 34 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 137

Published Grave Identification: PG 40 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Iron Objects Age: Adult References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 138

Published Grave Identification: PG 47 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 140

Published Grave Identification: PG 41 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Infant References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 139

Published Grave Identification: PG 48 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 140

Published Grave Identification: PG 35 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 137

Published Grave Identification: 1970-6 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Wells 1976

Published Grave Identification: PG 43 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Bronze and Iron Objects Age: Adult References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 139

Published Grave Identification: 1970-14 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child Sex: Female References: Wells 1976

Published Grave Identification: PG 7 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 130

Published Grave Identification: 1970-9 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics

Published Grave Identification: PG 16 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1

119

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Age: Child References: Wells 1976

Dendra Published Grave Identification: 1926 Tholos Date: LH IIIB- PG Type of Grave: Tholos Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult References: Persson 1931, 11

Published Grave Identification: 1970-15 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Iron Objects; Faience necklace; Pierced cowrie shell Age: Child References: Wells 1976

Ermione

Published Grave Identification: B9 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Infant References: Hägg and Hägg 1973, 79-80

Published Grave Identification: None; Located near Highschool Date: PG-G Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 4 Number of Individuals: 4 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 57; Jameson et.al. 1994, 487-488

Published Grave Identification: PG 45 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 139

Kazarma Published Grave Identification: None; Located on road to Epidaurus Date: LH III- LH IIIC Type of Grave: Tholos Number of Graves: 3 Number of Individuals: 3 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Gold diadem Age: Unknown; Unknown; Adult Sex: Unknown; Unknown; Female References: AAA 1968, 3, 236-238; AAA 1969, 1, 3-6

Published Grave Identification: PG 33 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 136

Kokla

Published Grave Identification: PG 12 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Frödin and Persson 1938, 132

Published Grave Identification: None; Located 800m East of Mycenae Date: LH IIIA 2- LH III C Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: ΑΔ 37, 83

Chania

Mycenae

Published Grave Identification: None; Chania tumulus Date: LH IIIC Mid Type of Grave: Inurned cremation burials within tumulus Number of Graves: 9 Number of Individuals: 9 Rite: Cremation References: AR 1984-85, 21

Published Grave Identification: P-1 Date: LH IIIA 2- LH IIIC Early Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 4 Rite: Inhumation

120

Appendix Two: Catalogue of Mortuary Contexts

Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child; Child; Child; Adult References: Shelton 2000, 17-64

Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects References: Iakovidis et.al. 2003, 54

Published Grave Identification: PG 12 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Bronze Objects Age: Adult References: Mylonas Shear 1987, 3; 70

Published Grave Identification: None; Located under third step of Processional Way Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Bronze Objects Age: Child References: AR 1972, 9

Published Grave Identification: G-III Date: LH IIIA 1- LH IIIC Mid Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 7 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Infant; Infant; Unknown References: Shelton 2000, 17-64

Published Grave Identification: Grave XXXIX Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Steatite spindle whorl Age: Infant References: BSA 49 1950, 258-266

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in Room 12 Panagia House Date: LH IIIB- LH IIIC Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Adult References: Mylonas Shear 1987, 33

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in Room S, Cyclopean Terrace Building Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 2 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation References: BSA 49 1950, 258-266 Published Grave Identification: ChT. 532 Date: LH II through LH IIIC Mid Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb References: Wace 1932

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in area of Lion Tomb Date: LH IIIB/C Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: AR 1992-93, 18

Published Grave Identification: ChT. 502 Date: LH III through LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb References: Wace 1932 Published Grave Identification: Larnax burial Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Larnax Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: Desborough 1964, 75

Published Grave Identification: Grave B Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber Tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: Shelton 2003, 35-39

Published Grave Identification: Pithos burial Date: LH IIIC Late Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult

Published Grave Identification: House of the Tripod Tomb Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Cist; Pit Number of Graves: 7 Number of Individuals: 7 Rite: Inhumation

121

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

References: Deborough 1964, 75

Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 2 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation References: AR 1954: 1, 9

Published Grave Identification: Γ 31 Date: EPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Child Sex: Female References: WBM 1, 53

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in Panagia House I Courtyard Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Iron Objects; Two Stone Buttons Age: Child References: Mylonas Shear 1987, 3; 70

Published Grave Identification: PG 601 Date: EPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Iron Objects; Spindle Whorl Age: Adult References: BSA 49 1950, 258-266

Published Grave Identification: PG 606 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects; 24 Pebbles Age: Child References: BSA 51 1956, 128-130

Published Grave Identification: Γ 23 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects Age: Adult Sex: Female References: WBM 1, 53

Published Grave Identification: PG 602 Date: LPG- EG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 3 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult; Child; Child Sex: Female; Unknown; Unknown References: BSA 50 1955, 239-247

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in Panagia House I Courtyard Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Iron Objects Age: Adult References: Mylonas Shear 1987, 3; 70

Published Grave Identification: G 604 Date: EG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Adult; Adult Sex: Female; Male References: BSA 50 1955, 239-247

Published Grave Identification: Γ 21 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Iron Objects Age: Adult Sex: Female References: WBM 1, 53

Published Grave Identification: G 603 Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects References: BSA 50 1955, 239-247

Published Grave Identification: None; Located near GCB Date: PG

122

Appendix Two: Catalogue of Mortuary Contexts

Published Grave Identification: G 607 Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Adult Sex: Female References: BSA 68 1973, 88-102

Rite: Inhumation; however, skeleton shows signs of intense burning Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: AR 1955, 13 Phychtia Published Grave Identification: None, 3 km NW of Mycenae Date: LH IIIA 2- LH IIIC Mid Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 37

Published Grave Identification: SK. 1 Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Iron Objects Age: Adult Sex: Female References: Lantzas 2008, unpublished field notes

Profitis Ilias Published Grave Identification: Grave VII Date: LH II/ LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 3 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects; Lead wire; Beads; Spindle whorl Age: Child; Unknown; Unknown References: Rudolph 1971, 38-40

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in North Quarter Date: EG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 6 Number of Individuals: 6 Rite: Inhumation Age: Childern References: Iakovidis et.al. 2003, 12

Published Grave Identification: Grave XV Date: LH IIIA/ LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 4 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects; Beads References: Rudolph 1971, 38-40

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in Building Kappa Date: EG- G Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: Danis 2004, unpublished field notes

Published Grave Identification: Grave VII Date: LH IIIA/ LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 3 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects; Beads; Spindle whorls References: Rudolph 1971, 38-40

Nauplio Published Grave Identification: None; Located near Evangelistria Date: EPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation References: Hägg 1974, 72

Published Grave Identification: Grave VI Date: LH IIIA/ LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 8 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects; Amber; Beads; Spindle whorl References: Rudolph 1971, 38-40

Published Grave Identification: Gr. 34 Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1

123

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Published Grave Identification: Grave V Date: LH IIB 2- LH IIIC Mid Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 7 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects; Shell References: Rudolph 1971, 38-40

Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Blegen 1937, 51-264 Published Grave Identification: Tomb XXXVI Date: LH IIIA 2 - LH IIIB 2 Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Blegen 1937, 51-264

Published Grave Identification: Grave XVI Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 4 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects; Gold plates; Silver ring; Beads; Spindle whorl References: Rudolph 1971, 38-40

Published Grave Identification: Tomb IX Date: LH IIIA 2 - LH IIIB 2 Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Blegen 1937, 51-264

Prosymna Published Grave Identification: Tomb XXVIII Date: LH IIA- LH IIIB 2 Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Blegen 1937, 51-264

Published Grave Identification: Tomb XXII Date: LH IIIA 2 - LH IIIB 2 Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult References: Blegen 1937, 51-264

Published Grave Identification: Tomb III Date: LH IIA- LH IIIB 2 Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 3 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Blegen 1937, 51-264

Published Grave Identification: Tomb XV Date: LH IIIA 2 - LH IIIB 2 Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Blegen 1937, 51-264

Published Grave Identification: Tomb VI Date: LH IIA- LH IIIB 2 Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Blegen 1937, 51-264

Published Grave Identification: Tomb X Date: LH IIIA 2 - LH IIIB 2 Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Blegen 1937, 51-264

Published Grave Identification: Tomb XXXIII Date: LH IIIA 1 - LH IIIB 2 Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Blegen 1937, 51-264

Published Grave Identification: Tomb XX Date: LH IIIB - LH IIIC Early Type of Grave: Chamber tomb Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 2

Published Grave Identification: Tomb XIX Date: LH IIIA 2 - LH IIIB 2

124

Appendix Two: Catalogue of Mortuary Contexts

Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Blegen 1937, 51-264

Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Hägg 1974, 75-80

Tiryns Published Grave Identification: None; Located in Building XI Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 6 Rite: Inhumation References: AR 2002-2003, 26; AR 2003-2004, 24

Published Grave Identification: Grave 3 Date: EPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Published Grave Identification: 1971.2.1 Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Child References: AA 8: 15-24

Published Grave Identification: 1971, 2 Date: EPG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects Age: Child References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Published Grave Identification: None; Located in Lower Town Date: LH IIIC Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Child References: AA 8: 15-24

Published Grave Identification: XXVII Date: EPG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728 Published Grave Identification: XIIIa Date: EPG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Tiryns I, 127-164

Published Grave Identification: 3 Date: LH IIIC 1 Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Published Grave Identification: Grave 18 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Hägg 1974, 75-80

Published Grave Identification: Grave 35 no1 Date: LH IIIC 1 Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Infant References: Hägg 1974, 75-80

Published Grave Identification: 1972,3 Date: PG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation

Published Grave Identification: XIIIb Date: LH IIIC Late Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1

125

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects References: AM 78, 1-62

Published Grave Identification: 1972, 6 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects; Faience bead necklace References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Published Grave Identification: 1957, XXVIII Date: PG Type of Grave: Pit Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects References: AM 78, 1-62

Published Grave Identification: 1972, 9 Date: PG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects; Gold hair spiral Age: Adult Sex: Female References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Published Grave Identification: 1957, VI Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: AM 78, 1-62 Published Grave Identification: Grave 12 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Hägg 1974, 75-80

Published Grave Identification: 1957, VII Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects; Gold spirals Age: Adult Sex: Female References: AM 78, 1-62

Published Grave Identification: 1957, III Date: PG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: AM 78, 1-62

Published Grave Identification: 1907/09 11 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Tiryns I, 127-164

Published Grave Identification: 1907/09 10 Date: PG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects; Gold spiral References: Tiryns I, 127-164

Published Grave Identification: 1907/09 2 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects; Gold spirals References: Tiryns I, 127-164

Published Grave Identification: 1907/09 6 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation

Published Grave Identification: 1957, XVIII Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist

126

Appendix Two: Catalogue of Mortuary Contexts

Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: Tiryns I, 127-164

Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult References: Hägg 1974, 75-80

Published Grave Identification: 1907/09 7 Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze Objects References: Tiryns I, 127-164

Published Grave Identification: Grave 9 Date: LPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Age: Adult References: Hägg 1974, 75-80

Published Grave Identification: 1957, V Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 2 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects Age: Adult; Adult Sex: Female; Female References: AM 78, 1-62

Published Grave Identification: 1974, 7/1 Date: PG- EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Iron Objects Age: Adult Sec: Male References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Published Grave Identification: 1957, XV Date: PG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects; Gold spirals References: AM 78, 1-62

Published Grave Identification: 1974, 13 Date: PG-EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Adult References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Published Grave Identification: Grave 17 Date: LPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Hägg 1974, 75-80

Published Grave Identification: 1974, 10 Date: PG-EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects Age: Adult Sex: Male References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Published Grave Identification: Grave 4 Date: LPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Iron Objects Age: Adult References: Hägg 1974, 75-80

Published Grave Identification: 1974, 12 Date: PG- EG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Age: Adult References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Published Grave Identification: Grave 8 Date: LPG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation

Published Grave Identification: 1974, 3 Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1

127

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics; Bronze and Iron Objects Age: Adult References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics References: AR 1982-83, 28

Published Grave Identification: 1972, 8 Date: EG Type of Grave: Cist Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Papademetriou 2003, 713-728

Published Grave Identification: Grave 35 Date: EG Type of Grave: Vessel Number of Graves: 1 Number of Individuals: 1 Rite: Inhumation Type of Grave Goods: Ceramics Age: Child References: Tiryns I, 128-133

Published Grave Identification: None; Petroula Plot Date: EG

128

Bibliography

Abbreviations conform to the standard set by the American Journal of Archaeology 2007 111: 3-34

Vitreous Material in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. 151172. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Bennett, E.L. Jr. 1953. The Myceane Tablets. PAPS 97: 422-470. ---. 1958. Epigraphic Commentary. In Bennett, Emmett L. and Chadwick John (eds.) The Mycenae Tablets II. TAPS 48: 89-105. Betancourt, P.P. 1976. The End of the Greek Bronze Age. Antiquity 50: 40- 47. Biers, W.R. 1992. Art, Artefacts, and Chronology in Classical Archaeology. London: Routledge. Blegen, C.W. 1937. Prosymna. The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum. Vols.1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blitzer, H. 1990. ΚΟΡΩΝΕΪΚΑ: Storage Jar Production and Trade in the Traditional Aegean. Hesperia: 59: 675-711. Bohnert, M., Rost, T. and Pollak, S. 1998. The Degree of Destruction of Human Bodies in Relation to the Duration of the Fire. Forensic Science International 95: 11-21. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. Nice, R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyd, M.J. 2002. Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Mortuary Practices in the Southern and Western Peloponnese. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Bradley, R. 1982. The Destruction of Wealth in Later Prehistory. Man, N.S. 17: 108-122. ---. 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain: Themes and Variations in the Archaeology of Power. London: Longman. ---. 1985. Exchange and Social Distance - The Structure of Bronze Artefact Distributions. Man, N.S. 20: 692-704. ---. 1988. Hoarding, Recycling and the Consumption of Prehistoric Metalwork: Technological Change in Western Europe. WorldArch 20: 249-260. ---. 1990. The Passage of Arms: An Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Hoards and Votive Deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Archive. ---. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge. Branigan, K. 1993. Dancing with Death: Life and Death in Southern Crete c. 3000-2000 BC. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Brewer, D.J. and Teeter, E. 1999. Egypt and the Egyptians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Budd, P. and Taylor, T. 1995. The Faerie Smith Meets the Bronze Industry: Magic Versus Science in the Interpretation of Prehistoric Metal-Making. WorldArch 27: 133-143.

Albers, G. 2001. Rethinking Mycenaean Sanctuaries. In Laffineur, Robert and Robin Hägg (eds.) Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000. 131-141. Liège: Université de Liège. Alden, M.J. 1981. Bronze Age Population Fluctuations in the Argolid from the Evidence of Mycenaean Tombs. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In Appadurai, Arjun (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. 3-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Åström, P. 1983. The Cuirass Tomb and Other Finds at Dendra. Part 2: Excavations in the Cemeteries, the Lower Town and Citadel. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. Athanassopoulou, E.F. 2002. An “Ancient” Landscape: European Ideals, Archaeology, and Nation Building in Early Modern Greece. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 20: 273-305. Antonaccio, C.M. 1992. Terraces, Tombs and the Early Argive Heraion. Hesperia. 61: 85-105. ---. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Balcer, J.M. 1974. The Mycenaean Dam at Tiryns. AJA 78: 141 – 149. Bass, G.F. 1961. The Cape Gelidonya Wreck: Preliminary Report. AJA 65: 267- 276. Barrett, J.C. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900- 1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell. Bell, B. 1971. The Dark Ages in Ancient History. I. The First Dark Age in Egypt. AJA 75: 1-26. Bennet, J. 2007. The Aegean Bronze Age. In Scheidel, Walter, Morris, Ian and Saller, Richard (eds.) The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. 175-210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ---. 2008. Palace™: Speculations on Palatial Production in Mycenaean Greece with (Some) Reference to Glass. In Jackson, Caroline M. and Wager, Emma C. (eds.)

.

129

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

K. [1952] 1981. The Purpose of the Stirrup Vase. BSA 76: 167. Crielaard, J.P. 1999. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Early Iron Age Greek Pottery (Eleventh to Seventh Centuries BC). In Crielaard, Jan Paul, Vladimir Stissi, and Gert Jan van Wijngaarden (eds.) The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BC). Proceedings of the ARCHON International Conference, Held in Amsterdam, 8 - 9 November 1996. 49-81 Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Crouwel, J. 1988. Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from Outside the Citadel of Mycenae. BSA 83: 25-36. ---. 1991. Well Built Mycenae Fascicule 21: Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ---. 2006. Late Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery. A Brief Review. In Wells, Berit and Rystedt, Eva (eds.) Pictorial Pursuits: Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery. Papers from Two Seminars at the Swedish Institute at Athens in 1999 and 2001. 15-22. Stockholm: Swedish Institute at Athens. Crowley, J.L. 2008. Mycenaean Art and Architecture. In Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. 258-288. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culbert, P.T. 2003. The Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization. In Yoffee, Norman and Cowgill, George L. (eds.) The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations. 69-101. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press. De Fidio, P. 2001. Centralization and its Limits in the Mycenaean Palatial System. In Killen, John and Voutsaki, Sofia (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceedings of a Conference held 1-3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. 1996. On the Negative Aspects of the Mycenaean Palace System. In De Miro, Ernesto, Godart, Louis and Sacconi, Anna (eds.) Atti e memorie del secondo Congresso internazionale di micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14-20 ottobre 1991. Volume 2: Storia. Incunabula Graeca 98. 715-728. Rome: Gruppo editoriale internazionale. Demakopoulou, K. 2003. The Pottery from the Destruction Layers in Midea: Late Helladic III B2 Late or Transitional Late Helladic III B2/ Late Helladic III C Early? In Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid and Zavadil, Michaela (eds.) LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7th and 8th, 2001. 77-92. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ---. 2006. Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from Midea. In Wells, Berit and Rystedt, Eva (eds.) Pictorial Pursuits: Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery. Papers from Two Seminars at the Swedish Institute at Athens in 1999 and 2001. 31- 44. Stockholm: Swedish Institute at Athens. ---. 2007. The Role of Midea in the Network of Mycenaean

Button, S. 2007. Mortuary Studies, Memory, and the Mycenaean Polity. In Yoffee, Norman (ed.) Negotiating the Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archaeological Research. 76-103. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Cantor, N.F. 1974. The Interpretation of Medieval History. In Murdoch, V. and Couse, G.S. (eds.) Essays on the Reconstruction of Medieval History. 1-20. McGill: Queen’s University Press. Caskey, J.L. and Amandry, P. 1952. Investigations at the Heraion of Argos, 1949. Hesperia 21: 165-221. Catling, H.W. 1978. Archaeology in Greece, 1976-1977. AR 24: 3-69. ---. 1981. Archaeology in Greece, 1979-1980. AR 26: 3-53. ---. 1986. Archaeology in Greece, 1985-86. AR 32: 3-101. Catling, H.W., Cherry, J.F., Jones, R.E. and Killen, J.T. 1980. The Linear B Inscribed Stirrup Jars in West Crete. BSA 75: 49-113. Cavangh, W.G. 2001. Empty space? Courts and Squares in Mycenaean Towns. In Branigan, K. (ed.) Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age. 119- 134. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ---. 2008. Death and the Mycenaeans. In Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. 327-341. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cavanagh, W.G and Mee, C. 1998. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. Chadwick, J. 1976. The Mycenaean World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chamberlain, A. 2006. Demography in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cherry, J.F. 1994. Regional Survey in the Aegean: The “New Wave” (and After). In Kardulias, P. Nick (ed.) Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in the Aegean Area. 91-112. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. ---. 2002. Review of Citadel to City-State: The Transformation of Greece, 1200-700 B.C.E. by Carol G. Thomas and Craig Conant. The American Historical Review 107: 1616-1617. Cherry, J.F. and Davis, J. 2001. “Under the Sceptre of Agamemnon”: The View from the Hinterlands of Mycenae. In Branigan, K. (ed.) Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age. 141-159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Christakis, K.S. 1999. Pithoi and Food Storage in Neopalatial Crete: A Domestic Perspective. WorldArch 31: (1) 1-20. ---. 2008. The Politics of Storage: Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Coale, A.J., Demeny, P. and Vaughan, B. 1983. Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations. Second Edition. New York: Academic Press. Coldstream, J.N. 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology. London: Methuen. ---. 1977. Geometric Greece. London: Ernest Benn.Cook,

130

Bibliography

1939. In Jantzen, Ulf (ed.) Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte, Band VI. 127-194. Mainz: Philip von Zabern. Doonan, R.C.P., Day, P.M. and Dimopoulou- Rethemiotaki, N. 2007. Lame Excuses for Emerging Complexity in Early Bronze Age Crete: the Metallurgical Finds from Poros Katsambas and their Context. In Day, Peter M. and Doonan, Roger C.P. (eds.) Metallurgy in the Early Bronze Age Aegean. 98-122. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Eder, B. 1998. Argolis, Lakonien, Messenien: vom Ende der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderung der Dorier. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Ehrenberg, V. 1937. When Did the Polis Rise? JHS 57: 147-159. Fagerström, K. 1998. Greek Iron Age Architecture: Developments Through Changing Times. Göteborg: Paul Åstroms Förlag. Finley, M.I. 1977. The World of Odysseus. London: Chatto and Windus. ---. 1981. Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Ages. London: Chatto and Windus. Forbes, H.A. 1982. Strategies and Soils: Technology, Production and Environment in the Peninsula of Methana, Greece. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, USA. ---. 2007. Meaning and Identity in a Greek Landscape: An Archaeological Ethnography. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press. Fox, R.S. 2009. Feasting Practices and Social Changes in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sheffield, England. Foxhall, L. 1995. Bronze to Iron: Agricultural Systems and Political Structures in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Greece. BSA 90. 239-250. French, D. and French, E.B. 1971. Prehistoric Pottery from the Area of the Agricultural Prison at Tiryns. In Jantzen, Ulf (ed.) Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte. Band V. 2130. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. French, E.B. 2002. Mycenae. Agamemnon’s Capital: The Site in its Setting. Stroud: Tempus. French, E.B. and Stockhammer, P.H. 2009. Mycenae and Tiryns: The Pottery of the Second Half of the Thirteenth Century BC- Contexts and Definitions. BSA 104: 175232. Frizell, B. 1978. Finds of the Late Helladic Period. In Hägg, Inga and Hägg, Robin (ed.) Excavations in the Barbouna Area at Asine, Fasc. 2. Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 4:2: Uppsala Frödin, O. and Persson, A.W. 1938. Asine: The Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922-1930. Stockholm: Generalstabens Litografiska Anstats Förlag. Furumark, A. 1941. The Mycenaean Pottery. Analysis and Classification. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Galaty, M.L. 2007. Wealth Ceramics, Staple Ceramics: Pots and the Myceaean Palaces. In Galaty, Michael L. and Parkinson, William A. (eds.) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II Revised and Expanded Second Edition. 74-86.

Citadels in the Argolid. In Alram-Stern, Eva and Nightingale, Georg (eds.) Keimelion:Elitenbildung und elitarer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche. Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 3.bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Demakopoulou, K. and Crouwel, J.H. 1992. Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from the Argive Heraion. Hesperia 61: 491-500. Demakopoulou, K. and Divari-Valakou, N. 1999. The Fortifications of the Mycenaean Acropolis of Midea. In Laffineur, R., (ed.) Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Égèe à L’ Âge du Bronze. 205-212. Liège: Université de Liège. ---. 2001. Evidence for Cult Practice at Midea: Figures, Figurines and Ritual Objects. In Laffineur, Robert and Hägg, Robin (eds.) Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000. 181-191. Liège: Université de Liège. Demakopoulou, K., Divari-Valakou, N. and Schallin, A.-L. 2003. Excavations in Midea 2002. OpAth 28: 7-28. ---. 2005. Excavations in Midea 2004. OpAth 30: 7-34. ---. 2006-2007. Excavations in Midea 2005. OpAth 31-32: 7-30. Demakopoulou, K., Divari-Valakou, N., Aström, P. and Walberg, G. 2000- 2001. Excavations in Midea 19971999. OpAth 25-26: 35-52. Demakopoulou, K., Divari-Valakou, N., Schallin, A.L., Weiberg, E., Sjögren, L. and Nilsson, M. 2004. Excavations in Midea 2003. OpAth 29: 9-27. Demakopoulou, K., Divari-Valakou, N., Schallin, A.-L., Ekroth, G., Lindblom, A., Nilsson, M. and Sjögren, Lena. 2002. Excavations in Midea 2000 and 2001. OpAth 27: 27-58. Desborough, V.R. d’A. 1952. Protogeometric Pottery. Oxford: Claredon Press. ---. 1964. The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors: An Archaeological Survey c. 1200 – c. 1000 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ---. 1972. The Greek Dark Ages. London: Ernest Benn Limited. ---. 1973. Late Burials from Mycenae. BSA 68: 87-102. Deshayes, J. 1966. Argos: Les Fouilles De La Deiras. Paris: Librarie Philosophique J. Vrin. Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1983. Cist Graves and Chamber Tombs. BSA 78: 55-67. ---. 1994. The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ---. 2006. The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and Change Between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC. London: Routledge. Dietz, S. 1982. Asine II: Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970-1974. Fasc. 1. General Stratigraphical Analysis and Architectural Remains. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. Döhl, Hartmut. 1973. Iria: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung

131

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Haggis, D. 2001. Review of Citadel to City-State: The Transformation of Greece,1200 – 700 B.C.E. by Carol Thomas and Craig Conant. AJP 122: 131-135. Hall, J. 1995. How Argive was the “Argive” Heraion? The Political and Cultic Geography of the Argive Plain, 900400 BC. AJA 99: 577-613. Halperin, R.H. 1994. Cultural Economies Past and Present. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Halstead, P. 1992. The Mycenaean Palatial Economy: Making the Most of the Gaps in the Evidence. PCPS 38: 57-86. ---. 2001. Mycenaean Wheat, Flax, and Sheep: Palatial Intervention in Farming and its Implications for Rural Society. In Voutsaki, Sofia and Killen, John (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceedings of a Conference Held 1- 3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge. 38-50. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Halstead, P. and O’Shea, J. 1982. A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed: Social Storage and the Origins of Social Ranking. In Renfrew, Colin and Shennan, Stephen (eds.) Ranking Resource and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society. 92-99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Archive. ---. 1989. Introduction: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. In Halstead, Paul and O’Shea, John (eds.) Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. 1-7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamilakis, Y. and Konsolaki, E. 2004. Pigs for the Gods: Burnt Animal Sacrifices as Embodied Rituals at a Mycenaean Sanctuary. OJA 23: 135-151. Haskell, H.W. 1981. Coarse-ware Stirrup-jars at Mycenae. BSA 76: 225-238. ---. 1984. Pylos: Stirrup Jars and the International Oil Trade. In Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. and Palaima, Thomas G. (eds.) Pylos Comes Alive: Industry and Administration in a Mycenaean Palace.97-107. New York: Archaeological Institute of America. ---. 1985. The Origin of the Aegean Stirrup Jar and Its Earliest Evolution and Distribution (MB II- LB I). AJA 89: 221-229. Heizer, R.F. 1962. The Background of Thomsen’s ThreeAge System. Technology and Culture 3: 259-266. Hesiod. 2007. Works and Days. Trans. Evelyn-White, H.G. Charleston, NC: Forgotten Books. Hiesel, G. 1990. Späthelladische Hausarchitektur. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hjohlman, J., Penttinen, A. and Wells, B. 2005. Pyrgouthi. A Rural Site in the Berbati Valley from the Early Iron Age to Late Antiquity. Excavations by the Swedish Institute at Athens 1995 and 1997. Stockholm: Swedish Institute at Athens. Hollister, C.W. 1992. The Phases of European History and the Nonexistence of the Middle Ages. The Pacific Historical Review 61: 1-22. Hood, M.S.F. 1957. Archaeology in Greece, 1956. AR 1956: 3-23. Hope Simpson, R. and Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1979. A

Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology University of California. ---. 2010. Wedging Clay: Combining Competing Models of Mycenaean Pottery Industries. In Pullen, Daniel J. (ed.) Political Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age. 230- 247. Oxford: Oxbow Books Gallant, T.W. 2003. Modern Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garnsey, P. 1988. Famine and Food Supply in the GraecoRoman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gebauer, K. 1939. Epidauria. AA 1939: 287-294. ---. 1940. Epidauria. AA 1940: 219-222. Gercke, P. and Naumann, U. 1974-1975. Tiryns-Stadt 19711972. AAA 8: 15-24. Gosden, C. 1994. Social Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell. Gräslund, B. 1981. The Background to C.J. Thomsen’s Three Age System. In Daniel, Glyn (ed.) Towards a History of Archaeology: Being the Papers Read at the First Conference on the History of Archaeology in Aarhus, 29 August – 2 September 1978. 45-50. London: Thames and Hudson. Gregory, C.A. 1982. Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press. Grossmann, P. and Schäfer, J. 1971. Tiryns: Unterburg, Grabungen 1965. In Jantzen, Ulf (ed.) Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte. Band V. 41- 75. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Grote, G. 1846. A History of Greece; I. Legendary Greece. II. Grecian History to the Reign of Peisistratus at Athens. London: John Murray. Guthenke, C. 2008. Placing Modern Greece: The Dynamics of Romantic Hellenism, 1770-1840. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hägg, I. and Hägg, R. 1973. Excavations in the Barbourna Area at Asine. Fasc. 1. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Hägg, R.1974. Die Gräber der Argolis in submykenischer, protogeometrischer und geometrischer Zeit 1. Lage und Form der Gräber. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. ---. 1980. Some Aspects of the Burial Customs of the Argolid in the Dark Ages. AAA 13: 119-126. ---. 1981. The House Sanctuary at Asine Revisited. In Hägg, Robin and Marinatos, Nanno (eds.) Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1213 May,1980. 91-94. Stockholm: Swedish Institute at Athens. --- .ed. 1983. The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1-5 June, 1981. Stockholm: Swedish Institute at Athens. ---. 1987. Submycenaean Cremation Burials in the Argolid? In Laffineur, R. (ed.) Thanatos: les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège, 21-23 avril 1986. 207-212. Liège: Université de Liège.

132

Bibliography

Gazeteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age, Volume 1: The Mainland and Islands. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. Hruby, Julie. 2010. Mycenaean Pottery from Pylos: An Indigenous Typology. AJA 114: 195- 216 Humphrey, C. and Hugh-Jones, S. 1992. Introduction: Barter, Exchange and Value. In Humphrey, Caroline and Hugh-Jones, Stephen (eds.) Barter, Exchange and Value: An Anthropological Approach. 1-20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iakovidis, S. 1977. The Present State of Research at the Citadel of Mycenae. BIA 14: 99-142. ---. 1979. The Chronology of LH IIIC. AJA 83: 454- 462. ---. 1999. Late Helladic Fortifications. In Laffineur, R., (ed.) Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Égèe à L’Âge du Bronze. 199-204. Liège: Université de Liège. ---. 2003. Late Helladic III C at Mycenae. In Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid and Zavadil, Michaela (eds.) LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms.Proceedings of the International Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7th and 8th, 2001. 117-124.Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Iakovidis, S., French, E., Charalambos, I., Jansen, A., Lavery, J. and Shelton, K. 2003. The Archaeological Atlas of Mycenae. Athens: The Archaeological Society at Athens. James, P., Thorpe, I.J., Kokkinos, N., Morkot, R. and Frankish, J. 1991. Centuries of Darkness. A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology. London: Jonathan Cape. James, P.A., Mee, C.B. and Taylor, G.J. 1994. Soil Erosion and the Archaeological Landscape of Methana, Greece. JFA 21: 395-416. Jameson, M.H., Runnels, C.N. and Van Andel, T.H. 1994. A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Jenkins, R. 1992. Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge. ---. 2004. Identity. Second Edition. London: Routledge. Jones, A. 2007. Memory and Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, G., Wardle, K., Halstead, P. and Wardle, D. 1986. Crop Storage at Assiros. Scientific American 254 (3): 96-103. Jonuks, T. and Konsa, M. 2007. The Revival of Prehistoric Burial Practices:Three Archaeological Experiments. Folklore 37: 91-110. Kanta, A. 1975. The Tripolis Street Graves at Argos. AAA 8: 259- 275. Kayafa, M. 1999. Bronze Age Metallurgy in the Peloponnese, Greece. PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham, England. ---. 2006. From Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age Copper Metallurgy in Mainland Greece and Offshore Aegean Islands. In Deger- Jalkotzy, Sigrid and Lemos, Irene S. (eds.) Ancient Greece From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. 213-232. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Khatchadourian, L. 2007. Unforgettable Landscapes:

Attachments to the Past in Hellenistic Armenia. In Yoffee, Norman (ed.) Negotiating the Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archaeological Research. 43-75. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Killen, J. 2001. Some Thoughts on TA-RA-SI-JA. In Voutsaki, Sophia and Killen, John (eds). Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceedings of a Conference held 1-3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge. 161-180. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Kilian, K. 1981. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1978-1979: Bericht zu den Grabungen. AA 1981: 149-194. ---. 1988a. Mycenaeans Up To Date. Trends and Changes in Recent Research. In French, E.B. and Wardle, K. A. (eds.) Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986. 115152. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. ---. 1988b. The Emergence of the Wanax Ideology in the Mycenaean Palaces. OJA 7: 291- 302. Knapp, A.B., Muhly, J.D. and Muhly, P.M. 1988. To Hoard is Human: Late Bronze Age Metal Deposits in Cyprus and the Aegean. In Karageorghis, Vassos (ed.) Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, 1988. 233-262. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities Cyprus. Knapp, A.B. 1988. Hoards D’Oeuvres: Of Metals & Men on Bronze Age Cyprus. OJA 7: 147-176. Knappett, C. 2001. Overseen of Overlooked? Ceramic Production in a Mycenaean Palatial System. In Voutsaki, Sofia and Killen, John (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceedings of a Conference held 1-3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge. 80-95. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Konsolaki, Ε. 1991. Μέθανα. Άγιος Κωνσταντίνος. ΑΔ 46 Β1: 71-74. ---. 1993. The Mycenaean Sanctuary on Methana. BICS 40: 242. ---. 2002. A Mycenaean Sanctuary on Methana. In Hägg, Robin, (ed.) Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June 1994. 25-36. Stockholm: Swedish Institute at Athens. Konsolaki- Yiannopoulou, E. 2003. Ταφές Νηπίων στο Μυκηναϊκό Ιερό του Αγίου Κωνσταντίνου στα Μέθανα. In Konsolaki- Yiannopoulou (εκδ.) Αργοσαρωνικος. Πρακτικά 1ου Διεθνούς Συνδρίου Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας του Αργοσαρωνικού. 257 -284. Athens: Δήμος Πóρου. Lacy, A.D. 1967. Greek Pottery in the Bronze Age. London: Methuen. Langdon, S. 2005. Views of Wealth, a Wealth of Views: Grave Goods in Iron Age Attica. In Layons, D. and Westbrook, R. (eds.) Women and Property in Ancient Near Eastern Societies. Harvard: Center for Hellenic Studies Online Papers. www.chs.harvard.edu/chs/files/ women_property_langdon.pdf last accessed 04/09/09. ---. 2008. Art and Identity in Dark Age Greece, 1100 – 700 B.C.E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

133

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Lantzas, K. 2008. Trench 42 Field Report. Excavations of the Lower Town of Mycenae. Unpublished Field Notes. Lemos, I.S. 2002. The Protogeometric Aegean:The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leonard, A., Hughes, M., Middleton, A. and Schofield, L. 1993. The Making of Aegean Storage Stirrup Jars: Technique, Tradition and Trade. BSA 88: 105-124. Lewartowski, K. 2000. Late Helladic Simple Graves: a Study of Mycenaean Burial Customs. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Loader, N.C. 1998. Building in Cyclopean Masonry with Special Reference to the Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. Locock, M. 1994. Meaningful Architecture. In Locock, Martin (ed.) Meaningful Architecture: Social Interpretation of Buildings. 1-13. Avebury: Aldershot. Lupack, S. 2007. Palaces, Sanctuaries, and Workshops: The Role of the Religious Sector in Mycenaean Economics. In Galaty, Michael L. and Parkinson, William A. (eds.) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. 54-65. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology University of California. Maggidis, C. 2009. Mycenaean Palatial Overextension and the Dynamics of the Systems Collapse of the Mycenaean World. In Despoina Daniilidou (ed.) Δώρον. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Σπύρο Ιακωβίδη. 397-418. Athens: Academy of Athens. Maggidis, C. and Stamos, A. 2006. Detecting Mycenae: Systematic Remote Sensing Survey in the “Lower City” – Towards the Discovery of the Mycenaean Settlement Outside the Citadel. In Campana, Stefano and Forte, Maurizio (eds.) Second International Conference on Remote Sensing Archaeology: From Space to Place, Rome. 157- 166. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Mani, D. 2002. Culture as a Key Element of Human Security. Nagoya: United Nations Center for Regional Development. Manning, S.W. 1998. From Process to People: Longue Durée to History. In Cline, Eric H. and Harris-Cline, Diane (eds.) The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium: Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997. 311- 327. Liège: Université de Liège. Maran, J. 2000. Das Megaron im Megaron. Zur Datierung und Funktion des Antenbaus im Mykenischen Palast von Tiryns. AA 2000: 1-16 ---. 2001. Political and Religious Aspects of Architectural Change on the Upper Citadel of Tiryns. The Case of Building T. In Laffineur, Robert and Hägg, Robin (eds.) Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference / 8e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000. 113-122. Liège: Université de Liège. ---. 2004. Architektonische Innovation im spätmykenischen Tiryns – Lokale Bauprogramme und fremde Kultureinflüsse. In Kyriatsoulis, Apostolos (ed.) Althellenische Technologie und Technik von der

134

prähistorischen bis zur hellenistischen Zeit mit Schwerpunkt auf der prähistorischen Epoche: Tagung 21.-23.03.2003 in Ohlstadt. 261- 293. Weilheim:Verein zur Förderung der Aufarbeitung der Hellenischen Geschichte. ---. 2006a. Architecture, Power and Social Practice – An Introduction. In Maran, Josef, Juwig, Carsten, Schwengel, Hermann and Ulrich Thaler (eds.) Constructing Power: Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice. 9-14. Hamburg: Lit Verlag. ---. 2006b. Coming to Terms with the Past: Ideology and Power in Late Helladic IIIC. In Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid and Lemos, Irene S. (eds.) Ancient Greece From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. 123-145. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Marchand, S.L. 2003. Down From Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Margomenou, D. 2008. Food Storage in Prehistoric Northern Greece: Interrogating Complexity at the Margins of the “Mycenaean World”. JMA 21: 191-212. Maurer, B. 2005. Does Money Matter? Abstraction and Substitution in Alternative Financial Forms. In Miller, Daniel (ed.) Materiality. 140-164. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Mauss, M. 1990. The Gift. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Trans. Halls, W.D. London: Routledge. Mazarakis Ainian, A. 1997. From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100- 700 B.C.) Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. McAnany, P.A. and Yoffee, N. (eds.) 2010. Questioning Collapse: Human Reslience, Ecological Vulnerability, and the Aftermath of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonald, W.A., Coulson, W.D.E. and Rosser, J. 1983. Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Volume III Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. McKinley, J.I. 1997. Bronze Age “Barrows” and Funerary Rites and Rituals of Cremation. PPS 63: 129-146. Mee, C. and Forbes, H. (eds.) 1997. A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece. Results of the Methana Survey Project Sponsored by the British School at Athens and the University of Liverpool. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Metcalf, P. and Huntington, R. 1991. Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Middleton, G. 2010. Collapse of Palatial Society in LBA Greece and the Postpalatial Period. Oxford: BAR Publishing Mommsen, T.E. 1942. Petrarch’s Conception of the “Dark Ages”. Speculum. 17: 226- 242. Moore, A.D. and Taylour, W.D. 1999. Well Built Mycenae: The Helleno-British Excavations Within the Citadel

Bibliography

at Mycenae, 1959-1969. Fascicule 10. The Temple Complex. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Morgan, C. 1999. Production and Consumption of Early Iron Age Pottery in the Aegean. In Crielaard, Jan Paul, Stissi, Vladimir and van Wijngaarden, Gert Jan (eds.) The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (sixteenth to early fifth centuries BC). Proceedings of the ARCHON international conference, held in Amsterdam, 8-9 November 1996. 213- 245. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Morris, H.J. 1986. An Economic Model of the Late Mycenaean Kingdom of Pylos. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, USA. Morris, I. 1986. Gift and Commodity in Archaic Greece. Man, N.S. 21: 1-17. ---. 1987. Burial and Ancient Society: the Rise of the Greek City-state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ---. 1989. Circulation, Deposition, and the Formation of the Greek Iron Age. Man, N.S. 24: 502-519. ---. 1994. Archaeologies of Greece. In Morris, Ian (ed.) Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. 8-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ---. 1997. Periodization and the Heroes: Inventing a Dark Age. In Golden, Mark and Toohey, Peter (eds.) Inventing Ancient Culture: Historicism, Periodization, and the Ancient World. 96-132. London: Routledge. ---. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and Things in Iron Age Greece. Oxford: Blackwell. ---. 2003. Iron Age State Formation in Greece. In Clark, Douglas R. and Matthews, Victor H. (eds.) One Hundred Years of American Archaeology in the Middle East: Proceedings of the American School of Oriental Research Centennial Celebration, Washington DC, April 2000. 263-282. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. ---. 2005. The Eighth-Century Revolution. Version 1.0. December. Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics. ---. 2007. Early Iron Age Greece. In Scheidel, Walter, Morris, Ian and Saller, Richard (eds.) The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. 211-238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morris, I., Saller, R.P. and Scheidel, W. 2007. Introduction. In Scheidel,Walter, Morris, Ian and Saller, Richard (eds.) The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. 1-14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgan, C., Evely, D., Hall, H. and Pitt, R.K. 2008. Archaeology in Greece. AR 54: 1-113. Mountjoy, P.A. 1996. Asine Chamber Tomb I:1: The Pottery. In Hägg, Robin, Nordquist, Gullög C. and Wells, Berit. Asine III. Supplementary Studies on the Swedish Excavations 1922-1930. Fasc. 1. 47-67. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. ---. 1997. The Destruction of the Palace at Pylos Reconsidered. BSA 92: 109-138. ---. 1999. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery, Vols. 1, 2. Rahden, Westfalia: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.

---. 2001. Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. Mountjoy, P.A., and Hankey, V. 1988. LH IIIC Late Versus Submycenaean. The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed. JdI 103: 1-38 Mühlenbruch, T. 2007. The Post-Palatial Settlement in the Lower Citadel of Tiryns. In Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid and Zavadil, Michaela (eds.) Late Helladic IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms II: LH IIIC Middle. 243252. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ---. 2009. Tiryns- The Settlement and its History in LH III C. In Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid and Bächle, Anna Elisabeth (eds.) Late Helladic IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms III: LH IIIC Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age. 313-326. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Murray, O. 1980. Early Greece. Glasgow: William Collins. Mylonas, G.E. 1962. Three Late Mycenaean Knives. AJA 66: 406- 408. ---. 1966a. The East Wing of the Palace of Mycenae. Hesperia 35: 419-426. ---. 1966b. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ---. 1968. Mycenae’s Last Century of Greatness. Sydney: Sydney University Press. Mylonas Shear, I. 1968. Mycenaean Domestic Architecture. Vols. 1-3. Ph.D dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, USA. Nakou, G. 1995. The Cutting Edge: A New Look at Early Aegean Metallurgy. JMA 8: 1-32. Nelson, J.L. 2007. Dark Ages. History Workshop Journal 63: 191-201. Nordquist, G. and Ingvarsson-Sundström, A. 2005. Live Hard, Die Young: Mortuary Remains of Middle and Early Late Helladic Children from the Argolid in Social Context. In Dakouri-Hild, Anastasia and Sherratt, Sue (eds.) Autochthon: Papers Presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the Occasion of His Retirement. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Osborne, R. 2004. Hoards, Votives, Offerings: the Archaeology of the Dedicated Object. WorldArch 36: 1-10. Palaima, T.G. 2004. Sacrificial Feasting in the Linear B Documents. In Wright, James C. (ed.) The Mycenaean Feast. 97-126. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies Athens. Papademetriou, A. 1988. Bericht zur Früheizenzeitlichen Keramik aus der Unterburg von Tiryns. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83. AA 1988: 227-243. ---. 2001. Tiryns: A Guide to Its History and Archaeology. Athens: Hesperos. ---. 2003. Οι Υπομυκηναϊκoí και Πρωτογεωμετρικoí Ταφόι της Τίρυνθας. Ανάλυση και Ερμηνεία. In Blachopoulos, Andreas and Birtacha (εκδ.) Αργοναύτης: τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Χρίστο Γ. Ντούμα από τους μαθητές του στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών (1980- 2000). 713-728. Athens: Η Καθημερινή. ---. 2006. The Early Iron Age in the Argolid. In DegerJalkotzy, Sigrid and Lemos, Irene S. (eds.) Ancient

135

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

Greece From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. 531-547. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Papadopoulos, J.K. 1998. From Macedonia to Sardinia: Problems of Iron Age Aegean Chronology, and Assumptions of Greek Maritime Primacy. In Balmuth, Miriam and Tykot, Robert H. (eds.) Sardinian and Aegean Chronology: Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean. 363- 370. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ---. 2005. The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology University of California. Papadopoulos, T.J. 1998. The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean I: The Greek Mainland. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton. Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, C. 1994. Ordering the World: Perceptions of Architecture, Space and Time. In Parker Pearson, Mike and Richards, Colin (eds.) Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space 1-37. London: Routledge. Peacock, D.P.S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World: an Ethnoarchaeological Approach. London: Longman. Penttinen, A. 2005. From the Early Iron Age to the Early Roman Times. In Hjohlman, Jenni, Penttinen, Arto and Wells, Berit. 2005. Pyrgouthi. A Rural Site in the Berbati Valley from the Early Iron Age to Late Antiquity. Excavations by the Swedish Institute at Athens 1995 and 1997. 12- 91. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. Persson, A.W. 1931. The Royal Tombs at Dendra Near Midea. Lund: Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Literarum Lundensis. ---. 1942. New Tombs at Dendra Near Midea. Lund: Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Literarum Lundensis. Pilides, D. 1996. Storage Jars as Evidence of the Economy of Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. In Karageorghis, V. and Michaelides, D. (eds.) The Development of the Cypriot Economy: From the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day. 107-126. Nicosia: University of Cyprus ­- Bank of Cyprus. Piteros, C.I. 2001. Ταφές και τεφροδόχα αγγεία τύμβου της ΓΕ ΙΙΙΓ στο Άργος. In Stampolidis, N (εκδ.) Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και την πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου: πρακτικά του Συμποσίου Ρόδος 29 Απριλίου - 2 Μαîου 1999. Athens: Πανεπιστήμιο Κρήτης. Podzuweit, C. 1983. Bericht zur Spätmykenischen Keramik- Tiryns 1981. AA 1983. 359-402. Pomeroy, S.B., Burstein, S.M., Donlan, W. and Roberts, J.T. 1999. Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pulak, C. 1998. The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview. IJNA 23: 188-224. Reddy, W.W. 1986. The Structure of a Cultural Crisis: Thinking about Cloth in France Before and After the Revolution. In Appadurai, Arjun (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. 261-284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Redman, C.L. 1999. The Development of Archaeological Theory: Explaining the Past. In Barker, Graeme (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Vol. 1. 48-80. London: Routledge. Renfrew, C. 1980. The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: Archaeology as Anthropology? AJA 84: 287298. ---. 1986. Varna and the Emergence of Wealth in Prehistoric Europe. In Appadurai, Arjun (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. 141-168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rowe, J.H. 1962. Stages and Periods in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 18: 40-54. Rudolph, W. 1971. Tiryns 1968: Mykenische und nachmykenische Streufunde von der Unterburg. In Jantzen, Ulf (ed.) Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte. Band V. 87-103. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. ---. 1973. Die Nekropole am Prophitis Elias bei Tiryns. In Jantzen, Ulf (ed.) Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte, Band VI. 23- 126. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Runnels, C.N. and Van Andel, T.H.1987. The Evolution of Settlement in the Southern Argolid, Greece: An Economic Explanation. Hesperia 56: 303-334. Runnels, C.N., Pullen, D.J. and Langdon, S. 1995. Artifact & Assemblage: The Finds from a Regional Survey of the Southern Argolid, Greece. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ruppenstein, F. 2003. Late Helladic III C Versus Submycenaean: A Methodological Problem. In DegerJalkotzy, Sigrid and Zavadil, Michaela (eds.) LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7th and 8th, 2001. 183-192. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Rutter, J. 1978. A Plea for the Abandonment of the Term “Submycenaean”. In Betancourt, Philip (ed.) TUAS 3: 58-65. Saller, R.P. and Shaw, B.D. 1984. Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principate: Civilians, Soldiers and Slaves. JRS 74: 124-156. Sanders, D. 1990. Behavioral Conventions and Archaeology: Methods for the Analysis of Ancient Architecture. In Kent, Susan (ed.) Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study. 43-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schallin, A.-L. 1996. The Late Helladic Period. In Wells, B. and Runnels, C. (eds.) The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey, 1988-1990. 123-176. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. Schoep, I. 2004. Assessing the Role of the Architecture in Conspicuous Consumption in the Middle Minoan I-II Periods. OJA 23: 243-269. Schnapp, A. and Kristiansen, K. 1999. Discovering the Past. In Barker, Graeme (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Vol. 1. 3-47. London: Routledge. Seremetakis, C.N. 1994. The Memory of the Senses, Part I: Marks of the Transitory. In Seremetakis, C. Nadia (ed.)

136

Bibliography

The Senses Still: Perception and Memory as Material Culture in Modernity. 1-18. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shanks, M. 1996. Classical Archaeology of Greece: Experiences of the Discipline. London: Routledge. Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1992. Re-Constructing Archaeology. Second edition. London: Routledge. Shaw, I. 2000. Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shelmerdine, C. 2001. The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland. In Cullen, T (ed.) Aegean Prehistory: A Review. 329-381. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America. Shelmerdine, C.W. and Bennet, J. 2008. Economy and Administration. In Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. 289306. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shelton, K.S. 1996. The Late Helladic Pottery from Prosymna. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. ---. 2000. Four Chamber Tomb Cemeteries at Mycenae. ArchEph 139: 17- 64. ---. 2003. The Cemeteries. In Iakovidis, S., French, E., Charalambos, I., Anton Jansen, John Lavery and Kim Shelton (eds.) The Archaeological Atlas of Mycenae. 35-39. Athens: The Archaeological Society at Athens. Sherratt, S. 1981. The Pottery of Late Helladic IIIC and its Significance. Unpublished D.Phil. Thesis, Sommerville College, Oxford England. ---.1982. Patterns of Contact: Manufacture and Distribution of Mycenaean Pottery, 1400- 1100 B.C. In Best, J.G.P and De Vries, N.M.W (eds.) Interaction and Acculturation in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the Second International Congrees of the Mediterranean Pre- and Protohistory Amsterdam, 19-23 November 1980. Vol. II. 179- 195. Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner ---. 1999. E pur si muove: Pots, Markets and Values in the Second Millennium Mediterranean. In Crielaard, Jan Paul, Stissi, Vladimir and Gert Jan van Wijngaarden (eds.) The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (sixteenth to early fifth centuries BC). Proceedings of the ARCHON international conference, held in Amsterdam, 8-9 November 1996. 163- 211. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. ---. 2000. Circulation of Metal and the End of the Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Pare, C.F.E. (ed.) Metals Make the World Go Round. 82-98. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ---. 2001. Potemkin Palaces and Route-Based Economies. In Voutsaki, Sofia and Killen, John (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference held on 1-3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge. 214-238. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. ---. 2005. High Precision Dating and Archaeological Chronologies: Revisiting an Old Problem. In Levy, Thomas E. and Higham, Thomas (eds.) The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science. 114-125. London: Equinox.

---. 2006. The Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery: An Outsider’s View. In Maeir, Aren M. and de Miroschedji, Pierre (eds.) “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. 361-374. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Sjöberg, B.L.1997. Two Possible Late Helladic Kilns at Asine: A Research Note. In Gillis, Carole, Risberg, Christina and Sjöberg, Birgitta (eds.) Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and Craftsmanship. Proceedings of the 4th and 5th International Workshops, Athens 1994 and 1995. 89-100. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. ---. 2003. Settlement Activity at Late Helladic Asine in the Argolid. OpAth 8: 185- 201. Smith, J. 1992-1993. The Pylos Jn Series. Minos. Revista de Filología Egea N.S. XXVII-XXVIII: 167-260. Snodgrass, A. 1987. An Archaeology of Greece: The Present State and Future Scope of a Discipline. Berkeley: University of California Press. ---. 1989. The Coming of Iron in Greece: Europe’s Earliest Bronze/ Iron Transition. In Stig Sørensen, Marie Louise and Thomas, Roger (eds.) The Bronze Age-Iron Age Transition in Europe: Aspects of Continuity and Change in European Societies c.1200 to 500 B.C. 22-35. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ---. 1991. Bronze Age Exchange: A Minimalist Position. In Gale, N.H. (ed.) Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Papers Presented at the Conference held at Rewley House, Oxford in December 1989. 15- 20. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. ---. 2000 [1971]. The Dark Age of Greece. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Stockhammer, P. 2009. The Change of Pottery’s Social Meaning at the End of the Bronze Age: New Evidence from Tiryns. In Bachhuber, Christoph and Roberts, R. Gareth (eds.) Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at St. John’s College, University of Oxford 25-6th March 2006. 164-169. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Stos-Gale, Z.A. and Macdonald C.F. 1991. Sources of Metals and Trade in the Bronze Age Aegean. In Gale, N.H. (ed.) Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Papers Presented at the Conference held at Rewley House, Oxford in December 1989. 249-288. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. Stroszeck, J. 2003. The Linguist and Archaeologist Michael Deffner at Methana. In Konsolaki- Yiannopoulou, Eleni (εκδ.) ΑΡΓΟΣΑΡΩΝΙΚΟΣ. Πρακτικά 1 ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας του Αργοσαρωνικού. Πόρος, 26-29 Ιουνίου 1998. Τομος Β’. 89-101. Athens: Δήμος Πóρου. Stubbings, F.H. 1954. A Bronze Founder’s Hoard. BSA 49: 292-296. Symeonoglou, S. 1975. Review of The Dark Age of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to

137

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200 – 900 BC.

the Eighth Centuries B.C. by A.M. Snodgrass. American Anthropologist 77: 147-149. Tainter, J.A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ---. 1999. Post-collapse Societies. In Barker, Graeme (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Vol. 2. 9881039. London: Routledge. Taylour, W.D. 1955. The Perseia Area. BSA 50: 175 -250. ---. 1981. Well Built Mycenae: The Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at Mycenae 1959-1969. Fasc. 1: The Excavations. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Thomas, C.G. and Conant, C. 1999. Citadel to CityState: The Transformation of Greece 1200-700 B.C.E. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. Thomatos, M. 2006. The Final Revival of the Aegean Bronze Age: A Case Study of the Argolid, Corinthia, Attica, Euboea, the Cyclades and the Dodecanese During LH IIIC Middle. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Tournavitou, I. 1988. Towards an Identification of Workshop Space. In French, E.B. and Wardle, K.A. (eds.) Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester April 1986. 447-468. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. ---. 1992. Practical Use and Social Function: A Neglected Aspect of Mycenaean Pottery. BSA 87: 181-210. ---. 1995. The “Ivory Houses” at Mycenae. BSA Supplement 24. London: The British School at Athens. ---. 1999. Hearths in Non-Palatial Settlement Contexts. The LBA Period in the Peloponnese. In Betancourt, Philip P., Karageorghis, Vassos, Laffineur, Robert and Wolf Dietrich Niemeier (eds.) Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he Enters his 65th Year. Vol. III. 833-840. Liège: Université de Liège. Triantaphyllou, S. 2001. A Bioarchaeological Approach to Prehistoric Cemetery Populaitons from Central and Western Greek Macedonia. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Tsountas, C. and Manatt, J.I. 1969. The Mycenaean Age: A Study of the Monuments and Culture of Pre-Homeric Greece. Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner. van der Leeuw, S. 1977. Towards a Study of the Economics of Pottery Making. In van Beek, B.L., Brandt, R.W. and Groenman- van Waateringe, W (eds). Ex Horreo: 68-76. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. ---. 1999. Exchange and Trade in Ceramics: Some Notes from the Potter’s Point of View. In Crielaard, Jan Paul, Stissi, Vladimir and van Wijngaarden, Gert Jan (eds.) The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (sixteenth to early fifth centuries BC). Proceedings of the ARCHON international conference, held in Amsterdam, 8-9 November 1996. 115-136. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. van Wijngaarden, G.J. 1999. The Complex Past of Pottery: An Introduction. In Crielaard, Jan Paul, Stissi, Vladimir and van Wijngaarden, Gert Jan (eds.) The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (sixteenth to early fifth centuries BC). Proceedings of the ARCHON

138

international conference, held in Amsterdam, 8- 9 November 1996. 1-19. J.C. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. ---. 2002. Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (ca.1600-1200 BC). Amsterdam: Univeristy of Amsterdam. Vansina, J. 1973. Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology. Trans. Wright, H.M. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. ---. 1985. Oral Tradition as History. Oxford: James Currey. Ventris, M. and Chadwick, J. 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek: Three Hundred Selected Tablets from Knossos, Pylos and Mycenae withCommentary and Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vickers, M. and Gill, D. 1994. Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Vitale, S. 2006. The LH III B – LH III C Transition on the Mycenaean Mainland: Ceramic Phases and Terminology. Hesperia 75: 177-204. Voutsaki, S. 1995. Value and Exchange in Premonetary Societies: Anthropological Debates and Aegean Archaeology. In Gillis, Carole, Risberg, Christina and Birgitta L. Sjöberg (eds.) Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Aspects of Trade. 7-18. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. ---. 1998. Mortuary Evidence, Symbolic Meanings and Social Change: A Comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean Period. In Branigan, Keith (ed.) Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. 41-58. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ---. 2001. Economic Control, Power, and Prestige in the Mycenaean World: the Archaeological Evidence. In Voutsaki, Sofia and Killen, John (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceedings of a Conference held 1-3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge. 195-213. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Voutsaki, S. and Killen, J. 2001. Introduction. In Voutsaki, Sofia and Killen, John (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceedings of a Conference held 1-3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge. 1-14. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Wace, A.J.B. 1932. Chamber Tombs at Mycenae. Archaeologia Vol. LXXXII. Oxford: Society of Antiquaries. ---. 1949. Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide. Princeton: University of Princeton Press. ---. 1953. Excavations at Mycenae 1952. PAPS 97: 248-253. ---. 1956. Mycenae 1939-1955: Preliminary Report of the Excavations of 1955. BSA 51: 103-122 Wace, A.J.B. and Wace, E.B. 1958. Introduction. In Bennett, Emmet L. and Chadwick, John (eds.) The Mycenae Tablets II. TAPS 48: 1-222. Walberg, G. 1995. The Midea Megaron and Changes in Mycenaean Ideology. Aegean Archaeology 2: 87-91. ---. 1998. Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea. Results of the Greek- Swedish Excavations Vols. 1 and 2. The Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1985-1991. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. ---. 1999a. The End of the Late Bronze Age at Midea. In

Bibliography

Laffineur, R. (ed.) Polemos: Le Contexte Guerrier en Égèe à L’Âge du Bronze. 157-160. Liège: Université de Liège. ---.1999b. The Megaron Complex on the Lower Terraces at Midea. In Betancourt, Philip P., Karageorghis, Vassos, Laffineur, Robert and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier (eds.) Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcom H. Weiner as He Enters His 65th Year. Vol. III. 887-892. Liège: Université de Liège. ---. 2007. Midea: The Megaron Complex and Shrine Area: Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1994-1997. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. Waldbaum, J.C. 1980. The First Archaeological Appearance of Iron. In Wertime, Theodore A. and Muhly, James D (eds.) The Coming of the Age of Iron. 69-98. New Haven: Yale University Press. Warren, P. and Hankey, V. 1989. Aegean Bronze Age Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Wells, B. 1976. Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970-1974. Fasc. 4, The Protogeometric Period. Part 1: The Tombs. Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, 4°, XXIV, 4, 1. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Forlag. ---. 1983. Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970-1974. Fasc. 4. The Protogeometric Period. Part 3: Catalogue of Pottery and Other Artefacts. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. ---. 1996. The Early Iron Age. In Wells, B. and Runnels, C. (eds.) The Berbati- Limnes Archaeological Survey, 1988-1990. 177-178. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. Wells, C. 1960. A Study of Cremation. Antiquity 34: 29-37. Whitelaw, T. 2001. Reading Between the Tablets: Assessing Mycenaean Palatial Involvement in Ceramic Production and Consumption. In Voutsaki, Sofia and Killen, John (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceedings of a Conference held 1-3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge. 51-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitley, J. 1991. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece: The Changing Face of a Pre-literate Society 1100-700 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ---. 2000. Review of Citadel to City-State: The Transformation of Greece, 1200 – 700 B.C.E. by Carol Thomas and Craig Conant. AJA 104: 388- 389. ---. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ---. 2004. Archaeology in Greece. AR 50: 1-92. ---. 2005. Archaeology in Greece. AR 51: 1-118. ---. 2007. Archaeology in Greece. AR 53: 1-121. Whittaker, H. 1996. The Relationship Between Mycenaean Sacred and Domestic Architecture. In De Miro, Ernesto, Godart, Louis and Anna Sacconi (eds.) Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14-20 Ottobre 1991. 1627-1635. Archeologia Volume 3. Incunabula Graeca 98. Rome: Gruppo editoriale internazionale. ---. 2001. Reflections on the Socio-Political Function of

Mycenaean Religion. In Laffineur, Robert and Hägg, Robin (eds.) Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000. 355- 360. Liège: Université of Liège. Wilcox, M. 2010. Marketing Conquest and the Vanishing Indian: An Indigenous Response to Jared Diamond’s Archaeology of the American Southwest. In McAnany, Patricia A. and Yoffee, Norman (eds.) Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Ecological Vulnerability, and the Aftermath of Empire. 113- 141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, H. 2004. Death Warmed Up: The Agency of Bodies and Bones in Early Anglo-Saxon Cremation Rites. Journal of Material Culture 9: 263-291. Wright, J.C. 1987. Death and Power at Mycenae. In Laffineur, Robert (ed.) Thanatos. Les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l’ âge du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège, 21-23 avril 1986. 171-184. Liège: Université of Liège. ---. 2004a. Comparative Settlement Patterns during the Bronze Age in the Northeast Peloponnesos, Greece. In Alcock, Susan E. and Cherry, John F. (eds.) Sideby-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. 114-131. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ---. 2004b. Mycenaean Drinking Services and Standards of Etiquette. In Halstead, Paul and Barrett, John C. Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece. 90-104. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ---. 2006. The Formation of the Mycenaean Palace. In In Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid and Lemos, Irene S. (eds.) Ancient Greece From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. 7-54. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ---. 2008a. Chamber Tombs, Family, and State in Mycenaean Greece. In Gallou, C., Georgiadis, M. and Muskett, G.M. (eds.) Dioskouroi: Studies Presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the Anniversary of their 30-Year Joint Contribution to Aegean Archaeology. 144-153. Oxford: BAR Publishing. ---. 2008b. Early Mycenaean Greece. In Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. 230-257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yoffee, N. 2003. Orienting Collapse. In Yoffee, Norman and Cowgill, George L. (eds.) The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations. 1-19. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press. ---. 2007. Peering into the Palimpsest: An Introduction to the Volume. In Yoffee, Norman (ed.) Negotiating the Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archaeological Research. 1-9. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Zangger, E.1993. The Geoarchaeology of the Argolid. Argolis 2. Berlin: Mann. ---. 1994. Landscape Changes around Tiryns during the Bronze Age. AJA 98: 189-212.

139