LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms III. LH IIIC Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, February 23rd and 24th 2007 (Wien 2009) 3700165986, 9783700165989

Citation preview

LH III C CHRONOLOGY AND SYNCHRONISMS III EDITED BY SIGRID DEGER-JALKOTZY AND ANNA ELISABETH BÄCHLE

Ö STE R R E I C H I SC HE AK ADEMIE DER W ISSENSCHAFTEN PHI L O S O P H ISC H -H IST ORISC H E KLASSE D EN KSC H RIFT E N, 384 . BAND

VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN DER MYKENISCHEN KOMMISSION BAND 30 GEMEINSAM MIT SCIEM 2000

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON SIGRID DEGER-JALKOTZY

Ö S T ER R E I C H I SC HE A K ADEMIE DER W ISSENSCHAFTEN PHI L O S O PHI S C H -H IST ORISC H E K LASSE D EN K S C H RIFT E N, 384 . BAND

LH III C CHRONOLOGY AND SYNCHRONISMS III LH III C LATE AND THE TRANSITION TO THE EARLY IRON AGE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP HELD AT THE AUSTRIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AT VIENNA FEBRUARY 23RD AND 24TH, 2007

Edited by SIGRID DEGER-JALKOTZY AND ANNA ELISABETH BÄCHLE

Vorgelegt von w. M. SIGRID DEGER-JALKOTZY in der Sitzung am 12. Dezember 2008

Coverdrawing: Three Submycenaean amphoriskoi from the Mycenaean and Early Iron Age chamber-tomb cemetery at Elateia in Central Greece B. Eder, E. Held (Inked drawings: E. Held)

Coverlayout: Hannes Weinberger

Texterstellung bzw. Textstrukturierung erfolgten unter Verwendung des Fonts TITUS Cyberbit Basic, welcher freundlicherweise vom TITUS-Projekt der Universität Frankfurt zur Verfügung gestellt wurde.

Die verwendete Papiersorte ist aus chlorfrei gebleichtem Zellstoff hergestellt, frei von säurebildenden Bestandteilen und alterungsbeständig.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten ISBN 978-3-7001-6598-9 Copyright © 2009 by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien Satz und Textlayout: Anna Elisabeth Bächle Grafik und Tafellayout: Marion Frauenglas Druck: Prime Rate kft., Budapest http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/6598-9 http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at

CONTENTS

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Programme of the Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Stelios ANDREOU, Stratified Wheel Made Pottery Deposits and Absolute Chronology of the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba . . . . . . . 15 Joost H. CROUWEL, Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age . . . 41 Fanouria DAKORONIA – Petros KOUNOUKLAS, Kynos’ Pace to the Early Iron Age . . . . . . . . 61 Sigrid DEGER-JALKOTZY, From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Katie DEMAKOPOULOU, Laconia in LH III C Late and Submycenaean: Evidence from Epidauros Limera, Pellana, the Amyklaion and Other Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Birgitta EDER, The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in Western Greece: Submycenaean Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Elizabeth FRENCH, Mycenae: LH III C Late: What Little There Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Walter GAUSS, The Last Mycenaeans at Aigeira and Their Successors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Reinhard JUNG – Stelios ANDREOU – Bernhard WENINGER, Synchronisation of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba at the End of the Bronze and the Beginning of the Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Bartłomiej LIS, The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements – a Fresh Look at Old and New Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Ioannis MOSCHOS, Western Achaea During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period – The Final Mycenaean Phase and the Submycenaean Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Penelope A. MOUNTJOY, LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Tobias MÜHLENBRUCH, Tiryns – The Settlement and its History in LH III C . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Florian RUPPENSTEIN, The Transitional Phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric: Definition and Comperative Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Philipp STOCKHAMMER, New Evidence for LH III C Late Pottery from Tiryns . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Aleydis VAN DE MOORTEL, The Late Helladic III C – Protogeometric Transition at Mitrou, East Lokris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 Bernhard WENINGER – Reinhard JUNG, Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 Report on the Final General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

PREFACE

On February 23rd and 24th 2007 the last workshop on “LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms” was held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna. These workshops were part of the “End of the Mycenaean Culture” project within the framework of the Special Project Group SCIEM 2000 (“The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd Millennium B.C.”). In 2009 this large-scale interdisciplinary research programme has come to a close. As will be remembered, the “LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms” workshops served the purpose of developing a generally applicable chronological framework of the LH III C period and to contribute to a better understanding of the history of this important phase of the early history of Greece.1 We now present the proceedings of “LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms III: LH III C Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age”. To our great satisfaction many contributions were made by scholars of the younger generation. We take this as a sign that our project has fallen on fertile ground. Apart from the presentation of mostly unpublished materials from old and new excavations, many subjects concerning the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Ages were discussed. One of the main topics was the much debated question whether or not a so-called Submycenaean period existed, and if so, how should it be defined? Several speakers pointed out that the end of the Mycenaean civilisation and the transition to the Early Iron Age were expressed by different phenomena in the various regions of Greece. Therefore Submycenaean ought to be viewed as a separate chronological phase rather than merely as a pottery style. Moreover, a new proposal for the absolute chronology of the end of the Late Bronze Age was suggested which will certainly raise a lively discussion (see below). It had been planned to organise a further workshop on the synchronisation of cultures of the 12th century B.C. in the Aegean and in Italy. However, in the course of SCIEM 2000 this subject was treated monographically and was included into the “End of the Mycenaean Culture” project.2 A final volume containing a summary of the results of the workshops, a LH III C bibliography and a gazetteer of LH III C sites is in progress. It is expected to be ready in 2010. It may be stated that the “LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms” project has been widely acknowledged by the international academic community. Above all, the period of LH III C is increasingly attracting the attention of scholars, and particularly of young researchers in the

1

For the three previous workshops see S. Deger-Jalkotzy – M. Zavadil (eds.), LH III C Chronology and

Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7 th and 8 th, 2001 (DenkschrWien 310 = Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 20 gemeinsam mit SCIEM 2000). Vienna 2003. – S. Deger-Jalkotzy – M. Zavadil (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II: LH III C Middle. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October 29 th and 30 th, 2004 (DenkschrWien 362 = Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 28 gemeinsam mit SCIEM 2000). Vienna 2007. – Section: “Mycenaeans and Philistines in the Levant”, 501–629 in: M. Bietak – E. Czerny (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediter-

ranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2 nd EuroConference, Vienna 28 th of May – 1 st of June 2003 (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9. Österreichische 2

Akademie der Wissenschaften / Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 37). Vienna 2007. See R. Jung, Χρονολογία comparata. Vergleichende Chronologie von Südgriechenland und Süditalien von ca. 1700/1600 bis 1000 v. u. Z. (DenkschrWien 348 =Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 26). Vienna 2006.

8

Preface

field of Aegean Prehistory and Early Greek history. LH III C is no longer merely regarded as an anti-climax to the era of the Mycenaean palaces or as the first phase of an inglorious “Dark Age”. The period is now accepted as a historical period in its own right which played a decisive role during the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age of Greece. Secondly, the “End of the Mycenaean Culture” project has, indeed, contributed to the promotion of a chronological framework for LH III C. A new phasing system for the Argolid is being developed jointly by excavators and pottery specialists from Mycenae and Tiryns in close co-operation with Dr. P. A. Mountjoy. It may be expected that it will be applicable to the cultural elements of LH III C in other Aegean regions. Moreover, B. Weninger, R. Jung and St. Andreou have discussed the absolute chronology for the end of LH III C and the transition to the Early Iron Age.3 Thus two new starting points for the relative and the absolute chronology of LH III C have emerged. However, in our mind the most important result of the “LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms” workshops rests with the development of a continuing international dialogue. Further conferences on the period between the fall of the Mycenaean palaces and the rise of the Protogeometric Age have since been organised e.g. at Athens in 2003, Edinburgh in 2003, Zagreb in 2005, Udine in 2006, Volos in 2007 and Oxford in 2009. Furthermore, Homeric scholars, too, have become aware of the post-palatial period. It has become increasingly clear that LH III C must have had an impact on the transmittance of Greek epic poetry. This is borne out in particular by the representations of the “Pictorial Style” in vase-painting of LH III C Middle. It will perhaps take some time until the results of the “End of the Mycenaean Culture” project will be received by scholars in other fields of Antiquity and Classical Studies. However, we are confident that the results will soon begin to show. It is our pleasant duty to express our sincere thanks to the following persons and institutions: The Austrian Academy of Sciences, and Austrian Science Fund, and SCIEM 2000. – Generalsekretär Prof. Dr. Herwig Friesinger, Mag. Lisbeth Triska, Dr. Martina Milletich, Mag. Bernhard Plunger, Hannes Weinberger, Gerald Reisenbauer and Robert Pühringer (Austrian Academy of Sciences). – Dr. Michaela Zavadil and Mag. Marion Frauenglas (Mykenische Kommission). – Prof. Dr. Manfred Bietak, Mag. Dagmar Melman, Dr. Angela Schwab (SCIEM 2000). Nicola Nightingale, B.A. kindly corrected the English versions of several papers.

Vienna, March 2009

3

The Editors

See JUNG – ANDREOU – WENINGER this volume. – WENINGER – JUNG this volume. The chronology suggested by these authors is based on an interdisciplinary scrutiny of the recent tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon data from Macedonia, Tiryns, Tell Kazel and Ugarit.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

This list includes abbreviations of frequently quoted monographs, series and periodicals which are not included in the list of abbreviations published in the American Journal of Archaeology.

AEMTH

Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη

LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms S. DEGER-JALKOTZY – M. ZAVADIL (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7 th and 8 th, 2001 (DenkschrWien 310 = Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 20 gemeinsam mit SCIEM 2000). Vienna 2003.

LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II S. DEGER-JALKOTZY – M. ZAVADIL (eds.), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October 29 th and 30 th, 2004 (DenkschrWien 362 = Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 28 gemeinsam mit SCIEM 2000). Vienna 2007.

MDP

P. A. MOUNTJOY, Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. A Guide to Identification (SIMA 73). Göteborg 1986.

Περιφέρεια

Η Περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού Κόσμου. Α’ Διεθνές Διεπιστημονικό Συμπόσιο, Λαμία, 25–29 Σεπτεμβρίου 1994. Lamia 1999.

RMDP

P. A. MOUNTJOY, Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. Rahden/Westf. 1999.

ABBREVIATIONS

ChT

Chamber Tomb

Inv. no.

Inventory number

Cat. no.

Catalogue number

IA

Iron Age

Diam.

Diameter

L

Longitude

EIA

Early Iron Age

LBA

Late Bronze Age

EH

Early Helladic

LH

Late Helladic

EPG

Early Protogeometric

LPG

Late Protogeometric

FM

Furumark Motif

MBA

Middle Bronze Age

FS

Furumark Shape

MH

Middle Helladic

FT

Furumark Type

MPG

Middle Protogeometric

FBA

Final Bronze Age

NMA

National Museum Athens

G

Geometric

PG

Protogeometric

Ht.

Height

SM

Submycenaean

STELIOS ANDREOU

STRATIFIED WHEEL MADE POTTERY DEPOSITS AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LBA TO THE EIA TRANSITION AT THESSALONIKI TOUMBA*

A significant increase in the amount of Mycenaean vases is observed in all of the excavated settlements in Central Macedonia when LH III C style decorated pottery became current (WARDLE 1993, 130–133 with fig. 5. – HOCHSTETTER 1984, 12, fig. 1. – JUNG 2002, 221–229). Mycenaean pottery, however, still comprised only a small section of the ceramic table ware assemblage, which remained primarily hand made. Moreover, it has been noted that during the last part of the Late Bronze Age, despite possible variations in quantity from site to site, the presence of the Mycenaean ware was ubiquitous in settlements, regardless of their location (JUNG 2003). The complex historical circumstances which may have been responsible for this impressive rise in the popularity of this class of vessels in the communities of Central Macedonia at the end of the LBA have been discussed elsewhere (ANDREOU 2003, 196–202). It is generally assumed, although it is not always easy to document, that most of the LH III C style pottery was locally produced in several small scale, dispersed, sub-regional production sites (ANDREOU 2003, 196. – KIRIATZI 2000, 257–258). This view is strengthened by the observation that the circulation of Mycenaean vases was more or less confined within the limits of each subregion of the area and by the occasional existence of local morphological features (JUNG 2003, 140). Nevertheless, the trends, in terms of regional technological and stylistic preferences and their development and in terms of patterns of use of this special class of containers, were more or less uniform in the area (BUXEDA I GARRIGOS – JONES – LEVI – KILIKOGLOU – MANIATIS – MITCHELL – VAGNETTI – WARDLE – ANDREOU 2003, 279–281. – KIRIATZI 2000, 197–226. – ANDREOU – PSARAKI 2007, 416–417). There are indications that a regional LH III C style developed which was based on the selection of a narrow repertoire of shapes and decorative motifs and at the same time was not particularly amenable to innovations spreading from the South (JUNG 2003, 140. – ANDREOU 2003, 195. – Cf. RMDP, 15). As a result, several morphological features remained current in Central Macedonia for a much longer period than elsewhere in the Aegean. Although there are strong elements of ceramic continuity between the LBA and the EIA, the number of incoming innovations regarding the wheel made component of the ceramic assemblage increased and probably gained some momentum towards the end of the LBA and during the beginning of the EIA. This is documented by the introduction of a new class of wheel made ware, the fine Grey Ware and of some new shapes and decorative motifs, the concentric circles painted with a multiple brush being the most characteristic among them *

My warm thanks especially to Professor S. Deger-Jalkotzy for the invitation to participate in the workshop and the warm hospitality in Vienna and to Dr. M. Zavadil for arranging all the details. K. Efkleidou prepared the illustrations for the paper. The pottery drawings are by R. Exarhou and the plan and the stratigraphical sections by G. Vlahodimos. I. Mavroidi helped with the pottery study over the years. I am grateful to them all. I owe special thanks to Dr. R. Jung for discussions and advice on comparisons with Kastanas Toumba and for valuable suggestions regarding the final version of the text. Dr. Y. Maniatis, who dated several of the 14C samples, was always available for discussions regarding the radiocarbon dates and their problems. I am fully responsible, however, for all the mistakes and inadequacies of the paper.

16

Stelios Andreou

(JUNG 2003, 138–139. – ANDREOU 2003, 195). At the same time a radical change occurred in the circulation of the wheel made decorated pottery, which either disappeared completely from some settlements or its frequency decreased gradually in others (WARDLE 1980, 260. – WARDLE 1997, 454. – HÄNSEL 1989, 339). Other changes, which also took place at different points in the same broad chronological horizon, stress the importance of the period which spans the end of the LBA and the first centuries of the EIA in Central Macedonia and the divergence of the area from the course of developments seen in the rest of the Aegean during the same period. These changes include an increase in the number of settlements, the growth in size of some settlements, the first appearance of cemeteries in Central Macedonia, etc. (PAPADOPOULOS 2005. – ANDREOU – EXARHOU forthcoming). The need for clear, long and secure sequences, which will allow the chronological correlation of changes in Macedonia and which will relate them with developments outside the area in order to enhance their understanding, is evident. The long stratigraphical sequences, such as those provided from the long lived tells of Central Macedonia, present an obvious advantage for such a study. So far, Jung’s exemplary publication of the Mycenaean and Protogeometric style pottery from the Kastanas Toumba remains the only fully published settlement assemblage of wheel made ceramics from Central Macedonia (JUNG 2002). Only preliminary accounts regarding the characteristics and development of the decorated wheel made wares exist for the other three recently excavated sites in the area, namely Assiros Toumba (WARDLE 1980, 250–252. – WARDLE 1993, 127, 130–133), Thessaloniki Toumba (ANDREOU N. D. – ANDREOU 2003) and the Toumba of Ayios Mamas (JUNG 2003). All sites cover the LBA–EIA transition and continued to be occupied during the EIA. A drawback of the Kastanas Toumba sequence, however, is the long duration, perhaps over 100 years, of the crucial Level 12, (HÄNSEL 1989, 188), which spans both the end of the LH III C phase and the beginning of PG without any identifiable reconstruction in between. As a result, it is not possible to observe stratigraphically the introduction of innovations, which may be related either to the latest LH III C stylistic phases, the Sub-Mycenaean or the Early Protogeometric (JUNG 2003, 136). If the regional tendency to retain stylistic features long after they have been abandoned elsewhere is combined with this problem, then the ability to obtain accurate intra and inter-regional chronological correlations loses some strength. The difficulties are even greater in Assiros Toumba, where after Phase 5, placed by the excavator at the end of the LBA, wheel made pottery disappeared from the site, with the exception of the fragments of one PG amphora dated probably to Early/Middle PG (WARDLE 1997, fig.3:2. – NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 135–136). Similarly to Kastanas and Assiros, Thessaloniki Toumba has a long stratigraphical sequence, which goes back to the MBA. In addition, it provides a series of stratified deposits, which bridge the period from the beginning of LH III C to EPG and contain examples of Mycenaean and Protogeometric pottery (ANDREOU – KOTSAKIS 1997). A number of 14C dates from these deposits can also be added to the series of absolute dates, which have been published so far from Kastanas and Assiros Toumbas (JUNG – WENINGER 2002. – JUNG – WENINGER 2004. – NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007). The purpose of this paper is to present the main features of the wheel made pottery form the architectural phases of the final LBA and very early EIA levels of Thessaloniki Toumba in order to facilitate the synchronisms with other Macedonian settlements and with the central and southern mainland and the eventual construction of a detailed chronological framework for the course of the developments during the LBA–EIA transition in the northern Aegean. THE SITE AND THE DEPOSITS The Thessaloniki Toumba is located ca. 1.5 km from the present coast of the Thermaikos bay, on the low hills that enclose the narrow coastal plain of Thessaloniki from the east. The site is one of the largest tells in Central Macedonia with a perimeter of ca 400 m and maximum length

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

17

and width of 150 and 100 m respectively and rises ca. 20 m above the Iron Age settlement, which spread around it after the middle of the 9th century BC. The excavation has shown that the site was first occupied at the end of EBA and continued to be used until the end of the 4th century BC, when the mound was abandoned, together with the surrounding lower town. The deposits, which we are concerned with here are located on the summit of the mound, where occupation was restricted during the later LBA (ANDREOU – KOTSAKIS 1997. – ANDREOU 2001, 166–168. – ANDREOU – PSARAKI 2007, 401–403). Several blocks of orthogonal rooms, over a dozen in each building, have been excavated there, divided by narrow pebble strewn paths (Fig. 1). The walls of the buildings were post framed and built with mud bricks. Posts were also used to support the roofs. Low rubble foundations supported the external walls and vertically placed stones often protected the lower courses of walls that faced onto streets. Buildings and paths were reconstructed repeatedly with minor changes in their plan and directly on top of former structures and streets. In order to be able to evaluate the information regarding the deposits of the LBA settlement one has to be aware of the basic depositional and post-depositional processes that are responsible for the formation of these deposits. The procedure that was usually followed before each reconstruction involved the leveling of the previous walls to a certain height. The room was filled with the debris of the previous phase, which usually comprised a thick and often rich stratum containing large quantities of broken and disintegrated mud bricks along with other finds. The new walls were reconstructed on top of the short protruding part of the former walls, with or without the intervention of a few courses of stones, which comprised the foundation of the new construction. Repeated wall reconstructions are more clearly recognizable, primarily when a rubble stone foundation had been used. Otherwise, it is often difficult to identify reconstructions in interior brick walls, which may be up to two meters of height with successive floors at different depths. Floors, as a rule, were made of trodden earth, which makes them equally hard to recognize, with hearths, and cupboards and baskets standing on top of them, and clay bins and pithoi sunk down in them. On most occasions floors were kept clean and floor deposits are thin and not very productive in terms of artifacts and ecofacts. Open spaces, such as streets, and internal courts are usually identified through the loose, soft light grey earth, which contained huge amounts of rubbish of all kinds, from broken pottery to bones and shells. The LBA settlement of Thessaloniki Toumba did not suffer any destruction by fire; neither has any other episode of widespread destruction been recognized. This fact has several consequences for the character of the deposits. As a rule, the degree of fragmentation of the pottery is high. There is no means to be certain that the blocks of the settlement, or even the separate rooms of the same building, underwent reconstruction simultaneously, although some episodes of more general reconstruction can be observed in separate buildings, such as the reconstruction between Phases 3 and 4A. These phases of reconstruction, usually identified in the external walls, have been used to mark the different architectural phases. Minor reconstructions and the reconstructions of floors have been used to mark the sub-phases. Some sub-phases could be further subdivided, but this has been avoided in this paper. Furthermore, it was often only possible to follow a floor in a small part of the room, while it was more difficult to distinguish the material belonging to different floors and sub-phases in the rest. For this reason we preferred, for the purposes of this paper, to combine the material of successive sub-phases, at least for Phase 4, which is the one with the longest duration, for this later part of the LBA. Similarly, one has to keep in mind that there is no way to determine that different sub-phases were exactly contemporary in the different rooms. Finally, some processes are more or less endemic in tell formations and sometimes strongly affect the chronological identity of a find or a group of finds and their ability to date the surrounding context. One must assume that there was continuous recycling of all kinds of material, from mud bricks to wooden posts, to tools, and ceramic vessels, particularly the large pithoi. In fact, the re-use of the latter, which are occasionally enormous and must have been considered very valuable, was a constant cause of disturbance. Quite

18

Stelios Andreou

often, pits were dug to facilitate the extraction of pithoi, which left their traces on the profile of the trench (Fig. 2). On other occasions pits must have been dug down into older levels beneath the floors to put in pithoi, which could have been extracted from the earlier levels of adjacent rooms in the reconstructed house. These activities were often, but not always, recognizable during the excavation. Occasionally they were recognized during the study, but it is possible that some must have escaped our attention. The discussion that follows is based on the detailed study of Building A, which was excavated almost totally, on three rooms of Building B to the northeast of Building A and the streets between the two complexes. Building Z, the study of which was just finished, has not been included in this account. The earliest remains on the summit belong to Phase 5 (Fig. 2), which must have come to an end in LH III B, although LH III A2 pottery is also included in its deposits (ANDREOU 2003, fig. 5).1 Phase 4 is the first and the longest of the phases which contain LH III C style pottery. Its last sub-phase, Phase 4A, provides the most complete picture in terms of architecture and activities in the rooms of Buildings A and B (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, there are substantial floors and deposits, which belong primarily to Phase 4C and to a lesser extent to Phase 4D (only in the most southwestern rooms of Building A) (Fig. 2). Several of the large pithoi, which were concentrated in the two storerooms of the building had been put in during this period and continued to be used in Phases 4B–4A, when additional pithoi were added to these and to one more room. Clay bins were also used in two rooms during this period (A3 and A5). No deposits belonging to these phases were found in Building B. Phases 4B–4A comprise the thickest deposits (actually they mostly belong to Phase 4A). This is because a major reconstruction took place after the end of the period, at the beginning of Phase 3. As a result, almost all the rooms comprise deep fill deposits which belong to the very end of the phase, mixed with mud bricks. As a rule, one finds sherds joining from top to bottom in these deposits. This event is seen in both buildings and the possibility that the reconstruction could have been necessiated by an earthquake cannot be ruled out, since some large parts of walls were found tumbled into the rooms. Three rooms in Building A (A11, A5, A8) and two in Building B (B1, B2) were crowded with large pithoi during this phase (MARGOMENOU – ANDREOU – KOTSAKIS 2007) and there is some evidence for metalworking, including gold working in the former (MAVROIDI – ANDREOU – VAVELIDIS 2006). New foundation courses were laid, occasionally with large stones, at the start of Phase 3 on top of the standing parts of external walls. The buildings followed faithfully the plan of the previous phase with only occasional movement of some of the internal walls. The deposits of Phase 3 on the western part of Building A were, to a large extent, eroded and disturbed and walls were rarely preserved above the first course of the foundation (Fig. 2). Sealed deposits and secure floors, reconstructed at least twice, belonging to this phase, were only found in Building B and the NE corner of Building A (Fig. 3). Some rooms in Building A contained small hearths, but only few of the pithoi of Phase 4 remained in use in one of the storage rooms of the previous phase (A10). It is possible that the northern room of Building B was covered with a light roof made of straw, judged by the layer of phytoliths which was found on the floor. This

1

More substantial deposits of Phase 5, which can be further divided into several sub-phases, have been excavated just below the edge of the summit. They belong to two adjacent buildings, M and H. Nevertheless, so far no clearly LH III A2 deposit has been identified. The earliest stratified Mycenaean sherd found at Toumba is a strap handle, probably from a squat jug, FS 87, which should be dated to LH II A or LH II B, depending, if it originated in the Argolid or in Thessaly (MDP, figs. 21:1; 45:1). I am more inclined towards the former. The piece came from a secure floor deposit of Phase 6 in Building H. I thank Dr. P. Mountjoy for information on this sherd. A few more LH II fragments have been found in later deposits, indicating the sporadic introduction of Mycenaean style pottery to the site at an early date.

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

19

might indicate a working area, an interpretation which is supported by the large amounts of crashed murex shells, which were the by-products of purple dye production (VEROPOULIDOU – ANDREOU – KOTSAKIS 2007). Evidence for storage in straw baskets was found in one of the southern rooms. As a rule, deposits of this period were not particularly deep. Architectural remains assigned to Phase 2B have only been found in three trenches (Fig. 1, nos. 232, 242, 241) of Building A, and in one trench of Building B. A rich deposit of pottery has been provided by the excavation of the street between the two complexes. The remains of this phase are eroded in the central and western part of the excavation (Figs. 2 and 3). There is little doubt, however, that the plan of the settlement remained unchanged during this period as well. A major reconstruction of the NE corner of Building A and similar work on the western wall of Building B initiated the period. A number of floors and the construction of an oven in the northern room of Building B indicate that the period was not particularly short. On the other hand it is possible that the southern room of the building remained out of use. In Building A, the soft gray layer that accumulated in one of the rooms probably indicates the existence of a yard at the NE corner (Fig. 1). Secure deposits of Phase 2A, the earliest EIA phase, were only found in Building B, floor and fill, and in the street between A and B, the latter being quite a substantial deposit with several events of street reconstruction (Figs. 1 and 3). Building A was almost totally eroded, with the exception of its northern part, where a room with several clay bins was found right underneath the surface. Again, there is no reason to believe that the plans of the buildings saw any substantial alterations. The foundation course of the eastern wall of Building A, belonging to Phase 2A, is still in place as were a pile of stones, which probably formed some sort of staircase to enter the eastern room of Building A. Nevertheless, no secure deposits have been preserved inside Building A. No architectural remains of the EIA have been found on the summit after the end of Phase 2A. There is evidence from pits and occasional and incoherent foundations, which indicate that the summit continued to be occupied. It is likely however, that the remains were partly eroded and partly leveled in the 6th century BC, when a number of substantial buildings were built on the eastern and western edge of the summit (ANDREOU – KOTSAKIS 1997). THE MYCENAEAN AND PROTOGEOMETRIC STYLE POTTERY IN THE DEPOSITS OF PHASES 4 TO 2 At this point we shall include in our discussion the wheel made pottery from Phases 4 to 2 and their sub-phases, because as we shall see many ceramic features, which start with the first occurrence of the LH III C stylistic features in the deposits of the site, continue or only develop modestly up to the beginning of the EIA.2 It has already been mentioned that the wheel made component in the deposits of the Macedonian sites comprises only a small fraction of the total ceramic assemblage, which includes several handmade plain, burnished, painted, incised, cooking and pithos wares.3 However, in the deposits which we are interested in here, a remarkable increase is apparent in the amount of wheel made pottery at the end of the LBA and particularly at the very beginning of the EIA (Fig. 4). This rise is exaggerated to some extent by the fact that Phases 2B and 2A comprise substantial street deposits, as opposed to the other phases, which include only room fill and floor deposits. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe that the amount of wheel made pottery

2 3

Jung discusses this issue in the publication of Kastanas (JUNG 2002). For discussions on the different wares from Thessaloniki Toumba see KIRIATZI 2000. – PSARAKI 2004. – MARGOMENOU 2005. – For quantitative data regarding the amount of Mycenaean ware in relation to the rest of the table wares at Toumba see ANDREOU 2003, 194 n. 15.

20

Stelios Andreou

used at the site increased at the beginning of the EIA, that is in Phase 2A. A similar rise has also been noted during the same period in the settlement of Kastanas (HOCHSTETTER 1984, 12 fig. 1; 187 fig. 49). The main morphological and technological features of the wheel made decorated pottery will be described according to the grouping of the deposits that has been proposed above. Technologically,4 the Mycenaean style pottery of sub-phases 4D–4C indicates a considerable variability in pastes, finishing techniques, firing conditions and paints (Fig. 5). In general terms all pottery is fine and the surface is either burnished or carefully smoothed. The two main macroscopic technological groups (1 and 7), despite their considerable internal variability, can be described as one which uses fine red-orange pastes and dull reddish paints (Fig. 7:1,2,4) and another with pinkish-buff pastes and lustrous dark paints for the decoration. Chemical analysis has suggested that the latter probably included some imports from Central Greece (Fig. 7:3). With the exception of ceramic group 0 which contained a variety of more or less unique specimens, the other smaller groups are quite distinct and homogeneous. Bell shaped deep bowls are by far the most common shape and include both the variant with the knobbed or everted rim and the regular type with the splaying rim (FS 284/285) (Fig. 7:1– 4). Most are decorated with the wide, horizontal wavy band with gentle undulating, very characteristic of LH III A2/III B and the very beginning of LH III C. They occasionally have stemmed-bowl type decoration (RMDP, 37 fig. 3:302. – RUTTER 2003, 197; 210 fig. 10). No stems of stemmed bowls, however, have been found at Toumba, as opposed to Kastanas (JUNG 2002, 71). The wavy band retains a very high popularity as a decorative motif for deep bowls until Phase 2A. Nevertheless, this particular smoothly undulating version seems to disappear from the site after Phase 3. Wavy band deep bowls with linear decorated interiors are by far more common during this phase than those with monochrome interiors (Fig. 6). The latter decoration was common in southern Greece in LH III B, but continued during the transitional period and LH III C Early in several areas of the eastern Peloponnes (RMDP, 37 fig. 3. – RUTTER 2003, 197, 210 fig. 10). Both varieties of wavy band bowls were particularly popular in Kastanas in Levels 14b and 14a (JUNG 2002, pls. 6–7; 9:101). Spirals on the bottom of deep bowls with linear interiors were also common during the beginning of LH III C (MDP, 151) and several examples with this type of decoration are present in the early Phase 4 deposits of Toumba. Monochrome bowls have not been identified prior to Phase 3 at Toumba. Linear deep semiglobular cups are another characteristic shape in Phases 4D and 4C (Fig. 7:7), which seems to be a typical feature of LH III C Early contexts in central and southern Greece (RMDP, 183. – RUTTER 2003, 197) and also appears in Kastanas Level 14a (JUNG 2002, pl. 12:129). Some characteristic closed shapes in Phase 4D and 4C deposits, although not very finely dated, are also compatible with LH III C Early. These are an amphoriskos (Fig. 8:1), a flat everted rim with painted strokes from a large closed vessel (Fig. 8:4), a cooking pot (Fig. 8:2) and the painted neck of a medium-large closed vase (Fig. 8:3).5 Phases 4D and 4C then seem to fall inside the limits of LH III C Early and are chronologically comparable with Levels 14b and 14a of the nearby settlement of Kastanas Toumba (JUNG 2002, 222–223).6 Technological and morphological variability increased slightly in Phases 4B and 4A (Fig. 5). Perhaps the most important innovation was the introduction, although in very small numbers, of a new wheel made ware, the Fine Gray Ware (EXARHOU 2004). This class of pottery is also

4

5

6

The pottery was extensively sampled for refiring tests, petrographic and chemical analysis and results are in the processing stage. For a description of the technological characteristics of each ceramic group see ANDREOU N. D. – KIRIATZI 2000, 200–215. For the amphoriskos see RMDP, fig. 40:306. – For the everted rim see MDP, fig. 200:2 and the cooking pot RUTTER 2003, 207 fig. 7. For more on a comparison between the stratigraphies of Thessaloniki Toumba and Kastanas Toumba see JUNG – ANDREOU – WENINGER this volume.

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

21

known from Kastanas, where it first appeared in Level 13, again in very small quantities (JUNG 2002, 200, 446). The only shape present in the Thessaloniki Toumba LBA levels is the imitation of the deep bowl (FS 284/285) (cf. JUNG 2002, pl. 65:531,532).7 Deep bowls of various sizes, including the variant with knobbed or everted rim, continued to be the predominant shape in the Mycenaean style ware. While linear examples still predominated (Fig. 9:1–2) monochrome interiors became more common than in previous periods (Figs. 6; 9:3–6). Most vases display only linear decoration. The wavy line, however, was still the most popular motif (Fig. 9:5). Two new motifs made their appearance during these phases, the inverted horns motif (Fig. 9:3) and the tassel (Fig. 9:4. – JUNG 2002, 83–85). The single example of the latter may actually be a wavy band, but there are several examples of the former in the deposits of Phases 4B and 4A. As is the case with the wavy line, they occur on deep bowls and on larger vessels. The horns motif, if not a local invention, is a local selection, which continues to be seen at Toumba in Phases 2B and 2A (Fig. 13:1). Outside Macedonia, it appears only rarely and in a restricted geographical zone (JUNG 2002, 84–85 fig. 16). For chronological purposes it may be useful, however, to point out that the few stylistically remote parallels from central and southern Greece belong to the later part of LH III C Early and to LH III C Middle (RMDP, fig. 77:197. – MDP, fig. 206:2). At Kastanas the horns appeared first in Level 14b (JUNG 2002, pl. 6:65) and continued without interruption until Levels 12 and 11. On the other hand, the tassel is already seen on closed vessels in south and central Greece in LH III C Early. On deep bowls, however, it does not appear before LH III C Middle and then only rarely (MDP, 137, 160). At Kastanas the motif first occurred in Level 13 (JUNG 2002, 91–92). Few kraters were found in the deposits of these sub-phases.8 A presumably ring based krater with thickened rim, linear interior and decoration of wavy line, tricurved arch or tassel (Fig. 9:8) may be more compatible with a LH III C Middle date.9 Two fragments of another krater with monochrome interior display an intricate decoration of two reversed rows of semicircles or tricurved arch and interspaces filled with concentric arcs (Fig. 9:10).10 Finally, an atypical krater, perhaps spouted (FS 298), with a narrow decorative zone (Fig. 9:7) may also compare to LH III C Middle examples in terms of shape (RMDP, fig. 309:259,260). A series of large and small closed shapes were also found in the rich deposits of Phases 4B and 4A (primarily the latter). Several fragments belonged to belly handled amphoras (FS 58) (Fig. 10:1), a type which became more common in LH III C Middle in south and central Greece (MDP, 161). Smaller (FS 59) and larger amphoriskoi (FS 61) occasionally had three handles and wavy band decoration (Fig. 10:2–4). They are also better placed in LH III C Middle in the South (cf. RMDP, figs. 99:227; 384:16; 385:18). The

7

8

9 10

One or two additional shapes were present at Kastanas, the carinated cup (FS 240) and the shallow bowl (FS 295). Both are also seen at Toumba, but in disturbed levels. Fine Grey Ware pottery, with a different repertoire, gradually increasing in numbers, continued to be used at Toumba, Kastanas and other sites in Central Macedonia during the EIA (EXARHOU 2004. – ANDREOU – EXARHOU forthcoming). The first appearance of fine Grey Ware at Toumba, during the high period of the presence of Mycenaean style pottery, supports Jung’s view, which connects the earliest Macedonian examples with the wheel made Grey Ware vessels that are seen in late LH III B and earlier LH III C contexts in Southern and Central Greece (JUNG 2002, 198–199). The fact that Grey Ware was not widely popular in the Mycenaean regions provides further support to the claim that it were primarily the Macedonian consumers and producers that shaped the local repertoire of wheel made pottery with choices, which were tailored to their own needs (ANDREOU 2003, 193, 195). Kraters and basins were generally few in the deposits of Thessaloniki Toumba. For quantitative data on the different classes of shapes see ANDREOU 2003. Cf. MDP, fig. 223:2. Only one of the two fragments is shown here. A larger and better preserved ring based krater with identical decoration from a different building has been illustrated elsewhere (ANDREOU 2003, fig. 9, KA 665). No good parallels have been found, but some remote similarities may be seen with kraters of LH III C Middle (MDP, figs. 223–225).

22

Stelios Andreou

small piriform jars with kylix foot, probably the most characteristic shape of the regional Mycenaean style in Macedonia, may also be dated to LH III C Early or Middle. At Kastanas two were found in Level 14b and may be earlier than the Toumba examples shown here (Fig. 10:5–6).11 Finally, two juglets are less decisive for dating purposes, but both in terms of form and decoration belong to LH III C Early or Middle.12 Sub-Phases 4B and 4A, should probably be contemporary with the later part of LH III C Early and the early part of LH III C Middle. It also looks probable that they partly overlapped with Kastanas Levels 14a and 13. With Phase 3 some significant changes can be seen in the technological groups that comprise the ceramic assemblage. Two new groups begin (11P and 1P), which will gradually grow and along with others will replace the earlier ceramic groups by Phase 2A (Fig. 5). The two groups also break down to a more orange-red and a buff variety. Their pastes are less fine, but are better fired. Their surfaces are less carefully smoothed and the paints duller even when fired to a dark brown or black. A second important feature is that during this period, for the first time the monochrome interiors outnumber the linear in deep bowls. Moreover, the first monochrome deep bowls occurred in the deposits of Toumba (Figs. 6; 11:5). In effect there are several indications that in this phase the Mycenaean style pottery of the site approached more closely the norms of LH III C style pottery that had been current for some time in the rest of the Aegean. Monochrome interiors of deep bowls may now have a reserved band below the rim inside (Fig. 11:8)13 or a painted band below a reserved rim band outside (Fig. 11:4).14 Tassels also occurred more often on bowls and on large closed vessels (Figs. 11:2–3; 12:6).15 A motif which appeared for the first time in this phase and subsequently became common at Toumba is the group of double or triple horizontal or vertical wavy lines in bowls, cups and large vessels (Figs. 11:6–7; 12:7). This is a characteristic motif in LH III C Middle contexts in the southern and central mainland (MDP, figs. 200:19; 204). At Kastanas it was first found on a closed vessel in Level 13, but it became common in Level 12 (JUNG 2002, 92–93. pls. 18:205; 23: 260–263). Similarly, the horn motif which is seen in a closed vessel of Phase 3 at Thessaloniki Toumba (Fig. 12:5) finds parallels in Kastanas Level 12 (JUNG 2002, 185). Another characteristic feature, which was known in the southern mainland since LH III C Early and appeared at Toumba for the first time in Phase 3 and at Kastanas in Level 13 is the hollow rim of large closed vessels (Fig. 12:1–2). Flat everted and painted rims of closed vessels (Fig. 12:3), which were previously rare also became common from Phase 3 onwards. Finally, the cut-away neck jug, a shape which has attracted interest and discussion regarding the recognition of hybridization processes in the Mycenaean style pottery of Macedonia, also appeared during the same phase.16 There are no compelling reasons to consider Phase 3 as later than the end of LH III C Middle. On the other hand there are indications for overlapping with both Levels 13 and 12 of Kastanas. Two additional technological groups were added to the assemblage in Phase 2B, gradually replacing the ceramic traditions that were dominant in Phases 4 and 5 at the site (Fig. 5).17 The common characteristic of the new groups is again the drop in quality of the pottery in terms of coarseness, surface treatment, paint application etc., while in other respects, such as firing,

11

12 13 14 15 16

17

For a discussion of the type and its distribution see JUNG 2002, 167–169 and pl. 8:89–90. Feet which could belong either to kylikes or to stemmed small piriform jars also occur in levels of Phases 4D and 4C, but it is impossible to distinguish one from the other. Cf. RMDP, figs. 210:340–341; 261:176. MDP, 176–177. As in Kastanas Level 12 (JUNG 2002, fig. 20 decor 9.3). Also in Level 13 of Kastanas (JUNG 2002, pl. 19:208) and LH III C Middle (MDP, fig. 212:1). Cf. WARDLE 1980, 251–152 for a similar jug from Assiros Phase 7. For a summary and discussion of the views on the topic see JUNG 2002, 181–183, pl. 31:335) where an example from Kastanas Level 12 is also mentioned. These changes were not only identified macroscopically and microscopically but were also evident in the chemical characterization of the samples.

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

23

standards remained high or were even improved. The impression one has is that the changes were related to a more speedy and larger production, which is also in accordance with the observation that was made earlier in the paper regarding the increase in the amount of wheel made pottery in Phases 2B and 2A (Fig. 4). Monochrome bowls were again present and bowls with monochrome interiors increased considerably (Fig. 6). Nevertheless, the traditional bowls with linear interiors still held a small part of their old popularity (Figs. 6; 13:3). The new features, which signal the manifestation of LH III C Late and perhaps even of Submycenaean trends are the introduction of the wiggly horizontal wavy line (Fig. 13:2) and particularly the wide reserved zone, occasionally decorated, on the outside of deep bowls (Fig. 13:5) (MDP, figs. 235:14; 254:4–5; 269:3). The latter trait is also seen in Kastanas Level 12 (JUNG 2002, pl. 24:272–274). A change is also seen in the decoration of the shallow bowl with horizontal handles (FS 295), which from now on had a painted everted rim and a monochrome interior (Fig. 13:4). These bowls are also seen in Level 12 of Kastanas and continue at Toumba in Phase 2a. It is indicative of the idiosyncratic nature of the choices made by the potters and consumers in Macedonia that this shape (FS 295), which had been used since the beginning of LH III C enjoyed a special popularity in Central Macedonia during this and the subsequent period, at the very end of the Mycenaean ceramic traditions in the rest of the Aegean. Similarly, kraters with everted rims (Fig. 13:7), which were also current in the rest of the Aegean from the start of LH III C were adopted at Toumba and Kastanas during Phases 2b and Level 12 respectively (JUNG 2002, 108–109). They often display a reserved lip and continued in both sites during the EIA (JUNG 2002, pl. 27:286,289). On the other hand, the fragment of a closed neck-handled vessel with a tassel or hanging spiral bordered by groups of vertical wavy lines (Fig. 13:9) provides a connection with LH III C Late (MDP, fig. 244:2) and with Level 12 of Kastanas (JUNG 2002, pls. 31:336; 35:345). Finally, the amphora or hydria with decoration of multiple horizontal wavy lines from this level, probably signifies one of the earliest uses of pot marks in the area (Fig. 13:10).18 The changes which were initiated in Phase 3 were, to a large extent, completed in subperiod 2A. Although some significant innovations were introduced, marking the initiation of a new era in the central and southern Aegean, several of the traditional elements still held strongly their position in the ceramic assemblage of Thessaloniki Toumba. It is true that only a small portion of the pottery continued to be produced in the technological traditions which had been initiated in Phase 5, during the 13th century.19 That this new ceramic assemblage was produced locally or at least somewhere in the region is more than likely. This seems likely because the preliminary chemical and petrographic data do not necessarily suggest a different origin. A more important reason, however, is that the stylistic idiosyncrasies, which characterized the wheel made pottery of the area all along, were still present and visible during Phase 2A (Fig. 14:4–8). Few deep bowls kept their linear interiors during this phase and the number of monochrome bowls increased (Figs. 6; 14:9). The hastiness of production to which reference was made when the period 2B pottery was discussed, is often seen in the application of the paint on the inside of bowls. Large parts of the surface were often very thinly coated, so that they can be easily confused with reserved areas (Fig. 14:1–2). In some cases, however, the lower part of the interior of deep bowls was left unpainted on purpose. Skyphoid kraters with reserved lip bands inside were also a new feature, which appeared in this phase (Fig. 14:11) as was the triple horn with multiple wavy lines (Fig. 15:3). All these features are also seen in Kastanas Level 12 (JUNG 2002, pls. 22:249–251; 26:283).

18 19

Cf. JUNG 2002, pls. 23:253; 30:327. – For pot marks in the Dark Ages see PAPADOPOULOS 1994. I must admit that it is not very easy to distinguish between residual sherds and those that had actually been disposed of during Phase 2A, particularly since a large part of the deposit comprises street levels.

24

Stelios Andreou

The most important innovation, however, in the ceramics of Phase 2A, as in Level 12 of Kastanas, was the manifestation of the beginning of the Early Protogeometric style through the appearance of a few deep bowls, kraters and large closed vessels decorated with concentric circles, drawn with a multiple brush (Fig. 15:5–8).20 It is significant to point out that the new motif involved vessels which belonged to the same ceramic groups as the rest of the pottery and that concentric circles were occasionally combined with traditional motifs derived from the regional Mycenaean style (Fig. 15:7). For all these reasons it is not likely that the particular vessels were imports from outside the area. It is also noteworthy that normal features of the Early Protogeometric style, such as the high conical bases on bowls and cups are missing from Thessaloniki Toumba and Kastanas.21 This indicates a process of selection, where once again, as it happened earlier with the adoption of the Mycenaean style, the rules were set by the local demand for decorated wheel made pottery.22 The synchronisms that have been proposed above are summarized in Tab. 1 along with the dates that are traditionally given to the various phases of LH III C and the beginning of EPG (DICKINSON 2006, 23). A series of eleven samples from the deposits that were discussed here have been 14C dated in the course of the years in two different laboratories. The samples that were dated with AMS in the Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory were carbonized seeds collected from hearths, while those dated by the Laboratory of Archaeometry at the N. C. R. S Demokritos in Athens were small charcoals from stratified deposits of Phase 4 (Tab. 2).23 Out of the eleven dates, seven, despite their wide margin of probability, are compatible both with the traditional chronology and with the recently proposed high chronology for the end of the LBA. The latter would prefer a date in the 13th century for the beginning of LH III C (WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, n. 82 with fig. 7). The high chronology is based on the dendrochronology and 14C wiggle-matched determination of four timbers from the EIA Phases 3 and 2 at Assiros and on a wheel made amphora, which belonged to the floor of Phase 3 and has been dated stylistically to the later part of the EPG or the beginning of MPG. The combined determinations from Assiros would raise the date for the start of EPG to 1100/1120 BC instead of 1025/50, which is the traditionally accepted view (NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005) and this would necessary affect the dating of LH III C.24 The three remaining dates from

20 21

22

23

24

For the discussion of this phenomenon in Kastanas Levels 12–11 see JUNG 2002, 187, 191. The Phase 2A pottery from Thessaloniki and the similar pottery form Level 12 of Kastanas are stylistically quite different from the pottery that was found in the earlier graves of the cemetery of Torone (PAPADOPOULOS 2005) and Koukos in Chalkidiki or the cemeteries of Vergina and Olymbos to the west and south, where the more conventional Protogeometric features are evident. This was already pointed out by Jung (JUNG 2003, 139 with references) in relation to Kastanas and the different situation in the central plain is now strengthened by the evidence from Thessaloniki Toumba. For a discussion and interpretation of the process of adoption of the Mycenaean ceramic traits in Central Macedonia see ANDREOU 2002–03. – ANDREOU 2003. The full series of 14C dates from all phases of the site are presented in ANDREOU – MANIATIS – KOTSAKIS forthcoming. The authors have a strong case. Nevertheless, the fact that the evidence from Assiros practically stands alone as a positive argument for the radical revision of the absolute chronology for the end of the palatial period and of the Bronze Age in the Aegean and beyond, is something that calls for caution. Even more so, because the evidence comes from a tell site, where the constant recycling of materials of all kinds, besides the practical advantages that it offered, was a process, which was deeply embedded in the way the occupants made sense and justified their way of life on these mounds. In fact, to their credit, the authors admit that the reuse of the poles can not be absolutely ruled out. They argue strongly, however, that this was not the case (WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 494). For support of the traditional dating for the end of the LBA and the beginning of the EIA based on the 14C dating of samples from Kastanas Toumba see JUNG – WENINGER 2004 and WENINGER – JUNG this volume.

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

25

Thessaloniki Toumba are either too late or too early for either the low or the high chronology system.25 In conclusion, I hope to have shown that despite the regional characteristics, which transcend the pottery from the beginning of Phase 4 to Phase 2A, the latest assemblage displays some clear and recognizable differences in morphological and in technological terms in comparison to the situation at the beginning of the sequence. The continuous stratigraphy of Thessaloniki Toumba indicates that these changes were not sudden, but developed gradually and locally and in constant contact with the developments in the rest of the Aegean throughout the periods of LH III C, Submycenaean and EPG.

Bibliography ANDREOU, S. 2001 “Exploring the Patterns of Power in the Bronze Age Settlements of Northern Greece”, 160–173 in: BRANIGAN 2001. 2002–03 “Macedonian Politics and Aegean Encounters: the Social Context of Mycenaean and Protogeometric Pottery in Central Macedonia, Greece”, BICS 46, 221–222. 2003 “Η Μυκηναϊκή κεραμική και οι μακεδονικές κοινωνίες κατά την ύστερη εποχή του χαλκού”, 191–210 in: KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA – PAPAKONSTANTINOU 2003. n. d. “Looking South through a Wine Glass: LH III Pottery from the Toumba of Thessaloniki”. ANDREOU, S. – S. DIMITRIADIS – V. KILIKOGLOU – E. KIRIATZI – K. KOTSAKIS – A. TSOLAKIDOU 2003 “Measuring Demand and Supply of Mycenaean and Protogeometric Style Pottery in Late Bronze Age Macedonia with Special Reference to Thessaloniki Toumba”, 495 in: FOSTER – LAFFINEUR 2003. ANDREOU, S. – O. EXARHOU Forthc. “Settlement, Ceramic Production and Consumption during the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age Transition in Central Macedonia”, in: The Dark Ages Revisited: An International Conference in Memory of William D. E. Coulson. Volos, 14–17 June 2007. ANDREOU, S. – K. KOTSAKIS 1997 “Η προϊστορική τούμπα της Θεσσαλονίκης. Παλιά και νέα ερωτήματα,” AEMTH 10Α 1996 [1997], 369– 387. ANDREOU, ST. – Y. MANIATIS – K. KOTSAKIS Forthc. “Παρατηρήσεις στην απόλυτη χρονολόγηση των φάσεων της εποχής του χαλκού στην Τούμπα της Θεσσαλονίκης”, in: Εγνατία. Επιστημονική επετηρίδα της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής. Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας. Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης. ANDREOU, S. – K. PSARAKI 2007 “Tradition and Innovation in the Bronze Age Pottery of the Thessaloniki Toumba”, 397–420 in: TODOROVA – STEFANOVICH – IVANOV 2007. BRANIGAN, K. (ed.) 2001 Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 4). London.

25

For a comparison in terms of relative chronology and 14C dates between Thessaloniki and Kastanas see JUNG – ANDREOU – WENINGER this volume. Different absolute dates are proposed there for Phase 4 than those in Tab. 1 here on the basis of the discussion in WENINGER – JUNG this volume and the evaluation of the radiocarbon dating.

26

Stelios Andreou

BUXEDA I GARRIGOS, J. – R. E. JONES – V. LEVI – S. T. KILIKOGLOU – Y. MANIATIS – J. MITCHELL – L. VAGNETTI – K. A. WARDLE – S. ANDREOU 2003 “Technology Transfer at the Periphery of the Mycenaean World: The Cases of Mycenaean Pottery found in Central Macedonia (Greece) and the Plain of Sybaris (Italy)”, Archaeometry 45(2), 263–284. DICKINSON, O. T. P. K. 2006 The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age. Continuity and Change between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC. London – New York. EXARHOU, Ο 2004 Η τεφρή κεραμική από τον προϊστορικό οικισμό της Τούμπας Θεσσαλονίκης (unpublished ΜΑ dissertation). Thessaloniki. FOSTER, K. P. – R. LAFFINEUR (eds.) 2003 Metron. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference / Actes de la 9 e Rencontre égéenne internationale, New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002 (Aegaeum 24). Liège – Austin. HÄNSEL, B. 1989 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Grabung und der Baubefund (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 7). Berlin. HIGHAM, T. – C. BRONK RAMSEY – C. OWEN (eds.) 2004 Radiocarbon and Archaeology. Fourth International Symposium. St. Catherine’s College, Oxford. 9–14 April 2002 (Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 62). Oxford. HOCHSTETTER, A. 1984 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die handgemachte Keramik. Schichten 19 bis 1 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 3). Berlin. JUNG, R. 2002 Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Schichten 19 bis 11 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 18). Kiel. 2003 “Late Helladic III C at the Toúmbes of Kastanás and Ólynthos – and the Problems of Macedonian Mycenaean Pottery”, 131–144 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. JUNG, R. – B. WENINGER 2002 “Appendix: Zur Realität der Diskrepanz zwischen den kalibrierten 14C-Daten und der historischarchäologischen Datierung in Kastanas”, 281–298 in: JUNG 2002. 2004 “Kastanas and the Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age”, 209–227 in: HIGHAM – BRONK RAMSEY – OWEN 2004. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. – M. PAPAKONSTANTINOU (eds.) 2003 Η Περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού Κόσμου. Β’ Διεθνές Διεπιστημονικό Συμπόσιο, 26–30 Σεπτεμβρίου, Λαμία

1999. Πρακτικα / 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium ‘The Periphery of the Mycenaean World’, 26–30 September, Lamia 1999. Proceedings. Athens. KIRIATZI. E. 2000 Κεραμική τεχνολογία και παραγωγή. Η κεραμική της ύστερης εποχής χαλκού από την Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Thessaloniki. MARGOMENOU, D. 2005 Food Storage, Surplus and the Emergence of Institutional Inequality: A Study of Storage Jars and Food Storage for Central Northern Greece in the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Michigan. MARGOMENOU, D – S. ANDREOU – K. KOTSAKIS 2007 “Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης: προσεγγίσεις στη μελέτη των πίθων και στο θέμα της αποθήκευσης κατά την ύστερη εποχή του χαλκού”, AEMTH 19, 2005 [2007], 157–172. MAVROIDI, I. – S. ANDREOU – M. VAVELIDIS 2006 “Μεταλλικά αντικείμενα και μεταλλοτεχνικές δραστηριότητες κατά την Εποχή του Χαλκού στην Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης”, AEMTH 18, 2004 [2006], 315–328.

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

27

NEWTON, M. – K. WARDLE – P. I. KUNIHOLM 2005 “Dendrochronology and Radiocarbon Determination from Assiros and the Beginning of the Greek Iron Age”, AEMTH 17, 2003 [2005], 173–190. PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. 1994 “Early Iron Age potter’s marks in the Aegean”, Hesperia 63, 435–507. 2005 The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone (Monumenta Archaeologica 24). Los Angeles. PSARAKI, K. 2004 Υλική και κοινωνική διάσταση του στιλ της κεραμικής: η χειροποίητη κεραμική της εποχής του Χαλκού από την Τούμπα της Θεσσαλονίκης, Διδακτορική διατριβή (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Thessaloniki. RUTTER, J. B. 2003 “The Nature and Potential Significance of Minoan Features in the Earliest Late Helladic III C Ceramic Assemblages of the Central and Southern Greek Mainland”, 193–216 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. TODOROVA, H. – M. STEFANOVICH .– G. IVANOV (eds.) 2007 The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon

Prehistoricus, Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres–Amphipolis (Greece), 27.09.–1.10.2004 (In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul 2). Sofia. VEROPOULIDOU, R. – S. ANDREOU – Κ. KOTSAKIS 2007 “Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης: η παραγωγή πορφυρής βαφής κατά την εποχή του χαλκού”, AEMTH 19, 2005 [2007], 173–185. WARDLE, K. 1980 “Excavations at Assiros 1975–79. A Settlement Site in Central Macedonia and its Significance for the Prehistory of South-East Europe”, BSA 75, 229–267. 1993 “Mycenaean Trade and Influence in Northern Greece”, 117–141 in: ZERNER – ZERNER – WINDER 1993. 1997 “Change or Continuity: Assiros Toumba at the Transition from Bronze to Iron Age”, AEMTH 10A, 1996 [1997], 443–460. WARDLE, K. A. – NEWTON, M. – KUNIHOLM, P. I. 2007 “Troy VIIB2 revisited. The Date of the Transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Northern Aegean”, 481– 498 in: TODOROVA – STEFANOVICH – IVANOV 2007. ZERNER, C. – P. ZERNER – J. WINDER (eds.) 1993 Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the

Aegean Bronze Age, 1939–1989’ Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2– 3, 1989. Amsterdam.

28

Stelios Andreou

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

29

30

Stelios Andreou

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

31

32

Stelios Andreou

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

33

34

Stelios Andreou

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

35

36

Stelios Andreou

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

37

38

Stelios Andreou

The LBA to the EIA Transition at Thessaloniki Toumba

39

40

Stelios Andreou

To the memory of Nicholas Coldstream

JOOST H. CROUWEL

PICTORIAL POTTERY OF THE LATEST BRONZE AGE AND THE EARLY IRON AGE∗

At the second of this series of Vienna Workshops I discussed the upsurge in pictorial vase painting during LH III C Middle (ca. 1150/1140–1100/1090 B.C.) (CROUWEL 2007). In this paper I will trace the subsequent history and development of pottery with pictorial decoration, up to the time of its revival, in Athens in Middle Geometric II (ca. 800–760 B.C.). The focus will again be on mainland Greece and Euboea (Lefkandi). I will refer throughout to the catalogue at the end, which is arranged chronologically and by region or island. The pictorial material which can be attributed to LH III C Middle on stratigraphical and/or stylistical grounds presents a considerable variety of motifs, compositions and styles. The rich iconography comprises armed men on foot, in chariots or on board ships, as well as unarmed human figures, animals of various species, birds, fish and fantastic creatures. A wide variety of activities are shown. The vase shapes used are mainly ring-based kraters, but deep bowls, kalathoi and other open forms with pictorial designs also occur, along with stirrup jars and other types of jar, and other closed shapes. In sharp contrast, very little pictorially decorated pottery can be assigned by find context and/or style to the succeeding, equally brief phase of LH III C Late (ca. 1100/1090–1060 B.C.). In much of Greece there is a pronounced decline, not only in the number of such finds but also in the range of shapes, motifs and compositions, and often in the quality of potting and draughtmanship as well. This decline is well illustrated by the very few finds from settlement contexts at the three sites – Mycenae, Tiryns and Lefkandi – that have up until now yielded the largest collections of pictorial pottery of LH III C date.1 At Mycenae, apart from the so-called ‘Late Bird Krater’, there is only a body fragment of a kalathos which stylistically belongs to LH III C Late (Fig. 1, Argolid Cat. no. 3). On the interior is a frieze of poorly drawn fish, with striped bodies, fringed tails and spiky fins, against a background of fringed concentric semi-circles. The fragmentary ‘Late Bird Krater’ from the Citadel House Area is of ring-based type and has panelled decoration (Fig. 2, Argolid Cat. no. 4). The creatures set inside the panels enclosed by untidy triglyphs are identifiable as birds rather than animals by their two legs and what must be a raised wing. They are awkwardly drawn and reveal the hand of a painter unfamiliar with pictorial decoration. According to E. French (FRENCH this volume), the krater, whose base was pierced before firing, had functioned as a grave marker. She suggests the same function for the well-known ‘Mycenae Warrior Krater’ of LH III C Middle, which also comes from the south-western part of the citadel (VERMEULE – KARAGEORGHIS 1982, no. XI.119. – SAKELLARAKIS 1992, no. 184). ∗

1

I am most grateful to the organizers for inviting me to participate in the Vienna Workshop and to the editors for their patience. I also wish to thank J. Eerbeek, G. Skyte-Bradshaw and C. van der Wouw for their help. Much LH III C pictorial material from Mycenae and Tiryns is included in VERMEULE – KARAGEORGHIS 1982. – SAKELLARAKIS 1992. – CROUWEL 1991. – GÜNTNER 2006. – For the pictorial finds from Lefkandi see now CROUWEL 2006a.

42

Joost H. Crouwel

At Tiryns not a single pictorial piece has been assigned to LH III C Late (GÜNTNER 2000, 378). As for Lefkandi, some pictorial pieces were found during the excavations of the 1960s on the Xeropolis peninsula in contexts of Phase 3, which dates to LH III C Late. Most of these are single body fragments of ring-based kraters, with remains of a chariot, a human figure, an animal, a fish and in two cases birds. They may well be “cast-ups” from the preceding Phase 2 which dates to LH III C Middle (CROUWEL 2006a, 234 and nos. A 2, B 9, C 5, E 11 and 21, F 11). Only two sets of joining sherds and two loose fragments, all belonging to a necked krater with a row of birds, may be more confidently attributed to LH III C Late (Fig. 3, Euboea Cat. no. 1). The birds have bodies rendered in outline, but with a solid interior, splaying, fringed tails, and narrow striped wings. Reviewing the evidence for pictorially decorated pottery of similar date from other sites in the Argolid, there is a fragmentary kalathos from Asine (Fig. 4, Argolid Cat. no. 1). Like the kalathos fragment from Mycenae (Argolid Cat. no. 3), it features a frieze of fish on the interior; the fish, their bodies drawn in outline and with a wavy line fill, are again set against a background of concentric semi-circles, this time not fringed but outlined by dots. Curiously, the vessel was found in a Hellenistic tile grave on the Barbouna hill.2 From House G at Asine comes a small globular stirrup jar, with a ship painted on its belly (Fig. 5, Argolid Cat. no. 2). There are also a few pictorial pottery vessels of similar date from Messenia, including fragments of two ring-based kraters from the dromos of chamber tomb K 2 at Pylos-Pisaskion. One of these has remains of two goats, one eating from a tree, the other facing away from it (Fig. 6, Messenia Cat. no. 1). The goats’ bodies are rendered in outline, with a wavy line inside. The fragments of the other krater preserve small parts of birds (?) in a panel (Messenia Cat. no. 2). A fragmentary ring-based krater from the settlement at Ramovouni-Lakkathela has somewhat better preserved birds in panels (Fig. 7, Messenia Cat. no. 3). The bodies are rendered in silhouette, the tails fan-shaped and striped. The panelled decoration and the pierced base recall the ‘Late Bird Krater’ from Mycenae (Argolid Cat. no. 4). The pierced base would suggest a ritual use or re-use. From a re-used tholos tomb at Tragana comes the well-known straight-sided alabastron with a ship in a panel (Fig. 8, Messenia Cat. no. 4). The tomb also yielded part of a stirrup jar of similar date, with remains of a bird on the shoulder (Fig. 9, Messenia Cat. no. 5). Three incompletely preserved pictorial vessels from Delphi in Phocis have been attributed to LH III C Late. One is a jar showing two creatures, identifiable as fish by the presence of dorsal and ventral fins, in a belly zone (Fig. 10, Phocis Cat. no. 1). The two other vessels are ridge-stemmed kraters, featuring birds, their solidly drawn bodies outlined by dots and with fan-shaped tails (Fig. 11, Phocis Cat. nos. 2–3). What remains of the birds on the kraters suggests the hand of the same painter. The above survey of pictorially decorated pottery attributable to LH III C Late shows that there is very little of it (with the apparent exception of the western and north-western Peloponnese, for which see below). This stands in sharp contrast to the abundance, variety and quality of the pictorial pottery of LH III C Middle. Most of the pictorial pieces of LH III C Late have clear antecedents in the preceding phase. Of the vessel shapes represented, many are found, also with pictorial designs, in LH III C Middle: the ring-based krater (Argolid Cat. no. 4; Messenia Cat. nos. 1–3), kalathos (Argolid Cat. nos. 1 and 3), stirrup jar (Argolid Cat. no. 2; Messenia Cat. no. 5) and straight-sided alabastron (Messenia Cat. no. 4). Only the ridge-

2

In addition, fragments of a krater attributed to LH III C Late from the Karamaniola area at Asine may show parts of two birds (SANTILLO FRIZELL 1986, 54 no. 392 and possibly no. 393, figs. 40, 42).

Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age

43

stemmed krater (Phocis Cat. nos. 2–3) and a unique type of necked krater (Euboea Cat. no. 1) are new, but regionally restricted shapes.3 With regards to the iconography, many motifs were known before: bird (Argolid Cat. no. 4; Messenia Cat. nos. 3–4 and possibly 2; Phocis Cat. nos. 2–3; Euboea Cat. no. 1), fish (Argolid Cat. nos. 1, 3; probably Phocis Cat. no. 1), goat (Messenia Cat. no. 1). As for the compositions, panelled decoration on kraters, featuring birds in the panels separated by central triglyphs (Argolid Cat. no. 4; Messenia Cat. no. 3), was fairly popular in LH III C Middle, as were friezes with fish on the interior of kalathoi (Argolid Cat. nos. 1, 3). The representation of goats and a tree (Messenia Cat. no. 1) is a variation on the theme of two goats, arranged antithetically and feeding on a tree or a leaved triglyph, known from ring-based kraters and deep bowls of LH III C Middle (CROUWEL 1991, 17, 22. – CROUWEL 2006a, 241–242). On the other hand, the rendering of the goats with a wavy line down their body is unknown in earlier vase representations. The use of an unmanned ship, as the main motif (Argolid Cat. no. 2) or as part of panelled decoration (Messenia Cat. no. 4), may have a precedent in a stirrup jar from Skyros, assuming its attribution to LH III C Middle is correct (VERMEULE – KARAGEORGHIS 1982, no. XI.95. – WACHSMANN 1998, 137, 139, fig. 7:21. – LENZ 1995, no. 72, fig. 66. – RMDP, 728, 735, 737 no. 49, fig. 284. – WEDDE 1999, 467, 473 no. A3). The type of ship depicted – an oared galley with a tall, often curved prow and bow, which also had a mast and sail – is certainly not new. It appears on several ring-based kraters of LH III C Middle from Pyrgos-Livanates (identified with ancient Kynos) in Phthiotis. The ships depicted have warriors on board and appear to be engaged in naval warfare (DAKORONIA 2006. – WEDDE 1999. – CROUWEL 1999, 456–459. – CROUWEL 2006b, 18–19). Altogether, the pictorial repertoire shrank greatly in LH III C Late. Some vase painters still attempted panelled or other elaborate compositions, but these were now mostly rather poorly executed, thereby corresponding with a deterioration and simplification in pot-making in general. LH III C Late was actually a time of destruction, desertion and fragmentation in most of mainland Greece and the islands, after the increased prosperity and contacts in LH III C Middle. The picture would be incomplete without taking the evidence from Achaea, Elis and adjacent western Arcadia into consideration. In these areas, several cemeteries of chamber tombs, some of which were explored only recently, attest to rather prosperous communities, with a thriving pottery production, in LH III C (RMDP, 296–299, 365–366, 371, 404–405. – MOSCHOS this volume). Most of the pictorially decorated vessels that have so far been published or illustrated in print may cautiously be dated to LH III C Late rather than Middle.4 The shapes used are mainly four-handled jars of a type characteristic of Achaea and Elis at this time (RMDP, 371, 404). Two of the jars from the same cemetery in Elis (Elis Cat. nos. 2–3) have bird designs in a zone on the belly. The bodies of the birds are rendered in outline, with a fill of concentric semicircles and parallel chevrons respectively, and the creatures may have been painted by the same hand. Another jar (Fig. 12, Elis Cat. no. 4) shows stacked triangles, each with a so-called bird protome, in the shoulder area. This motif, incorporating only a stalk-like neck and a very simple head, had been widely used to enliven triangles and other abstract motifs in the Argolid and other parts of the Aegean in LH III C Middle (CROUWEL 1991, 23. – CROUWEL 2006a, 243). Yet another four-handled jar (Elis Cat. no. 1) has a scene of a human figure and two birds, all rendered in silhouette, confined to the space below one of its twisted handles. A four3

4

Apart from Delphi, the ridge-stemmed krater is also found on Kephallonia, but without pictorial decoration; see RMDP, 792, 460 no. 68, fig. 166 (with a reference to an unpublished example from Ayia Triadha in Elis). With little contextual dating evidence presently available, caution is required in assigning pottery from these areas to either LH III C Late or Middle; see RMDP, especially 402.

44

Joost H. Crouwel

handled jar from Achaea (Fig. 13, Achaea Cat. no. 1) has a row of birds, also in a belly zone. The birds have fringed bodies and tails, the bodies consisting of concentric semi-circles and the tails of parallel horizontal lines. More pictorial pottery of LH III C Late has been reported from recently excavated tombs in Achaea. The finds include kraters or fragments thereof with warrior and chariot representations from Voudeni north-east of Patras, but these are as yet unpublished (RDMP, 365, 405. – MOMMSEN – MARAN 2000–2001, 98, 103). It has very recently been claimed that another krater with elaborate pictorial decoration, from Ayia Triadha in Elis, which I for one had assigned to LH III C Middle, in fact also dates to this phase (Fig. 14. – SCHOINAS 1999. – VIKATOU 2001. – HILLER 2006, 185–187, fig. 5. – CROUWEL 2006b, 19, 22, fig. 6).5 This fragmentary krater, with a prothesis scene, comes from chamber tomb 5 and is reported to have functioned as a grave marker; its find context and the other pottery from the tomb are not yet published. A date in LH III C Late rather than Middle may perhaps also be most likely for some vessels from a cemetery at Palaiokastro in western Arcadia, which are on display in Tripolis Museum. So far two stirrup jars with pictorial designs among their elaborate decoration have been illustrated in print. On one, a group of six fish is shown in a panel on the belly. On the other vessel there are two antithetically placed birds in the same position. The fish and birds are rendered in silhouette, except for their heads which in the case of the birds are turned backwards (AR 1989–1990, cover = RDMP, 296, 298–299, pl. 1a. – BLACKMAN 1997, 33, fig. 43). Pictorially decorated pottery is extremely rare in Greece in the ensuing Submycenaean and Protogeometric periods (ca. 1060–900 B.C.), although Crete is somewhat of an exception. Of Submycenaean date are two so-called duck askoi or bird vases, a type of pouring vessel with a bird-shaped body and three strut legs. The two examples come from tombs at Kanghadi in Achaea and at Lefkandi respectively, and are incompletely preserved (Figs. 15–16; Achaea Cat. no. 2 and Euboea Cat. no. 2). In both cases the body is divided into panels, the motifs inside these including animals of uncertain species rendered in silhouette. Very few examples of Attic Protogeometric pottery display pictorial motifs. One is a bellyhandled amphora from a Middle Protogeometric tomb (ca. 975–950 B.C.) in the Kerameikos cemetery at Athens (Fig. 17, Attica Cat. no. 1). The vessel, which was used as an ash-urn, features on the belly a horse beneath much more prominent wavy bands. A fragment of another such amphora preserves most of a similar animal in a panel, also on the belly (Fig. 18, Attica Cat. no. 2). In addition, a small neck-handled amphora of Late Protogeometric date, again from the Kerameikos cemetery, shows two horses in a panel on the neck (Fig. 19, Attica Cat. no. 3). Also worthy of note is a fragment of a Protogeometric vessel of closed shape from “StadtWest” at Tiryns (Fig. 20, Argolid Cat. no. 5). One of its patterned belly zones includes a panel with a scene of two confronted human figures, rendered entirely in silhouette. They may well be men engaged in a duel. From Atalanti in Phthiotis comes a Late Protogemetric flask with a row of birds arranged vertically in a circle (Fig. 21, Phthiotis Cat. no. 1). The creatures are drawn in silhouette and highly stylized, almost like abstract motifs. A Protogeometric tomb at Torone in Macedonia yielded a ring-based pictorial krater with pictorial decoration (Macedonia Cat. no. 2). The fragmentary vessel was repaired with lead clamps and used as an ash-urn. The painted decoration in the handle zone is badly worn, but probably showed a ship with a high, curving prow rather than a row of birds, as previously thought.

5

Personal information I. Moschos at the Vienna Workshop. He regards the silhouette drawing of the various pictorial motifs as an indication of a late date.

Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age

45

It may be appropriate to mention here a fragment of another ring-based krater from the settlement at Kastanas, also in Macedonia (Macedonia Cat. no. 1). It preserves part of a ship, again with a high and curving prow, and comes from level 12 which is dated to LH III C– Protogeometric. Both this ship and that on the Torone krater are of the same galley type as those seen on the vessels dating to LH III C Late (Argolid Cat. no. 2; Messenia Cat. no. 4). Among the Protogemetric pottery from Lefkandi on Euboea there are a few with pictorial motifs. A small hydria from a tomb in the Skoubris cemetery shows, in the shoulder area, two human figures seated opposite each other and holding bows-and-arrows (Fig. 22, Euboea Cat. no. 3). The archers, who seem to be taking aim at each other, are rendered in silhouette, with a dotted eye within their outlined heads. Spectographic analysis of the clay indicates that the vessel was not made locally, but at some unknown place. A tomb in the Toumba cemetery at Lefkandi contained a conical-footed skyphos with single wingless birds, entirely drawn in silhouette, below the horizontal loop handles (Fig. 23, Euboea Cat. no. 4). The vessel is not Euboean but an Attic Protogeometric import. From a tomb at Dirmil on the Halicarnassos peninsula in south-west Anatolia comes a highfooted krater with a ship of galley type placed beneath one of its double-arched handles (Fig. 24, Anatolia Cat. no. 1). The krater may well be a Late Protogeometric Euboean import. The very few pictorially decorated vessels of Submyceneaen and Protogeometric date bear little resemblance to the pieces datable to LH III C Late. The shapes used are mostly new: the belly-handled and neck-amphorae (Attica Cat. nos. 1–3), flask (Phthiotis Cat. no. 1), hydria (Euboea Cat. no. 3), high-footed skyphos (Euboea Cat. no. 4) and high-footed krater (Anatolia Cat. no. 1). Only the ring-based krater (Macedonia Cat. nos. 1–2) occurs earlier with pictorial decoration. The duck askos or bird vase (Achaea Cat. no. 2; Euboea Cat. no. 2) may also have antecedents in LH III C.6 As for the pictorial motifs, the unmanned ship (Macedonia Cat. nos. 1–2; Anatolia Cat. no. 1) recalls earlier vase representations which show the same type of ship (Argolid Cat. no. 2; Messenia Cat. no. 4). Horses (Attica Cat. nos. 1–3) and birds (Phthiotis Cat. no. 1; Euboea Cat. no. 4) are traditional motifs, but their rendering bears no relationship to earlier representations. The animals are highly stylized, with their long legs and tail and spiked mane. Drawn entirely in silhouette, they are the first in a long series of Attic horse representations. The ship, horse and bird are used as single motifs and not as part of more complex pictorial compositions. At the same time, there are two rare scenes involving human figures, two men possibly engaged in a duel (Argolid Cat. no. 5), and two seated archers (Euboea Cat. no. 2). They are sketchily drawn and in silhouette, as are the quadrupeds on the Submycenaean duck askoi or bird vases (Achaea Cat. no. 2; Euboea Cat. no. 2). Two vessels of Attic Early Geometric I (ca. 900–875 B.C.) again have depictions of horses. In one case, an unprovenanced neck-handled amphora, two such animals are placed antithetically, on either side of a swastika, in a panel high on the neck (Fig. 26, Attica Cat. no. 5). In the other case, a drinking vessel of which only a fragment was found outside a house on the north slope of the Areopagus hill at Athens, part of a horse in a panel is preserved; originally there were probably two such animals, placed antithetically, as on the amphora (Fig. 25, Attica Cat. no. 4). The horses on both vessels closely resemble the Attic Protogeometric ones, except that their legs are now articulated, presaging the rendering of horses in later Attic Geometric vase representations. Next in date is a fragmentary pedestalled krater of Attic Middle Geometric I (ca. 875–800 B.C.), which stood as a marker above a tomb in the Kerameikos cemetery (Fig. 27a–b, Attica Cat. no. 6). Apart from the very elaborate abstract decoration, there are two pictorial motifs, both in inconspicuous positions: a human figure, awkwardly placed in the spandrel above a 6

For this shape, which may well derive from Cyprus, see DESBOROUGH 1972. – LEMOS 1994. – GUGGISBERG 1996, especially 282–283. – RDMP, 441 (for its occurrence in Achaea). – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 135–140.

46

Joost H. Crouwel

double-arched handle, and a horse below the same handle. The human figure, who is entirely rendered in silhouette, is clearly a woman, her breasts indicated by parallel strokes and with the arms raised to the head. This was a gesture of mourning, as evidenced by later Attic Geometric vase representations. As has often been pointed out, we have here the first of a series of monumental vessels – pedestalled kraters for men and belly-handled amphorae for women – which served as grave markers in Attica, and particularly Athens, during Middle Geometric II and Late Geometric I (ca. 800–735 B.C.) (see especially COLDSTREAM 1968, 23, 26, 29–41. – COLDSTREAM 2003, 110–114. – MOORE 2000, 18–20. – MOORE 2004, 1–8). The inconspicously placed pictorial motifs on the first such krater (Attica Cat. no. 6) are clearly connected with the function of the vessel: the woman is mourning the dead man, while the horse is symbolic of his aristocratic standing. Interestingly, the woman on this fragmentary krater is drawn with a sinuous outline, quite unlike the later Geometric mourners. The horse depicted below the handle, like the ship on the Protogeometric krater from Dirmil (Anatolia Cat. no. 1), is rendered in the by now traditionial Attic way, its articulated legs recalling the Early Geometric I ones (Attica Cat. nos. 4– 5). Three Euboean vessels or fragments with pictorial decoration from the Toumba cemetery at Lefkandi are contemporary with the Attic Middle Geometric I krater. One is a restored pyxis, its elaborate decoration including a panel with a ship accompanied by birds and fish drawn in silhouette (Fig. 28, Euboea Cat. no. 5). The ship, an old motif which in this case is shown with spears stacked in the stern and ready for use in warfare, is of the traditional galley type. The second pictorial piece, a krater fragment, preserves part of another such ship (Fig. 29, Euboea Cat. no. 6). The third is also a krater fragment, this time with the remains of a bird in a panel (Fig. 30, Euboea Cat. no. 7). The original vessel may have been painted by the same hand as the Lefkandi pyxis, in view of the similarities between the birds which are rendered in silhouette, except for their raised triangular wings. Attic Middle Geometric II and Late Geometric I (ca. 760–735 B.C.) mark a dramatic upsurge in pictorially decorated pottery. Apart from the large kraters and amphorae, the vessels used include various smaller shapes. In addition to traditional, single images, such as the horse, bird and ship, the iconography now comprises a variety of subjects, involving human figures and animals of different species (see especially COLDSTREAM 1968, 23, 26–28. – COLDSTREAM 2003, 77–78; – MOORE 2000, 30. – STANSBURY-O’DONNELL 2006). Most striking are the elaborate scenes of funerals and land and sea battles in prominent places on the ceramic grave markers which were first produced in the Middle Geometric II workshop of krater New York MMA 34.11.2 and then in the Dipylon and Hirschfeld workshops of Late Geometric I. The specially made, grand vessels and their iconography reflect a desire on the part of leading Athenian aristocratic families for a visual statement of their wealth and status (for this and the wider eighth century social and historic context, see especially SHERRATT 2003). Let us now briefly examine to what extent the pictorial repertoire of Attic Middle Geometric II and Late Geometric I was an original creation and how far it had antecedents. It has been suggested that the Athenian vase painters were inspired by rediscovered Mycenaean and other Bronze Age figured documents, such as painted vessels and larnakes and seal engravings (BENSON 1970. – HILLER 2006). There are indeed similarities, as regards motifs and compositions. With regard to individual motifs and the ways in which these were rendered, perhaps the best example is the goat with the legs folded under the body. This folded pose is seen on a fragmentary Mycenaean krater of LH III B and on Late Minoan seals, as well as on Attic and other Late Geometric painted vases (BENSON 1970, 59–60, pl. XVI, fig. 3 – CROUWEL 1991, 17 s.v. no. C 18, fig. 9 and pl. 2). Regarding the pictorial compositions, the fragmentary LH III C krater from a tomb at Ayia Triadha in Elis (Fig. 14 and p. 44), showing a prothesis with a bier, a raised checkerboard shroud over the dead body, mourners and (sacrificial) goats, at first sight seems to provide a prototype for the Middle Geometric II and later prothesis scenes. However,

Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age

47

this Mycenaean krater and its pictorial decoration are to be regarded not as evidence for the rediscovery of pictorial design but for continuity of the funerary ritual itself. Other practices seem to have continued too, such as chariot-driving and naval warfare; the types of chariot and ship also remained basically the same (CROUWEL 1999. – WEDDE 1999. – RYSTEDT 1997. – RYSTEDT 1999). In the case of the folded pose of the goats, the similarity is probably simply fortuitous rather than pointing to a Bronze Age model. We have seen above that pictorially decorated vessels are rare in Attica and most of the rest of Greece during the period of some 300 years between LH III C Middle and Middle Geometric II. Indeed, pottery with pictorial decoration almost disappeared, as did the Mycenaean types of terracotta figurines. The upsurge of pictorial vase painting, which included not only single images but also complex scenes, in Middle Geometric II Athens signifies the beginning of what was to become a long tradition. At the same time, two important motifs – the mourner and horse – and their rendering have local, Attic antecedents: both motifs are seen on the fragmentary, monumental krater of Middle Geometric I, and the horse already appears on a few earlier but postMycenaean vessels (Attica Cat. nos. 6 and 1–3). A somewhat similar but less spectacular revival of pictorial vase painting can be observed in Argos and elsewhere (see LANGDON 2001). Crete is an altogether different case. The history of this island’s pictorially decorated pottery and its possible local antecedents and foreign connections, in the latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, deserve discussion at yet another Workshop in Vienna!

CATALOGUE7 LH III C Late

Argolid 1 Asine, Barbouna hill. Hellenistic tile grave B 25 (Fig. 4). Kalathos, fragmentary. Inside, frieze with fish and concentric semi-circles. – HÄGG – FOSSEY 1980, 45–48 (grave B 25 no. 4), fig. 34. – SANTILLO FRIZELL 1986, 81, fig. 63. – RMDP, 188 no. 448, fig. 59. 2 Asine, House G (Fig. 5). Small stirrup jar. Ht. 8.2. Ship on belly. – FRÖDIN – PERSSON 1938, 300 no. 2, fig. 207:2. – VERMEULE – KARAGEORGHIS 1982, no. XI.94. – WACHSMANN 1998, 140, fig. 7:22. – RMDP, 179. – WEDDE 1999, 167–168 no. B6. 3 Mycenae, citadel (Fig. 1). Kalathos, body fragment. Inside, frieze with fish and concentric semi-circles. FURTWÄNGLER – LOESCHKE 1886, 67 no. 415, pl. 40. – VERMEULE – KARAGEORGHIS 1982, no. X.95. – SAKELLARAKIS 1992, no. 240. – GÜNTNER 2006, 61, fig. 35. Note: This sherd may join with another body fragment, without recorded provenance but reportedly from the Argolid: GÜNTNER 2000, 133–134, 297 no. 118 (“Fisch” 13B), pl. 66:2. – GÜNTNER 2006, 61, fig. 34. 4 Mycenae, Citadel House area (Fig. 2). Ring-based krater, so-called ‘Late Bird Krater’, incomplete. Ht. ex. 24.2; diam. base 15. Centre of base pierced. Panelled decoration, with remains of single birds in panels. – CROUWEL 1991, 23, 33 no. E 1, fig. 4. – CROUWEL 2006b, 21, fig. 18. – LENZ 1995, no. 42, fig. 17. – RMDP, 186, 188 no. 439, fig. 58.

Messenia 1 Pylos-Pisaskion, dromos of chamber tomb K 2 (Fig. 6). Krater, rim fragment. Diam. rim ca. 34. Slight ridge below rim. Parts of two goats to right, with tree. – TAYLOUR 1973, 230 (krater 3), fig. 290:4. – RMDP, 311, 359, 362 no. 141, fig. 125. – CROUWEL 2006b, 21, fig. 19.

7

All measures in cm.

48

Joost H. Crouwel

2 Provenance as 1. Krater, rim and body fragments. Panelled decoration, with parts of two birds (?) in one panel. – TAYLOUR 1973, 230 (krater 4), fig. 290:3a–c. – RMDP, 411, 359, 362 no. 142, fig. 125. 3 Ramovouni-Lakkathela, settlement, floor deposit (Fig. 7). Ring-based krater, about one quarter preserved. Ht. 36.4; diam. rim 45.3. Centre of base pierced. Panelled decoration, with remains of single birds in panels. – KARAGIORGA 1972, 18 no. 7, pl. Ka. – COULSON 1986, 14, 18 no. 2, fig. 2, pl. 1:2. – LENZ 1995, no. 71, pl. 3:1. – RMDP, 186, 311, 359, 362 no. 139, fig. 124. – CROUWEL 2006b, 21, fig. 20. 4 Tragana, tholos tomb 1 (Fig. 8). Straight-sided alabastron. Ht. 15.1–15.4. Panelled decoration, with ship in panel. – KOUROUNIOTIS 1914, 107–109 no. 11, figs. 13–15. – VERMEULE – KARAGEORGHIS 1982, no. XI.92. – SAKELLARAKIS 1992, no. 255. – KORRES 1989. – LENZ 1995, no. 69, fig. 65. – WACHSMANN 1998, 137, fig. 7:17. – RMDP, 311, 357 no. 132, fig. 123. – WEDDE 1999, 467–468, 473 no. B7. 5 Provenance as 4 (Fig. 9). Stirrup jar, upper part. Part of bird in panel on upper body. – KOUROUNIOTIS 1914, 109– 110 no. 12, figs. 16–17. – LENZ 1995, no. 70. – RMDP, 359.

Elis 1 Ayia Triadha: Palioboukouvina, chamber tomb 26. Four-handled jar. Below one twisted handle, human figure and two birds. – ARAPOGIANNI 1997, 118, pl. 37στ. – TOUCHAIS ET AL. 1998, 783, fig. 97. 2 Kladeos: Trypes, chamber tomb 8. Four-handled jar. On belly, frieze of birds. – VIKATOU 2004, 332 (no. P 7617), pl. 95d, left. 3 Kladeos: Trypes, chamber tomb 11. Four-handled jar. On belly, frieze of birds. – VIKATOU 2004, 232 (no. P 8070), pl. 97c, right. 4 Kladeos: Trypes, chamber tomb A (Fig. 12). Four-handled jar. Ht. 38.2–39.5. On shoulder, row of stacked triangles with bird protomes. – RMDP, 391, 393 no. 78, fig. 137. – LENZ 1985, no. 111.

Achaea 1 Ano Sychaina: Voudeni cemetery (Fig. 13). Four-handled jar. Ht. 36.5. On belly, frieze of birds. – VERMEULE 1960, 5 no. 2, pl. 1, fig. 1. – PAPADOPOULOS 1979, 68–70, 199 (PM 7), figs. 57b, 193b, 197d. – VERMEULE – KARAGEORGHIS 1982, no. XI.136. – LENZ 1995, no. 59, pl. 3:2; – RMDP, 430. – GÜNTNER 2000, 275, “Liste” II.9, no. 500.

Phocis 1 Delphi (Fig. 10). Jar, restored on paper. Ht. as restored 22.9. Parts of two fish (?) in belly zone. – RMDP, 785 no. 265 (identified as turtles), fig. 310. 2 Delphi, area of Roman baths east of the temple of Apollo. Ridge-stemmed krater, rim and body sherds, and with one horizontal loop handle. Diam. rim 31.8. In handle zone, parts of two birds. – LERAT 1961, 360, 362, fig. 45–46. – LENZ 1995, no. 7, fig. 16. – RMDP, 792 no. 296, fig. 313. 3 Delphi (Fig. 11). Ridge-stemmed krater, complete profile, restored. Ht. 24.5–25.4; diam. rim 26–26.5. In handle zone, part of bird. – LERAT 1935, 343, 356, fig. 14, pl. XXXI:5. – LERAT 1961, 361, fig. 47. – VERMEULE – KARAGEORGHIS 1982, no. IX.86. – MOUNTJOY 1990, 262, fig. 18. – RMDP, 782, no. 297, fig. 313. – LENZ 1995, no. 6, fig. 16.

Euboea 1 Lefkandi, Xeropolis settlement (Fig. 3). Necked krater, two sets of joining neck and body fragments. Body zone with row of birds. – CROUWEL 2006a, 234, 243, 252 no. E 8, pls. 65, 70.

Late Helladic III C–Protogeometric

Macedonia 1 Kastanas, settlement, level 12. Ring-based krater, rim fragment. Part of ship. – WEDDE 1999, 468, 471, 473 no. B8. – JUNG 2002, 119–124, no. 406, pl. 44.

Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age

49

Submycenaean

Achaea 2 Kanghadi, cemetery (Fig. 15). So-called duck askos or bird vase, incomplete. Ht. existing 11.6. On one side, two animals in a panel. – VERMEULE 1960, 11–12 no. 44, pls. 4, fig. 30, and 6:K. – PAPADOPOULOS 1979, 101–103 (PM 541) figs. 167a–c, 255, 256b–c. – POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80, 344. – VERMEULE – KARAGEORGHIS 1982, no. XI.81. – LEMOS 1994, 230. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 63, 249 no. 193 (“Vogel” type A-2), pl. 13:2. – RMDP, 441.

Euboea 2 Lefkandi, Skoubris cemetery, tomb 19 (Fig. 16). So-called duck askos or bird vase. Ht. 8.3. Animals in panels. – POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80, 116, 344 (tomb 19 no. 5), pls. 98, 254b. – LEMOS 1994, 230. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 90–91, 259 no. 283 (“Vogel” type A-10, variant A), pl. 21:2. – RMDP, 724.

Protogeometric

Argolid 5 Tiryns, “Stadt-West” (Fig. 20). Closed shape, body fragment. In panel, two confronted human figures. – PAPADIMITRIOU 1987, pl. 19:1. – PAPPI 2006, 231, fig. 1.

Attica 1 Athens, Kerameikos, tomb 18 (Fig. 17). Middle Protogeometric. Belly-handled amphora. Ht. 47.2. In handle zone, horse below parallel wavy lines. – KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, 192–193, 207, 216, pls. 56, 58. – KÜBLER 1943, 5, 9, pl. 27 (Inv. no. 560). – DESBOROUGH 1952, 23–24, pl. 5. – BENSON 1970, 32–36, pl. VIII, fig. 4. – HURWIT 1985, 58–59, fig. 25. – LEMOS 2002, 60, pl. 83:3. 2 Athens, Kerameikos, tomb unknown (Fig. 18). Belly-handled amphora, fragment. On body, horse in panel. – KÜBLER 1943, 5, pl. 27 (Inv. no. 1260). – BENSON 1970, 36, pl. VIII, fig. 7. 3 Athens, Kerameikos, tomb 28 (Fig. 19). Late Protogeometric. Neck-handled amphora. Ht. 19.9. On neck, two horses in panel. – KÜBLER 1943, 5, 9–10, 16, 34, pls. 8, 27 (Inv. no. 911). – DESBOROUGH 1952, 41–42, pl. 6 (called amphora with handles from shoulder to lip). – BENSON 1970, 34, 36, pl. VIII, fig. 9.

Phthiotis 1 Atalanti. (N. Karageorgos plot), tomb II (Fig. 21). Late Protogeometric. Flask. Row of birds in vertical zone. – DAKORONIA 1990, 167, pl. 56a. – PARIENTE 1992, 885, fig. 65. – LENZ 1995, no. 114, fig. 114.

Macedonia 2 Torone, tomb 116. Ring-based krater, incomplete. Ht. 26.4. Mended with lead clamps. In handle zone, remains of ship rather than birds. – PAPADOPOULOS 1990. – PAPADOPOULOS 2005, 212–213 (tomb 116 no. 1), 450–451, 461, 471, fig. 172, pls. 326a–b. – LENZ 1995, no. 113, fig. 19. – LEMOS 2002, 49. Note: Also personal information A. Van de Moortel.

Euboea 3 Lefkandi, Skoubris cemetery, tomb 51 (Fig. 22). Middle Protogeometric. Hydria. Ht. 15.1. On shoulder, two archers seated opposite each other. – KOPCKE 1977, 36. – POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80, 127–128 (tomb 51 no. 2), 348–349, 357, fig. 4, pls. 106, 210, 270d–e. – HURWIT 1985, 55, fig. 23. – LEMOS 2002, pl. 23:11. – STANSBURY-O’DONNELL 2006, 249–250, fig. 2. 4 Lefkandi, Toumba cemetery, tomb 39 (Fig. 23). Late Protogeometric. High-footed skyphos. Ht. 8.8. Single birds below handles. – POPHAM – TOULOUPA – SACKETT 1982, 218, 235 (tomb 39 no. 19), pl. 29a–c. – HURWIT 1985, 59 n. 25. – LENZ 1995, no. 115, figs. 20–21, pl. 4:1–2. – POPHAM – LEMOS 1996, pl. 122c. Note: Attic Late Protogeometric import.

50

Joost H. Crouwel

Anatolia 1 Dirmil, chamber tomb (Fig. 24). High-footed krater. Ht. 46.9. Ship below double-arched handle. – BASS 1963, 358–359, pl. 83, fig. 15. – VAN DOORNICK, JR. 1982. – POPHAM 1987, 7 n. 7. – WEDDE 1999, 471 no. E 4 (dated to Early Geometric). – LEMOS 2002, 51, 212. Note: Quite probably Euboean Late Protogeometric import.

Early Geometric I

Attica 4 Athens, outside house on north slope of the Areopagus (Fig. 25). Drinking vessel, rim fragment. Part of horse in panel. – BURR 1933, 560 no. 22, fig. 19. – COLDSTREAM 1968, 13 with n. 4 (Agora P 1654). – BENSON 1970, 37, pl. IX, fig. 2. 5 No provenance (Fig. 26). Neck-handled amphora. Panelled decoration on neck, with two horses and swastika in panel. – COLDSTREAM 1968, 13, pl. 1k. – BENSON 1970, 37–40, pls. IV, fig. 1, V, figs. 1–2, IX, fig. 1. – HURWIT 1985, 63, fig. 28.

Middle Geometric I

Attica 6 Athens, Kerameikos tomb 43 (Fig. 27a–b). Tall pedestalled krater, fragmentary. In spandrel above double-arched handle, mourning woman. Below same handle, horse. – KÜBLER 1954, 33, 124, 127, 135–136, 238, pl. 22 (Inv. no. 1254). – COLDSTREAM 1968, 20–21. – COLDSTREAM 2003, 61, 63, fig. 179h. – COLDSTREAM 2006, 160 and n. 8. – BENSON 1970, 39–40, 92–93, 96, pl. XXXII, fig. 4. – CARTER 1971, 28, 36. – HURWIT 1985, 64, 94, figs. 29–30.

Euboea 5 Lefkandi, Toumba, square XVI, 3 (Fig. 28). Pyxis. Ht. 29. Ship in panel. – POPHAM 1987. – CALLIGAS 1990, 77–78, fig. 1. – POPHAM – LEMOS 1996, pls. 94:3, 107, 126e. – LENZ 1995, no. 116, pl. 5:3. – WEDDE 1999, 471, 474 no. E5. Note: The pyxis dates to local Sub-Protogeometric IIIa, which is contemporary with Attic Middle Geometric I. 6 Lefkandi, Skoubris, South Gully Fill (Fig. 29). Krater, body sherd. Part of ship. – POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80, 267 no. 918, pls. 274, 284:11. – POPHAM 1987, 357. – CALLIGAS 1990, 78, fig. 2. – WEDDE 1999, 471, 474 no. E3. Note: Date as Lefkandi No. 5. 7 Lefkandi, Toumba, square XVI (Fig. 30). Krater, body sherd. Part of bird in panel. – POPHAM – LEMOS 1996, pls. 95:20 and 107. Note: Date as Lefkandi No. 4–5. Another krater body sherd, with the same provenance and also showing part of a bird (POPHAM – LEMOS 1996, pl. 95:21), may be from the same vessel (information I. S. Lemos).

Index to illustrations Fig. 1 after VERMEULE – KARAGEORGHIS 1982, X.95 Fig. 2 after RMDP, fig. 58:439 Fig. 3 photograph M. R. Popham Fig. 4 after RMDP, fig. 59:448 Fig. 5 drawing J. L. Benson Fig. 6 after RMDP, fig. 125:141 Fig. 7 after RMDP, fig. 124:139 Fig. 8 after RMDP, fig. 123:132 Fig. 9 after KOUROUNIOTIS 1914, fig. 17 Fig. 10 after RMDP, fig. 310:265

Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20

after RMDP, fig. 313:297 after RDMP, fig. 137:78 photograph J. L. Benson after SCHOINAS 1999, fig. 2 after PAPADOPOULOS 1979, fig. 256b after POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80, pl. 98:19,5 after BENSON 1970, pl. VIII, fig. 4 after BENSON 1970, pl. VIII, fig. 7 after BENSON 1970, pl. VIII, fig. 9 after PAPPI 2006, fig. 1

Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age

Fig. 21 after LENZ 1995, fig. 20–21. Fig. 22 after POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80, pl. 106 Fig. 23 after LENZ 1995, fig. 22 Fig. 24 after BASS 1963, pl. 83, fig. 15 Fig. 25 after BENSON 1970, pl. IX, fig. 2 Fig. 26 after BENSON 1970, pl. IX, fig. 1

51

Fig. 27a–b after BENSON 1970, pl. XXXII, fig. 4 Fig. 28 after POPHAM – LEMOS 1996, pl. 107, Sq. XVI,3 Fig. 29 after POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80, pl. 284:11 Fig. 30 after POPHAM – LEMOS 1996, pl. 107, Sq XVI

Bibliography ARAPOGIANNI, X. 1997 “Αγία Τριάδα”, ArchDelt 47, 1992 [1997], Chron 116–118. BASS, G. 1963 “Mycenaean and Protogeometric Tombs in the Halicarnassus Peninsula”, AJA 67, 353–361. BENSON, J. L. 1970 Horse, Bird and Man. The Origins of Greek Painting. Amherst. BLACKMAN, D. 1997 “Archaeology in Greece 1996–97”, AR 43, 1–125. BLEGEN, C. W. ET AL. 1972 The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia III. Acropolis and Lower Town. Tholoi, Grave Circle, and Chamber Tombs. Discoveries outside the Citadel. Princeton. BURR, D. 1933 “A Geometric House and a Proto-Attic Votive Deposit”, Hesperia 2, 542–640. CALLIGAS, P. 1990 “Early Euboean Ship Building”, 77–83 in: TZALAS 1989. CARTER, J. 1971 “The Beginning of Narrative Art in the Greek Geometric Period”, BSA 67, 25–58. COLDSTREAM, J. N. 1968 Greek Geometric Pottery. A Survey of Ten Local Styles and their Chronology. London. 2003 Geometric Greece. 900–700 BC (2nd ed.). London – New York. 2006 “The Long, Pictureless Hiatus. Some Thoughts on Figurative Art between the Mycenaean Pictorial and Attic Geometric”, 159–163 in: RYSTEDT –WELLS 2006. COULSON, W. D. E. 1986 The Dark Age Pottery of Messenia (SIMA-Pb 43). Göteborg. CROUWEL, J. H. 1991 The Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery (Well Built Mycenae. The Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at Mycenae, 1959–1969, Fasc. 21). Oxford. 1999 “Fighting on Land and Sea in Late Mycenaean Times”, 455–460 in: LAFFINEUR 1999. 2006a “Late Mycenaean Pictoral Pottery”, 233–255 in: EVELY 2006. 2006b “Late Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery: A Brief Review”, 15–22 in: RYSTEDT –WELLS 2006. 2007 “Pictorial Pottery of LH III C Middle and its Antecedents”, 73–88 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II. DAKORONIA, F. 1990 “Αταλάντι”, ArchDelt 40, 1985 [1990], Chron 165–167. 2006 “Mycenaean Pictorial Style at Kynos, East Locris”, 23–29 in: RYSTEDT –WELLS 2006. DAVIS, E. N. (ed.) 1977 Symposium on the Dark Ages in Greece. New York.

52

Joost H. Crouwel

DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1952 Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. 1972 “Bird Vases”, CretChron 24, 245–277. DESCŒDRES, J.-P. (ed.) 1990 ΕΥΜΟΥΣΙΑ. Ceramic and Iconographic Studies in Honour of Alexander Cambitoglou (MeditArch Suppl. 1). Sydney. VAN DOORNICK JR., F. H. 1982 “Protogeometric Longships and the Introduction of the Ram”, IJNA 11:4, 277–286.

EVELY, D. (ed.) 2006 Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (BSA Suppl. 39). London. FRÖDIN, O. – A. W. PERSSON 1938 Asine. Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922–1930. Stockholm. FURTWÄNGLER, A. – G. LOESCHKE 1886 Mykenische Vasen. Vorhellenische Thongefässe aus dem Gebiete des Mittelmeeres. Berlin. GÜNTNER, W. 2000 Figürlich bemalte mykenische Keramik aus Tiryns (Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 12). Mainz. 2006 “Mycenaean Pictorial Vase-painters: a View from Tiryns”, 51–61 in: RYSTEDT –WELLS 2006. GUGGISBERG, M. A. 1996 Frühgriechische Tierkeramik. Zur Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Tiergefässe und der hohlen Tierfiguren in der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit (ca. 1600–700 v.Chr.). Mainz. HÄGG, I. – J. M. FOSSEY 1980 The Hellenistic Acropolis and Later Structures on the Middle Slopes, 1973–77. Excavations in the Barbouna Area at Asine 4 (Boreas 4:4). Uppsala. HILLER, S. 2006 “The Prothesis Scene. Bronze Age – Dark Age Relations”, 183–190 in: RYSTEDT – WELLS 2006. HURWIT, J. M. 1985 The Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100–480 B.C. Ithaca – London. JUNG, R. 2002 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Schichten 19 bis 11 (Prähistorische Archäologie Südeuropas 18). Kiel. KARAGEORGHIS, V. (ed.) 1994 Proceedings of the International Symposium Cyprus in the 11th Century B.C. Nicosia, 30–31 October 1993 (The Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus). Nicosia. KARAGIORGA, T. G. 1972 “Ανασκαφή περιοχής αρχαίου Δωρίου”, ArchEph (Chronika), 12–20. KOPCKE, G. 1977 “Figures in Pot-painting before, during, and after the Dark Age”, 32–50 in: DAVIS 1977. KORRES, G. 1989 “Νέαι παρατήρησεις επι της παράστασεως πλοίου της ΥΕ III Γ: 1/2 πύξιδος εκ Τραγάνας Πύλου”, 177–202 in: TZALAS 1989. KOUROUNIOTIS, K. 1914 “Πύλου Μεσσηνιακής θολωτός τάφος”, ArchEph, 99–117. KRAIKER, W. – K. KÜBLER 1939 Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1). Berlin. KÜBLER, K. 1943 Neufunde aus den Nekropolen des 11. und 10. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 4). Berlin. 1954 Die Nekropole des 10. bis 8. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 5.1). Berlin.

Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age

53

LAFFINEUR, R. (ed.) 1999 Polemos. Le Contexte Guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7 eRencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998 (Aegaeum 19). Liège – Austin. LANGDON, S. 2001 “Beyond the Grave: Biographies from Early Greece”, AJA 105, 579–606. LEMOS, I. S. 1994 “Birds Revisited”, 226–236 in: KARAGEORGHIS 1994. 2002 The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. LENZ, D. 1995 Vogeldarstellungen in der ägäischen und zyprischen Vasenmalerei des 12.–9. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Untersuchungen zu Form und Inhalt (Internationale Archäologie 27). Espelkamp. LERAT, L. 1935 “Trouvailles mycéniennes à Delphes”, BCH 59, 329–375. 1961 “Fouilles à Delphes à l’est du Grande Sanctuaire (1950–1957)”, BCH 85, 316–366. MITSOPOULOS-LEON, V. (ed.) 2001 Forschungen in der Peloponnese. Akten des Symposions anlässlich der Feier ‘100 Jahre Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Athen’, Athen 5.3–7.3 1998 (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Sonderschriften 38). Athens. MOMMSEN, H. – J. MARAN 2000–2001 “Production Places of Some Mycenaean Pictorial Vessels. The Contribution of Chemical Pottery Analysis”, OpAth 25–26, 95–106. MOORE, M. B. 2000 “Ships on a ‘Wine-dark Sea’ in the Age of Homer”, Metropolitan Museum Journal 35, 13–38. 2004 The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Greek Geometric and Protoattic Pottery (Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum U.S.A. Fasc. 37). New York. MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1990 “Regional Mycenaean Pottery”, BSA 85, 245–270. PAPADIMITRIOU, A. 1987 Die früheisenzeitliche bemalte Keramik aus Tiryns. Die Phasen I–V (Ph.D. thesis). Freiburg. PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. 1990 “Protogeometric Βirds from Torone”, 13–24 in: DESCŒDRES 1990. 2005 The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone (Monumenta Archaeologica 24). Los Angeles. PAPADOPOULOS, T. J. 1979 Mycenaean Achaea (SIMA 55). Göteborg. PAPPI, E. 2006 “Argive Geometric Figured Style: the Rule and the Exception”, 229–237 in: RYSTEDT – WELLS 2006. PARIENTE, A. 1992 “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1991“, BCH 116, 833–944. POPHAM, M. R. 1987 “An Early Euboean Ship”, OJA 6, 353–359. POPHAM, M. R. – I. S. LEMOS (eds.) 1996 Lefkandi III. The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Toumba. The Excavations of 1981 to 1994 (BSA Suppl. 29). London. POPHAM, M. R. – L. H. SACKETT – P. G. THEMELIS (eds.) 1979/80 Lefkandi I. The Iron Age. The Settlement. The Cemeteries (BSA Suppl. 11). London. POPHAM, M. R. – E. TOULOUPA – L. H. SACKETT 1982 “Further Excavations of the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi, 1981”, BSA 77, 213–248.

54

Joost H. Crouwel

RUPPENSTEIN, F. 2007 Die submykenische Nekropole. Neufunde und Neubewertung (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 18). München. RYSTEDT, E. 1997 “Approaching the Question of Bronze-to-Iron-Age Continuity in Ancient Greece”, Current Swedish Archaeology 5, 147–154. 1999 “No Words, only Pictures. Iconography in the Tradition between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age in Greece”, OpAth 24, 89–98. RYSTEDT, E. – B. WELLS (eds.) 2006 Pictorial Pursuits. Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery. Papers from Two Seminars at the Swedish Institute at Athens in 1999 and 2001 (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, 53). Stockholm. SAKELLARAKIS, J. A. 1992 The Mycenaean Pictorial Style in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. Athens. SANTILLO FRIZELL, B. 1986 Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970–1974. Fasc. 3: The Late and Final Mycenaean Periods (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, 24:3). Stockholm. SCHOINAS, CH. 1999 “Εικονιστική παράσταση σε όστρακα κρατήρα από την Αγία Τριάδα Ελείας”, 257–262 in: Περιφέρεια. SHERRATT, S. 2003 “Visible Writing: Questions of Script and Identity in Early Iron Age Greece and Cyprus”, OJA 22, 225–242. STANSBURY-O’DONNELL, M. 2006 “The Development of Geometric Pictorial Narrative as Discourse”, 247–253 in: RYSTEDT – WELLS 2006. TAYLOUR, W. D. 1973 “Chamber Tomb K-2”, 224–237 in: BLEGEN ET AL. 1973. TOUCHAIS, G. ET AL. 1998 “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1996 et 1997”, BCH 122, 705–998. TZALAS, H. E. (ed.) 1989 Tropis I. 1st International Symposion on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Piraeus, 30 August – 1 September 1985. Proceedings (Hellenic Institute for the Preservation of Nautical Tradition). Athens. VERMEULE, E. 1960 “The Mycenaeans in Achaia”, AJA 64, 1–21. VERMEULE, E. – V. KARAGEORGHIS 1982 Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting. Cambridge (Mass.). VIKATOU, O. 2001 “Σκηνή πρόθεσης από το Μυκηναϊκό νεκροταφείο της Αγίας Τριάδας”, 273–284 in: MITSOPOULOS-LEON 2001. 2004 “Κλαδέος”, ArchDelt 53, 1998 [2004], Chron 230–233. WACHSMANN, S. 1998 Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. London. WEDDE, M. 1999 “War at Sea: the Mycenaean and Early Iron Age Oared Galley”, 465–476 in: LAFFINEUR 1999.

Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age

55

56

Joost H. Crouwel

Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age

57

58

Joost H. Crouwel

Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age

59

60

Joost H. Crouwel

FANOURIA DAKORONIA, PETROS KOUNOUKLAS

KYNOS’ PACE TO THE EARLY IRON AGE

Obviously it is not necessary to refer to Kynos in detail since it was presented during the previous two Workshops to which the reader can refer to for any information. Meanwhile the elaboration of the archaeological material of the excavation of the site has been enhanced with financial support from the Institute of the Aegean Prehistory. However, the elaboration of this material is not yet completed, so that, if and when a fourth workshop takes place, we are sure that Kynos will have something new to contribute. The observations concerning the successive occupation of the site as described during the first Workshop are still valid. Some of the results of the recent elaboration are presented today and they consist of the complete ground plans of two succeeding phases of the settlement, which followed the LH III C period at Kynos. We avoid determining the phases by naming them with recognized formal terms such as Submycenaean, Dark Age, Early Iron Age and so on and we refer to them as Kynos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on, because we do not want to contribute to the confusion that occurs with an overall applied dating. In this paper we intend to describe the situation that prevails at Kynos at the beginning of the Early Iron Age. Kynos 1 and 2 belong to the Early Byzantine and Roman periods respectively. It is ascertained that from the Roman period up to the Early Byzantine period, successive constructions were built upon the remains of buildings from the preceding eras, either using them as foundations or cutting them partly, when needed. The same practice has been applied throughout the entire lifespan of the settlement. The disturbance caused by each new building activity resulted in affecting the stratigraphy. The Early Byzantine remains, as well as those of the Roman period, were dated by the pottery, coins and the general building techniques. The Romans carefully leveled the debris of all previous phases in order to settle the site and occasionally dug deep into the preceding occupation levels to construct their foundations into layers dating from the Protogeometric to the LH III C late periods, according to the pottery collected from these levels. The sherds found near and along the Roman foundations range from the Roman period to LH III C Late. However, in the space between the Roman walls the stratigraphy remained intact and provided useful elements, such as floors, destruction layers and so on. Referring back to some disturbances and disorders in the stratigraphy, these can be justified taking into consideration that the excavated part of the hill lies at the NW end of the plateau, where the surface begins to lower to the slopes and previous intense cultivation of the area took place. The architectural remains of Kynos 4,1 located at the southernmost area of the excavation (Fig. 1) were discovered immediately beneath later levels. They consist of the poorly preserved 1

Due to new elements derived from a small scale excavation at the south-eastern profile of the Kynos grid, which took place in September 2007, the present text is different from the paper presented during the Workshop of February 2007. The differences have to do with the enumeration of the habitation levels and the final ground plans of each structural phase. A new phase, distinguished 0.10 m higher among the Early Protogeometric remains, was named Kynos 3 and consequently the numbers of previous phases should be enumerated, i.e.

62

Fanouria Dakoronia, Petros Kounouklas

dry-stone foundations of five sections of walls2 and two groups of flat stones, which could be the remains of support bases. Only one room’s ground plan can be outlined. This room (Α) is possibly rectangular with an east-west orientation and measures 9.60 m × 4.80 m. At the middle of the room a base of a post consisting of four flat stones was discovered. At a distance of 1.90 m west of the room Α, the north-western corner of a second room (B) was revealed. Another base of a post outside and westwards of room A, consisting of two flat stones axially located, indicates the existence of a third room (Γ). These three rooms display common characteristics such as orientation, structure and alignment so that we are permitted to conclude that all of them belong to the same complex. The fragmentary condition of the preservation of room A, due to later building activities, does not allow us to determine the position of its entrance. Considering, however, the orientation of the building and the fact that the site is exposed to the northerly winds, especially during winter, one could expect the presence of an entrance to the south (WELLS 1983, 82). It could be an axial one on the SW short side of the building or a side entrance, although the second case is more frequently encountered in buildings of a sacred character (MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 1997, 257). The foundations were constructed of some small flat stones and others, of medium size, roughly worked, embedded in earth fill. Some of the flattened stones were large, flat pebbles, smoothened by the action of the sea and presumably collected from the nearby coast. Gaps in the masonry were filled by wedging smaller stones or chips of stones. During the excavation, due to the successive disturbances, it was not possible to determine the extent and the technique for the construction of the upper structure of these walls. However, the discovery in related strata of burnt lumps of mud bricks suggests that the LH III C practice of mud-brick construction, a practice used during the Early Protogeometric Period (WELLS 1983, 33), was applied at Kynos 4 too. The foundations were roughly parallel to the inclining ground level and they were preserved up to 0.50 m in height. Underneath them a medium-hard brown layer, containing fragments of burnt mud-bricks and pithoi extended, obviously the destruction layer of the previous period of habitation. As mentioned, the successive occupations of the site and the building activities had resulted in previous structures either being disturbed or destroyed. This is the reason why no sign of a plastered or paved floor has been detected belonging to the buildings described here. For the same reason, no clear indication of how the building was roofed over has been ascertained. However, some indirect evidence of the level of the floor and the kind of roof has been discovered during the excavation, in the form of the remains of two possible bases for wooden posts described above (Fig. 2). One of these bases was found at a distance of 1.80 m south of the conceivable extension of the north wall of the room A. The evidence permits us to deduce that this room was roofed. However, the evidence available is not sufficient to conclude whether it had a flat or pitched roof (MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 1997, 258). The presence of a second base, west and outside of room A permits us to suspect the existence of a third adjacent room (Γ) as has already been referred to. Just to the East of the base of room A, attached to it, a broken handmade amphora was discovered lying on its belly. Among its sherds and the soil two burnt bones and sherds of a skyphos were found, suggesting the amphora had been possibly used as a burial urn (DAKORONIA 2003, 41). The amphora is made of fairly pure hard clay and has decoration of incised circles

2

Kynos 4, Kynos 5 and so on. After the new finds we had to reevaluate the elements available and as a result new ground plans were executed slightly different to the ones shown during the Workshop. The new phase is named Kynos 3 and the excavational data as well as the pottery collected show that this habitation phase succeeded the earlier phase 4 immediately after its destruction and that the latter did not last long. Nos. T6, T7, T12, T13α, T64.

Kynos’ Pace to the Early Iron Age

63

with a cross drawn by a pointed tool on its shoulders (Fig. 3). Handmade vases with incised decoration have been found at many Protogeometric sites and they are related to burial practices (BOUZEK 1974, 12–13. – BOUZEK 1985, 189–194).3 The custom of burying children within the settlements during the Protogeometric period is not unknown (MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 1997, 250. – WELLS 1983, 34) and does not necessarily imply a sacred character of the building (MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 1997, 282). The evidence available does not allow us to obtain a clear picture of the type of building described and of its function. One can deduce that perhaps we have part of a rectangular structure divided into several rooms, a plan known among buildings of this date (DRERUP 1969, 78. – WELLS 1983, 33, fig. 7. – HÄNSEL 1989, 171–208. – MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 1997, 234–235, 249– 251. – WARDLE 1983, 301–303. – WARDLE 1987, 318–321), although not abundant. According to other relevant examples it is also not unlikely that the described Protogeometric foundations of Kynos belong to a group of dwellings in a settlement (DRERUP 1969, 31–36). Architectural remains of the phase Kynos 4 and the area they occupy, allow us to conclude that we are dealing with a building of fairly large dimensions, which had at least three rooms placed on the same axis. If so, the architectural type of the building represents a rare one, belonging to a settlement with an organised plan. With regards to the date and the function of this building, we have been aided by artefacts and the pottery collected from the relevant strata. The artefacts found in the horizon of Kynos 4 are the following: clay spindles, conical or biconical, steatite spindles, conical and biconical (Fig. 4), and spools of badly fired coarse clay (Fig. 5). Perforated sherds from vases of various size and quality can be interpreted by their shape, either as spinning and weaving implements or as fishing weights (Fig. 6). The latter mentioned artefacts that are sherds in second use, could be counted as a sign of an early recycling effort. Artefacts, such as whet-stones, grinders, hammers, and mortars, are also collected from this layer (Fig. 7). Bone tools are also present. No metal artefacts have been discovered apart from two lead net sinkers. The character of the artefacts described speaks for a small scale handicraft. The pottery collected from the same horizon consists mainly of sherds, some of which are mended to vases or parts of vases (Fig. 8). The majority of recognizable sherds belong to open shapes with the prevailing shape being that of skyphos followed by the cup. Kylix and crater are represented too, as well as some kalathoi and trays, though only by a handful of indicative sherds. Close vases are represented by large amphorae and pithoid vases obviously used for storage purposes. Jugs, hydriae and collar-necked jars are present but hardly represented. Another large category of the pottery is the coarse ware, obviously for domestic (cooking) purposes. The majority of the coarse ware is represented by handmade burnished wide-mouthed jugs and amphoras, certainly cooking pots of dark gray coarse clay. Handmade burnished amphoras are less usual than the wide-mouthed jugs. Among the coarse ware a fairly good number of domestic wheel-made undecorated vases of hard clay exist. Some questions arise when dating the pottery of this horizon. Old and new trends coexist causing difficulties in identifying not only the date but also the origin of inspiration for each type. An example of the above conclusion is the cup, the old and new version of which coexists in the same level (Fig. 9). Similar phenomena can be traced by other shapes too, as for example skyphos whose variation is remarkable. Almost all types of the LH III C Late and Submycenaean specimens, as

3

Handemade vases with incised decoration of Protogeometric period are not necessarily a sign of northern influences or invasions of any kind (ANDRONIKOS 1969, 191–193. – HOCHSTETTER 1984, 345).

64

Fanouria Dakoronia, Petros Kounouklas

known from the relative bibliography, are represented in this phase. The fact that all kind of skyphos bases coexist in the same horizon is indicative: ring-base, ring-base low conical, conical base of medium height and high conical (Fig. 10). Another common feature of the LH III C skyphoi and cups is the reserved circle on the interior base, which also appears frequently on skyphoi of the Kynos 4 horizon. With regards to the decoration of the vases this could be characterized as dull and monotonous since it is mostly linear or monochrome. In a few cases we have concentric circles mainly on closed vases (Figs. 11, 12) and zig-zag or wavy lines usually on open vases (Fig. 13). A couple of degenerated tassel motifs on closed vases represent a last reflection of the late Mycenaean repertoire (Fig. 14). Wide bands between thinner ones are a common way of decoration around the belly of big amphoras during this period (Fig. 15), a motif not acquainted during the LH III C period at Kynos. At a level 0.10 to 0.40 m deeper than the foundation level of Kynos 4, architectural remains began appearing belonging to the Kynos 5 structures, which occupy the whole excavated area and consist of whole or parts of foundations and floors of hard soil fashioned on a layer of mud bricks, this being the destruction layer of the previous LH III C Late phase (Fig. 16). The most interesting features of these structures seem to be: a) The similarity in alignment of the buildings with that of Kynos 4. b) The fact that at least two of the foundations of Kynos 44 were based immediately on Kynos 5 ones. c) The existence of infant graves in the floors of the various rooms (NIKOLAOU 1999, 154). Through the aforementioned foundations eight rooms are partly outlined extending over the whole excavated area. None of these displays a completed ground-plan. The rooms, large and small, are arranged around a central one (IA) whose character is uncertain. It could be a central court or a roofed space. The preserved part of a floor, however, which belonged to this room, opposes the first interpretation. The floor of this room, as well as the floors of the other three rooms (Δ, E and ΣΤ), consist of clay spread over the destruction layer of mud-bricks of the previous habitation phase (Kynos 6), which coincides with the LH III C Late period (DAKORONIA 2003, 47). The building’s ground plan cannot be decidedly recovered since it extended outside the limits of the trench. Nor can we decide whether the rooms belong to one or more buildings. The picture the remains show is that of a multi-axial house type (HIESEL 1990, 69–70, 77–79, fig. 58). The fragmentary preservation of the foundations of this complex, which to some extent was caused by later building activities, does not permit us to distinguish with some certainty, where the entrances were nor where the openings were through which the rooms could communicate. It is probable that, as during the Kynos 4 habitation phase, the same principles of positioning the entrances according to the orientation of the buildings were used, which in this case are protected by the prevailing north-easterly winds (MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 1997, fig. 461: Karphi, plan of the settlement). The fact that the alignment of both phases is the same can support the above suggestion. The foundations were preserved to an average height of 0.50 m and they were 0.40 to 0.50 m wide. They were built with large and medium sized flat stones, roughly worked, embedded in earth fill and chip stones. On some of these foundations parts of mud-bricks are preserved, a sign that the upper structure of the walls was constructed of mud-bricks. In these clay floors small children were buried in small cists or shafts. These graves contained poor skeletal remains of babies and no significant burial gifts (NIKOLAOU 1999, 154). Roughly worked slabs covered the graves and after the burial mud was spread above the floor and the graves (Fig. 17). These floors are the terminus post quem of the phase Kynos 5.

4

Nos. T13α, T64α.

Kynos’ Pace to the Early Iron Age

65

The destruction of the settlement phases Kynos 4 and Kynos 5 was probably caused by earthquakes, whose natural consequence was fire as we can assume from the indicative dislocation of the foundations and the abundant traces of fire maintained within the rooms. Pieces of burnt wood indicate that timber was an important building material. The fact that floors were discovered in some of the rooms, supports the conclusion that at least these rooms were roofed, although we possess no relevant evidence. On the floor of room Δ, at its eastern part, the bottom of a clay bin or a hearth full of ashes and burnt soil was excavated (Fig. 18). Close to it, at the same level, broken vases were found such as a belly handled amphora, half of a skyphos with a high conical foot and handmade cooking pots with a burnished surface. We can not argue with certainty that these finds belong to phase Kynos 5 since the whole complex of the vases and the clay bin/hearth were covered by a thick layer of clear yellowish soil different from the surrounding layer of lumps of mud-bricks. It seems as if later settlers dug the debris of phase Kynos 5 to put in these vases and for some reason they covered them carefully (DAKORONIA 2003, 43). The remainding small finds found in this building are of the same character as of the previous phase Kynos 4 with only small differences in numbers. For example at Kynos 5 we have now almost double the number of spools and fewer spindles among which none are of steatite. Fishing weights and net sinkers are equally represented as well as stone tools such as hammers and grinders. The artefacts collected from both phases 4 and 5 show that the lifestyle and economical activities of the inhabitants did not differ dramatically from period to period. The pottery collected from horizon Kynos 5 also consists mainly of sherds, some of which amount to repair vases (Fig. 19). Again the majority of the recognizable sherds come from open shapes with the prevailing shape being that of skyphos. The next most numerous shape is the cup. The difference in the shapes of pottery between phases Kynos 4 and 5 lie purely in the numbers discovered. Closed shapes of Kynos 5 are much more limited in comparison to Kynos 4. For the first time the amphoriskos is represented at the phase Kynos 5. Kylix and craters are more abundant and, for the first time, the basin, the lid, the kalathos and the tray make an appearance. It is impressive that the number of handmade burnished vases is much more limited than during phase Kynos 4 (Fig. 20). Taking into consideration that no sign of handmade burnished pottery has been discovered in deeper levels of the excavation, phase 5 represents a terminus post quem for the appearance of this pottery at Kynos. Comparing the pottery of these two phases we can see that Kynos 5 displays more Mycenaean characteristics than Kynos 4, not only on pottery shapes but also on decoration. In phase Kynos 5 the repertoire of decorative motifs is richer, displaying concentric circles as mentioned, wavy line, zig-zag, tassel, triangle, cross-hatched triangle and scroll motifs. Although the motif syntax on the pottery already obeys to some rules of geometry, nevertheless the motifs have more free space around them and the general impression the vases give us is a bright one. Linear decoration appears on closed shapes. Skyphoi are mainly monochrome appearing in all variations known from the LH III C and Submycenaean periods (Fig. 21). It is interesting that in phase Kynos 5 we have not yet found any skyphos with a high conical foot. Skyphoi display ring bases and a few examples of a very low conical foot showing the transition from ring base to conical foot (Fig. 22). Cups are still of Mycenaean inspiration, monochrome inside and unpainted outside with a band around the lip. They have a reserved disk on the inside bottom. An interesting example is a handmade burnished cup on the profile of which one can trace the Mycenaean reflections of the potter (Fig. 23). Both phases Kynos 4 and Kynos 5 have provided vases, mainly closed ones, decorated with concentric circles. However, this motif shows a different concept at each period. At phase Kynos 5 compass drawn concentric circles are combined with other motifs such as tassel and wavy lines (Fig. 24). In Kynos 5 concentric circles display a Mycenaean flair as one can understand when seeing a running spiral motif drawn with a compass (Fig. 25). At the same time

66

Fanouria Dakoronia, Petros Kounouklas

concentric circles drawn by hand were applied on vases of Mycenaean form (Fig. 26). On the other hand concentric circles of Kynos 4 vases are isolated, strictly limited between dark bands or surfaces. To summarise the evidence provided by Kynos, we can say that the two phases which followed the LH III C period were of short duration. Certainly these phases should not be counted as belonging to the Bronze Age, since both display innovations not previously known, one of which, the most striking, is the compass drawn concentric circle. The other novelty is the appearance of handmade burnished pottery. Accordingly both Kynos 4 and 5 can be assigned to the first stages of the Iron Age, the latter displaying more Mycenaean characteristics than the former and therefore deserving the characterisation as “post-Mycenaean”. Apart from the introduction of the handmade pottery during phase Kynos 5 no other element alien to the Mycenaean material production can be detected. All products acquainted during Kynos 4 and 5 have their predecessors in the LH III C period, this being an argument against population changes or displacements. People who lived and worked at Kynos during these phases were aware of their past, their habits were similar to those of their predecessors, the production processes were the same as shown by the tools and perhaps they used the same sources for their survival.

Bibliography ANCIENT MACEDONIA III 1983 Papers Read at the Third International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, September 21–25, 1977 (Institute for Balkan Studies). Thessaloniki. ANDRONIKOS, M. 1969 Βεργίνα Ι. Το Νεκροταφείο των Τύμβων (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 62). Athens. BOUZEK, J. 1974 The Attic Dark Age Incised Ware (Sbornik Národniho Muzea v Praze: Řada A, 28:1). Prague. 1985 The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C. Prague. DAKORONIA, F. 2003 “The Transition from Late Helladic III C to the Early Iron Age at Kynos”, 37–51 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. DRERUP, H. 1969 Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit (ArchHom II O). Göttingen. HÄNSEL, B. 1989 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Grabung und der Baubefund (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 7). Berlin. HIESEL, G. 1990 Späthelladische Hausarchitektur. Studien zur Architekturgeschichte des griechischen Festlandes in der späten Bronzezeit. Mainz am Rhein. HOCHSTETTER, A. 1984 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die handgemachte Keramik. Schichten 19–1 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 3). Berlin. MAZARAKIS-AINIAN, A. 1997 From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples. Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 B.C.) (SIMA 121). Jonsered.

Kynos’ Pace to the Early Iron Age

67

NIKOLAOU, E. 1999 “Παιδικές ταφές ‘intra muros’ της Έσχατης Χαλκοκρατίας από τον Κύνο της Ανατολικής Λοκρίδας”, 153– 156 in: Περιφέρεια. WELLS, B. 1983 Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis, 1970–1974. Fasc. 4: The Protogeometric Period. Part 2: An Analysis of the Settlement (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, 24:4). Stockholm. WARDLE, K. A. 1983 “Assiros: A Macedonian Settlement of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age”, 301–303 in: ANCIENT MACEDONIA III. 1987 “Excavations at Assiros Toumba. A preliminary Report”, BSA 82, 318–321.

68

Fanouria Dakoronia, Petros Kounouklas

Kynos’ Pace to the Early Iron Age

69

70

Fanouria Dakoronia, Petros Kounouklas

Kynos’ Pace to the Early Iron Age

71

72

Fanouria Dakoronia, Petros Kounouklas

Kynos’ Pace to the Early Iron Age

73

74

Fanouria Dakoronia, Petros Kounouklas

Kynos’ Pace to the Early Iron Age

75

76

Fanouria Dakoronia, Petros Kounouklas

SIGRID DEGER-JALKOTZY

FROM LH III C LATE TO THE EARLY IRON AGE: THE SUBMYCENAEAN PERIOD AT ELATEIA

As pointed out at the previous LH III C Workshop held in Vienna and on various other occasions, the Mycenaean cemetery at Elateia-Alonaki is distinguished by its longstanding use from LH III A to the Geometric period. Even more striking is the fact that in LH III C Middle/Advanced a pinnacle of economic prosperity and population growth was achieved which continued to flourish beyond the final phases of the Mycenaean period (DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, 143–145) and lasted, in fact, until an early phase of the Protogeometric period.1 However, at closer introspection it appears that the transition from LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age at Elateia was not as straight as the continuous use of the cemetery suggests. Several tombs were abandoned in LH III C Late. In contrast, others were filled with an increasing number of burials, and even new tombs were dug during the subsequent span of time. Cultural changes are reflected by new assemblages of burial gifts, and changes in the burial habits may well have had a demographic background (DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002. – DAKORONIA 2004. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 2004). However, due to the idiosyncratic development of the local pottery styles of Central Greece (DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007) it is difficult to define the successive stages of the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. In particular the question arises whether there was a distinct chronological phase at Elateia which may be called “Submycenaean”.2 Under these premises we have decided to approach this problem by searching the tombs and burial contexts of Elateia for elements which may be either classified as “Submycenaean” in the conventional sense of the term, or which may be considered synchronous with the cultural elements of the Submycenaean period in Attica and elsewhere. Several such tombs and their burial contexts will be presented in this article. We hope that they will substantiate our view that the history of Elateia did indeed undergo a distinct period which may be called Submycenaean. Moreover, this period seems to have been subdivided into two phases: We have labelled the first one “SH III C Spätest/Submykenisch Früh” on an earlier occasion because it is difficult to decide whether it should be regarded as the final phase of LH III C Late, or as an early phase of Submycenaean (cf. DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002). In the present article “SH III C Spätest” will be translated as “LH III C Final”, which corresponds to “Final Mycenaean” in the terminology of Ioannis Moschos for the same span of time (cf. MOSCHOS this volume). – The subsequent second phase may be called Submycenaean in the proper sense of the term, even if the Myceneaean tradition still made itself felt, particularly with regard to the wheel-made pottery (on this point see DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999). – Finally it has to be discussed whether or not a third phase, too, should be assigned to the Submycenaean period (see chapter 3).

1

2

After EPG the cemetery was abandoned to a large extent. Only a reduced number of tombs continued to be in use in the 10th and 9th centuries BC (DAKORONIA 2004. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 2004). On the history of and the scholarly dispute around the term “Submycenaean” see the useful summary by MOUNTJOY 1988, 1–5.

78

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

1. THE FIRST SUBMYCENAEAN PHASE (“LH III C FINAL/EARLY SUBMYCENAEAN”) The ambiguity in chronology of this phase is mainly provoked by the pottery which displays features both of Mycenaean and of Submycenaean vessels. However, there was a change in burial customs, and among the metal objects novel elements appeared which are commonly attributed to the Submycenaean period. 1.1. The evidence T. XXVI/883 It is a well-known fact that in many regions of Greece the end of the Mycenaean civilisation was marked by a fundamental change of grave types and burial habits. In contrast the Mycenaean chamber-tombs at Elateia continued to be used far beyond the end of LH III C. Moreover, several tombs dug at a later time still adhered to the idea of the rock-chamber, even if their shapes no longer corresponded to the canonical layout of Mycenaean chamber-tombs (DEGER-JALKOTZY – DAKORONIA 1991). However, it is significant to the subject of this article that such “a-canonical” chamber-tombs first appeared during a period of time which immediately followed after LH III C Late. For these early “a-canonical” chamber-tombs T. XXVI/88 (Fig. 1) may be called in evidence. Its layout consisted of a very short dromos and a hollow which deserves the name of a burrow rather than that of a chamber. Instead of a regular stomion there was an edge backing the large slab by which the opening was closed. At first sight one might assume that T. XXVI had been designed for a single burial. However, it contained the remains of three individuals.4 The small “chamber” of T. XXVI required an extremely contracted position of the corpses so that dead bodies must have been “tied up like parcels”.5 The same phenomenon occurred in the small tombs T. XXV/88 and T. XXX/88, too, which can be dated to the same period. These tombs therefore corresponded not only in shape, but also in use to the Mycenaean multiple-burial chamber-tombs. [In contrast, the “acanonical tombs” of the 10th and 9th centuries BC only contained single burials: The Mycenaean chamber-tomb was then obviously combined with the Early Iron Age practice of single burials.] The chronology of T. XXVI is set by the burial gifts. They were confined to the burial of the woman. At her head the lekythos XXVI/8a (Fig. 1) was deposited, another lekythos was found next to her right arm (Fig 1:XXVI/8c). On one of her fingers there was still a bronze ring (Fig. 1[plan]:XXVI/8g). It consists of a hammered bronze band with overlapping terminals6 and corresponds to a type that, according to the communis opinio, first appeared during the Submycenaean period (cf. KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, 85–86. – CATLING – CATLING 1980, 247– 248. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 207). However, the classification of the two lekythoi is ambivalent. On the one hand the completely monochrome surface of XXVI/8c and the three circumcurrent parallel wavy-lines in the shoulder zone of XXVI/8a perfectly correspond to the deco3

4

5 6

Excavated by the Austrian team (directed by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy) of the Greek-Austrian excavations at Elateia-Alonaki. Excavation team of T. XXVI: Eva Alram-Stern (field-director), Anna Weiß(-Bächle). The skeletal remains were those of a woman, a man and a small child. – My thanks are due to the late Prof. Egon Reuer and to Dr. Susanne Fabrizii-Reuer who conducted the anthropological investigation of the burials. All information given in this article on the human remains from the cemetery at Elateia-Alonaki has been provided by their generosity. This rather drastic but illustrative comparison was coined by Egon Reuer. For the type see Ruppenstein 2007, 207–208, “Bandringe”; for illustration see KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, 85 fig. 3, left and right. – The metal finds from Elateia are being studied for publication by Dr. Phanouria Dakoronia, my friend and partner at the Elateia excavations. All information on the metal finds mentioned in this article is owed to her.

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

79

rative systems of LH III C Late. On the other hand both vases have a tall neck and a flaring rim, and their overall appearance is baggy because their largest diameter is situated far below the middle of their height. These features are generally considered typical of Submycenaean lekythoi. Fabric and paint of XXVI/8a are good, while the quality of XXVI/8c is rather poor. On balance, the chronological position of the two lekythoi was either at the very end of LH III C Late or already at the beginning of Submycenaean (= “LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean”). Comparable lekythoi found in the chamber-tombs of Kephallonia/Lakkithra have been classified as LH III C Late (RMDP, 457–458, fig. 165, esp. no. 49). However, P. A. Mountjoy herself admits that “on Kephallonia pottery in the LH III C style may well continue into this [scil. Submycenaean] phase” (RMDP, 55–56). Indeed I. Moschos has convincingly argued that the Mycenaean tombs on Kephallonia were still in use during the Submycenaean Phase 6a of his chronological scheme for Western Achaia (MOSCHOS this volume). Therefore the two lekythoi from T. XXVI of Elateia may be classified as “LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean”. This date agrees well with the bronze ring found on a finger of the skeleton. As mentioned above, in T. XXVI and other early “a-canonical” tombs the corpses were buried in an extremely contracted position. However, it would be wrong to ascribe this burial practice to the small dimensions of the tombs because it was carried out in large chamber-tombs, too. T. LXII/90 provides a good example. T. LXII/907 This was one of the largest tombs of the cemetery and one of the richest in terms of burial gifts (for the plan of the tomb see DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002, 143 fig. 5). Its use lasted from LH III A2 until the early phase of the Submycenaean period under discussion. The tomb contained the remains of no less than 134 individuals, most of them deposited in ten floor-pits in the chamber of the tomb. The roof of the chamber had collapsed. In the debris many Hellenistic/Roman vessels and even a Roman child burial in an amphora were found. Roman pottery occurred among the finds on the floor of the chamber, too, so that the LBA burials had not remained undisturbed. However, in the north-western part of the chamber a burial group was found on the floor in situ (Fig. 2). It consisted of three skeletons piled up one upon another in an extremely contracted position. Intermixed with these interments there were two cremations (DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002, 141). The burial gifts associated with this group mainly consisted of Mycenaean objects such as two spindle whorls, a bronze knife, and a seal-stone (DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – SAKELLARIOU 1996, 75 no. 101). However, the decisive dating criteria are provided by a cast bronze ring with plane-convex section,8 and by the stirrup jar LXII/23e (Fig. 2:1). This vessel again confronts us with the problem whether it should be assigned to the very end of LH III C Late, or to Submycenaean. The decoration of the vase and particularly of the shoulder zone is consistent with the Mycenaean style of LH III C Late but its baggy appearance is that of FS 177. By comparison, a stirrup jar from Achaia dated to LH III C Late by P. A. Mountjoy (RMDP, 434– 435, fig. 154, no. 114) displays a similar decorative system, but its shape is globular-biconical and the largest diameter is situated at the middle of the vessel’s height. LH III C Late stirrup jars from Elateia, too, are clearly FS 175 and differ in shape from LXII/23e (for examples see Fig. 3:1 [LXII/27b]; DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002, 144 fig. 6a. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, figs. 3:5, 6:7). Therefore LXII/23e should be classified as LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean rather than as LH III C Late. This assignment is supported by the 7

8

Excavated by the Greek team (directed by Phanouria Dakoronia) of the Greek-Austrian excavations at ElateiaAlonaki. Excavation team of T. LXII: S. Dimaki (field-director), E. Zachou. For the type(s) see RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 206: “Bronzeringe, Typ a”. – For illustration see KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, 83 fig. 3, Grab 70. – Rings of this type are generally assigned to the Submycenaean period, see RUPPENSTEIN l.c. – CATLING – CATLING 1980, 248.

80

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

aforementioned bronze ring of a type which is generally said to have first appeared during the Submycenaean period. Moreover, close to the burial group the miniature stirrup jar LXII/23ζ (Fig. 2:3) was discovered. This vase which probably had also belonged to the burial gifts of the group is certainly Submycenaean. In fact, it has been connected by I. Moschos to the pottery style of his Submycenaean Phase 6a in Western Achaia (MOSCHOS this volume). A little further east of the north-western burial group the remains of several more burials had been deposited of which, however, none was found in situ. Of the two vases associated with this group the amphoriskos LXII/24θ (Fig. 2:4) again displays a combination of LH III C Late decoration and Submycenaean shaping. In contrast, the lekythos LXII/24η (Fig. 2:2) displays features which were characteristic of the advanced Submycenaean period (see further below, p. 95). A spiral hair-ring should also be assigned to the Submycenaean period.9 In sum, the burials from the north-western corner of T. LXII should be dated to a period when LH III C Late had already given way to the Submycenaean period. The same date may be assigned to the finds from the south-western part of the chamber: They included a long dress-pin with an elongated swelling and ring-like mouldings on the upper end of the shaft,10 several bronze rings of Submycenaean types (see our notes 6, 8) and a small monochrome juglet FS 115 of a depressedbiconical shape with a disproportionately tall neck. Since no burials were found in that part of the tomb it cannot be excluded that these objects had also originally belonged to the northwestern burial group. In contrast to the burial group in the north-western part of the chamber, the skeletons found in the eastern part had not remained undisturbed. Only those of two women were found more or less in situ so that it was possible to understand that they had been deposited with slightly contracted legs and outstretched upper body. It is difficult to tell when they had been buried because the burial gifts had obviously been either re-arranged or removed. Only a necklace of steatite with a characteristic pendant had remained in its original place with one of the two skeletons. At Elateia such necklaces were generally a feature of LH III C jewellery (DIMAKI 1999, 207). This agrees with the chronology of the vases from this area of T. LXII which can be assigned to a stretch of time from LH III B2 or III C Early through LH III C Late.11 The small finds, too, are typical of Mycenaean burials.12 Moreover, the position of the two skeletons seems to conform to a burial custom which was practiced during the Mycenaean period: The – admittedly few – undisturbed burials from Elateia-Alonaki dating to LH III C Late had been deposited in exactly the same way.13 Under these premises it appears that the burial of corpses in a tightly contracted position was a deviation of the traditional custom. On evidence of early “a-canonical” tombs such as T. XXVI and of “normal” chamber-tombs such as the burial group in the eastern part of T. LXII it appears that the new practice was introduced during the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean period (further evidence is provided by tombs such as T. XLIV/89 and LXIV/90). Moreover, during the same span of time cremations, too, were deposited on the floors and in

9

10 11

12

13

For differentiation between spiral finger-rings and “hair-rings” see RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 208 (finger-rings) and 229–230 (hair-rings, with illustration fig. 11 and pl. 30 [Grab 136]). Information kindly supplied by Phanouria Dakoronia. For the two amphoriskoi T. LXII/24ιε (FS 59, LH III B2) and T. LXII/25ιε (FS 199, LH III C Early) see BÄCHLE 2003, 224 and figs. 5, 6. – Apart from these already published vases, there were several small jugs of LH III C Advanced and Late, a stirrup jar of LH III C Advanced/Late, and a LH III C Late lekythos. For an enumeration of these finds see DIMAKI 1999, 207. – Remarkably enough these finds moreover included 13 bronze finger-rings made of hammered bronze bands with a flat or plane-convex profile, and with open or overlapping terminals: Does this imply that this type which is commonly considered Submycenaean already occurred at Elateia in LH III C Late? This important point will be discussed further below in paragraph 1.2.2. According to Dr. Phanouria Dakoronia this position of skeletons may be viewed as a typical feature of Mycenaean (and even earlier) burial habits in Central Greece (personal communication).

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

81

pits of several tombs of the Elateia-Alonaki cemetery (DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002). We shall return to this point further below (see paragraph 1.2.3). 1.2 Discussion: Novel elements in the material culture and in burial customs

1.2.1. Pottery Generally speaking the pottery of the first Submycenaean phase (LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean) remained Mycenaean in appearance. The decorative system faithfully adhered to the Mycenaean tradition particularly of LH III C Late but it lacked in inspiration. There was a preference for dark-ground surfaces with narrow unpainted zones on the neck, shoulder and/or lower part of the vases. Patterned decoration of shoulders and of narrow body zones was reduced to a small repertoire of motifs such as simple or multiple arcs (for a dotted version see Fig. 2:1) and triangles with or without fringes, single or multiple horizontal wavy lines, zig-zag. Motifs painted on shoulders and handle-zones of light-ground vases, too, were of LH III C origin such as horizontal bands, quirk (Fig. 3:6), horizontal wavy-line(s) (Fig. 1:XXVI/8a), and scroll and tassel (Figs. 12:1,2; 14:1,2. – For a scroll still used on a large PG amphora cf. DEGERJALKOTZY 1999, fig. 11c). The technical quality of the ceramics deteriorated (cf. Fig. 14:1,3,6,7).14 The clay was often badly prepared, the firing inadequate. Due perhaps to these shortcomings, the height of vases hardly ever exceeds 0.15 m. Moreover, the largest diameter of vases tended to drop to the lower part of the body and shapes became baggy. However, a change in taste cannot be excluded either, because baggy vases occurred in Attica (RMDP, 626–627, fig. 239, nos. 610, 611. – KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 15: nos. 451, 452, 520; pl. 18: no. 466) and in other regions, too (Euboea: RMDP, 723 fig. 278:100,101,102,105. – Phokis: RMDP, 794 fig. 315:301,304,305,307. – Kephallonia: SOUYOUZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, pls. 3:A1090,1092,1468,1525; 8:A1018, 1019. – Lakonia: DEMAKOPOULOU this volume, figs. 6; 24 left). – Biconical shapes, too, occurred but were less prominent at Elateia than in other regions. – The paint of decorated vases is often dull and smeary and flakes off easily. The repertoire of shapes was reduced to amphoriskoi FS 59 and 60, small jugs in several variations of FS 115, lekythos, and stirrup jar FS 177. Amphoriskoi now display a wide neck rising in a continuous, soft line from the sloping shoulder (Figs. 2:4; 3:6). The horizontal handles of amphoriskoi FS 60 are often set low, at the largest diameter of the baggy shape of the body (Fig. 3:6). This shape was the direct forerunner of the taller belly-handled amphoriskos of the subsequent second phase of the Submycenaean period at Elateia (cf. Figs. 5:XXIV/18c; 8:5 [XLIX/16o]; see further below, 2.2.1.2 ). Amphoriskoi with vertical handles on the shoulder will be discussed further below, pp. 95–96. The type may have been introduced at Elateia during LH III C Late but it became extremely popular during the Submycenaean period (Figs. 10–12 and 14). – Like the amphoriskos the lekythos, too, reached a peak of popularity during the Submycenaean period (Fig. 9). However, in the EPG period this shape was no longer in use, very much in contrast to other regions such as Attica and Euboea (LEMOS 2002, 9–11). During the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean phase the lekythoi mainly carried dark-ground decoration (Fig. 9:1–3). – Stirrup jars were still used for burial gifts in the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean period but they were less popular than they had been throughout all phases of LH III. The shape is now FS 177. The decoration was either an uninspired continuation of LH III C Late motifs and patterns (cf. Figs. 2:1; 3:5) or it was a disorderly pasticcio of idiosyncratic motifs (Fig. 2:3). Small specimens (Figs. 2:3; 3:1; ADelt 40, 1985 [1990] Chron, pl. 58ε) 14

My thanks are due to Mr. Christos Vaporakis, conservator at the Museum of Atalanti and ceramicist. I have greatly profited from many discussions with him and from his information on the technical aspects of potterymaking.

82

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

had become popular in LH III C Late and remained in the repertoire during the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean phase. During the second Submycenaean phase the use of the stirrup jar declined and the shape no longer appeared in contexts of the EPG period. – In contrast, the small jug FS 115 was a great survivor. Like amphoriskos and lekythos, this shape reached a pinnacle of popularity during the LH III C Late/Early Submycenaean period. The shape may assume a baggy or (less frequently) a biconical appearance, and the neck varies in height and width. The decoration is almost invariably dark-ground (for a few examples see DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002, figs. 2 and 7:XXXVII/6στ; fig. 7:LVII/5κθ). During the EPG period small jugs also continued to play an important role within the ceramic repertoire at Elateia (cf. e.g. DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999, fig. 10). Open shapes are not represented among the burial gifts deposited on floors and in pits. In contrast, most pottery fragments found in the dromos fills belonged to open shapes. However, it is very difficult to reconstruct from the fragmentary material any open shapes that could be specifically assigned to LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean. Moreover, study of this material still has a long way to go. A. Weiß(-Bächle) who has published pottery finds from 14 dromoi tentatively attributed a certain type of shallow dark-ground bowls with broad bars or splashes across the unpainted flat or sloping lip to Submycenaean/Protogeometric (WEISS 1993, 44–45 and figs. 7:23; 16:105,109; 20:129,132,133,140; 23:153+156). A Submycenaean date of these bowls appears very probable in view of the fact that the respective pieces mainly came from the dromoi of tombs T. XXIV/88, T. XXXV/88, T. XLIX/89, and T. LXII/90 which are all pertinent to the present article. Moreover, it may be expected that with the progress of our pottery study it will be possible to assign certain cups, skyphoi and craters, too, to the Submycenaean period.

1.2.2. Metal objects This material is being studied by Phanouria Dakoronia, and I would not like to graze in her field. On the other hand it is impossible to talk about cultural changes in the Submycenaean period without referring to finger-rings, fibulae, and dress-pins. Therefore I have decided to mention just the first appearances of novel metal objects during the transition from the Mycenaean to the EIA at Elateia, without entering into the technical details. Dr. Dakoronia has kindly supported me with information for which I am most grateful. (For a first survey of the metal finds from Elateia see DAKORONIA 2004, as well as Ph. Dakoronia’s contribution to DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002). – Of course, the picture presented in this article must be regarded as preliminary, and any errors remain with me. During the so-called “LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean” phase long dress-pins with oblong swellings on the upper part and with nail-heads or other terminals on top of the shaft made their first appearance in the tombs of Elateia-Alonaki. Some were additionally decorated with incisions and/or ring-like mouldings. Most of them reached a considerable length of 30cm and more. During that span of time they did not occur in pairs. Violin-bow shaped fibulae with twisted bow or with leaf-shaped bow decorated with patterns in dot repoussé were still in use and indeed may have still been made during this phase. However, these objects had had their heyday during LH III C Late. The largest group of metal objects were finger-rings which were found in great numbers.15 In fact, some skeletons still had rings on almost every single finger. They consisted of hammered bands with open or overlapping terminals with flat or plane-convex section. A few rings had a midrib, too. Another type consisted in cast rings of modest width and with plane-convex

15

For discussion and references see above, pp. 78–80 and ns. 6, 8, 9.

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

83

section. Moreover, bronze spirals were used for finger-rings or for hair-rings (as defined by RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 207, 229–230). It cannot be excluded that some of these types had occurred at Elateia earlier than in Attica and Euboea. In this respect T. LXII again may be called in evidence. As already elaborated above, the north-western part of the chamber contained a burial group of LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean date (Fig. 2). Precisely underneath this group Pit A was dug in the floor of the chamber. The burials on the floor were preserved in situ, so that LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean was the terminus ante quem – or ad quem, at the latest – for the filling of the Pit A. It contained the skeletal remains of seven individuals and two cremations, together with a rich array of various objects (listed in DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – SAKELLARIOU 1996, XIX). In particular, a great number of bronze objects mostly of LH III date16 stand out. However, there were also ten finger-rings made of bronze bands with flat or plane-convex section and with open or overlapping terminals, one ring with four antithetic spirals, and four spiral rings. Such objects are commonly considered to have first appeared in the Submycenaean period.17 Under these premises the only vase found in Pit A is of great chronological importance because it clearly dates to LH III C Late (Fig. 3:1 [LXII/27b]). Therefore it cannot be excluded that finger-rings made of bronze bands, hair-rings and finger-rings with antithetic spiral terminals were already in use at Elateia during LH III C Late (see below n. 18). – This conclusion seems to be supported by the bronze objects found on the floor of the eastern part of T. LXII (cf. above, p. 80 and n. 12). The violin-bow shaped fibulae with twisted bow and with leafshaped bow, as well as a fragmentary Mycenaean knife conform to the chronology of LH III C Late provided by the burial vases. In contrast, the finger-rings made of narrow hammered bands with open or overlapping terminals were of a type which is commonly classified as Submycenaean. The same evidence is provided by Pit 1 in the dromos of T. XXIV: The vases mainly date to LH III B and III C Middle, and the small finds are Mycenaean. However, there were three “Submycenaean” finger-rings. – Pit 1 underneath the accumulation of burials in the south-eastern part of the chamber of T. XXXV is a further case in point. It was covered with stone slabs. Apart from the skeletal remains of five individuals the pit contained a rounded alabastron of LH III C Early (BÄCHLE 2003, fig. 18: cat. no. 112), three fibulae with leafshaped bow decorated with dot repoussé, seven finger-rings made of hammered bronze bands with flat section or with midrib, two hair-rings, one spiral ring, one glass bead and one spindlewhorl. There is evidence from other sites, too, that finger-rings made of hammered bronze bands, finger-rings with antithetic spiral terminals, shield rings decorated with dot repoussé, and spiral hair-rings occasionally appeared in LH III C Late.18 However, for Elateia a note of caution is advocated by contexts such as the contents of Pit H in tomb T. LXII. This was the largest of the ten pits of the tomb. It contained skeletal remains of 21 individuals (19 interments and two cremations), and it abounded in burial vases, bronzes and valuable objects.19 Apart from objects datable to the palace period and to LH III C,20 the burial gifts included many finger-rings 16

17 18

19 20

2 violin-bow shaped fibulae with twisted bow; 1 leaf-shaped bow fibula decorated with dot repoussé and incisions; 2 small knives (LH III); 1 spearhead (SH III A); 1 bronze disc. – For an italic dagger and the chronological problems involved with it see Dakoronia in DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002, 151 n. 36. DAKORONIA, as n. 6. A shield ring dated to LH III C Late was found at Kalapodi (FELSCH 1981, 87 fig. 10:15). Finger-rings with four antithetic spiral terminals were found in Central Greece before the Submycenaean period (DAKORONIA 1996, 1171). – Florian Ruppenstein has kindly drawn my attention to the recent finds of two finger-rings made of hammered bronze bands and with open ends in contexts of LH III C Advanced/Late at Tiryns (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 210 n. 891). DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002, 142–145. Of the numerous finds from Pit H we mention a ring-askos of LH III C Advanced with a small bird figurine applied to it; 4 fibulae of the violin-bow type with twisted bow; 1 fibula with a leaf-shaped bow; 1 fibula with an

84

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

made of narrow bronze bands with open or overlapping terminals, a shield ring decorated with embossed dot patterns, and a hair-ring. The chronology of the vases starts from LH III A2, but most vases are LH III C Middle and LH III C Middle/Advanced to Late (for a few examples see Fig. 3:2–4; for two amphoriskoi and one stirrup jar datable to LH III C Middle/Advanced see BÄCHLE 2003, cat. nos. 206–208). However, the amphoriskos LXII/34κε (Fig. 3:6) and the stirrup jar LXII/κγ (Fig. 3:5) exhibit the stylistic features of LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean pottery. The fact that vases of LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean were deposited both on the floor and in the pits of T. LXII repeats itself in other tombs of Elateia (DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002). Obviously the time difference between the burials in the pits and those on the floors was not long, due probably to a rise in burial frequency during that period (see below 1.2.3). Under these premises the matter cannot be settled before the analysis of all burial contexts from Elateia-Alonaki is completed. At any rate, during the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean phase the rings mentioned above were all well established and, indeed, richly represented among the burial gifts deposited in the tombs of the cemetery. In contrast to the rings, there is no doubt that the long dress-pins first appeared after the end of LH III C Late, i.e. in LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean.

1.2.3. Burial customs We have already pointed out that during a span of time which we have defined as LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean corpses were deposited one above another in an extremely contracted position. This new practice was in contrast to the local tradition according to which the deceased were deposited outstretched with slightly contracted legs. – Cremation, too, occurred at Elateia during the same span of time. However, as has been elaborated elsewhere (DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002), it seems to have been already practised – and probably was introduced – at Elateia in LH III C Late, and it continued to be performed during the PG period. Although the number of cremations at Elateia was marginal (less than 2% of the burials), it is nevertheless worth mentioning that most cremations were deposited during the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean span of time. The question arises why it was just during the final phase LH III C Late and/or in Early Submycenaean that a change in the burial habits took place. Elsewhere we have connected this phenomenon with the fact that during that period the numbers of burials in the ElateiaAlonaki cemetery reached a pinnacle. Even pits in the chamber floors were used for primary burials. Moreover, vases of LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean were deposited both on the floor and in the pits of tombs such as T. LXII (see above). Therefore the conclusion suggests itself that at the end of LH III C and during the first phase of the Submycenaean period a growth of population took place at Elateia (see DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZIIREUER 2002). However, it should be kept in mind that the increase in burials did not extend to all tombs of the Elateia-Alonaki cemetery. A good case in point is T. XLIX where the first Submycenaean phase was apparently not represented (see below, chapter 2). However, the custom of burying dead bodies in an extremely contracted position seems to have been short-lived at Elateia. The evidence of tombs such as T. XXIV, T. XXXV and T. XLIX suggests that the dead bodies were again deposited in the traditional way before the subsequent second Submycenaean phase came to a close (see below, 2.2.3).

asymmetrical bow; two gold finger-rings; two pairs of tweezers; lots of beads of semi-precious stones, glass and amber. A Psi-type figurine has been published by E. ALRAM-STERN 1999, 216.

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

85

2. THE SECOND SUBMYCENAEAN PHASE

2.1. The evidence Tomb T. XXVI was abandoned during or at the end of the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean phase. T. LXII may have contained burials of the subsequent stages of development,21 but no such burial could be identified during the excavation. Therefore we have to turn to tombs where the next stage of development was represented. Very good examples are provided by the burials of tombs T. XXXV and T. XXIV. – Moreover, the last interments of T. XLIX give evidence to the close of Submycenaean period at Elateia. T. XXXV/8822 Size and design of this tomb corresponded to the average “canonical” Mycenaean chambertombs at Elateia. The dromos was 4 m long, leading to the stomion at an angle, and two pits (or rather ‘pit-and-niches’)23 were cut in the floor. The shape of the chamber was almost square except for the curved northern wall which at some time was extended, apparently to make room for a further ‘pit-and-niche’ (Fig. 4). Moreover, three ordinary pits were cut in the floor of the chamber. The number of individuals buried in T. XXXV amounts to 62. On the floor of the chamber the remains of 24 interments were found, most of them in the south-western quarter and in the south-eastern corner. In the south-eastern corner the remains of nine individuals had been accumulated on the floor. Pottery connected with the skeletal remains consisted of a LH III B–III C Early amphoriskos FS 59 (BÄCHLE 2003, fig. 7: cat. no. 111; our Fig. 4[plan]:16c), of a small LH III C Late (or LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean) amphoriskos (Fig. 4[plan]:16e) and of the greater part of the Submycenaean lekythos XXXV/16d (Fig. 4:1). Metal finds included a few finger-rings of hammered bronze bands with open or overlapping terminals, and a shield-ring decorated with embossed dots. Two spindlewhorls, too, were connected with this burial group. – Underneath this accumulation there was Pit 1. It was covered by a stone slab so that the skeletal remains of five more individuals were separated from those deposited on the floor of the chamber. As already discussed above, p. 83, the latest possible date of the objects deposited in this pit is LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean, but LH III C Late cannot be excluded either. In the south-western quarter of the chamber the burial remains of twelve individuals had been deposited on top of the skeleton of a woman (aged 40–60 years) which was still found in situ. It is difficult to ascertain which burial gifts may have belonged to this particular burial.24 Altogether the objects connected with the accumulation of bones in the SW part of the tomb comprised five Submycenaean finger-rings as discussed above 1.2.2, a violin-bow shaped fibula with twisted bow, a spindle-whorl and four vases. Three of these can be dated to LH III C Middle/Advanced, to LH III C Late and to LH III C Late/Early Submycenaean while the amphoriskos XXXV/16i2 with vertical handles on its sloping shoulder (Fig. 4:2) is typical of the local Submycenaean pottery (see below, pp. 95–96). – Underneath these remains of 13 burials in the south-western part of the chamber Pit 3 was dug in the floor. Like Pit 1 in the south-eastern corner it contained the bone remains of five individuals. However, in contrast to the other pits of T. XXXV, Pit 3 was not covered. Therefore it is difficult to separate the burial gifts found in 21

22

23 24

As already mentioned, the lekythos LXII/24η (Fig. 2:2) should be dated to the mature Submycenaean phase, and fragments of PG vessels were found in the debris of the tomb. However, no burial could be connected with these objects. It should be remembered that T. LXII was thoroughly disturbed by the re-use in the Roman period and collapsed later on. Excavation team: E. Alram-Stern (field-director), P. Hiptmair, A. Weiß(-Bächle). For a plan of the tomb see ArchDelt 43, 1988 [1993], 231 fig. 15. On this kind of recipients for secondary burials see DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, n. 2. The discussion of this point must be left to the final publication of T. XXXV.

86

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

the pit from those of the floor deposit. In the lower part and on the bottom of Pit 3 there were objects of predominantly Mycenaean character (two seal-stones, two spindle-whorls, one glass bead). In the upper part and around the edge of the pit six bronze finger-rings of Submycenaean types were found. Moreover, the only ceramic finds from Pit 3 consisted of several fragments of the Submycenaean amphoriskos XXXV/16i2 mentioned above (Fig. 4:2), and fragments of the Submycenaean lekythos XXXV/16d (Fig. 4:1) from the south-eastern corner of the chamber. It is therefore clear that the time difference between the burials in Pit 3 and the floor deposits in the south-eastern and south-western part of the chamber cannot have been long. The chronologically latest vases (amphoriskos 16i2 and lekythos 16d) display features of the fully developed Submycenaean pottery phase (see below, section 2.2.1.3). From that it follows that among both accumulations of skeletons in the south-eastern and south-western part of T. XXXV there were the remains of individuals who had all been buried during this phase of the Submycenaean period. Moreover, the fact that the fragments of both vases were found scattered among the accumulations in the south-western and in the south-eastern part of the tomb suggests that the respective burials had been removed from their original location. Somewhat earlier a stirrup jar and a lekythos had met a similar fate: Their sherds and flakes scattered all over the floor of the chamber and in Pits 1, 2, 3 are so badly corroded that a classification is rendered impossible. However, a Submycenaean date of the lekythos appears probable on account of the modelling of the neck and rim. Clearly the removal of all these burial remains served the purpose of making room for subsequent interments. Pit 2 near the western wall of the chamber contained parts of four skeletons, together with two finger-rings of bronze bands with overlapping terminals and flat profile, one spindle-whorl, and sherds of the eroded stirrup jar and lekythos mentioned above. Moreover, there were two fragments of handmade pottery. – Pit 4 (= the ‘pit-and-niche’ mentioned earlier) contained the very decayed remains of a man and a woman. It cannot be excluded that they were primary burials. However, due to the lack of burial gifts they cannot be dated. As for burial habits, the evidence of the woman’s skeleton found in situ in the south-western corner suggests that in T. XXXV the dead bodies had originally been buried in the same tightly contracted fashion as the burials in tomb T. XXVI and in the north-western part of T. LXII. 25 The last interments of T. XXXV were found in situ in the central part of the chamber (Fig. 4). They were the remains of a woman and a child. The bones were not well preserved, but there were enough to suggest that the woman had been laid down in the traditional position with outstretched body and contracted legs. At both sides of her body there was a long dresspin with globular head (Fig. 4:4), and several of the nine finger-rings were still found on the bones of her hands. Some of these rings belonged to the types discussed earlier (see above, 1.2.2), including a bronze shield-ring decorated with dot repoussé. Moreover, there was a new type of broad and thick cast rings with triangular section which in the Kerameikos graves, too, appeared as a Submycenaean novelty (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 210). The only ceramic burial gift was a small handmade jug (Figs. 4:3; 15:6). Doubtless a burial assemblage of this kind can no longer be classified as LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean. It belonged to the fully developed Submycenaean period. The overall chronology of T. XXXV is of considerable interest. There is some evidence that the history of the tomb commenced during the palace period, perhaps as early as in LH III A (WEISS 1993, 41–45; 108–109). However, except for three vases dated by A. Bächle to LH III B–LH III C Early26 the chamber contained no vessels datable to anything earlier than

25 26

Information kindly provided by Dr. S. Fabrizii-Reuer. BÄCHLE 2003, 94–94 and cat. nos. 111–113 (the amphoriskos cat. no. 111 and the rounded alabastron FS 86 cat. no. 112 have been mentioned above).

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

87

LH III C Late.27 Even stirrup jars, most typical Mycenaean burial gifts, are almost absent, except for the heavily corroded sherds mentioned above. In contrast, the small finds included a fair number of Mycenaean objects: beads made of glass, steatite, semi-precious stones and gold, spindle whorls, tweezers and two seal-stones (DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – SAKELLARIOU 1996, nos. 53, 54). A similar picture is presented by the finds from the dromos fill (WEISS 1993, 41–47; 149–150). Open shapes datable to LH III C Late and Submycenaean prevailed, but there were several fragments of LH III A–B and LH III C Middle vases, too. Moreover, fragments of a ring-askos (a typical LH III C burial vase which normally does not figure among the pottery found in dromos fills) make it obvious that T. XXXV must have been cleared of earlier burials several times.28 – The observation that a major clearance must have taken place during the second phase of the local Submycenaean development is pertinent to the context of the present paper. As we have pointed out earlier, the remains of 22 burials in the south-eastern and in the south-western corners were all accumulated at the same time because fragments of the Submycenaean vases XXXV/16i2 and 16d were distributed to both locations. The remains of five burials from Pit 3, as well as of four burials from Pit 2 (handmade pottery!) and of two burials from Pit 4 may be added. In short, between LH III C Late and the fully developed Submycenaean phase no less than 33 burials were deposited in the chamber of T. XXXV. They were all pushed aside when the last two burials were laid down in the centre of the chamber.29 T. XXIV/8830 This was another tomb of average size. The wall of the chamber was curved, except for the southern part at both sides of the stomion where it was straight (Fig. 5; for the plan of the entire tomb see DEGER-JALKOTZY – DAKORONIA 1991, pl. 1). Four pits were cut in the floor of the chamber, and two ‘pit-and-niches’ (for this type of recipients see DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, 129 n. 1) were situated near the stomion on both sides of the dromos. The tomb contained the remains of at least 66 individuals. On the floor of T. XXIV there were the remains of 21 skeletons. In the south-western part of the chamber six individuals had been buried. Two of those had remained in situ: Burial 1, a young woman was found near the western wall (Fig. 5:[plan] with skull 18e). Although the bones were not preserved in a good condition, it was discernible that the corpse had been deposited in a stretched position with slightly contracted legs.31 The same appeared to have been true of the neighbouring Burial 2, of another woman situated towards the centre of the chamber (Fig. 5, plan with skull 18g). The burial gifts of Burial 1 included a pair of dress-pins with globular head (Fig. 5:18d). In contrast to the last burial of T. XXXV they were not found on both sides of the skeleton but deposited together near the bones. They were short, and the globular heads were made separately from the pin.32 – Apart from the two dress-pins there were a bone pin and a massive broad, cast bronze finger-ring with triangular section (Fig. 5[plan]:19h). Two vases found in the front part of the chamber also seem to have belonged to this burial, namely the handmade jar

27 28

29

30 31 32

There was but one fragment of a LH III A2–B closed vase. Pottery found in the two dromos ‘pit-and-niches’ (together with the remains of 22 individuals) was confined to a LH III B2–III C alabastron (BÄCHLE 2003, cat. no. 113), and a small monochrome jug of later date. Pit 1 in the south-eastern part of the chamber and the two dromos ‘pit-and-niches’ contained the remains of altogether 27 burials. They may have been moved to these locations a little earlier, in LH III C Late or during the first Submycenaean phase (LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean), because they did not contain any pottery and no bronze objects datable to the second Submycenaean phase. Excavation team: E. Alram-Stern (field-director), P. Hiptmair. Information kindly provided by Dr. S. Fabrizii-Reuer, see n. 4. Information kindly provided by Dr. Ph. Dakoronia.

88

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

XXIV/18b (Figs. 5; 15:1) and the amphoriskos XXIV/18c (Fig. 5). – The burial gifts of Burial 2 consisted of a massive broad, cast bronze ring with triangular section (Fig. 5[plan]:19d) and a fragment of sheet iron (Fig. 5[plan]:19g). In the north-western part of the chamber the burials of a woman and a child were found in situ (Fig. 5: Burial 3). The interments were accompanied by a small handmade jug with incised and white incrusted decoration (Fig. 5:XXIV/18i). The finger-ring XXIV/20d (Fig. 5[plan]), too, may have belonged to this burial. Like the rings 19d and 19h of Burials 1 and 2 it was a massive cast bronze ring with triangular section. Due to the advanced decay of the skeletal remains it is not possible to reconstruct the position of the corpses. Like the last burial in T. XXXV, Burials 1, 2, 3 of T. XXIV have to be assigned to the Submycenaean period on account of the handmade vase, the finger-rings and the dress-pins. Moreover a small arched fibula with twisted bow (Fig. 5:20ag) was found in the earth between the burials. A Submycenaean date is further suggested by the stylistic features of the amphoriskos XXIV/18c (see section 2.2.1.2). In contrast, two vases found isolated on the floor behind the entrance of the chamber (Fig. 6) were of earlier date. The narrow-necked amphoriskos (or two-handled jar) XXIV/18h (Fig. 6) is LH III C Late. It has been restored from fragments which were partly found on the floor, partly in Pit 3 in the north-eastern part of the chamber. The same applies to the amphoriskos XXIV/18k (Figs. 6; 10:1) with vertical handles on the shoulder (on this type of amphoriskos see further below, pp. 95–96): Its body lay on the floor (Fig. 6), while the neck was found in Pit 3. It may be disputed whether XXIV/18k should be dated to LH III C Late or to Submycenaean. Personally I would assign it to LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean (see further below, p. 95), together with the (unpublished) small amphoriskos XXIV/23w which resembles the LH III C Late/Early Submycenaean amphoriskos of T.LXII/24θ illustrated in our Fig. 2:4. However, it has to be admitted that – with the exception of a hammered bronze ring with overlapping terminals – all objects found in Pit 3 were of no later date than LH III C Late.33 In any case it is clear that XXIV/18h and XXIV/18k antedated the vases which were associated with Burials 1 and 2. Yet as mentioned above, the skeletal remains found in the south-western part of the chamber not only included those two burials in situ but the scattered bones of four more individuals, as well. It is suggested that the amphoriskoi XXIV/18h and XXIV/18k were originally associated to those earlier burials which were obviously disarranged in order to make room for Burials 1 and 2 (and presumably Burial 3, too). When the area was cleared the two vessels broke; their fragments were partly scattered on the floor like the skeletal remains, the rest was pushed into Pit 3. Most of the eastern part of the chamber was covered with the skeletal remains of 13 burials, none of them in their original position. They had presumably been pushed aside before the interments of the western part of the chamber were deposited. Almost no burial gifts had been left to them, except for a ring made of a hammered bronze band with overlapping terminals, and a handle-less jar of a much earlier date (BÄCHLE 2003, 181 and fig. 13: cat. no. 57). It may be assumed that all other objects had been moved into the pits of the chamber and of the dromos. However, at the southern edge of the skeletal assemblage a handmade jar (Fig. 6: XXIV/18l) and another pair of pins with globular head (Fig. 6[plan]: XXIV/19e) were found. Like the pins of Burial 1 they lay side by side. The respective burial(s) had clearly been of Sub-

33

Finds from T. XXIV/Pit 3: Skeletal remains of 15 individuals: Additionally to the above mentioned amphoriskos XXIV/23w there were seven more vases, dating from LH III A2–B (BÄCHLE 2003, cat. no. 61), LH III B (BÄCHLE 2003, cat. no. 59), LH III C Early (BÄCHLE 2003, cat. no. 60), LH III C Middle/Developed (BÄCHLE 2003, cat. no. 58, 62) and LH III C Middle/Advanced and Late (DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, figs. 4:1; 9:5). – Apart from pottery there were spindle-whorls, glass beads, three fibulae with leaf-shaped bow decorated with embossed dots, one silver ring, one cast shield-ring, one hammered bronze ring with overlapping ends.

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

89

mycenaean date and pushed aside to make room for the last three interments in the western part of the chamber. It may be further mentioned that the earth above the three pits in the western part of the chamber not only contained the small arched fibula mentioned above but also two amber beads and a few glass beads. The latter are of considerable interest because they consisted of mixed alkali glass, a variant which is mainly found in certain parts of Europe and in Italy but which is not attested for the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean.34 However, in contrast to the fibula the chronology of the beads is uncertain. These very small objects could have been easily lost when earlier burials were removed from the floor of the chamber. T. XLIX/8935 Neither the pottery found in the chamber of T. XLIX (Figs. 7, 8) nor the diagnostic pottery fragments found in the dromos fill suggest a date earlier than LH III C so that the tomb may well have been dug during that period. It contained no pits. The last interment on the floor of the chamber, a woman,36 was deposited on the floor near the eastern wall. At each side of the skull a hair-ring was found. Moreover, the corpse had been adorned with a broad cast bronze finger-ring. The assemblage further included an iron dress-pin with a globular bronze head, and fragments of a second iron pin with square section – possibly the shaft of a second pin with globular head.37 According to the general opinion such dress-pins are indicative of an EPG date. Vases connected with this burial consisted of the two handmade vessels XLIX/20c (Figs. 7; 15:4) and XLIX/20d (Figs. 7; 15:3), as well as of the amphoriskos XLIX/20e with vertical handles from neck to shoulder (Figs. 7; 13:3).38 Despite its apparent Mycenaean pedigree this vase anticipates the features of what may be called a Central Greek EIA pottery style. This interment will be discussed further below (chapter 3). Earlier interments were found in the south-western part of the tomb where seven skeletons were preserved nearly complete. (Several more bones did not belong to this group. For these see further below). The burial gifts connected with this group consisted of three vases and a considerable number of small finds.39 Of the vases two stirrup jars (Fig. 8:1,2) may be dated to LH III C Middle/Advanced (DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, 130, 141). The monochrome ring vase XLIX/16j (Fig.8:3) has a parallel from Perati (IAKOVIDIS 1969/70, Vol. III, pl. 54α:511) which in the chronological chart of IAKOVIDIS 2003, fig. 1:32 appears among the vases assigned to LH III C Middle. P. A. MOUNTJOY, however, has dated ring vases FS 196 with a monochrome body to LH III C Late (RMDP, 439; 184–185 fig. 56, nos. 425, 426). This date may well apply to our completely monochrome vessel, too. At some distance, in the north-western quarter of the tomb and out of any context with skeletal remains, the monochrome small jug XLIX/19b (Fig. 8:4) with a high handle was discovered. Presumably this small vessel had drifted away from the south-western group because it contained a glass bead. Its high-swung handle is an unusual feature even at Elateia where small jugs FS 115 abounded.40 It may well have been borrowed from the trefoil-mouthed jug FS 138

34

35 36 37 38 39

40

I am grateful to Dr. Georg Nightingale for this information. The glass beads will be published by K. Nikita, J. Henderson and G. Nightingale. Excavation team: E. Alram-Stern (field-director), A. Weiß(-Bächle). The anthropological data were kindly provided by Dr. Susanne Fabrizii-Reuer. These objects are being studied by Dr. Phanouria Dakoronia. A photograph of all burial vases from T. XLIX is shown in DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999, fig. 2. The small finds comprised many beads and pendants of steatite, beads of glass (NIGHTINGALE 1993, p. XVIII) and flourite, spindle whorls, one seal-stone (DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – SAKELLARIOU 1996, 54 no. 72), and several finger-rings of bronze band. There are only two other small jugs with high-swung handles (T. XXXI/18g and T. LXIV/5eta), both datable no earlier than to LH III C Late.

90

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

which mainly occurs in LH III C Late (MDP, 188. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 164).41 For our vase the same date is further advocated by its short wide neck that smoothly merges into a sloping shoulder, and by its slightly ovoid body. At the edge of the burial cluster in the south-western part of the chamber or rather adjacent to it, the belly-handled amphoriskos XLIX/16o (Fig. 8:5) and the handmade jug XLIX/16n (Figs. 8:6; 15:7) were found. These two vessels cannot be called Mycenaean. In the first place, handmade pots were not a feature of LH III C burials at Elateia. They first occurred in true Submycenaean contexts. Secondly, the amphoriskos XLIX/16o displays the features of Submycenaean wheel-made vases (see below, chapter 2.2.1). Therefore it is clear that these two vases have to be separated from the LH III C Middle/Advanced and Late burial gifts deposited in the south-western quarter of the chamber. It has been mentioned above that not all bones found in the south-western part of the chamber belonged to the seven complete skeletons. In fact, they were part of a woman’s skeleton the rest of which was found near the northern wall of the chamber, together with two massive cast finger-rings and a long dress-pin of bronze with a broad roll-topped head (Fig.7[plan]: 21a,c,d). A shield-ring found in the general area, too, may well have belonged to this burial. Apparently the interment had been first deposited at this location. Later on the skeleton was disturbed and partly removed to the south-western quarter of the chamber. The two finger-rings and the dress-pin which had remained with the bones at the northern wall suggest a Submycenaean date of the burial. This date agrees well with the two vases XLIX/16n and 16o. It may be imagined that the two vases, too, had once belonged to the Submycenaean burial near the northern wall. When the burial was disturbed they were removed to the southern part of the chamber together with parts of the skeleton. The metal objects, however, remained with the rest of the skeleton at the original location of the burial near the northern wall. If this conjecture is correct, the following chronology of the burials of T. XLIX is suggested. The earliest burials are represented by the accumulation of seven almost complete skeletons in the south-western part of the chamber. If these burials had been moved to this location from elsewhere, their remains must have all been collected and removed with the greatest care, because it is only in this area that Mycenaean vases and small objects were found. On the other hand there is no anthropological evidence that they had been buried in the extremely contracted position as described with regard of tombs T. XXVI and T. LXII. The pottery connected with these seven interments can be dated to LH III C Middle/Advanced and Late. – During the second Submycenaean phase a woman was buried near the central part of the northern wall of the chamber. Later on this burial was disturbed. Only the metal objects and parts of the skeleton remained at the original position while other parts of the skeleton, together possibly with the amphoriskos XLIX/16o and the handmade jug XLIX/16n were moved to the edge of the burial group in the south-western part of the chamber. The transfer must have taken place before or at the time when the last burial – found in situ in the eastern part of the chamber – was deposited. On the basis of the metal objects and vases the chronology of the last burial was subsequent to the Submycenaean period: The question whether it represented a stage of development which was transitional from Submycenaean to EPG or which already represented the EPG period at Elateia will be discussed in chapter 3. It is remarkable that burials of the first Submycenaean phase (“LH III C Final/ Early Submycenaean”) were apparently absent from T. XLIX.

41

I owe this suggestion to Dr. Florian Ruppenstein.

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

91

2.2 Discussion It is clear that several new elements were introduced during the second post-Mycenaean phase at Elateia which by general scholarly consent are considered as characteristic of the fully developed Submycenaean period and culture. Most conspicuous among these elements are handmade vessels, pairs of long pins with globular head, and arched fibulae with plain or twisted bow. Therefore this phase of the cultural development at Elateia may be truly called a regional manifestation of the Submycenaean culture. In contrast, the previous phase had essentially remained Mycenaean in character even if significant cultural changes had taken place and the first Submycenaean elements had appeared.

2.2.1. Pottery 2.2.1.1 Handmade Pottery The most conspicuous feature was the first appearance in the tombs at Elateia of handmade vessels. Neither the Mycenaean nor the “LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean” burial assemblages in the tombs of Elateia-Alonaki had included handmade pottery. Yet once handmade vessels had made their first appearance during the second Submycenaean phase they continued to serve as burial gifts until the end of the 9th century BC. The same development seems to have taken place in the region around Delphi.42 At the coastal site of Kynos in East Locris, too, handmade burnished vases did not occur in layers of LH III C Middle and Late; they first appeared together with Submycenaean vases and remained in use during the Early Iron Age (DAKORONIA 2003, 47). In fact, some handmade jars from Kynos and from Elateia resemble each other in a remarkable way (compare DAKORONIA 2003, 44 figs. 12 and 13 to our Fig. 15:1,2). – In contrast, at the recently discovered site on the small island of Mitrou in the Gulf of Atalanti handmade pottery was already found associated with Mycenaean ceramics of LH III C Middle/Advanced and Late (RUTTER 2007, 293–294. – VAN DE MOORTEL this volume. – LIS this volume). This is even more remarkable as Mitrou is situated in close vicinity to Kynos where, as mentioned above, handmade pottery was absent from the contemporaneous levels. However, it certainly is too early to comment on the evidence from Mitrou before more material is known. Nevertheless, a fragment of a handmade container by its shape and fingerimpressed plastic decoration (RUTTER 2007, fig. 5) bears a closer resemblance to the earlier LH III C “Handmade Burnished Ware” of the Peloponnese than to the undecorated handmade jars and jugs of the EIA.43 Moreover, a deposit of handmade miniature vases from Building C may, indeed, “provide insight into less profane activities” of the inhabitants of Mitrou (LIS this volume; see also VAN DE MOORTEL this volume). – The evidence from the sanctuary at Kalapodi near Elateia, too, suggests that in Central Greece the deposit of handmade vases in LH III C may have been related to “non-profane” activities as B. Lis has put it (LIS this volume). The sanctuary was located on a pass between East Locris and the Kephissos valley. The pottery deposits included handmade pottery from LH III C Early onwards, and the range of 42

43

The Mycenaean tombs at Medeon did not contain any handmade burnished vessels. Handmade vases first occurred in the well-known dromos-less chamber-tomb at Delphi (LERAT 1937) dated by Desborough to Submycenaean/Early Protogeometric (DESBOROUGH 1972, 203–205 and pls. 47, 48) and by Lemos to Early Protogeometric (LEMOS 2000, 11). – The so-called Dromos Tomb at Delphi, too, contained one small handmade jug of Submycenaean type with flat base (cf. PERDRIZET 1908, 11 fig. 14). Although the majority of the pottery found in this tomb is Mycenaean, the tomb may well have been used until the Submycenaean period, judging from two lekythoi illustrated by PERDRIZET 1908, figs. 34 and 36. Despite various attempts to establish a line of continuity between the “Handmade Burnished Pottery” of LH III C Early and Middle and the jars and jugs of the EIA, I still believe that they represented two unrelated historical and cultural phenomena. I intend to discuss this subject further in connection with the final publication of the LH III C Mycenaean and handmade pottery from Aigeira.

92

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

shapes was much wider than that of the EIA handmade repertoire from the Elateia-Alonaki cemetery (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 75–78). It may be assumed that the dedication of handmade vessels was related to the character of the deity who was worshipped at Kalapodi, as well as to the cult practices of the worshippers who congregated at the sanctuary (FELSCH 1999). In any case, there can be no doubt that during the EIA handmade pottery played a more pronounced role in Central Greece than in Attica, in the Peloponnese and on the adjacent islands. At Elateia 45 handmade pots were found in 26 tombs. Like 66–73 wheel-made vases coming from the same tombs they cover the span of time from Submycenaean to Middle Geometric. Thus the percentage of handmade vessels in these 26 tombs reaches at 30–40%. However, wheel-made vases dating from Submycenaean to Middle Geometric were found in at least 30 more tombs which did not contain any handmade pottery. Under these premises the overall percentage of handmade against wheel-made vases may drop to 25–23%. But even so the number of handmade vessels from Elateia exceeds that from any other EIA cemetery excavated so far in those regions of Greece which previously had been part of the Mycenaean civilisation. At the present stage of our material study it is not possible to define what the percentage of handmade pottery was during the Submycenaean period in particular. However, the tombs mentioned in this article (T. XXIV, T. XXXV, T. XXIV) may well represent a correct picture. The earliest vase was most probably the two-handled jar T. XXIV/18l (Figs. 6; 15:2). Its pronounced thick, flat base is a common feature of Submycenaean and EPG handmade vessels. However, the clumsy appearance of T. XXIV/18l is reminiscent of the shortcomings of LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean wheel-made vases: The shape is baggy, and the quality of clay and firing is poor. Moreover, the burnishing of the surface is slovenly and appears as an equivalent to the careless painting of wheel-made vases. T. XXIV/18l is the only handmade vase at Elateia with vertical handles from rim to shoulder. The majority of handmade amphoriskoi from Elateia had vertical handles from neck to shoulder. This type did not vary much in the course of the EIA except that PG specimens were frequently of larger size (the jar T. XLIX/20c [Figs. 7; 15:4] e.g. has a height of 0.30 m). Moreover, handmade vases of the Protogeometric period were generally better shaped and the burnishing was more careful. They often had a rounded bottom.44 Throughout the EIA the range of handmade shapes at Elateia was more or less confined to the one-handled jug and the two-handled jar or amphora mostly of the neck-handled type. A very interesting development is mirrored by the handmade versions of Submycenaean wheelmade amphoriskoi. A few handmade belly-handled amphoriskoi obviously imitated wheelmade specimens such as T. XXIV/18c (Fig. 5) and T XLIX/16o (Fig. 8:5). As far as they were found in reliable contexts, the belly-handled handmade amphoriskoi were confined to the second local Submycenaean phase. Moreover, one handmade amphoriskos found in T. XLV/89 (unpublished) appears as an imitation of the typical local Submycenaean wheel-made amphoriskos with vertical handles on the shoulder (on this type see further below).45 In contrast, the handmade jar T. XXIV/18b (Figs. 5; 15:1) possibly reflects a more advanced stage of the development. According to the metal finds (for pairs of pins with global heads see above, pp. 87, 88) this vase was contemporaneous with the jar T. XXIV/18l as described above. However, T. XXIV/18b not only was better shaped than the other vessel and far better burnished: This vase also resembles wheel-made amphoriskoi – or rather small amphorae – such as T. XLIX/20e and T. LVII/5x which represent a further development of the local EIA style

44

45

Our observations at Elateia are supported by the date of a handmade, albeit not burnished jar from Kalapodi which apparently had a rounded bottom (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 77 and pl. 45:424). The vessel was found in stratum 18 assigned to the beginning of Early Protogeometric. A Submycenaean handmade amphoriskos from the Kerameikos, too, is an imitation of the same type (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, pl. 21: Grab 120/2).

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

93

(cf. Figs. 5; 15:1 and Fig. 13:3,4. – See also further below, p. 97).46 The interplay between wheelmade and handmade pottery shapes was continued throughout the EIA. In fact, during the Protogeometric period handmade versions even of the large wheel-made amphorae of at least 0.50 m height were produced.47 One-handled pots of the Submycenaean period should be called “jugs” rather than “cooking-pots” because their rim is slightly slanting (Figs. 4:XXXV/15a; 5:XXIV/18i; 15:5,6) and the lip is moulded into a spout (Figs. 4:XXXV/15a; 8:XLIX/16n; 15:6,7). These jugs most probably served for heating and pouring liquids. In contrast, PG one-handled vases had a level rim. Some of them were quite large (Fig. 15:8,9). They may well have been cooking vessels. Only eight out of the 45 handmade vessels found so far at Elateia were of shapes other than jug and two-handled jar. Among these the handmade pyxis represented by five specimens had the lion’s share.48 One of them, the small globular pyxis T. LXX/19a (unpublished), belongs to the so-called “Attic Dark Age Incised Ware” from the Kerameikos and elsewhere (BOUZEK 1974).49 Its incised decoration recurs on the small jug T. XXIV/18i from Burial 3 of tomb T. XXIV which has been mentioned earlier (Fig. 5): Two horizontal lines are incised around the basis of the neck,50 and the shoulder carries one or two parallel zig-zag incisions. The incisions are enhanced by white incrustation. All four incised handmade vases found so far at Elateia carry this same decoration. Thus it is likely that they were of the same origin. To the eye their fabric is different from that of the local handmade vessels, but this point must be clarified by chemical analysis. In any case, these four vases constitute a very small group. Therefore – even if it turns out that they were made at Elateia – it is not advisable to claim that handmade incised vases were typical of the repertoire of Ancient Phokis. F. Ruppenstein may well be right that a wider horizon of Northern Greece and of the Balkans in general should be taken into consideration (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 178– 180). The chronology of the four incised handmade vases from Elateia is indicated by the small jug T. XXIV/18i which belonged to the second phase, i.e. the fully developed Submycenaean period in the region. The same date applies to a belly-handled amphoriskos from tomb T. XLV. The pyxis T. LXX/19a was found in tomb T. LXX together with a juglet which can be assigned to the second Submycenaean phase or even to the incipient EPG period. The fourth incised vase, a kantharoid jar, was not found in a datable context. Summing up, it is clear that handmade pottery at Elateia was established in the local ceramic repertoire and production from the second Submycenaean phase onwards. Moreover, in view of the handmade pottery from Kynos and Kalapodi it may be suggested that Central Greece, indeed, may be viewed as the origin of the (few) handmade jugs and jars found in Submycenaean graves of the Kerameikos and of other south-eastern regions (for a recent discussion cf. RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 169–183). – The incised ware with white incrustations, however, seems to have been a different matter.

46

47 48

49

50

As a matter of fact, Burial 1 of T. XXIV (to which the handmade jar XXIV/18b had belonged) may be viewed as one of the last, if not the last burial of this tomb. Therefore it is possible that this handmade vase was indeed modelled after the more advanced types of amphoriskoi resp. small amphorae of the period. Large handmade amphorae were found in tombs T. XLIII, T. XLIV, T. LXIII. The remaining three vases were a deep globular bowl and two kantharos-like closed jars. – A further closed vessel of foreign shape was probably of northern origin. In the present context it would lead too far to discuss this vase, too. This vase bears some resemblance to the well-known pyxis P 14873 from the Athenian Agora (BOUZEK 1974, fig. 1:1; pl. II:4), except that it is not fluted. However, the parallel zig-zag incisions are similar. In the case of T. XXIV/18i the two horizontal lines enclose a “necklace” of imprinted dots.

94

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

2.2.1.2 Wheelmade pottery The pottery of the second post-Mycenaean phase at Elateia no longer represented an uninspired continuation of the Mycenaean repertoire. It is of course true that at least until the Protogeometric period the local pottery style was marked by its Mycenaean heritage and with reluctance accepted the fashions of the time. On the other hand a new spirit expressed itself in the way vases were shaped and structured, and a few well made pieces testify to the fact that the treatment of clay and the firing of vessels gradually improved (cf. Figs. 9:4,6,7; 12:4; 14:4). Moreover, the size of vases increased. These achievements not only foreshadowed the further development of the regional pottery production but eventually also led to the ability of making the large-size amphorae and oinochoae of the Protogeometric period (DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999, 199–201). The belly-handled amphoriskoi T. XXIV/18c and T. XLIX/16o presented in this article may serve as examples. – T. XXIV/18c (Fig. 5) clearly derives from amphoriskoi of the previous LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean phase such as T. LXII/34κε (Fig. 3:6). The shape itself, as well as the thick wide wavy line between the handles has a Mycenaean pedigree. However, the fabric is poor, the firing bad, and the flaky red paint comes off easily. The largest diameter and the horizontal handles are set very low down the body. Nevertheless, a possible extremely baggy appearance of the vase is successfully counterbalanced by its wide and tall neck and flaring rim and the softly curving profile. Moreover, the vase is taller than the amphoriskoi of the previous phase: It has been preserved to a height of 0.18 m. The base may well have been slightly raised like that of T. XLIX/16o (Fig. 8:5). That vase has a slightly concave, tall and wide neck which rises in a soft continuous line from the sloping shoulder and the slightly depressed globular body. The horizontal handles are set at the largest diameter of the vase at about the lower third of its height. The decoration derives from that of LH III C Advanced and Late monochrome vessels with reserved body zones. With a height of 0.21 m this amphoriskos surpasses the general size of vessels of the previous phase. – Clearly such vases are marked by characteristic Submycenaean features as described by DESBOROUGH 1979/80, 307–308 and RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 58–73. By the same token, and despite their technical shortcomings, they may be viewed as the starting point of a local EIA pottery style which was to reach its peak in the course of the PG period. The decorative system of Submycenaean vases from Elateia was unassuming. Light-ground vases adhered to the Mycenaean tradition of linear decoration. In fact, even the local LH III C Advanced and Late fashion of covering the lower part or the entire surface of a vessel with evenly spaced stripes (DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, 138–141) was retained by Submycenaean lekythoi, amphoriskoi and stirrup jars (e.g. Fig. 2:3). It was even continued by several amphoriskoi of the local EPG style (Fig. 13:1,3). – Dark-ground vessels were frequent and adhered to a very conservative decorative system: Depending on the shape they were either painted all over or they displayed reserved zones on the neck, shoulder and lower part of the body (cf. Figs. 4:2; 9; 10; 11). – Patterned decoration was more or less confined to wavy or to zig-zag lines which were, of course, a Mycenaean heritage. The same is true of stacked and fringed arcs and triangles (cf. Fig. 9:4,8), and of simple intertriglyph combinations (cf. Figs. 4:1; 9:4,6). However, other motifs were borrowed from the Submycenaean repertoire of Attica: This applies to the oblique wavy-band on the amphoriskos of Fig. 12:4 (cf. KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 16:inv.no. 460. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, fig. 10:136/2,136/5), as well as to the evenly spaced tight vertical wavy-lines on the shoulders of lekythoi (= RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 50: “Stilgruppe 2”. – For specimens from Elateia see Fig. 9:5,7 and DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999, fig. 4). In contrast to the pottery production of other regions such as Attica or the Argolid, the modelling of feet and bases is of no chronological significance to Submycenaean vases from Elateia. More often than not the bases are flat or ringed. Raised straight or slightly conical feet are not higher than those of LH III C Late vases. High conical feet are very rare. The same applies to Protogeometric vases, too.

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

95

2.2.1.3 Appendix: Submycenaean lekythoi and amphoriskoi at Elateia As already mentioned above in section 1.2.1, the range of shapes in the Submycenaean wheelmade pottery repertoire of Elateia was limited. Typical Mycenaean shapes such as ring-askos, alabastron and feeding bottle had disappeared. Stirrup jars, too, were few and more or less confined to the first (LH III C Final/Submycenaean) phase. Lekythos, amphoriskos and the small jug prevailed. [However, it must be remembered that we are dealing with vases deposited as burial gifts. The picture may well change – in particular with regard to open shapes – once the study of the pottery finds from the dromos fills is finished.] The Submycenaean lekythoi and the amphoriskoi from Elateia deserve special attention. The lekythos made its first appearance during LH III C Middle/Advanced (DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, figs. 5:4; 8:1) and increased in popularity during LH III C Late. During the Submycenaean period it reached its peak.51 In contrast to the light-ground decoration of most LH III C lekythoi, the majority of Submycenaean lekythoi are painted dark-ground (Fig. 9). One of the few exceptions is T. XXXV/16d (Fig: 4:1): Both the banding of the body and the patterns of the shoulder-decoration of this vase are a LH III C inheritance, but the shape is purely Submycenaean. In fact, the vase was found under circumstances which even suggest that it was deposited during the second phase of the Submycenaean period at Elateia (see above, p. 86). The decorative scheme, as well as the modelling of most dark-ground lekythoi, too, harks back to LH III C as has already been observed on occasion of the two lekythoi from T. XXVI (see above, 1.2.1). However, some lekythoi clearly carry the hallmarks of Attic Submycenaean lekythoi and may even have been imports. The two examples illustrated in Fig. 9 correspond to F. Ruppenstein’s Groups 2 (Fig. 9:5) and 3 (Fig. 9:7. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 47–58). Therefore it is clear that at Elateia dark-ground lekythoi were popular not only during LH III C Late and during the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean phase of Elateia, but during the second phase, too. The lekythos T. LXII/24η (Figs. 2:2; 9:9) was probably among the latest representatives of the shape at Elateia: By its perked-up appearance, by the almost complete coating of the body except for two narrow reserved zones, and particularly by the zig-zag decoration of the reserved band in the handle-zone this vase qualifies for assignment to the very end of the Submycenaean period, if not to the transition to EPG. – In view of the fact that lekythoi can be assigned to both Submycenaean phases at Elateia, it is remarkable that they were found in two tombs only (out of 17) which contained dress-pins with globular heads. In contrast, seven tombs (out of 19) contained lekythoi, as well as dress-pins with swellings on the upper part of the shaft. At the present state of study it is impossible to tell whether this observation has a chronological or a cultural significance. In any case, during the EPG period the shape was no longer present among the burial gifts at Elateia. Submycenaean amphoriskoi of the belly-handled type FS 60 have already been treated in sections 1.2.1 (first Submycenaean phase) and 2.2.1.2 (second Submycenaean phase). In LH III C Late this type had become a rival of the shoulder-handled amphoriskos FS 59 which until then had been the most popular shape of LH III C Early and Middle (DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, 135–136.). However, during the Submycenaean period a further type made its appearance, namely the amphoriskos with vertical handles on the shoulder (Figs. 4:2; 10–12; 14). This type is of particular interest because it was well represented in EPG pottery assemblages of Phokis (Delphi: LERAT 1937, pl. 5:9,10), Chalkis and Lefkandi (LEMOS 2002, 63–64), and – less frequently – in Attica and in the Peloponnese, too. However, Submycenaean representatives of the shape were generally rare (LEMOS, l.c.). In contrast, the chamber tombs of Elateia-Alonaki yielded no less than 22 specimens so that it may be suggested that the origin of the shape should be sought in Central Greece. As has been discussed in connection with the finds from T. XXIV, the amphoriskos XXIV/18k (Figs. 6; 10:1) could have already been produced in

51

LH III C Middle/Advanced to LH III C Late: 13 lekythoi; Submycenaean: 27 lekythoi.

96

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

LH III C Late (see above, p. 88), and the same applies to T. XXXVI/44k and perhaps to T. XX/A44 (Figs. 14:1,2; 12:1,2). At the other end of the chronological scale the find contexts and shaping of the small specimen T. LV/13st (Fig. 11:8) and of the larger and ovoid vessel T. XL/11n (Fig. 12:4) come close to the stylistic features of EPG pottery. Otherwise the majority of the amphoriskoi with vertical shoulder handles was of Submycenaean date. – As testified by the examples shown in Figs. 10–12, the shapes varied greatly between biconical, globular and ovoid. The modelling of bases and feet is of no chronological significance. – The fabric is mostly poor but there are some very good pieces, too (see e.g. Fig. 14:2,5,8). The same applies to the paint. Monochrome pieces prevail; they often have reserved zones on the lower body, an inheritance of the later phases of LH III C. Light-ground decoration, too, was derived from LH III C forerunners. It consisted of bands and of patterns such as tassel, scroll and wavy line. The oblique wavy line of T. XL/11n (Fig. 12:4) may have been borrowed from Attic prototypes (cf. KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 16:inv.no. 460. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, fig. 10:136/2,136/5). – In contrast to Lefkandi and other regions, the amphoriskos with vertical handles on the shoulder was absent from the EPG repertoire of Elateia; it may have given way to the neck-handled amphoriskos (Fig. 13:1,2) and to those shapes which may be viewed as small scale forerunners of the large PG amphora (Fig. 13:3,4; see also further below).

2.2.2. Metal objects In contrast to the previous phase, the metal finds of the second Submycenaean phase do not require special discussion; moreover, the material is being studied for publication by Dr. Phanouria Dakoronia. – Novelties of this phase consist of dress-pins with globular head, of massive cast finger-rings with midrib and triangular section, and of arched fibulae with twisted bow. Dress-pins were now deposited in pairs. This applies to other types, too, such as pins with rolled top or pins with swellings on the upper end of the shaft. It has to be pointed out, however, that both pairs of (short) dress-pins with globular head found in T. XXIV had been deposited side by side, while the two long pins of T. XXXV were found at both sides of the skeleton. Apart from these novel elements, bronze adornments which had been introduced previously continued to be in use as burial gifts: Leaf-bow shaped fibulae, finger-rings made of hammered bronze bands, shield-rings, spiral rings, hair-rings, long pins with swellings on the upper part of the shaft etc. Bronze sheet objects often carry embossed dot decoration; pins with swollen heads were decorated with incisions and/or grooves. All these objects were made of bronze. In T. XXIV a small fragment of sheet iron was found in connection with Burial 2 (see above, p. 88). Moreover, the last burial of T. XLIX was accompanied by an iron dress-pin with a globular head of bronze. Of a second pin only the fragments of an iron shaft had been preserved. However, as will be discussed below, the chronology of this burial was probably beyond the Submycenaean period. Finally, it has to be pointed out that during both phases of the Submycenaean period the deposit of metal objects reached a peak. Individual skeletons had rings on every finger of both hands, and the numbers of dress-fasteners and personal adornment exceeds everything known so far about the transition from the LBA to the EIA. In fact, the surprising wealth of metal finds from the chamber tombs of Elateia-Alonaki was mainly owed to the burials of LH III C Late and to the Submycenaean period. However, as said above, it is for Phanouria Dakoronia to present the entire material.

2.2.3 Burial customs This subject, too, does not require any further discussion. The evidence of tombs T. XXXV suggests that during the mature Submycenaean phase the deceased still may have been buried

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

97

in a tightly contracted position. However, the last burials of tombs T. XXIV and T. XXXV suggest that the earlier custom of depositing the corpses in an outstretched position with slightly contracted legs had been resumed before the Submycenaean period came to a close. Moreover, on the general evidence of the Elateia-Alonaki tombs it may be assumed that at or after the end of the period the numbers of burials declined. Cremations, too, were less frequent. In fact, several tombs such as T. XXIV and T. XXXV ceased to be used after the Submycenaean period. 3. THE SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. In contrast to the evidence of tombs T. XXIV and T. XXXV, the last interment in T. XLIX took place during a further stage of development. First the iron dress-pins have to be mentioned. One was fragmentary, but the other one had a globular head of bronze threaded onto the shaft. Pins with an iron shaft and a globular bronze head were a phenomenon of the Protogeometric period. In fact, in the Peloponnese, Attica and Euboea they occurred from an advanced stage of PG onwards (KILIAN-DIRLMEIER 1984, 75–76). Irene Lemos has attributed the earliest pieces to MPG (LEMOS 2002, 106). However, the pottery found in connection with the iron pins of T. XLIX at Elateia cannot be classified as “advanced PG” or MPG. As has already been mentioned, the handmade vessels are not very different from the Submycenaean jars and jugs, except that they are better shaped and of larger size (Fig. 15:3,4). At first sight the wheel-made amphoriskos T. XLIX/20e (Fig. 13:3) seems to resemble the Submycenaean amphoriskos S 19.3 from Lefkandi (DESBOROUGH 1980, fig. 12 A). Indeed, as in the case of the vase from Lefkandi the decorative system and the neck-to-shoulder handles of T. XLIX/20e have a Mycenaean pedigree. However, the well-structured and balanced shaping of the vase from Elateia compares better to that of EPG amphoriskoi such as Lefkandi S 32.4 (DESBOROUGH 1980, pl. 101): It has a continuous profile from body to wide neck, and the largest diameter of the body does not exceed that of the everted rim with flat lip. Moreover, the loops circumscribed by the handles are elongated so that the overall appearance of the vessel is slim and perked-up. Tall amphoriskoi such as T. LVII/5x (Fig. 13:4) with dark-ground decoration and narrow reserved zones filled with tight zig-zag may be assigned to the same type. On account of the pins made of iron and bronze, and of the stylistic features exhibited by the amphoriskos T. XLIX/20e the last interment in T. XLIX could be dated to EPG. However, vases attributable in our opinion to EPG give the impression of a more advanced stylistic development, even if they still adhere either to the dark-ground or to the light-ground and banded decorative systems of the Mycenaean tradition (Fig. 13:1,2; DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999, figs. 9; 10). Therefore we suggest that the last interment of T. XLIX and vases such as the amphoriskoi of our Fig. 13:3,4 were representative either of a transitional Submycenaean/EPG phase or of the very beginning of EPG at Elateia. This chronology implies that the appearance of iron pins with globes made of bronze may have been earlier in Central Greece than in the eastern parts of Greece and in the Peloponnese. 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Analysis of the funerary assemblages of the Elateia-Alonaki cemetery suggests that the span of time between LH III C Late and EPG was covered by three stages of development of which at least two should be assigned to the Submycenaean period. The reasons why I believe that the first post-LH III C stage was an early phase of Submycenaean have been discussed in chapter 1.2 of this article. Even those who might cast doubt on this classification must acknowledge that this phase followed after LH III C Late. Therefore it should at least be called “LH III C Final” or “Final Mycenaean”, although I prefer the term “LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean”. – The problems of establishing the chronology of this

98

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

phase closely resembles of those connected with the final burials in the tombs of Western Achaia. Phase 6a of the chronological schema proposed by Ioannis Moschos is characterised as “Final Mycenaean” and, at the same time, as “Early Submycenaean” (see MOSCHOS this volume). It is perhaps no mere chance that a synchronism between Phase 6a of Western Achaia and the “LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean” phase of Elateia is suggested e.g. by the decorative system of our small stirrup-jar T. LXII/23ζ (Fig. 2:3; cf. MOSCHOS l.c., where the vase is quoted after DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002, 144, fig. 6a). This would further imply that contacts between Central Greece and Achaia which had prevailed throughout the history of the Elateia-Alonaki cemetery (BÄCHLE 2003. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007) were continued beyond LH III C Late. The second phase – represented in chapter 2 of this article – can be assigned with confidence to the Submycenaean period. This date is supported by bronze objects such as pairs of dress-pins (particularly pins with globular heads), arched fibulae, various kinds of finger-rings, and hair-rings. Moreover, lekythoi with vertical wavy bands on the shoulder (Fig. 9:5,7) establish a parallel with the pottery from the Submycenaean graves of the Kerameikos (cf. above, p. 95). Conversely, a few handmade pots (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, 74. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 169–193) and two amphoriskoi with vertical handles on the shoulder (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 161– 163) may well have been derived from the pottery repertoire of Central Greek during the transition from the LBA to the EIA. – In contrast, the material presented so far from Achaia does not allow for correlations between the second Submycenaean phase at Elateia with Phase 6b of Western Achaia (MOSCHOS this volume). Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that they were synchronous or overlapping. However, certain elements in the pottery repertoire of Elateia suggest that the interregional relations of the inhabitants of the Upper Kephissos valley were directed towards the North52 and to the East (for parallels with Athens see above). Northern connections are even more borne out by the bronze objects studied by Phanouria Dakoronia (see e.g. DAKORONIA 2004). In contrast, the long-standing relations with the regions south of the Corinthian Gulf may have declined, possibly in anticipation of a preference which the inhabitants of Elateia showed during the Protogeometric period for cultural and economic exchange with what Irene Lemos has defined as “the Euboean Koine” (LEMOS 2002, 212–216 and map 7). This re-orientation definitely becomes apparent by the third stage of development which either represented a transitional phase from Submycenaean to EPG or the very beginning of EPG at Elateia. Despite its idiosyncrasies the pottery of this phase displays stylistic affinities to the pottery repertoires of Boeotia, Euboea and Thessaly (see chapter 3 on the vases of Fig. 13; DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999). The relative length of the Submycenaean period has been the subject of many calculations. Opinions vary from a short “intermediate stage between the Late Mycenaean period and the following PG period” (LEMOS 2002, 7–8) to significantly longer spans of time (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 269 attributes “not significantly less than 100 years” to the four stages of development including the transition to EPG). As for Elateia, the considerable increase in burials during the two Submycenaean phases may or may not have required a long span of time. It is true e.g. that 33 and 21 individuals respectively were buried in the chambers of tombs T. XXXV and T. XXIV during the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean and the second Submycenaean phase, and several more instances have been adduced in DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002. However, in view of the slow stylistic development of the wheel-made pottery and its prolonged adherence to the Mycenaean tradition any calculation on the basis of the pottery evidence has to remain speculative. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to allocate two generations at least, i.e. 40–50 years for the two Submycenaean phases at Elateia. A useful

52

See e.g. the handmade vases with incised decoration (above, p. 93).

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

99

indication may be gained from the lekythoi Fig. 9:5,7 because in Athens and Attica vertical wavy lines were more or less confined to lekythoi of the second phase of the Submycenaean period (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 50). It may be hoped that Phanouria Dakoronia will be able to provide further data based on the typological development of the metal objects. It cannot be excluded that the increase in burial numbers, combined with the change in burial habits and the use of cremation, may be ascribed to demographic developments rather than to an extended span of time. Elsewhere we have suggested that from the end of LH III C onwards a population increase took place which reached a peak during the Submycenaean period. Even pits in the chamber floors were then used for primary burials (DAKORONIA – DEGERJALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002). However, it should be kept in mind that the increase in burials did not extend to all tombs of the Elateia-Alonaki cemetery. Moreover, the seemingly continuous use of the tombs was marked, in fact, by breaks and changes. In this article a few examples have been presented. Tomb T. XLIX seems to have been among those which were abandoned at the end of LH III C Late because burials of the subsequent LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean phase were altogether absent. On the other hand a limited re-use of this tomb is attested by one burial each of the second Submycenaean and the third (= “Submycenaean/EPG”) phases. In contrast, tombs such as T. XXIV and T. XXXV53 were frequently used during both Submycenaean phases and abandoned thereafter. Small graves of the “acanonical” type such as T. XXVI were confined to the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean phase. The large tomb T. LXII, too, appears to have no longer been in use after the LH III C Final/Early Submycenaean phase. However, on evidence of the lekythos LXII/24η (Figs. 2:2; 9:9) this tomb, like T. XLIX, may have been re-used towards the close of the Submycenaean period. The conclusion itself suggests that the growth of population during the transitional period from the LBA to the EPG may be ascribed to immigration. Susanne Fabrizii-Reuer (in DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002, 149–150) has pointed out that it is not possible to practise cremation without being familiar with the techniques of this burial custom. This fact implies that at Elateia there was a population group who had experience with this custom. The temporary custom of burying corpses in an extremely contracted position, too, was perhaps the result of non-indigenous burial habits rather than a response to the increase in burials. Moreover, new metal adornments and handmade pottery were introduced for burial gifts, and many Mycenaean pottery shapes became obsolete while others such the amphoriskos were transformed and handed down to the subsequent centuries. However, this is not the place to dwell further on this subject. Suffice it to mention that during the EPG period the number of burials declined, and a limited number of tombs of the Elateia-Alonaki cemetery were used beyond the 10th century BC. Therefore, if the increase in burials during the Submycenaean period at Elateia was, indeed, caused by immigrants, these people did not stay for good – or at least, not all of them stayed. Therefore the evidence of Elateia may present a contribution to the discussion of population movements during the time of transition from the LBA to the EIA in Greece. Reference to illustrations Drawings of plans: E. Alram-Stern, P. Hiptmair, A. Weiß(-Bächle). Drawings of pottery: A. Bächle, B. Eder, E. Held. Inked drawings: M. Frauenglas, E. Held. Photographs: St. Alexandrou (bronze objects), E. Alram-Stern (excavation), B. Eder, E. Held (pottery). Layout: M. Frauenglas.

53

For further examples see DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002.

100

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

Bibliography ALRAM-STERN, E. 1999 “The Mycenaean Figurines of Elateia”, 215–222 in: Περιφέρεια. BÄCHLE, A. E. 2003 Mykenische Keramik des 14. bis 12. Jahrhunderts vor Christus aus der Nekropole von Elateia-Alonaki. Ein Beispiel regionaler mykenischer Keramikentwicklung (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Salzburg. BOUZEK, J. 1974 The Attic Dark Age Incised Ware (Sbornik Národniho Muzea v Praze : Řada A, Historie ; 28,1 ). Prague. CATLING, H. W. – CATLING, E. A. 1980 “Objects in Bronze, Iron and Lead”, 231–264 in: POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80. DAKORONIA, F. 1996 “Mycenaean East Lokris”, 1167–1173 in: DE MIRO – GODART – SACCONI 1996. 2003 “The Transition from Late Helladic III C to the Early Iron Age at Kynos”, 37–51 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. 2004 “Special Elateia Day: Elateia in Central Greece: Excavation and Finds”, BICS 47: Myceanean Seminar 2002–03 Summaries, 185–186. DAKORONIA, PH. – S. DEGER-JALKOTZY – A. SAKELLARIOU 1996 Die Siegel aus der Nekropole von Elatia-Alonaki (Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, Band V: Kleinere griechische Sammlungen, Supplementum 2). Berlin DAKORONIA, PH. – S. DEGER-JALKOTZY – S. FABRIZII-REUER 2002 “Beisetzungen mit Leichenbrand aus der Felskammernekropole von Elateia-Alonaki, Griechenland”, ArchAustr 84–85, 2000/01 [2002] (=Festschrift für Egon Reuer zum 75. Geburtstag), 137–153. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. – DAKORONIA, PH. 1991 “Elateia (Phokis) und die frühe Geschichte der Griechen: Ein österreichisch-griechisches Grabungsprojekt”, AnzWien 127, 1990 [1991], 77–86. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 1999 “Elateia and Problems of Pottery Chronology”, 195–202 in: Περιφέρεια. 2004 “Special Elateia Day: Elateia in Central Greece: Excavation and Finds”, BICS 47: Myceanean Seminar 2002–03 Summaries, 187–188. 2007 “Defining LH III C Middle at the Cemetery of Elateia-Alonaki in Central Greece”, 129–159 in: LH III C

Chronology and Synchronisms II. DE MIRO, E. – L. GODART – A. SACCONI (eds.) 1996 Atti e memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma – Napoli, 14–21 ottobre 1991 (Incunabula Graeca 98). Rome. DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1972 The Greek Dark Ages. London. 1979/80 “The Dark Age Pottery (SM–SPG III) from Settlement and Cemeteries”, 281–354 in: POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80. DIMAKI, S. 1999 “Νεκροταφείο Ελάτειας: Περιδέραια από στεατίτη”, 203–214 in: Περιφέρεια. FELSCH, R. C. S. (ed.) 1996 Kalapodi. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis. Vol. I. Mainz. FELSCH, R. C. S. 1999 “Το μυκηναïκό ιερό στο Καλαπόδι: Λατρεία και τελετουργικό”, 163–170 in: Περιφέρεια. IAKOVIDIS, S. 1969/70 Περατή. Το Νεκροταφείον (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 67). Athens. 2003 “Late Helladic III C at Perati”, 125–130 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms.

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

101

JACOB-FELSCH, M., 1996 “Die spätmykenische bis frühprotogeometrische Keramik”, 3–213 in: FELSCH 1996. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, I. 1984 Nadeln der frühhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes (Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII, 8). Munich. KRAIKER, W. – K. KÜBLER 1939 Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1). Berlin. LEMOS, I. S. 2002 The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1988 “LH IIIC Late Versus Submycenaean. The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed”, JdI 103, 1–33. LERAT, L. 1937 “Tombes submycéniennes et géometriques à Delphes”, BCH 61, 44–52. NIGHTINGALE, G. 1993 Perlen aus Glas und Fayence aus der mykenischen Nekropole Elateia-Alonaki (unpublished M.A. dissertation). Salzburg. PERDRIZET, P. 1908 Fouilles de Delphes V: Monuments figurés, petits bronzes, terres-cuites, antiquités diverses. Paris. POPHAM, M. R. – L. H. SACKETT – P. G. THEMELIS (eds.) 1979/80 Lefkandi I. The Iron Age. Settlement. The Cemeteries (BSA Suppl. 11). London. RUPPENSTEIN, F. 2007 Die submykenische Nekropole. Neufunde und Neubewertung (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 18). Munich. SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD, CH. 1999 The Ionian Islands in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age 3000–800 BC. Liverpool. WEISS(-BÄCHLE), A. E. 1993 Fragmente bemalter mykenischer Keramik aus den Gräbern von Elateia-Alonaki (unpublished M.A. dissertation). Salzburg.

102

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

103

104

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

105

106

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

107

108

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

109

110

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

111

112

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

113

114

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

From LH III C Late to the Early Iron Age: The Submycenaean Period at Elateia

115

116

Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy

KATIE DEMAKOPOULOU

LACONIA IN LH III C LATE AND SUBMYCENAEAN: EVIDENCE FROM EPIDAUROS LIMERA, PELLANA, THE AMYKLAION AND OTHER SITES

INTRODUCTION The subject of this paper is the examination of the latest stage of the Mycenaean culture in Laconia, on the basis of pottery and other finds of LH III C Late and Submycenaean date, which show the transition of this region to the Early Iron Age. Actually, my paper is a sequel of my contribution to the second “Workshop on LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms” held in Vienna in 2004 (DEMAKOPOULOU 2007). My contribution then focussed on the LH III C Middle phase in Laconia. Laconia was occupied throughout almost its entire area during the LH III C period, and its prosperous communities had connections with other parts of the Mycenaean world. A considerable amount of pottery dated to all three subdivisions of LH III C, Early, Middle and Late, with some Submycenaean, has been recovered from several Laconian sites1 (Fig. 1). Of the main LH III C sites of Laconia, most of which yielded LH III C Early and Middle material, six continued in LH III C Late and Submycenaean, as shown by the important finds. Most significant are three of them: Epidauros Limera, a flourishing port on the southeast coast, a few kilometres north of Monemvasia; Pellana, north of Sparta, at the end of the Eurotas valley; and the Amyklaion in the central Spartan plain, on the west bank of the Eurotas, a well known Late Mycenaean sacred place at the site of the Archaic Apollo sanctuary. To the sites with LH III C Late pottery Krokeai and Phoiniki in south Laconia may also be assigned (DEMAKOPOULOU 2007, 165–166). Moreover, pottery of LH III C Late and Submycenaean date was found during a recent excavation in a chamber tomb at the site Peristeri, known formerly as Tsasi, near the south coast of Laconia. The other sites were investigated in old excavations. Apart from the material from the Amyklaion, all the other LH III C and Submycenaean finds come from cemeteries. THE SITES Epidauros Limera Most of the LH III C Late Laconian pottery comes from the extensive cemetery of chamber tombs at Epidauros Limera (Fig. 1), which was in use for a long time, from LH I to Submycenaean (DEMAKOPOULOU 1968. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 117–120. – DEMAKOPOULOU 2007, 162. – KOUNTOURI 1996/97, 491–493. – RMDP, 247). The pottery includes all typical shapes of the LH III C Late phase and it is of considerable interest because it shows external influence

1

Much material of this date from Laconia is included in DEMAKOPOULOU 1968. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982. – RMDP, 251–252, 282–294, passim. – See also the survey of prehistoric Laconia by H. Waterhouse and R. Hope Simpson (WATERHOUSE – HOPE SIMPSON 1960. – WATERHOUSE – HOPE SIMPSON 1961).

118

Katie Demakopoulou

and connections. Of special interest are three stirrup jars, FS 175, which seem to be imported from the Argolid or Attica, and Crete (RMDP, 293, nos. 240–241). One, which is fragmentary, is decorated with dot fringed apse on the shoulder (DEMAKOPOULOU 1968, 170, no. 40, pl. 74γ). Another (Fig. 2) has a conical-ovoid body with a high conical base. It is decorated with elaborate triangle and semicircles on the shoulder, where there is an airhole, a feature of Argive and Attic stirrup jars; it has a dark ground body with fine reserved lines (DEMAKOPOULOU 1968, 173, no. 45, pl. 75δ. – RMDP, 293, no. 240, fig. 100). The third stirrup jar (Fig. 3. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1968, 172–173, no. 44, pl. 75β. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 119, pl. 62, no. 140. – RMDP, 293, no. 241, fig. 100) is most probably Cretan, with a close parallel from Karphi (SEIRADAKI 1960, 16–18, pl. 62). The main decoration on the shoulder is a cross-hatched triangle that overlaps the edge of the shoulder zone. There are traces of bars on the spout and a medium band and fine lines on the lower part of the biconical body. Other shapes of LH III C Late from Epidauros Limera include the amphoriskos, FS 59. There are two characteristic examples, one with darkground neck, wavy line in the shoulder zone, narrow bands on the belly and bars on the protruding handles (DEMAKOPOULOU 1968, 181, no. 65, pl. 79α. – RMDP, 290, no. 227, fig. 99). There are parallels from Mycenae (RMDP, 175, no. 372, fig. 50) and Attica (RMDP, 603–604, nos. 504–507, fig. 225). The other amphoriskos is decorated with antithetic loops on the shoulder and a broad dark band on the belly (DEMAKOPOULOU 1968, 182, no. 70, pl. 80β. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 118, pl. 61, no. 139. – RMDP, 290, no. 228, fig. 99). There are also jugs, two of the large type, FS 106, with the handle set from neck to shoulder (DEMAKOPOULOU 1968, 183–184, no. 75, pl. 81β; 184, no. 77, pl. 81δ. – RMDP, 291, no. 233, fig. 99); they are decorated with bands (Fig. 4) and, one of them, with a necklace (Fig. 5). The latter can be compared with a LH III C Late jug with necklace from Asine (RMDP, 175, no. 379, fig. 50). The other jug with linear decoration has a parallel from Lefkandi (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 199, fig. 2.29:2). Two other jugs, one of them fragmentary, are of medium size, FS 110. They are both decorated with wavy line on the shoulder (Fig. 6 right). The complete jug has a barred handle (DEMAKOPOULOU 1968, 185, no. 80, pl. 82γ right; 183, no. 73, pl. 80δ. – RMDP, 291, nos. 234–235, fig. 100). There is also a small jug, FS 115, which seems to be monochrome (RMDP, 291, no. 236). Worthy of mention is a trefoil-mouthed jug, FS 137 (Fig. 7), decorated with cross-hatched and elaborate triangles on the shoulder; there is a nipple opposite the handle and below the spout flanked by oval “almonds” (DEMAKOPOULOU 1968, 185–186, no. 81, pl. 82β). The darkground decoration of the body dates this jug to LH III C Late (RMDP, 291, no. 238, fig. 100). Another typical vase of this period is a deep bowl, FS 285, with monochrome interior with reserved band below the rim and a reserved interior base; it has a narrow reserved zone on the exterior and an unpainted lower body (DEMAKOPOULOU 1968, 178, no. 56, pl. 78α left. – RMDP, 293, no. 244, fig. 100). A few Submycenaean vases were recovered from the cemetery at Epidauros Limera. They include an amphoriskos with a large squat biconical body, FS 260 (Fig. 8), decorated with dot fringed triangles in the handle zone, which is defined by a large band below (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 119, pl. 62, no. 141. – KOUNTOURI 1996/97, 505–506, fig. 14. – RMDP, 293, no. 245, fig. 101). A small wide-necked jug, FS 115 (Fig. 6 left), which is darkground with two reserved zones of zigzag on shoulder and belly, is interesting. This jug has parallels from Messenia and Elis (RMDP 293, no. 246, fig. 101. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1968, 185, no. 79, pl. 82γ left). The squat, rather dumpy body and the raised conical base of both vases are Submycenaean features. Pellana From the port of Epidauros Limera we move to Pellana, in the north Eurotas valley, 25 kilometres north of Sparta (Fig. 1). Pellana is an important Mycenaean site in Laconia, with a chamber tomb cemetery which was in use from LH II A to Submycenaean times (WATERHOUSE –

Laconia in LH III C Late and Submycenaean

119

HOPE SIMPSON 1961, 125–127. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 113–117. – DEMAKOPOULOU 2007, 165. – RMDP, 244). Excavations here, in the early twentieth century and more recently, have revealed rock-cut chamber tombs, some of which are large and tholos-shaped (KARACHALIOS 1929. – SPYROPOULOS 1989). The pottery from the old excavations includes material from the Early, Middle and Late phases of LH III C and shows not only connections with other Laconian sites, but also contacts with Mycenaean centres elsewhere and with Crete (RMDP, 282–293, passim. – DEMAKOPOULOU 2007, 165). Quite a few vases can be assigned to the LH III C Late phase and to Submycenaean. The LH III C Late pottery from Pellana includes a stirrup jar, FS 175, which could be Minoan (Figs. 9–10). It is decorated with elaborate triangles on the shoulder, a spiral on the disk and bars on the handles, the spout and the neck (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 115–116, pl. 57, no. 129. – RMDP, 293, no. 242, fig. 100). Its decoration of barred handles, spout and neck and the linear filled triangles are common on LM III C Late and Subminoan stirrup jars2 (DESBOROUGH 1972, 40, fig. 3D. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 116. – RMDP, 293, no. 242, n. 169). There are two other closed vases of LH III C Late date from Pellana: an amphoriskos, FS 59 (Fig. 11), and a collar-necked jar, FS 64 (Fig. 12), which seem to be local and probably products of the same workshop; this is shown by the fabric and the similar decoration of a barred foliate band in a narrow zone on the belly of the amphoriskos and on the shoulder of the collar-necked jar (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 115, pl. 57, no. 128. – RMDP, 290–291, nos. 230–231, fig. 99). The amphoriskos is three-handled, with a tall concave neck and a high base. The collar-necked jar is miniature. There is another similar example from Pellana with linear decoration. Both have parallels in shape from Perati and Deiras (RMDP, 291; 605, nos. 521– 522, fig. 226; 175, no. 376, fig. 50). A fragmentary cup from Pellana can be included with the LH III C Late vases from this site. It is monochrome, with a broad reserved decorative upper zone and reserved interior base (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 116, pl. 58, no. 132. – RMDP, 293, no. 243, fig. 100). A few vases from Pellana can be assigned to the Submycenaean phase. There is a fragmentary small jug, FS 115, with an ovoid shape. It is monochrome, with a narrow reserved band below the rim (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 116, pl. 59, no. 134. – RMDP, 293–294, no. 247, fig. 101). It can be paralleled with a small Submycenaean jug from Lefkandi (MDP, 197, fig. 262). To the same group belong two other vases with open shapes: a one-handled, deep semiglobular cup, FS 217, monochrome, with a high conical base (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 116, pl. 58, no. 131. – RMDP, 294, no. 248, fig. 101). It has a close parallel from Lefkandi (MDP, 200, fig. 268, no. 1). The other open vase is a deep bowl with a high conical base, FS 286 (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 116, pl. 57, no. 130. – RMDP, 294, no. 249, fig. 101). It is monochrome, with reserved lower body, similar to monochrome deep bowls from the Kerameikos at Athens and from Lefkandi (MDP, 200, fig. 269, nos. 1–3). Amyklaion The Amyklaion, located near Sparta (Fig. 1), was an important cult place, probably used by several communities in the region (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 29–96. – DEMAKOPOULOU forthcoming. – WRIGHT 1994, 65). Ritual activity is attested by the large number of terracotta human and animal figures and figurines found at this site. The sanctuary was established in LH III B2 Late, a little before the demise of the palatial centres in the Mainland, and continued to prosper during the Postpalatial period until the end of LH III C and in the Submycenaean phase. A considerable number of Late Psi figurines was found, for the most part of

2

Another stirrup jar from Epidauros Limera, dated to the LH III C Middle phase, seems to imitate a Minoan vase or may even be a Minoan import, see DEMAKOPOULOU 2007, 164, fig. 9.

120

Katie Demakopoulou

types B and C and with one or two of D, as defined by Elizabeth French (FRENCH 1971, 139–140, pls. 21–22:a–d). These figurines, which have affinities with the Late Psi figurines of the same types from the Syringes of Tiryns (WEBER-HIDEN 1990, 45–53, pls. 38–40), can be dated to LH III C Middle and Late. Many of them are decorated with elaborate or linear motifs like those used for decorating the pottery of these periods.3 Two of the Late Psi figurines with applied breasts from the Amyklaion, one with linear (Fig. 13), the other with elaborate decoration (Fig. 14), could be of LH III C Middle or Late date, as is suggested by the decorative motifs, such as the wavy lines and the tassel (FRENCH 1971, 140, pls. 21d, no. 19; 22b, no. 28. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 47–49, pls. 10, no. 24; 20, no. 55). Most important are the large wheelmade animal figures from the Amyklaion which were probably intended to be bovids or bulls. They are all LH III C, many of them belonging to the Middle and Late phases (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 57–63, pls. 27–39. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 54–60, pls. 10–12). Like the handmade Psi figurines, most of them are decorated with motifs which were also used on pottery vessels. Some of the group of LH III C Middle pieces are finely decorated in the Close Style and with other elaborate motifs, typical of this same phase (TSOUNTAS 1892, 14, pl. 3:1–1a. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 58–59, pls. 27, 34, no. 79. – DEMAKOPOULOU 2007, 165, fig. 17. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 54, nos. 156–157, pl. 10:1–2). Quite a few pieces might well belong to LH III C Late, as is suggested by their decoration. The fragments of two different animal figures, a head with a large muzzle and neck (Fig. 15) and a fragment of a part of breast, could be LH III C Late, because of their decoration with isolated semicircles with fringe and vertical wiggly lines (TSOUNTAS 1892, 14, pl. 3:3. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 58– 60, pl. 31, no. 73. – DEMAKOPOULOU forthcoming. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 55–56, nos. 161, 172, pl. 10:5–6). There are some more solid heads of animal figures representing bovids (Figs. 16–17), apart from one that seems to belong to a terracotta horse figure (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 59–60, pl. 33, no. 78. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 57, no. 177, pl. 12:3). Their darkground decoration, including semicircles and wiggly lines, dates them possibly to the LH III C Late phase or even to Submycenaean (TSOUNTAS 1892, 14, pl. 3:4. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 59–60, pls. 32, no. 76; 33, no. 77; 37, no. 86; 38, no. 88. – DEMAKOPOULOU forthcoming. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 55–57, nos. 159, 173–176, pls. 11:5–6; 12:1–2). Another fragment of a bovine figure is decorated with semicircles with fringe and central dot and could be dated to LH III C Middle or Late (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 60, pl. 35, no. 81. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 55, no. 164). A large part of the rear of the hollow body of a bull figure showing also the genitals, which are applied, is of considerable interest (Fig. 18). It is darkground with a reserved zone bearing zigzag on a double line (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 60, pl. 35, no. 82. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 56, no. 171). This is surely a LH III C Late or Submycenaean piece, as is shown by the decoration. The group comprising the very few animal figures from the Amyklaion that have been partly restored from fragments includes one datable to the 11th century BC (Figs. 19–20). The shape of the short barrel-like body and the decoration of large isolated semicircles, chevrons with fringe and wiggly fine lines are reminiscent of motifs on Submycenaean vases, with which this animal figure may well belong (NICHOLLS 1970, 10, pl. 2d. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 58, 60, pl. 29, no. 70α–β. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 56, no. 169, pl. 11:2). A fragmentary bovine figure must likewise be assigned to the Submycenaean phase (Figs. 21–22. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 58, 60, pl. 28, no. 70. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 56, no. 170, pl. 11:3–4). The short conical body can be paralleled with the body of the above animal figure (Figs. 19–20). The short, full body of the two

3

The similarity of the decoration of the terracotta figures and figurines with that of the Mycenaean pottery vessels may indicate a similar date for both categories; see WEBER-HIDEN 1990, 47 for the use of the same decorative motifs on the Late Psi figurines and the LH III C pottery from the Syringes of Tiryns. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the same craftsmen painted vessels and figurines with the typical decorative motifs of their time.

Laconia in LH III C Late and Submycenaean

121

animal figures from the Amyklaion is reminiscent of the wheelmade Protogeometric stag from the Kerameikos, which, as has been suggested, shows artistic affinities with Mycenaean animal figures (KÜBLER 1943, 20, 40, pl. 26. – NICHOLLS 1970, 13, pl. 2c. – DESBOROUGH 1972, 145– 146, pl. 26a. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 72, no. 221, pl. 15:9). It is noteworthy that, as on the Kerameikos stag, the decoration of the Amyklaion fragmentary animal figure is in zones (Figs. 21–22). The motifs in the decorative zones on our figure are wavy lines, semicircles with central dot and net; the last motif is included also in the decoration of the Kerameikos stag.4 The net motif, surely a Mycenaean decorative motif, although known from later periods, appears likewise on the Late Protogeometric Lefkandi centaur (DESBOROUGH 1972, 199–200, pl. 46. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 92, no. 286a–b, pl. 21:4). In addition to the LH III C Late and Submycenaean terracotta animal figures, the pottery from the Amyklaion includes some kylix stems of the same date (DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 71– 72, pl. 52, no. 120:20–23,25). One of the stems is tall, with linear decoration and can be attributed to a LH III C Late conical kylix, FS 275. The others come from kylikes with ribbed stems, FS 276. Kylikes of this type are known from a number of sites, notably from Messenia, Thessaly, Ithaka and Olympia. The kylikes with a ribbed stem from the Amyklaion may be Submycenaean or Bronze Age survivals.5 The finds from the Amyklaion demonstrate clearly that the Mycenaean sanctuary on the hill of Ayia Kyriaki was in use until the final phase of the Mycenaean period. Peristeri At the site Tsasi (Fig. 1), now known as Peristeri, near the south coast of Laconia, north of Ayios Stephanos, recent excavations uncovered a chamber tomb, not far from the chamber tomb with LH III A2–B ceramic material excavated by Karachalios early in the 20th century (WATERHOUSE – HOPE SIMPSON 1960, 92–94. – RMDP, 246). The new tomb was found intact and probably belongs to a cemetery in this area (THEMOS 2007, 460–461). The finds show that it was used for a long time, from LH II A to LH III C Late and Submycenaean, like the chamber tombs at Epidauros Limera and Pellana.6 The chamber tomb contained many burials in successive levels. These were found in situ or they had been pushed aside to make space for new ones. From a moved burial comes an intact jug (Fig. 23). It is medium-sized with an ovoid body and a large shoulder zone decorated with groups of vertical lines alternating with columns of bars. Interesting features are the bars on the interior of the rim and the double bands of the neck. The jug could be dated either to LH III C Middle or Late. Two straight-sided alabastra were found in other moved burials; one, which is tall with two handles, is monochrome. They could be both dated to LH III C Late. On the upper level of the chamber tomb an intact burial was found, evidently the last burial in the tomb. The body of the dead was placed in supine position. The skeleton had been preserved in fairly good condition. The burial was furnished with two vessels placed one beside the 4

5

6

Although the Kerameikos stag was recovered from a late 10th century BC grave, the shape and decoration of its body can be related to the Late Mycenaean wheelmade animal figures rather than the Protogeometric ones. If it is not a heirloom from the late 11th century BC, then some features, such as the animal shapes and decorative elements, seem to have continued in the succeeding century, cf. NICHOLLS 1970, 13, 15. – SNODGRASS 1971, 401, fig. 119. It has been suggested that the Kerameikos stag is nearly contemporary with the Late Protogeometric centaur from Lefkandi; see DESBOROUGH – NICHOLLS – POPHAM 1970, 21–30, esp. 24. See the recent publication of the material from Olympia (EDER 2006, 151–154, 216–219, nos. 12–22, pls. 53, 77) with a full discussion and bibliography about this category of kylikes, which are characteristic of LH III C Late to Protogeometric times. I warmly thank the excavators, my colleagues H. Zavvou and A. Themos, who most generously allowed me to refer to their important discovery and provided me with illustrations of the unpublished finds dated to the period under discussion.

122

Katie Demakopoulou

other: a small jug, about 0.09 m high (Fig. 24) and a large neck-handled amphora (Fig. 25). The jug has a squat globular body with a heavy conical base and a wide neck. Its mouth is not extant, but the shape of the vase suggests that it could be a trefoil-mouthed jug, FS 137. It is monochrome, with a narrow reserved decorative zone below the shoulder, containing a horizontal wavy line. Both shape and decoration of the jug suggest that it must belong to the Submycenaean phase. For the shape and decoration there are parallels both from Lefkandi (RMDP, 722– 724, nos. 101, 107–108, fig. 278) and the Kerameikos (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 20, Gr. 131/3, fig. 9, pl. 27). The large amphora, about 0.30 m high, seems to be uncoated, although its decoration may have been lost or covered by heavy incrustation. It has an ovoid shape with sloping shoulders, tall neck with a hollow lip, two vertical oval handles from neck to shoulder and a raised concave base, FS 70. This type of amphora, usually decorated, is included among the Submycenaean shapes (MDP, 197, fig. 261). There are similar examples from the Kerameikos (RMDP, 627, nos. 622–624, fig. 240. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 120, Gr. hs 76, pl. 43) and from Lefkandi (RMDP, 722, no. 100, fig. 278). In any case, the date of the neck-handled amphora from Peristeri is supported by the Submycenaean jug found in the same burial. Apart from the two vases, the finds belonging to this burial included some bronzes (Fig. 26). A plain ring was found at the right hand of the dead person. It can be paralleled by the plain bronze rings from Submycenaean tombs at Kerameikos (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 206–207, fig. 11, pl. 30). Three fragmentary pins were also recovered; they were found near the shoulders of the skeleton, one slightly fallen near the breast. They evidently were used to fasten the shroud or the funeral dress. Both pins and ring are much corroded. The ribbed decoration of the pinheads assigns them to Imma Kilian-Dirlmeier’s type A, which was common in Late Postpalatial and Early Iron Age times (KILIAN-DIRLMEIER 1984, 66–69, pl. 6. – DESBOROUGH 1972, 297 [Type B]. – DICKINSON 2006, 159–160, fig. 5.22:1–2). CONCLUDING REMARKS The finds from both the old and more recent excavations have demonstrated that at least six sites in Laconia continued to be occupied during LH III C Late and Submycenaean times.7 Three of these sites, Epidauros Limera, Pellana and the Amyklaion, which are among the most important of the Laconian Mycenaean sites, seem to be fairly prosperous throughout the entire LH III C period. The extensive cemeteries at Pellana in the north and Epidauros Limera in the south, both used without interruption from the beginning of the Mycenaean era, have produced pottery ranging from LH III C Early to Submycenaean. It is noteworthy that the LH III C Middle and Late ceramic material is plentiful, especially at Epidauros Limera, and that it displays similarities with the pottery from other parts of the Mainland,8 the Cyclades and Crete. There are also some imported vases. Furthermore, the chamber tombs of both cemeteries which started in Early Mycenaean times continued into Submycenaean.9 The vases recovered from these tombs

7 8

9

Future excavations in Laconia may well bring to light more sites with LH III C and Submycenaean pottery. It is of interest that the LH III C Middle and Late pottery from Laconia resembles in various ways the pottery of the Lefkandi Phases 2a–b and 3, see POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 150–180. The evidence from Laconia supports the view that Submycenaean seems to be a pottery style originating from the LH III C Late style with which it has many similarities. It could well be a phase between LH III C Late and Protogeometric rather than a sub-phase of LH III C Late. In any case, it is the latest pottery phase of the Mycenaean period during which some LH III C Late shapes continue in a looser form. Most of them are darkground with reserved zones and/or they are decorated with simple bands, wavy or wiggly lines, zigzags, crosshatching and semicircles. For the view that Submycenaean is a distinctive phase between LH III C Late and Protogeometric, see a.o. MOUNTJOY 1988 and, more recently, STYRENIUS 2001. – RUPPENSTEIN 2003. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 269–271. – Also RUPPENSTEIN this volume.

Laconia in LH III C Late and Submycenaean

123

and from the recently excavated chamber tomb at Peristeri appear to be of the same Submycenaean types known from other parts of the Peloponnese and Central Greece, notably from the Athenian Kerameikos and Lefkandi. The Amyklaion sanctuary was established in the final phase of LH III B and it was in use throughout the entire LH III C and Submycenaean period. This is demonstrated by the considerable number of large hollow animal figures, partly wheelmade, of the type known from other Mycenaean sanctuaries, such as those at Tiryns (KILIAN 1992, 21 n. 136, 25, pl. 3), Epidauros (LAMBRINUDAKIS 1981, 59, 63, fig. 8) and Methana in the Argolid (KONSOLAKI 2002, 34, fig. 13), Kalapodi in Phthiotis (FELSCH 1981, 87, figs. 20, 22) and Phylakopi on Melos (FRENCH 1985, 236–252). It is of particular interest that the numerous bovine figures found in the sanctuary at Phylakopi may stilistically date to LH III A–B (FRENCH 1985, 238–239, 279–280). Apparently, this type of wheelmade animal figures, although known mostly from LH III C sites, also appeared earlier as the wheelmade female figures. Many of the LH III C Middle and Late animal figures from the Amyklaion are decorated with motifs resembling those used for the decoration of pottery vessels. It is noteworthy that the deposition of terracotta animal figures in the sanctuary continued during the Submycenaean phase with a number of figures decorated with motifs typical of this style. This provides strong evidence for the existence of ritual activity at the site to the very end of the Bronze Age. There are many indications that the sanctuary continued in use through the succeeding Early Iron Age, into Protogeometric times, perhaps after a short break. The offerings, however, are now chiefly bronzes, with some drinking vessels of clay.10 The other three LH III C sites in Laconia likewise continued in use until the end of the Bronze Age. Pottery from Epidauros Limera, Pellana and Peristeri demonstrates that Laconia was indeed not isolated during the 11th century BC, but still had contacts with the external world. The external relations and interregional interactions, which were evident during LH III C Middle in Laconia, continued in LH III C Late, for the most part with the Argolid, Attica, Euboea and Crete. Epidauros Limera with its strategic coastal location was an important site for outside contacts, as it was during the entire Mycenaean period. The influence from Crete and other parts of the Aegean could have reached Laconia through this port, whence it would have been transferred to the inland sites, including Pellana at the north end of the region. From there it will have been transmitted to Palaiokastro in Arcadia, with its most important LH III C cemetery, where influence from Achaia and Elis is also apparent (RMDP, 296–299. – DEMAKOPOULOU 2007, 166–168). Thus, a general conclusion is that the different regions of the Mainland and the Aegean did not lose contact with each other and their connections continued well into the latest stage of the Mycenaean civilization.

10

The gap between the Mycenaean and Protogeometric sanctuaries at Amyklai may well have been narrow and not so long as has been believed in the past. It is possible, however, that the cult continued at the site without interruption until the appearance of the Protogeometric pottery which indeed is very different from the Mycenaean pottery and has a characteristic metallic glaze. It is unfortunate for the chronological sequence of the sanctuaries that the Mycenaean figures and figurines did not come from stratified deposits; for these matters, see a.o. DESBOROUGH 1972, 280. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 90–96. – DEMAKOPOULOU forthcoming. – WRIGHT 1994, 65. – EDER 1998, 99–100, 136–137. – EDER 2006, 209. – MORGAN 1999, 371, 382–384, 390. – DICKINSON 2006, 232. – KYRIELEIS 2006, 64.

124

Katie Demakopoulou

Bibliography Ε’ Συνέδριο Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών 1996/97 Πρακτικά του Ε’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Άργος – Ναύπλιον 6–10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1995 (Peloponnesiaka 22). Athens.

Z’ Συνέδριο Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών 2007 Πρακτικά του Ζ’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Πύργος – Γαστούνη – Αμαλιάδα 11–17 Σεπτεμβρίου 2005 (Peloponnesiaka 27). Athens. ALCOCK, S. E. – R. OSBORNE (eds.) 1994 Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece. Oxford. CAVANAGH, W. G. – C. GALLOU – M. GEORGIADIS (eds.) Forthc. Sparta and Laconia from Prehistory to Premodern. International Conference, 17–20 March 2005, Sparta (BSA Studies 16). London. DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 1968 “Μυκηναϊκά αγγεία εκ θαλαμοειδών τάφων περιοχής Αγίου Ιωάννου Μονεμβασίας”, ArchDelt 23, Mel 145–194. 1982 Το Μυκηναϊκό ιερό στο Αμυκλαίο και η ΥΕ ΙΙΙΓ περίοδος στη Λακωνία. Athens. 2007 “Laconia and Arcadia in LH III C Middle: Pottery and other Finds”, 161–174 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II. Forthc. “Το Μυκηναϊκό ιερό στο Αμυκλαίο: Μια νέα προσέγγιση”, in: CAVANAGH – GALLOU – GEORGIADIS forthcoming. DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1972 The Greek Dark Ages. London. DESBOROUGH, V. R. – R. V. NICHOLLS – M. R. POPHAM 1970 “A Euboean Centaur”, BSA 65, 21–30. DICKINSON, O. 2006 The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age. Continuity and Change between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC. London – New York. EDER, B. 1998 Argolis, Lakonien, Messenien. Vom Ende der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderung der Dorier. (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission Band 17). Vienna. 2006 “Die spätbronze- und früheisenzeitliche Keramik”, 141–246 in: KYRIELEIS 2006. EVELY, D. (ed.) 2006 Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (BSA Suppl. 39). London. FELSCH, R. C. S. 1981 “Mykenischer Kult im Heiligtum bei Kalapodi?”, 81–89 in: HÄGG – MARINATOS 1981. FISCHER, P. M. 2001 Contributions to the Archaeology and History of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Honour of Paul Åström (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Sonderschriften 39). Vienna. FRENCH, E. 1971 “The Development of Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines”, BSA 66, 101–187. 1985 “The Figures and Figurines”, 209–280 in: RENFREW 1985. FRONING, H. – T. HÖLSCHER – H. MIELSCH (eds.) 1992 Kotinos. Festschrift für Erika Simon. Mainz. GUGGISBERG, M. A. 1996 Frühgriechische Tierkeramik. Zur Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Tiergefässe und der hohlen Tierfiguren in der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit (ca. 1600 – 700 v. Chr.). Mainz. HÄGG, R. (ed.) 2002 Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11–13 June 1994 (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, 48). Stockholm.

Laconia in LH III C Late and Submycenaean

125

HÄGG, R. – N. MARINATOS (eds.) 1981 Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May 1980 (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, 28). Stockholm. HARRIS, B. F. (ed.) 1970 Auckland Classical Essays presented to E. M. Blaiklock. Auckland – Oxford. KARACHALIOS, TH. 1929 “Θολωτός Τάφος εν Καλυβίοις (Πελλάνης)”, ArchDelt 10, 1926 [1929], Parartema, 41–44. KILIAN, K. 1992 “Mykenische Heiligtümer der Peloponnes”, 10–25 in: FRONING – HÖLSCHER – MIELSCH 1992. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, I. 1984 Nadeln der frühhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes (Prähistorische Bronzefunde 13:8). Munich. KONSOLAKI, E. 2002 “A Mycenaean Sanctuary on Methana”, 25–36 in: HÄGG 2002. KOUNTOURI, E. 1996/97 “Ένα σύνολο Μυκηναϊκών αγγείων από την Επίδαυρο Λιμηρά Λακωνίας”, 491–513 in: Ε’ Συνέδριο Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. KÜBLER, K. 1943 Neufunde aus der Nekropole des 11. und 10. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 4). Berlin. KYRIELEIS, H. 2006 Anfänge und Frühzeit des Heiligtums von Olympia. Die Ausgrabungen am Pelopion 1987–1996 (Olympische Forschungen 31). Berlin – New York. LAMBRINUDAKIS, V. 1981 “Remains of the Mycenaean Period in the Sanctuary of Apollon Maleatas”, 59–65 in: HÄGG – MARINATOS 1981. MORGAN, C. 1999 Isthmia Volume VIII. The Late Bronze Age Settlement and Early Iron Age Sanctuary. Princeton. MOUNTJOY, P. 1988 “LH III C Late versus Submycenaean. The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed”, JdI 103, 1–33. NICHOLLS, R. V. 1970 “Greek Votive Statuettes and Religious Continuity, c. 1200–700 B.C.”, 1–37 in: HARRIS 1970. POPHAM, M. – E. SCHOFIELD – S. SHERRATT 2006 “The Pottery”, 137–231 in: EVELY 2006. RENFREW, C. 1985 The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi (BSA Suppl. 18). London. RUPPENSTEIN, F. 2003 “Late Helladic III C Late versus Submycenaean: A Methodological Problem”, 183–192 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. 2007 Die submykenische Nekropole. Neufunde und Neubewertung (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 18). Munich. SEIRADAKI, M. 1960 “Pottery from Karphi”, BSA 55, 1–37. SNODGRASS, A. M. 1971 The Dark Age of Greece. Edinburgh. SPYROPOULOS, T. G. 1989 “Πελλάνα”, ArchDelt 37, 1982 [1989] Chron 112–114.

126

Katie Demakopoulou

STYRENIUS, C.-G. 2001 “The Submycenaean Period Revisited”, 139–142 in: FISCHER 2001. THEMOS, A. 2007 “Αναζητώντας το Αρχαίο Έλος”, 452–480 in: Ζ’ Συνέδριο Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. TSOUNTAS, C. 1892 “Εκ του Αμυκλαίου”, ArchEph, 1–26. WATERHOUSE, H. – R. HOPE SIMPSON 1960 “Prehistoric Laconia: Part I”, BSA 55, 67–107. 1961 “Prehistoric Laconia: Part II”, BSA 56, 114–175. WEBER-HIDEN, I. 1990 “Die mykenischen Terrakottafigurinen aus den Syringes von Tiryns”, 35–85 in: Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 11. Mainz. WRIGHT, J. C. 1994 “The Spatial Configuration of Belief: The Archaeology of Mycenaean Religion”, 37–78 in: ALCOCK – OSBORNE 1994.

Laconia in LH III C Late and Submycenaean

127

128

Katie Demakopoulou

Laconia in LH III C Late and Submycenaean

129

130

Katie Demakopoulou

Laconia in LH III C Late and Submycenaean

131

132

Katie Demakopoulou

To the memory of Nicolas Coldstream, as a token of my gratitude

BIRGITTA EDER

THE LATE BRONZE AGE / EARLY IRON AGE TRANSITION IN WESTERN GREECE: SUBMYCENAEAN STUDIES

The chronological classification of pottery is a notoriously difficult exercise, when it comes to the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age (LBA/EIA) transition in Western Greece. In the present context I use the term Western Greece to refer to the regions Aitolo-Acarnania, Achaea, Elis, Messenia and Lakonia on the western Greek Mainland, and the Ionian Islands located at the entrance of the Gulf of Patras. Here, the pottery sequence from LH III C to Geometric has not been well defined on the basis of stratified deposits and closed archaeological contexts. The lack of a series of data makes it difficult to establish a firm chronological framework for the period in question (cf. EDER 2001, 2–7, 54. – EDER 2006, 193–196). This applies to the stratigraphies of settlement sites which cover the LH III C to Protogeometric periods and thus enable the study of the sequences of pottery styles. There are only a few sites in the region which have been excavated at all, and among those there is not a single location which offers the relevant data of an undisturbed stratigraphy through the LBA/EIA transition. Nichoria in Messenia, which was an important settlement within the Mycenaean polity of Pylos in LH III A–B, was abandoned by the end of the palatial period and reoccupied only in the EIA (LH III B end of occupation: MCDONALD – WILKIE 1992, 459, 767. – DICKINSON – MARTIN – SHELMERDINE 1992, 512, 519). LH III C material is in fact missing, and the suggested date of the earliest phase of EIA habitation has not been universally accepted (see COULSON 1983, 61. – MCDONALD – COULSON 1983, 318–319. – Cf. reviews by SNODGRASS 1984, 152. – DICKINSON 1989, 480–481). In fact, the first EIA occupation phase, labelled Dark Age I (DA I), was not associated with architectural remains, and pottery of this phase was isolated only by stylistic evaluation and not on the basis of stratigraphy (COULSON 1983, 6. – MCDONALD – COULSON 1983, 318–319). Excavations in the Apollo Hyakinthus sanctuary at Amyklai in Lakonia revealed the material remains of a LBA and EIA sanctuary. Most of the LH III C pottery and votive figurines and statues were found on the surface of the hill without context, and when they were found together with Protogeometric pottery of a very local Lakonian style they came from a mixed deposit discarded just below the classical temenos walls (BUSCHOR – VON MASSOW 1927, 32– 33, 38. – CARTLEDGE 2002, 70–71. – DEMAKOPOULOU 1982, 34–35. – COULSON 1985, 30, 63– 65). The information contained in the stratigraphy of successive occupation layers is thus missing, and the chronological relation between the LH III C and Lakonian Protogeometric pottery remains dubious. The archaeological basis to propose the continuous practice of cult at the site is therefore not entirely watertight (cf. EDER 1998, 97–111). Lakonian PG has also turned up in more recent excavations in the sanctuary of Athena Alea in Tegea/Arcadia. Here, a bothros provides us with eight successive layers of which the earliest contains Lakonian PG together with late PG pottery with Argive and Attic affinities and provides a date in the late 10th century for the occurrence of the style at the latest (see most

134

Birgitta Eder

recently VOYATZIS 2004, 189, 201 fig. 2. – VOYATZIS 2005, 469–471, 479 fig. 2).1 More evidence for the local development of Lakonian Protogeometric comes from recent rescue excavations at Lakonian sites, and the current work of the local Ephorate will help to lighten up the Lakonian Dark Ages. More specifically, the discovery of burial goods in Protogeometric and Early Geometric tombs in the area of Sparta and Amyklai, and in Peristeri Skalas, has promoted further study of the pottery in question (cf. DEMAKOPOULOU this volume). E. Zavvou has pointed out the existence of monochrome painted pottery fragments of skyphoi, which occasionally carry reserved zones with wavy lines and seem to conform to a rather typical Submycenaean tradition.2 Olympia in Elis is a post-Bronze Age sanctuary site where the EIA pottery comes from the mixed deposit of a 7th century levelling fill and thus offers no stratigraphical information on the development of local EIA pottery (see now KYRIELEIS 2006, 27–36. – EDER 2006, 193–199). Older and more recent excavations at Aetos on Ithaca have produced wealthy ceramic evidence for the EIA; and although PG material is abundant, it frequently comes from mixed deposits, and we also miss here the qualities of fine stratigraphical contexts. The same is true for the LH III C to Geometric deposits which were excavated in the Polis Cave located in the north-west of Ithaca (Ithaca general: SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, 102–117. – PolisCave: BENTON 1934/35. – BENTON 1938/39. – Aetos: HEURTLEY – LORIMER 1932/33. – BENTON 1953. – WAMSER SYMEONOGLOU 2002, 10–50). Aigeira is the only settlement site in Achaea where we possess published stratigraphical evidence from the so-called acropolis plateau for the early and the successive phases of the LH III C period. However, the upper levels were disturbed, and LH III C Late as well as EIA pottery fragments have no stratigraphical context (ALRAM-STERN 2003. – DEGER-JALKOTZY – ALRAM-STERN 1985. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 1991. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 2003). New excavations on a lower plateau of the same site and the assessment of the material from the so-called lower saddle promise new data which may help to bridge the gap in the LBA/EIA stratigraphy (cf. GAUSS this volume). Apart from this lack of settlement data the evidence from LBA/EIA tombs is also quite limited. This concerns sizeable groups of burial assemblages which can be studied by individual contexts and their relative stratigraphical position. There is nothing comparable to the sterling quality of publications such as the Kerameikos or the Lefkandi volumes which have made it possible to establish contextual data and which, in turn, allow an assessment of the stylistic development of pottery styles in Attica and Euboea (e.g. KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939. – KÜBLER 1943. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007. – POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80). This does not imply the complete absence of archaeological investigation and research on the western Greek mainland and the Ionian Islands. One major obstacle lies in the unsatisfactory documentation of the old finds from pre-World War II excavations and their contexts, another in the numerous unpublished burial contexts which have in fact been excavated in recent years. Our hope rests in future publications, and the work of Lazaros Kolonas, Ioannis Moschos, Kostas Paschalidis and Olympia Vikatou on the LBA material from cemeteries in Achaea and northern Elis is especially promising in this respect (cf. MOSCHOS this volume). Ioulika Christakopoulou’s work on the EIA burials from Stamna will provide us with the data from a large EIA

1

The chronology of Lakonian PG has traditionally been a matter of guesswork and stylistic assessment (cf. DES1952, 287. – DESBOROUGH 1972, 242–243. – COULSON 1985, 63–65). The context of the Tegean bothros provides a chronological framework for Lakonian PG between the late 10th and early 8th century BC (VOYATZIS 2005, 471) and supplies a terminus ante quem for the development of the style. E. ZAVVOU, New Finds of Lakonian Protogeometric Style. Paper presented at the one-day conference presenting new work on Early Iron Age Pottery in memory of the late Nicolas Coldstream, 29th March, 2008, The British School at Athens. – For recent finds of Lakonian PG: ZAVVOU 2001, 130, pl. 45α–β. – EVSTATHIOU 2005, 174 fig. 21. – Cf. below n. 5.

BOROUGH

2

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in Western Greece

135

necropolis in Akarnania, which will shed light on the development of the local west-Greek Protogeometric (cf. CHRISTAKOPOULOU 2001 on a sequence of EIA burials in a built tomb at Stamna). I shall continue my paper showing the little evidence which is in fact available at present. I shall address questions of whether and how we can isolate Submycenaean pottery groups from those of LH III C Late and Protogeometric respectively. How adequate does the usage of a terminology which was developed to describe pottery styles on the eastern mainland appear? What pottery style was in use in western Greece contemporary with Attic and Argive Submycenaean? Scholars like Vincent Desborough, Anthony Snodgrass and Thanassis Papadopoulos have suggested that the LH III C style of pottery present in the cemeteries of Achaea and the Ionian Islands might have continued into the late 11th and even into the 10th centuries BC and were thus partly contemporary with Submycenaean or even Protogeometric in the eastern regions of the mainland (SNODGRASS 1971, 84–86, 242–245, 399. – DESBOROUGH 1972, 88–946. – DICKINSON 1989. – Cf. PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, 184–185). However, none of them has ever presented strong material evidence in support of this idea. In contrast to the traditional classification of the material in question as “Submycenaean” or “Protogeometric” two alternative terminologies have been suggested: Fritz Schachermeyr introduced the “Zwischenware” which he characterised as the style current in western Greece “between” LH III C and Protogeometric and/or Geometric. He explained that this was a style of wheelmade pottery which was developed in Aetolia and spread from there to the Ionian Islands, to Achaea, Elis and Messenia and further east on the mainland. In contrast to Attic Protogeometric with its hallmark of concentric circles, the “Zwischenware” incorporated LH III C as well as MH traditions of patterns and motifs. Unfortunately, Schachermeyr never offered a consistent definition of his “Zwischenware” let alone a safe chronological framework (SCHACHERMEYR 1980, 190, 249–254, 301–303, 397–402, 450 and passim). His idea that Aetolia was the origin of the “Zwischenware” has been rightly criticised on a chronological basis as well as on typological grounds (OTTO 1987). 1. The Early Iron Age pottery from Aetolia, which Schachermeyr refers to, has no archaeological contexts to show that it is contemporary with Submycenaean pottery elsewhere. Instead, a (rather Late) Protogeometric chronology has generally been attributed to the vessels in question (cf. VOKOTOPOULOU 1971. – STAVROPOULOU-GATSI 1986. – DEKOULAKOU 1984). 2. Technology, shape and decoration of the relevant material display the Late Mycenaean background which is innate to wheelmade decorated pottery of the Greek Early Iron Age, and do not justify introducing the idea of a new pottery class. Schachermeyr’s terminology has never become widely accepted, and Vincent Desborough as well as Nicolas Coldstream have always rather applied the term West Greek Protogeometric to classify many of the examples Schachermeyr attributes to his “Zwischenware” (cf. DESBOROUGH 1952, 271–290. – COLDSTREAM 1968, 221–223).3 In fact, the concept of the “Zwischenware” has nothing to offer which could rival the traditional Submycenaean/ Protogeometric classification system. Based on his stratigraphical evaluation of the Early Iron Age pottery from Nichoria William Coulson suggested quite a different terminology (COULSON 1983, 61. – MCDONALD – COULSON 1983, 318–319. – Cf. review by SNODGRASS 1984, 152). It reads Dark Age I, II, III with a transitional DA II/III, and these phases are suggested to cover the period between ca. 1075 and 750. Although stratigraphy is claimed to form the basis of the chronological sequence at Nichoria, the habitation phase DA I was isolated only on the basis of stylistic features of the pottery, and no architectural remains could be associated with it. Only comparative ceramic

3

SCHACHERMEYR 1980, 302: “Die bisherige Forschung hat das leider noch nicht erkannt, und diese Ware einfach als ‘Protogeometrisch’ bezeichnet.”

136

Birgitta Eder

evidence from other sites supports the absolute dates of this Dark Age I-phase (1075–975), and this reference material makes clear that DA I at Nichoria comprises the traditional Submycenaean and Early Protogeometric periods, although Coulson did not refer to EIA material from Attica or the Argolid in particular. This terminology may be suitable for a site like Nichoria and the local situation where it is difficult to distinguish stylistically between Submycenaean and Early Protogeometric. However, the pottery sequence at Nichoria is neither particularly rich in shapes and patterns nor well preserved nor stratified in compact and well distinguished layers in order to form the basis of a new classification system for EIA pottery on the western Greek mainland and the Ionian Islands. The re-evaluation of pottery from Ithaca, Laconia and Messenia in terms of the Nichoria sequence is therefore of limited value and should be tested against new data when they become available (COULSON 1985. – COULSON 1986. – COULSON 1991). I still find it useful to keep to the traditional terms Submycenaean and Protogeometric, because EIA pottery from the western regions in fact offers points of correlation with the eastern part of the mainland. As a consequence of my study of the Submycenaean and Protogeometric burials at the site of Ancient Elis this body of material will be my starting point (EDER 2001): A few individual tomb contexts offer the possibility to study Submycenaean pottery and to compare it with the LH III C material from the chamber tomb cemeteries of the region. Tomb 1961:7 belongs to the earliest burials at the site (Fig. 1:2–4. – EDER 2001, 19–21). The body of the deceased was buried in a contracted position: A pair of nail headed bronze pins with spherical globes towards their ends was placed on the shoulders of the skeleton (Fig. 1:2). This type of pin is well known from several Early Iron Age cemeteries of Greece and according to the typology of Kilian-Dirlmeier limited to the Submycenaean and Protogeometric periods of the later 11th and 10th centuries BC (KILIAN-DIRLMEIER 1984, 69–70, 74–75, pl. 7 nos. 196–197. – Cf. EDER 2001, 87). Dress pins in pairs appeared only in post-Mycenaean times and have therefore been considered to indicate a new type of dress. A more conservative character is displayed by the adjoining vases which are reminiscent of pottery shapes and decorative patterns current in the north-western Peloponnese during the latest Mycenaean period of LH III C. The amphora shows clear relations to the big belly handled examples known from the regions of Achaia and Elis of the LH III C Late period (Fig. 1:3. – EDER 2001, 57–59 pls. 2c:1, 10a:a–b with references. – Cf. PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, I: 68–71; II: 31 fig. 52 – 41 fig. 65; 167 fig. 191 – 176 fig. 200. – RMDP, 424–426 fig. 149 Achaea nos. 85– 87, 430–431 fig. 152 Achaea nos. 102–104 for examples from Achaia). A significant element consists of a decorative zone on the shoulder with a plastic knob in the middle. Reserved zones on the shoulder and between the handles break up the otherwise monochrome body and carry simple decorative patterns in the form of concentric arches and a wavy band. Neither in shape nor in decoration does the amphora find exact parallels in the numerous examples which have been found in the Late Mycenaean cemeteries of Achaea and Elis. The amphora from Ancient Elis exhibits a less globular profile than the Mycenaean prototypes and its greatest diameter is placed rather low at mid-belly, so that I would argue for a late date in the series. Its shape recalls that of an amphora which was discovered in the so-called Kokevi tholos tomb near the palace of Pylos in Messenia and which belongs to the Protogeometric period (TAYLOUR 1973, 241–242 fig. 298 no. 14). For stylistic reasons I would suggest that the amphora from Ancient Elis takes an intermediate position. The best parallel for the decoration of the amphora comes from a Final Bronze Age 2 context from Punta Meliso at the tip of southern Italy, where a settlement of the Italian LBA was excavated (see Fig. 2:1. – BENZI – GRAZIADIO 1996, 97–98 fig. 2 cat. no. PM 1, 106–108. – Cf. JUNG 2006, 171–172, pl. 13:6). R. Jung has most recently studied the synchronisms between Italy and the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age and has equated the Italian Final BA 2 with the Aegean phases of LH III C Late to Submycenaean (JUNG 2006, 214–216). Another, most likely Submycenaean amphora from the Deiras necropolis of Argos has a similar two-tiered decora-

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in Western Greece

137

tion with crosshatched triangles in the upper and a tight wavy line in the lower zone (Fig. 1:1. – Cf. RMDP, 190–191 fig. 59 Argolid no. 452. – EDER 2001, 58 n. 46 with references. – JUNG 2006, 172 n. 1205). I wonder, whether these vases offer some stylistic criteria to distinguish between the LH III C and the EIA series in the western Peloponnese. At Ancient Elis a small lekythos with a narrow neck and a ring base was found together with the amphora in tomb 1961:7 (Fig. 1:4. – EDER 2001, 68–69, pls. 2c:2, 12b:a–b). Its decoration consists of stacked triangles with fringes on the shoulder and recalls patterns found on LH III C stirrup jars from Achaia. The biconical shape with sloping shoulders and the vertical zig-zagline near the handle are in accordance with a Submycenaean date. No exact parallel can be found among the published examples from the LH III C corpus of Elis and Achaea. While these stylistic criteria support a Submycenaean chronology of this group of two vases, it is confirmed by the accompanying pair of bronze dress pins (see above). A jug which comes from an otherwise undocumented tomb context at Lasteika close to Pyrgos in the wider neighbourhood of Olympia carries a decorative zone with fringed semi-circles, the LH III C background of which is out of the question (Fig. 2:3. – EDER 2001, 44, pls. 9:1a-d, 12a:a-b). The irregular composition of the motif, however, may suggest a post LH III C date. Its biconical shape and high ring foot display general similarities with the lekythos from Ancient Elis, and therefore I have tentatively suggested a Submycenaean date for this jug. It has a rather high neck when compared to LH III C jugs of similar shape from LH III C tomb assemblages from Kefallenia (cf. Fig. 2:5–6. – RMDP, 456–457 fig. 164 Kephallonia nos. 46–47 with references. – Cf. also MARINATOS 1934, pl. 8 no. 126), and I also take this to support a postLH III C chronology. A juglet from the Pelopion excavations displays a similar biconical profile and a high ring-foot, and its linear decoration may be compared to that of other Submycenaean vases from the region (Fig. 2:4. – EDER 2006, 187, 242–243 no. 337 pls. 71, 80). The context of the black stratum provides a firm post-LH III C chronology (see below). In comparison, Protogeometric jugs like the one from Gryllos (in the Alpheios valley) show a more elongated profile, and a low conical foot has taken the place of the ring foot (Fig. 2:7. – KOKKOTAKI – CHATZI 1990. – Cf. EDER 2001, 45, 68). My stylistic assessment gains important support through external evidence: In recent years excavations at the south Italian site of Rocavecchia in Apulia have revealed settlement phases of the Italian Middle and Late Bronze Age. The final destruction horizon of the settlement, which dates to the end of the Italian FBA 2, contained a group of Mycenaean style vases, some of which show clear relations with the pottery production of the north-western Peloponnese (GUGLIELMINO 1996. – GUGLIELMINO 2005). In his study of Aegean-Italian synchronisms Reinhard Jung has dated it to the Submycenaean period (JUNG 2006, 153–165). This date is provided by an amphoriskos on the one hand and by skyphoi, which are either monochrome or decorated with vertical wavy bands and are supported by high ring feet, on the other hand. Jung further pointed out that there are important similarities between the decorated fragment of a closed vessel from Rocavecchia and the complete jug from Lasteika (Fig. 2:2–3). The fragment from Rocavecchia preserves part of the decoration above mid-belly, which consists of a set of concentric arches with outside fringes and the edge of a likewise fringed panel (Fig. 2:2. – GUGLIELMINO 1996, 270 fig. 15, 271 fig. 16:5 no. 12. – GUGLIELMINO 2005, pl. CLXVId. – JUNG 2006, 161 pl. 12:5). Due to the lack of stratified deposits of the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age on the western Greek mainland and in the Ionian Islands the evidence from Rocavecchia is of utmost importance. It gives us the first reliable contextual data from a settlement phase which can be related to the Submycenaean tomb material from the western Peloponnese. Two kylikes from the votive deposit of the “black stratum” around the Pelopion at Olympia show decorative features which consist of a row of concentric semi-circles and a horizontal zigzag just above them (Fig. 3:1. – EDER 2006, 147–150, 215–216 nos. 5–6 pls. 52, 76). This pattern is similar to that on the jug from Lasteika and thus compatible with a Submycenaean date of

138

Birgitta Eder

the kylikes. Again, I have not found exact counterparts to these kylikes in the LBA cemeteries of Kefallenia, where kylikes of LH III C Late date are present. I have illustrated examples here from the chamber tomb cemeteries of Lakkithra and Metaxata on Kefallenia (Fig. 3:2–4. – Cf. RMDP, 463–464 fig. 168 Kephallonia nos. 81–83 with references). While the horizontal structure of their decoration may be comparable, the Olympia kylikes are different as they display deep inturned lips and in this respect resemble more the Protogeometric version of the kylix.4 Also ribbed stems of kylikes are quite common in the Pelopion deposit at Olympia (EDER 2006 151–153, 216–217 nos. 12–22 pls. 53, 77), while they are very rare in the cemeteries of Kefallenia, where straight or slightly bulbous stems appear to be the rule. The Olympia deposit does in fact support my proposed chronology by contextual data. The votive layer of the so-called black stratum at Olympia does not contain any ceramic material which could suggest a beginning of the assemblage in LH III C. Feet of small open vessels are particularly abundant and thus offer representative information. They consist of high ring feet or low to medium high conical ones, if we leave aside the Geometric flat based ones (Fig. 4:1. – EDER 2006, 174–175, 229–235 nos. 162–254 pls. 63–65). The low ring feet which are characteristic of LH III C skyphoi are entirely missing. I have therefore suggested that the earliest material from the votive dump at Olympia should be dated Submycenaean (EDER 2006, 194–196). Low conical feet are also characteristic of skyphoi within the DA I material of the settlement of Nichoria and the nearby cemetery at Karpophora (Fig. 4:2–3. – COULSON 1983, 65, 119 fig. 3-3, 127 fig. 3-11, 256 P1578, P1579. – CHOREMIS 1973, 48 nos. 723, 724 pls. 18ς, 19ε – RMDP, 362–363 Messenia no. 147–148). Reserved zones with wavy lines between the handles frequently break up the otherwise monochrome decoration of these skyphoi and seem to conform to a supra-regional trend (COULSON 1983, 67, 124–126 figs. 3-8 – 3-10).5 Together with a bronze dress pin from the settlement (Fig. 4:4. – CATLING – CARRINGTON SMITH – HUGHES BROCK 1983, 276–277, 300 fig. 5-5, 305 no. 5. – KILIAN-DIRLMEIER 1984, 66 pl. 6 no. 178), which finds very good parallels in a pair from the Submycenaean tomb Γ 31 from Mycenae (Fig. 6:5. – KILIAN-DIRLMEIER 1984, 66–67 pl. 6 nos. 184–185. – DESBOROUGH 1973, 95 no. 9 pl. 34e–d), they provide good evidence to date the phase of the reoccupation of the settlement of Nichoria after the LBA to the Submycenaean period. A review of a few vases from tomb contexts at Ancient Elis illustrates that at least some of the material from these tombs is quite well comparable with other Submycenaean pottery from the Greek mainland. The jug from tomb 1961:6 was found together with two twisted arched fibulae (Fig. 5:1–2. – EDER 2001, 66 pl. 2b:1, 11c:e). Its shape as well as the monochrome decoration with a reserved zone on the shoulder finds quite a compatible counterpart in the rich Submycenaean burial context of tomb Γ 31 from Mycenae in the Argolid (Fig. 6:9. – DESBOROUGH 1973, 95–97 no. 2 pl. 35c. – RMDP, 190–191 fig. 59 Argolid no. 453). D-shaped symmetrical bow fibulae with twisted wire only became frequent in Submycenaean contexts on the southern Greek mainland and confirm the suggested Submycenaean chronology of the jug from Elis (EDER 2001, 89–90. – JUNG 2006, 190–191).

4

5

Kylikes with ribbed stems from Ithaka, Polis: BENTON 1938/39, 13–14 pl. 8 nos. 62–68, 16 pl. 9a. – COULSON 1991, 48 fig. 2, 54 fig. 5. – SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, 109–111, pls. 26–28, 34. – RMDP, 475–477 fig. 174 Ithaka nos. 20–24. Aetos: HEURTLEY – LORIMER 1932/33, 38–39. – SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, 111, pl. 34a–d. – Cf. EDER 2006, 151–153 for further comparanda. Similar skyphoi with reserved zones and wavy lines between the handles come from the Argolid where A. Papadimitriou has published some examples from Submycenaean layers (FEZ I) at Tiryns: PAPADIMITRIOU 1988, 228–230 fig. 1. – Cf. RMDP, 57 generally on the diffusion of Submycenaean pottery, 195 fig. 61, 196 on Submycenaean deep bowls from the Argolid. – See also JUNG 2006, 159–160 on Submycenaean skyphoi with wavy bands.

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in Western Greece

139

The burial context of tomb Γ 31 from Mycenae also contains four lekythoi (Fig. 6:6–7,10–11. – DESBOROUGH 1973, 95–96 pls. 35a–b nos. 4–7. – RMDP, 191–192 fig. 59 Argolid nos. 457– 458), which offer quite good parallels for another lekythos from Ancient Elis (Fig. 5:3. – EDER 2001, 69–70 pls. 1b:2, 12b:c). The latter was discovered in tomb 1961:4 together with a pair of bronze dress pins and a neck-handled amphora (Fig. 5:4–5). These lekythoi are similar in respect to their rather globular profile and funnel-shaped mouth, and two of the four vessels from Mycenae have their handles attached to the rim like the lekythos from Elis. Another comparable lekythos with linear decoration comes from Tiryns tomb XIIIa (Fig. 6:1. – VERDELIS 1963, 6–7 no. 2 pl. 3. – RMDP, 191–192 fig. 59 Argolid no. 456), which is otherwise dated to the Subymcenaean period by the presence of a twisted bow fibula. While it is difficult to point out close parallels for the amphora from Elis tomb 1961:4 (Fig. 5:4), the two bronze dress pins (Fig. 5:5. – EDER 2001, 86–87 pl. 13c:a–b) correspond to types current in the Submycenaean period. The type with an oblong swelling with groups of thinly moulded ribs above and below conform to the type of pin from the Nichoria settlement and the pair from tomb Γ 31 at Mycenae (See above. – Cf. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER 1984, 66–69 nos. 177–191). The other one corresponds to a rather rare type with ring-mouldings instead of the head, which occurs mutatis mutandis in similar shape in the cemeteries of Nichoria at Karpophora and Diakata on Kefallenia (see below). Apart from providing confirmative evidence for the Submycenaean chronology of the Elean pottery, the tomb contexts from Mycenae and Tiryns illustrate the circulation of ideas in matters of pottery production as well as in bronze technology. Similar types of bronzes, such as long dress pins and arched fibulae, are found all over Greece in these formative stages of the EIA. To cut a longer story short: My assessment of EIA pottery groups from the western Peloponnese leads to the impression that there is a stylistic distinctive Submycenaean phase different from the preceding LH III C Late and a later Protogeometric one. LH III C pottery has been mainly located in the chamber tomb cemeteries of the region, while Submycenaean material comes mainly from single tombs, which are also frequently located at a spatial distance to the LBA cemeteries. Supportive evidence comes from bronze dress accessories in the shape of long dress pins and arched fibulae, which are confined to the Submycenaean and Protogeometric periods. In fact, the presence of such bronze artefacts may help to identify a few Submycenaean vases in the cemeteries of western Greece. Three long dress pins come from tomb Z at Diakata (Fig. 4:5. – KYPARISSIS 1922, 117 fig. 32. – KILIAN-DIRLMEIER 1984, 58, 67–68, pl. 116 D. – SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, 81 pl. 20: A 948, A 949. – Cf. DESBOROUGH 1972, 91). While it is impossible to isolate single burials with their accompanying vases and bronzes, the types of two pins suggest that at least one burial was placed here in the Submycenaean period. One is of the familiar type with a bulbous swelling towards the upper end and with a nail-shaped head. The other pin belongs to a rare type which ends in a moulded head: More or less close parallels come from the Submycenaean tomb 1961:4 from Ancient Elis (Fig. 5:5. – EDER 2001, 16–17, 86–87 no. 3. – See above) and from the EIA cemetery at Karpophora next to Nichoria in Messenia (KILIAN-DIRLMEIER 1984, 78 pl. 12 no. 294. – CHOREMIS 1973, 73 pl. 38β Μ44). Apart from these pins the same grave shaft contained a group of vases, among which I would like to point out one stirrup jar (Fig. 4:6. – KYPARISSIS 1922, 108 fig. 24:3: tomb ζ). It is rather tall with a monochrome lower body; the upper body carries a series of vertical bands in a style which is familiar from stirrup jars from Achaea. The same is true for the shoulder decoration which consists, as far as I can tell, of fringed triangles. A tall cone sits on top of the high false neck and the high spout appears rather broad. Unfortunately, the rather hazy photograph in the 1919 [1922] excavation report is the only documentation of this stirrup jar available. P. Mountjoy’s monumental collection of regional Mycenaean decorated pottery offers the drawing of a Submycenaean stirrup jar from chamber tomb 6 at Tiryns (Fig. 4:7. – RMDP, 193–

140

Birgitta Eder

194 fig. 60 Argolid no. 460 with references). The vase is probably an import from Achaea, and I consider it as a good stylistic parallel for the vase from Diakata. The vase from Diakata can thus be identified with a Submycenaean use of the tomb, which the two dress pins seem to confirm. If this is the case, we have an indication that Submycenaean style vases actually do exist in the LBA cemeteries of the western Greek mainland. More examples come from chamber tombs at Voudeni near Patras in Achaia (MOSCHOS this volume, his phase 6b: primary burial B in chamber tomb 25). They may, however, be compared with other Submycenaean stirrup jars from the rest of the mainland. While the decoration follows LH III C Achaean traditions, the large ovoid shape, the tall cone on the high false neck as well as the broad spout are features, which are familiar from Submycenaean stirrup jars and are particularly well known from the Attic series (cf. e.g. RMDP, 631–633 figs. 242–243 nos. 640, 642, 646, 647, with references6). Submycenaean stylistic features apparently travelled beyond regional limits, and thus suggest communication and dispersal of ideas. The Submycenaean stirrup jars from Tiryns and Diakata illustrate this point in question: Probably exported from Achaea these Submycenaean vessels travelled along the Corinthian Gulf to the west and to the east, and make it thus likely that Submycenaean was a much more communicative period than we tend to believe.

Index to illustrations (scale 1:3) Fig. 1 1) Belly-handled amphora from chamber tomb XXXIII of the Deiras cemetery at Argos: after RMDP, 191 fig. 569 Argolid no. 452. – 2–4) Ancient Elis, burial context of tomb 1961:7: Pair of bronze dress pins (2), belly-handled amphora (3), lekythos (4); EDER 2001, pls. 10a:a, 12b:a, 13c:d–e. Fig. 2 1) Belly-handled amphora from Punta Meliso/Italy: after BENZI – GRAZIADIO 1996, 98 fig. 2 no. PM 1; JUNG 2006, pl. 13:6. – 2) Fragment of a closed vessel from Rocavecchia/Italy: after GUGLIELMINO 1996, 271 fig. 16:5; JUNG 2006, pl. 12:5. – 3) Jug from Lasteika: EDER 2001, pl. 12a:a. – 4) Juglet from Pelopion excavations at Olympia: EDER 2006, pl. 71 no. 337. – 5) Jug from Kefallenia/Mazarakata: after RMDP, 456 fig. 164 Kephallonia no. 46. – 6) Jug from Kefallenia/Lakkithra: after RMDP, 456 fig. 164 Kephallonia no. 47. – 7) Jug from Gryllos: after KOKKOTAKI – CHATZI 1990, pl. 38ε right. Fig. 3 Kylikes: 1) Pelopion excavations at Olympia: EDER 2006, pl. 52 no. 6. – 2–3) Kefallenia/Lakkithra: after RMDP, 464 fig. 168 Kephallonia nos. 82–83. – 4) Kefallenia/Metaxata: RMDP, 464 fig. 168 Kephallonia no. 81. Fig. 4 1) Ring-feet and low conical feet from Pelopion excavations at Olympia: EDER 2006, pls. 63–64 nos. 167–176, 200–203. – 2–3) Skyphoi from tholos Nikitopoulou at Karpophora/Nichoria: after RMDP, 362 fig. 126 nos. 147–148. – 4) Bronze dress pin from the settlement at Nichoria: after KILIAN-DIRLMEIER 1984, pl. 6 no. 178. – 5) Bronze dress pins from tomb Z at Diakata/Kefallenia: after KILIAN-DIRLMEIER 1984, pl. 116 D. – 6) Achaean style stirrup jar from tomb Z at Diakata/Kefallenia: after KYPARISSIS 1922, 108 fig. 24:3. – 7) Achaean style stirrup jar from chamber tomb 6 at Tiryns: after RMDP, 193 fig. 60 Argolid no. 460. Fig. 5 1–2) Ancient Elis, burial context of tomb 1961:6: jug (1) and pair of bow fibulae with twisted bronze wire (2): EDER 2001, pl. 11c:e. – 3–5) Ancient Elis, burial context of tomb 1961:4: Lekythos (3), neck-handled amphora (4), pair of bronze dress-pins (5): EDER 2001, pls. 12b:c, 10b:c, 13c:a–b. Fig. 6 1) Lekythos from tomb XIIIa at Tiryns: after RMDP, 191 fig. 59 Argolid no. 456. – 2–11) Mycenae, burial context of tomb Γ 31: Stirrup jar (2), lekythoi (6–7), cup (8), jug (9): after RMDP, 191 fig. 59 Argolid nos. 453, 457–458; 193 fig. 60 Argolid nos. 462, 465; three bronze bow fibulae (3), bronze ring with spiral ends (4), lekythoi (10–11) after DESBOROUGH 1973, pls. 34d–e; 35a–b; pair of bronze dress pins (5) after KILIANDIRLMEIER 1984, pl. 6 nos. 184–185.

6

These comparanda belong to F. Ruppenstein’s stylistic group 4, which imply a rather late date within the Submycenaean sequence: RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 85–87, 90 tab. 3.

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in Western Greece

141

Bibliography ALRAM-STERN, E. 2003 “Aigeira – Acropolis: The Stratigraphy”, 15–21 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. ALZINGER, W. UND MITARBEITER 1985 “Aigeira-Hyperesia und die Siedlung Phelloë in Achaia. Österreichische Ausgrabungen auf der Peloponnes 1972–1983. Teil I: Akropolis”, Klio 67, 389–451. BENTON, S. 1934/35 “Excavations in Ithaca, III: The Cave at Polis I”, BSA 35, 45–73. 1938/39 “Excavations at Ithaka, III: the Cave at Polis II,” BSA 39, 1–51. 1953 “Further Excavations at Aetos,” BSA 48, 255–358. BENZI, M. – G. GRAZIADIO 1996 “The Last Mycenaeans in Italy? Late LH III C Pottery from Punta Meliso, Leuca,” SMEA 38, 95–138. BLEGEN, C. W. – M. RAWSON – W. D. TAYLOUR – W. P. DONOVAN 1973 The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, Vol. III. Princeton. BUSCHOR, E. – W. VON MASSOW 1927 “Vom Amyklaion”, AM 52, 1–85. CARTLEDGE, P. 2002 Sparta and Lakonia. A Regional History 1300–362 BC (Second edition). London – New York. CATLING, H. – J. CARRINGTON SMITH – H. HUGHES-BROCK 1983 “The Small Finds”, 273–315 in: MCDONALD – COULSON – ROSSER 1983. CHOREMIS, A. 1973 “Μυκηναïκοί και πρωτογεωμετρικοί τάφοι εις Καρποφόραν Μεσσηνίας”, ArchEph, 25–74. CHRISTAKOPOULOU, I. 2001 “Πρωτογεωμετρικός τάφος στην Σταμνά Μεσολογγίου”, 155–168 in: STAMPOLIDIS 2001. COLDSTREAM, J. N. 1968 Greek Geometric Pottery. A Survey of Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology. London. COULSON, W. D. E. 1983 “The Pottery”, 61–259, in: MCDONALD – COULSON – ROSSER 1983. 1985 “The Dark Age Pottery of Sparta”, BSA 80, 29–84. 1986 The Dark Age Pottery of Messenia (SIMA-Pb 43). Göteborg. 1991 “The Protogeometric from Polis Reconsidered,” BSA 86, 43–64. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 1991 “Zum Verlauf der Periode SH III C in Achaia”, 19–29 in: RIZAKIS 1991. 2003 “Stratified Pottery Deposits from the Late Helladic III C Settlement at Aigeira/Achaia”, 53–75 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. – E. ALRAM-STERN 1985 “Die mykenische Siedlung”, 394–426 in: ALZINGER UND MITARBEITER 1985. DEKOULAKOU, I. 1984 “Κεραμική 8ου και 7ου αι. π. Χ. από τάφους της Αχαΐας και της Αιτολίας”, ASAtene 60 N.S. 44, 1982 [1984], 219–236. DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 1982 Το Μυκηναϊκό ιερό στο Αμυκλαίο και η ΥΕ ΙΙΙΓ περίοδος στη Λακωνία. Athens. DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1952 Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. 1972 The Greek Dark Ages. London. 1973 “Late burials from Mycenae”, BSA 68, 87–101. DICKINSON, O. T. P. K. 1989 Review of Coulson 1986, Bibliotheca Orientalis 46, 480–481.

142

Birgitta Eder

DICKINSON, O. T. P. K. – S. L. MARTIN – C. W. SHELMERDINE 1992 “Mycenaean Pottery from the Settlement”, 467–617 in: MCDONALD – WILKIE 1992. EDER, B. 1998 Argolis, Lakonien, Messenien vom Ende der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderung der Dorier. Vienna. 2001 Die submykenischen und protogeometrischen Gräber von Elis (Bιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας αρ. 209) Athens. 2006 “Die spätbronze- und früheisenzeitliche Keramik”, 141–246 in: KYRIELEIS 2006. EVSTATHIOU, I. 2005 “Σπάρτη 14. Οδός Διηνεκούς”, ArchDelt 54, 1999 [2005], Chron 172–174. GUGLIELMINO, R. 1996 “Materiali egei e di tipo egeo da Roca Vecchia (Melendugno, Lecce). Nota preliminare”, Studi di Antichità 9, 259–286. 2005 “Rocavecchia: Nuove testimonianze di relazioni con l’Egeo e il mediterraneo orientale nell’ età del Bronzo”, 637–651 in: LAFFINEUR – GRECO 2005. HEURTLEY, W. A. – H. L. LORIMER 1932/33 “Excavations in Ithaca, I. LH III – Protogeometric Cairns at Aetós”, BSA 33, 22–65. JUNG, R. 2006 Χρονολογία comparata. Vergleichende Chronologie von Südgriechenland und Süditalien von ca. 1700/1600 bis 1000 v. u. Z. (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 26. DenkschrWien 348). Vienna. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, I. 1984 Nadeln der frühhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes (Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII, 8). Munich. KOKKOTAKI, N. – G. CHATZI 1990 “Γρύλλος”, ArchDelt 40, 1985 [1990], Chron 107. KRAIKER, W. – K. KÜBLER 1939 Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1). Berlin. KÜBLER, K. 1943 Neufunde aus der Nekropole des 11. und 10. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 4). Berlin. KYPARISSIS, N. 1922 “Κεφαλληνιακά”, ArchDelt 5, 1919 [1922], 83–122. KYRIELEIS, H. 2006 Anfänge und Frühzeit des Heiligtums von Olympia. Die Ausgrabungen am Pelopion 1987–1996 (Olympische Forschungen 31). Berlin – New York. LAFFINEUR, R. – E. GRECO (eds.) 2005 Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean

Conference / 10 e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25). Liège. MARINATOS, SP. 1934 “Αι ανασκαφαί Goekoop εν Κεφαλληνία”, ArchEph, 1932 [1934], 1–47. MCDONALD, W. A. – N. C. WILKIE (eds.) 1992 Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece II. The Bronze Age Occupation. Minneapolis. MCDONALD, W. A. – W. D. E. COULSON 1983 “The Dark Age at Nichoria: A Perspective”, 316–329 in: MCDONALD – COULSON – ROSSER 1983. MCDONALD, W. A. – W. D. E. COULSON – J. ROSSER (eds.) 1983 Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece III. Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation. Minneapolis. ØSTBY, E. (ed.) 2005 Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the Third International Seminar on Ancient Arcadia, Held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7–10 May 2002 (Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 8). Athens.

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in Western Greece

143

OTTO, B. 1987 “Zum Problem der nordwestgriechischen bzw. Dorischen Wanderungen”, 53–62 in: THOMAS 1987. PAPADIMITRIOU, A. 1988 “Bericht zur früheisenzeitlichen Keramik aus der Unterburg von Tiryns. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982-83”, AA, 227–243. PAPADOPOULOS, T. J. 1978/79 Mycenaean Achaea (SIMA 55,1–2). Göteborg. POPHAM, M. R. – L. H. SACKETT – P. G. THEMELIS (eds.) 1979/80 Lefkandi I. The Iron Age. The Settlement. The Cemeteries (BSA Suppl. 11). London. RIZAKIS, A. D. (ed.) 1991 Aρχαία Aχαϊα και Ηλεία / Achaia und Elis in der Antike. Aνακoινώσεις κατά τo Πρώτo Διεθνές Συμπóσιo, Aθήνα 19 –21 Mαϊoυ 1989 (Meletemata 13). Athens. RUPPENSTEIN, F. 2007 Die submykenische Nekropole. Neufunde und Neubewertung (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 18). München. SCHACHERMEYR, F. 1980 Die Ägäische Frühzeit . Vol. 4: Griechenland im Zeitalter der Wanderungen. Vom Ende der mykenischen Ära bis auf die Dorier (SBWien 372 = Mykenische Studien 8). Vienna. SNODGRASS, A. M. 1971 The Dark Age of Greece. An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries BC. Edinburgh. 1984 Review of MCDONALD – COULSON – ROSSER 1983, Antiquity 58, 152–153. SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD, CH. 1999 The Ionian Islands in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age 3000–800 BC. Liverpool. STAMPOLIDIS, N. (ed.) 2001 Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και την πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου, Ρόδος, 29 Απριλίου –2 Μαΐου 1999. Athens. STAVROPOULOU-GATSI, M. 1986 “Πρωτογεωμετρικό νεκροταφείο Αιτωλίας“, ArchDelt 35, 1980 [1986], Mel 102–130. TAYLOUR, W. D. 1973 “Discoveries outside the citadel“, 219–242 in: BLEGEN – RAWSON – TAYLOUR – DONOVAN 1973. THOMAS, E. (ed.) 1987 Forschungen zur Aegaeischen Vorgeschichte: Das Ende der mykenischen Welt. Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums 7.–8. Juli 1984 in Köln. Köln. VERDELIS, N. M. 1963 “Neue geometrische Gräber in Tiryns”, AM 78, 1–62. VOKOTOPOULOU, I. 1971 “Πρωτογεωμετρικά αγγεία εκ της περιοχής Αγρινίου“, ArchDelt 24, 1969 [1971], Mel 74–94. VOYATZIS, M. 2004 “The Cult of Athena Alea at Tegea and its Transformation over Time”, 187–206 in: WEDDE 2004. 2005 “Pottery at the Crossroads: Ceramic Trends in Southeast Arcadia”, 467–482 in: ØSTBY 2005. WAMSER SYMEONOGLOU, N. E. 2002 The Early Iron Age Pottery and Development of the Sanctuary at Aetos, Ithaka (Greece) (Ph.D. dissertation). Washington. WEDDE, M. (ed.) 2004 Celebrations: Sanctuaries and the Vestiges of Cult Activity. Selected Papers and Discussions from the Tenth Anniversary Symposion of the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 12–16 May 1999 (Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 6). Bergen. ZAVVOU, E. P. 2001 “Αμύκλες Λακεδαίμονος”, ArchDelt 51, 1996 [2001], Chron 129–131.

144

Birgitta Eder

Fig. 1

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in Western Greece

Fig. 2

145

146

Birgitta Eder

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in Western Greece

147

148

Birgitta Eder

Fig. 5

The Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age Transition in Western Greece

Fig. 6

149

ELIZABETH FRENCH

MYCENAE: LH III C LATE: WHAT LITTLE THERE IS

Compared with the previous phases of LH III C we have little evidence for the Late phase at Mycenae. What exists, however, is stratified and does comprise both settlement and tomb deposits (Tab. 1; Figs. 1; 2). This workshop affords a good opportunity to summarize our present knowledge in its totality and to call attention to some interesting features. The lack of evidence within the Citadel is almost certainly the result of the drastic terracing which preceded building in the Hellenistic period. As can clearly be seen in the sections (Figs. 3; 4) well-founded Hellenistic structures lay over the two settlement deposits which are preserved in the western section of the citadel. There are undoubtedly sherds of this period used within the Hellenistic terraces, but it has not been possible to isolate these, even in more recent excavations. There was probably a reduction in population after the heavy destruction at the end of the LH III C Middle period, but I do not believe that the site was to any extent deserted. THE CITADEL This period and its stratigraphic position have been known clearly since 1920 when the area west of the Lion Gate (including the Granary) was excavated. There are habitation levels with restorable pottery immediately above the destruction levels of LH III C Middle. The Bath Grave lies over the eastern habitation deposit beside the Lion Gate. The area west of the Lion Gate was the first area to be systematically investigated when the excavations of the British School began in 1920. There is some discrepancy among the four sources of evidence in the archive with the published account. In the archive we have (in chronological order of production) Wace’s field notebook, Wace’s director’s notebook (written up more carefully at the end of each week), the pottery register, Wace’s pottery and finds study notebook. The field notebook gives only depths and the finding of the bath but the director’s notebook (Mycenae Archive 001, p. 11) is more explicit: “At 1.20 appeared the top of an old bath or sarcophagus set at r(igh)t angles to W. Wing of Lion Gate – 1.30 from its outer end. In this level Sub-Mycenaean or Early Geometric sherds are common & several more or less whole pots were found – in particular a nest of three lying .30 below its edge on the North side – an oenochoe complete (found at 1.60 inside a large domestic vessel against Acropolis Wall) – Among pots by bath were some bone fragments – so perhaps “bath” was a “coffin” & the burial had been robbed the vases being thrown out – this w’(oul)d account for comparative number of whole pots in this level – in which were also found a bronze ring, a steatite Myc spindle whorl & some other odd pieces of bronze.” From this it would appear that there was a second burial in a pithos accompanied by the unbroken oenochoe1 though this is not mentioned in the publication.2 There is no mention of burning either here or over the Granary. 1

2

Note that the original published description and illustration show that the neck and spout were still preserved and only the handle restored. The original of the pottery catalogue gives little further information though the statements “coarse pot in bath” are added in pencil in a different hand, probably that of Boethius. The catalogue is written by Wace himself in ink.

152

Elizabeth French

In the Citadel House Area a stratum extending over a small area below clear Hellenistic levelling (in the form of a stone terrace) can be assigned to this phase. It has been discussed in detail by Susan Sherratt; an up-dated version of her text will appear in FRENCH forthcoming. She states that the pottery evidence consisted of eight bags of sherds totalling 4559 sherds in all. The proportions represented were: • Unpainted Buff Wares 1855 40.7% • Painted Wares 1746 38% • Patterned Ware 275 6% • Coarse (cooking) Wares 518 11.4% • Patterned Pre-LH III C 117 2.6% • Pre-Mycenaean 48 1.05% It seems to me likely that some of the features from the previous phase which Sherratt notes as continuing are in fact residual rather than the products of this period. It is important to note also what she says about the fabrics: “On the whole, both the fabric and paint of this phase are markedly inferior to that found in the preceding phase. The paint, particularly on some of the monochrome deep bowls, is often thin and streaky, and haphazardly applied. Brushstrokes running diagonally across the walls of pots, and across rather than around the insides of bases, show that the paint was not always applied on the wheel. The colour is generally a thin, streaky black-brown, in contrast to the rich, even black or dark-brown of much of the preceding pottery. The underlying fabric is now often pink in colour and sandy in texture.” Only five vessels of this period were registered from this stratum by the West Cyclopean Wall. In addition there is one large sherd of a large collar-necked jar, with multiple zones of closely drawn linear patterns, which probably should have been catalogued. It seems probably that this is not a habitation level but another stratum of wash from higher up the citadel which has accumulated against the citadel wall. The fifth registered pot is the pictorial krater (64-439; CROUWEL 1991, E1 – called the ‘Late Bird Krater’). This has a pierced base and it has always seemed likely that it originally served as a libation vessel or tomb marker. With the full study of the post-palatial levels, we can now be certain that the base came from an ash layer lying across the middle of Γ31 which might be a pyre associated with the cist grave in the Γ21/31 Baulk. The absolute level is identical with the pyre found in Trench Γ21. This would then be the earliest of the series of graves cut into the curving slope over the Citadel House Area (Fig. 5). Also from a probable grave is a trefoillipped jug (62-309, RMDP, Argolid no. 392) associated with a pithos found in the North Baulk of the site. In addition there are eleven graves which we would now consider to be of the Submycenaean or very Early Protogeometric period from within the Citadel. These were first listed by Desborough (DESBOROUGH 1973, 98). Six are from the Northwest Quarter. All are small cists apparently of children. Four were in one room and the others in two different rooms (TSOUNTAS 1891, 27. – IAKOVIDIS 2006, 3, 136–137). The exact location is not identifiable. Only one grave contained pottery: Tsountas illustrated one pot, a flask, now identified for Iakovides by Dr. N. Korou as “Argolid Middle Proto-Geometric with close parallels to the Seraglio Cemetery of Kos”. Iakovidis (IAKOVIDIS 2006, pl. 2:4) identifies the other as NMA 1104 – a small jug very similar to that from Grave 8 in Γ31. The other five lie within the Citadel House area and have been numbered on the plan (Fig. 5).3 No. 7 was found in 1920, a cist tomb sunk into the wall dividing the Central and West 3

This is Plan 4 from TAYLOUR ET AL. 1981. It shows a complex of walls dating from the later periods of LH III C as understood 25 years ago. Though now inaccurate in detail it does show clearly the line of later tombs cut into the early strata.

Mycenae: LH III C Late: What Little There Is

153

rooms of the South House (WACE 1921–23, 88, 90). It contained nothing but the bones of a child. No. 8 in the North Baulk of Γ31 was excavated in 1964 and was published in detail by Desborough (DESBOROUGH 1973, 94–98). It is important for the number of vases and bronzes it contained. No. 9 also found in Γ31 in 1964 (Mycenae Archive 1018, p. 46–47; Γ31’64/124) contained no grave goods, only scraps of bone, but seems to belong to this series though it could be connected to the ashy layer in the middle of the trench in which the base of the Bird Krater was found. No. 10 from Γ21, 1964, (DESBOROUGH 1973, 92) was as large as the first from Γ31, but contained only the skeleton and one pin. Further study of the post-palatial levels has, however, confirmed that the ash area around the tomb was certainly associated with it and this is generally now called a pyre. No. 11 from Γ23, also found in 1964, (DESBOROUGH 1973, 92–93) contained two pots and two bronzes. The interrelations among the pottery finds (noted both by Desborough and Iakovides) from this series of tombs is striking and makes them a very useful point of definition for pottery of this date at Mycenae. The absence of handmade vessels like that from PG 602, the forerunner of a type which becomes very popular later, may be another indication of the Submycenaean date. The stages of stylistic development, the gradual tightening of both profile and decoration, are also clear in contrast to pottery from the known graves, both earlier and later. OUTSIDE THE WALLS There is as yet no evidence known to me for settlement outside the walls in LH III C Late but there is widely scattered grave evidence of all types: cists, pithoi, chamber tombs reused or in continuing use, and simple burials. For Submycenaean there is no evidence of any kind, though three Protogeometric burials (PG 6014, 602, 606) were found in the area of the Ivory Houses (DESBOROUGH 1954, 259–260. – DESBOROUGH 1955, 240. – DESBOROUGH 1956, 129). The two chamber tombs with LH III C Late cover a wide range of date. This latest material comprises in each a large group of small vases. In T 517 these are accompanied by a singleton of the earlier part of LH III C. A similar singleton also occurs in the pithos burial from the Cyclopean Terrace Building. The latter must have been interred at the time of the actual burial. It is not clear what form of funerary usage these signify. The small stirrup jar from the individual grave is in very poor condition and hardly shows in the illustration (WACE 1921–23, fig. 92; a new drawing is shown here in Fig. 6).

Bibliography CROUWEL, J. H. 1991 The Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery (Well Built Mycenae. The Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at Mycenae, 1959–1969, Fasc. 21). Oxford. DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1954 “Mycenae 1939–1953 Part V. Four Tombs”, BSA 49, 258–266. 1955 “Mycenae 1939–1954 Part VI. Three Geometric Tombs”, BSA 50, 239–247. 1956 “Mycenae 1939–1955 Part III. Two Tombs”, BSA 51, 128–130. 1973 “Late Burials from Mycenae”, BSA 68, 87–101.

4

An interesting feature of this tomb is the presence of the footed stirrup jar with an amphora of simple type, both of which probably indicate an early date in Protogeometric for this tomb. Kilian (discussion at the Mycenaean seminar 18/3/1987) wished to divide Submycenaean from Protogeometric at the point where the stirrup jar disappears.

154

Elizabeth French

FRENCH, E. B. 2007 “Late Helladic III C Middle at Mycenae”, 175–187 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II. Forthc. The Post-Palatial Levels (Well Built Mycenae. The Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at Mycenae, 1959–1969, Fasc. 16/17). Oxford. IAKOVIDIS, S. E. 2006 Ανασκαφές Μυκηνών Ι. Η βορειοδυτική συνοικία (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 244). Athens. SHELTON, K. S. 1993 “Tsountas’ Chamber Tombs at Mycenae”, ArchEph, 187–210. SHERATT, E. S. 1981 The Pottery of Late Helladic III C and its Significance (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). University of Oxford. TAYLOUR, W. D. ET AL. (eds.) 1981 The Excavations (Well Built Mycenae. The Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at Mycenae, 1959–1969, Fasc. 1). Oxford. TSOUNTAS, CH. 1891 “Εκ Μυκηνών”, ArchEph, 1–43. WACE, A.J.B. 1921–23 “Excavations at Mycenae § VII – The Lion Gate and Grave Circle Area”, BSA 25, 9–126. – “§ X – The Cyclopean Terrace Building”, BSA 25, 403–407. 1932 Chamber Tombs at Mycenae (Archaeologia 82). Oxford. XENAKI–SAKELLARIOU, A. 1985 Οι Θαλαμωτοί τάφοι των Μυκηνών. Ανασκαφής Χρ. Τσούντα (1887–1898). Les tombes á chambre de Mycènes. Fouilles de Chr. Tsountas (1887–1898). Paris.

Settlement 1. 2. 3.

Lion Gate Strata Level X (WACE 1921–23, 31) Granary above East Basement (WACE 1921–23, 50. – FRENCH 2007) Citadel House Area Wash Levels by West Citadel Wall (FRENCH forthcoming)

Tomb 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Lion Gate Strata Level XI, Bath Grave (WACE 1921–23, 36) Lion Gate Strata Level XI, domestic vessel with oenochoe (Mycenae Archive 001, p. 11) Bird Krater Grave/Pyre Γ31, 1964 (FRENCH forthcoming) Citadel House Area Γ10, 1960 (FRENCH forthcoming) Prehistoric Cemetery Grave XXXIX (DESBOROUGH 1954, 258–259) 3rd Kilometre Cemetery T 502 (WACE 1932, 3–10) Panagia Cemetery (Tsountas 1887/88) (SAKELLARIOU 1985, 133, pl. 59. – SHELTON 1993, 100–201) Kalkani North Cemetery T 515 (WACE 1932, 50–63) Kalkani North Cemetery T 517 (WACE 1932, 67–74) Cyclopean Terrace Building, Grave (WACE 1921–23, 406) Cyclopean Terrace Building, Pithos Burial (WACE 1921–23, 406–407) Tab. 1 LH III C Late: Settlement and Tomb Deposits

Mycenae: LH III C Late: What Little There Is

155

156

Elizabeth French

Mycenae: LH III C Late: What Little There Is

157

158

Elizabeth French

Mycenae: LH III C Late: What Little There Is

159

160

Elizabeth French

Mycenae: LH III C Late: What Little There Is

161

WALTER GAUSS

THE LAST MYCENAEANS AT AIGEIRA AND THEIR SUCCESSORS∗

This paper reports on the Final Mycenaean and Early Iron Age activity at Aigeira, at the so called “Lower Saddle” excavation area, that has not yet been the focus of research. Before the excavations of the Austrian Archaeological Institute moved to the Acropolis plateau in 1975, an area was investigated that is situated on a saddle immediately below (Figs. 1, 3). The plan published already in the report of 1973 (ALZINGER 1974) shows the various architectural phases found at the Lower Saddle (Fig. 2). The pink and green colours mark walls, attributed to the LH III C period, and the yellow colour those of the Geometric period. The excavations at the saddle lasted from 1972 until 1975, when digging at the Acropolis started. Since then the main focus of the prehistoric research at Aigeira concentrated on the important finds from the Acropolis plateau.1 In order to carry out the publication duties at the Lower Saddle excavations, the Austrian Archaeological Institute resumed research work there. In the fall of 2006 a first study campaign lasting for five weeks was maintained. Previous research at the Lower Saddle may be summarised as follows.2 The area excavated covers approximately 650 m2 and is therefore only a bit smaller than the approximately 820 m2 large plateau of the Acropolis. The excavation was done in an 8 × 8 m grid system, later subdivided into smaller trenches. The layers reached are difficult to interpret, due to the sloping hill and later building activity that caused many disturbances. At least seven different architectural phases were differentiated, and the first two were dated preliminarily to the LH III C period by the excavators, an important statement that implies nothing less than the existence of a lower settlement area at Aigeira in the Bronze Age. If this assumption is correct, the Mycenaean settlement might have been much larger than originally thought. Furthermore the excavators also claimed to have reached Geometric layers, situated on top of the Mycenaean. It is impor∗

1

2

I do want to express my thanks to the organisers of this workshop, who gave me the opportunity to report on a new project at Aigeira, a site Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Eva Alram-Stern have been closely affiliated with for many years. Both have also supplied me with valuable information about Aigeira and the excavations. I also want to thank especially Georg Ladstätter (ÖAI-Athens), who supports my study at Aigeira and who frankly shared his knowledge on Ancient Aigeira. John Papadopoulos provided me with important information on Achaian pottery in general. Guy Sanders and Ioulia Tzounou-Herbst made a stay at the dighouse at Corinth possible, where I was able to study Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age pottery from Corinth and Korakou and was provided with important additional information on Corinthian fabrics. Dora Katsonopoulou kindly showed me pottery from here excavations at Helike. Furthermore I do want to thank Gudrun Klebinder-Gauß, John Papadopoulos, Florian Ruppenstein, Jeremy B. Rutter, Rudolfine Smetana and Eva Alram-Stern, for their advice and constructive criticism. David Scahill kindly read and edited the final draft of the text. This paper is dedicated to the memory of my grandparents Barbara and Walter who were much interested in my work at Aigeira. Reports on its stratigraphic sequence and the rich Late Bronze Age pottery finds have been published since 1985 (ALZINGER UND MITARBEITER 1985. – ALRAM-STERN 1985. – ALRAM-STERN 1987. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 1991. – ALRAM-STERN 2003. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 2003a. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 2003b) and the first volume of the Acropolis publications was printed in 2006, dealing mainly with the pre-Mycenaean finds (ALRAM-STERN – DEGER-JALKOTZY 2006). ALZINGER UND MITARBEITER 1985, 407–408 with further references. – See also SCHACHERMEYER 1976, 156–157 and SCHACHERMEYER 1980, 51–2, 68–72, 120, 268.

164

Walter Gauß

tant to note that most likely no architectural remains from the Early Iron Age survived the later building activities of the Archaic period on the Acropolis plateau.3 Due to this absence the remains at the saddle, plus the stratigraphic sequence and related finds are of major importance for the early history of Aigeira and its development from Bronze Age to Iron Age. The various settlement phases of the Acropolis plateau and those from the Lower Saddle are compared with each other in Fig. 4. The grey coloured background covers the time between the latest attested architectural remains of the Late Bronze Age settlement Phase II and the Late Geometric or Early Archaic remains of Phase III that could belong to the historical sanctuary.4 One of the few finds associated with an early sanctuary are fragments of a bronze tripod (Fig. 5),5 found on the Lower Saddle in a post-Mycenaean stratum of presumably Late Geometric to Early Archaic date, fragments of some spits and a few feet from large kraters, dated around 700 B.C.6 The tripod, however, was attributed to the 9th century B.C. based on a stylistic comparison with tripods from Olympia.7 The archaeological context of this important find has not been checked yet, but during the study season we came across other Late Geometric and early Archaic finds.8 These fragments are the first clear evidence for activity on the site since the Late Bronze Age.9 One of the few Late Geometric finds identified so far is from a krater (Fig. 6:1), decorated with multiple zigzags. Most interesting is the rim fragment of a vessel John Papadopoulos termed “Achaian Vapheio cup” (Fig. 6:2),10 a rare Archaic shape found in southern Italy and also occasionally in Greece.11 Other vessels date to the Archaic period and are Corinthian, like the skyphos (Fig. 6:4),12 or are representatives of the emerging Achaian pottery style,13 like the fragments of a large krater (Fig. 6:5).14 All the pottery shown, was found close to surface and immediately beyond the Acropolis rock, and might have slid or fallen down from there. The documentation of the excavation at the Lower Saddle is sometimes problematic, as for instance little or no records are kept on the amount and character of the discarded material. The pottery is generally speaking badly worn, often crusted with sinter, scattered and fragmentary, with only a few complete profiles. Therefore it is difficult to date and further problems 3

4

5

6

7 8

9

10 11

12

13 14

DEGER-JALKOTZY 2003a, 54 on the excavation on the Acropolis plateau. For a continuation of settlement activity there see DEGER-JALKOTZY 1991, 28–29 fig. 3. SCHWARZ 1991. – See in particular MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 1997, 164–166 with a critical summary on the evidence of the early sanctuary at the Acropolis. ALZINGER UND MITARBEITER 1985, 449–450 fig. 43; 450 n. 22 with references on similar tripods in Ithaca and Olympia. – See also MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 1997, 165 n. 1183 referring to: ALZINGER 1981/82, 12 fig. 4. – MORGAN 1990, 65, who notes: “The only surviving bronze tripod fragment (from Aigeira) is hard to date, yet appears closer Ithakan rather than Olympic styles.” MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 1997, 165 n. 1184 referring to: ALZINGER 1988, 23 and ALZINGER UND MITARBEITER 1986, 326–329; 328 figs. 118–119. ALZINGER UND MITARBEITER 1985, 449–450. The archaeological evidence goes well together with the oldest reported evidence in literature (apart from Homer). A victor from Hyperiseia at the 23. Olympic Games of 688 B.C is reported by Pausanias; see ALZINGER UND MITARBEITER 1985, 450 n. 23. – On the ancient sources see HAINZMANN 2001 with further references. See also MARAZAKIS-AINIAN 1997, who concludes (165–166 with ns. 1186–1187): “There is no palpable evidence, however, that the acropolis was continuously occupied from LH III C to the EIA. It is perhaps in the EA [Early Archaic, WG] that the acropolis was exclusively devoted to cult practice, while Aigeira later became the cult centre of the Achaian ethnos.” PAPADOPOULOS 2003. For references see PAPADOPOULOS 2003. – Ano Mazaraki: GADOLOU 2002, 180 cat. no. 57a, pls. 1; 12. – PAPADOPOULOS 2003, 420–421, fig. 9. RISSER 2001, 58 cat. no. 110 (C-57-524); pl. 9:110. For chronology of the dotted bands Risser notes that it is “rare by the middle of the 6th century and virtually nonexistent in the second half” (RISSER 2001, 25). C-57-524 is dated to the second quarter or mid 6th century BC (58 cat. no. 110). PAPADOPOULOS 2001. See PAPADOPOULOS 2001, 395 fig. 15 for similarly decorated vessels.

The Last Mycenaeans at Aigeira and Their Successors

165

arise, when looking for parallels, as most published pottery comes from tombs, whereas settlement contexts are rare, especially at eastern and western Achaia and the Sikyonia. Finally one has to be aware of the fact that scholars have suggested varying dates for one and the same feature or comparison. How difficult the situation is, particularly in Early Iron Age Achaia, is demonstrated by the almost total absence of Achaian sites in the book “Protogeometric Aegean”, a recent study by Irene Lemos.15 In 2006 the finds of the excavation grid B1 were chosen to start with, as that grid produced the largest amount of material and the longest stratigraphic sequence, up to two and more meters from today’s ground level. Most of the pottery illustrated, was found in grid B1, but some of the best and most interesting fragments are surface finds or come from other grids that have not yet been studied in full detail. In the following part I will first describe the two most important fabrics and then analyse some of the open and closed vessels. The inspection of the fresh break resulted in the differentiation of various macroscopic groups, and two of them are of interest for our aims (Figs. 7, 8). Pottery of the first group, macroscopic group MG 1, is usually of a light buff colour that could sometimes change to light pinkish (Fig. 7). The fabric has a soft, sometimes powdery surface that can easily be scratched with the fingernail. The grainsize is small and on the unpainted surface there are usually very few, sometimes even no visible inclusions. The few existing ones are small sized chalky white and beige. The fresh break is slightly uneven, sometimes even porous and has usually no inclusions apart from very occasional beige rounded ones, most likely clay pellets. The clay (after all) seems to be very similar to the Corinthian.16 The other macroscopic group of importance, MG 13 (Fig. 8), has a different colour, usually dark reddish brown to dark orange red. The surface is often soft and very powdery and the paint flakes off. In some cases however, the fabric was fired very hard. The fabric can be very fine to medium fine. The grains of the very fine variety are of smaller size than those of MG 1 and almost all fragments do have very small sized sparkling inclusions that reflect light in the sun. Apart from that, very few black inclusions have been isolated at the surface. The fresh break of the very fine version is almost even and no inclusions at all have been identified so far.17 The fine to medium version has occasional chalky white inclusions, as seen on the image. A search for the fabric in nearby areas was partly successful as the same fabric was found at Helike in post-Mycenaean layers.18 A search for comparisons within Late Bronze Age or Iron Age pottery stored at the museum of Corinth was only partly successful. Thanks to the kindness of Dr. Joulia Tzounou-Herbst, also some of the finds

15

16

17

18

LEMOS 2002. Derveni close to Aigion and at a distance of ca. 20 km from Aigeira is shown on Map 2 (201) but not mentioned neither in the index nor in the text, pp. 200–201. The situation in Achaia is described by COLDSTREAM 1998, 323: “During the next three centuries the Achaeans present us with an age that is ‘darker’ than in most parts of Aegean Greece, and an archaeological record that is still very patchy.” – COULSON 1986, 20, 55 notes parallels to Messenian DA I and DA II. – MAYR 1992, 177 notes relations to Corinthian EG and MG. For Derveni see also below note 50. Other EAI pottery from Achaia has been published by DEKOULAKOU 1973 and DEKOULAKOU 1984. The work of Anastasia Gadolou and her study on the Geometric and Archaic pottery from Achaia will contribute much to the better understanding of Achaia in the Early Iron Age (GADOLOU 2008). A few fragments of EIA vessels have already been illustrated by Gadolou: LPG skyphoi from Aigion (GADOLOU 2002, pl. 9 AM 1588a–c; pl. 12 AM 1567. – EG open vessel (GADOLOU 2002, pl. 9 AM 12806). This impression was confirmed by a personal study of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age pottery from Corinth and Korakou (5.–7.2.2007). We have yet not been able to compare this fabric with fabric of the Late Geometric kraters found in the cistern on the Acropolis (ALZINGER UND MITARBEITER 1986, 326–329. – ALZINGER 1988, 23. – SCHWARZ 2001). The fabric description of cat. no. 1 (E 114/79) seems similar, judging from following description (ALZINGER UND MITARBEITER 1986, 327): “Ton rötlich mit beigem Überzug und dunkelbraunem Firnis. Überzug innen orange, dunkelbraun gesträhnt. Schlecht gebrannt. […] Da der Ton nicht korinthisch ist, möchte man am ehesten an eine lokale Produktion denken.” Dora Katsonopoulou was so kind to offer me the opportunity to see recently excavated material from Helike.

166

Walter Gauß

from the site of Dorati19 near Sikyon were inspected and one fragment closely resembles the macroscopic group MG 13 from Aigeira. A very similar fragment was also found at the Demeter and Kore sanctuary at Corinth presumably dated to Protogeometric.20 A large closed vessel from Korakou described by Jeremy Rutter as potential import from Achaia is different in respect of fabric, hardness and colour.21 To present the chronological distribution of both macroscopic groups at Aigeira is remarkable, as the first group is most commonly found within Mycenaean, Archaic and Classical pottery. The other group is by far less frequent and often small sized and very fragmentary, usually solidly painted and therefore difficult to date. The shapes seem to be limited mainly to deep bowls with rim diameters between 11 and 20 cm, kraters with rim diameters up to 50 cm and a few narrow necked jars. Most interesting is the fact that until now no pattern painted Mycenaean fragments or other unambiguous Mycenaean shapes, such as kylikes or stirrup jars, have been identified in this fabric. As a working hypothesis, I would like to assume that pottery of this fabric is basically of post Mycenaean date. Regarding the distribution of vessel shapes found at the Lower Saddle it is interesting to note that kylikes (Fig. 9) are almost absent and no examples have a swollen or ribbed stem, like for examples the well known kylikes from Olympia or Ithaca. The ribbed stems appear occasionally in LH III C Middle22 and they are very popular in the Early Iron Age pottery of the southwestern Peloponnes.23 Slightly inturning kylix rims are almost absent as well24 (Fig. 9:4). They are, however, known since in LH III C Early25 and continue within the Early Iron Age pottery from Olympia for example.26 Carinated bowls or carinated kylikes (Fig. 9:6–7) are almost absent as well, but well known at the Acropolis in Phases Ia and Ib.27 Therefore I assume that their almost total absence at the Lower Saddle most likely indicates a later stage of this pottery.28 Few kraters are present and a selection of them is illustrated here (Fig. 10). All fragments have a solidly painted interior and the rims show different shapes: some are decorated with an incised plastic band or rib below the rim (Fig. 10:3–4), a feature first noted in LH III C Middle pottery.29 One example has a plain rib and is pictorial, depicting presumably a birds’ head (Fig. 10:5). Only a few pattern painted fragments are preserved, maybe due to the bad state of preservation. The patterns found on body fragments consist of triglyphs (Fig. 10:1–2), spirals

19

20

21

22

23 24 25

26 27 28

29

Ioulia Tzounou-Herbst was so kind to show me this fragment (unpainted surface 5YR 6/6, personal inspection 5.2.2007) that will be published in detail in the forthcoming report in Hesperia on the survey of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens at Dorati. – For Dorati see MARCHAND 2002. PFAFF 1999, 78 cat. no. 19 (C-71-303); fig. 6. The fragment originates from a closed vessel, its shoulder is pattern painted with cross hatching. The soft fabric is similar to those from Aigeira, but less red in colour (surface 5YR 6/6, personal inspection 5.2.2007). The surface is polished on the exterior and smoothed on the interior; sparkling inclusions are visible, even without direct sunlight. The suspected Achaian import CP 129 from Korakou (RUTTER 1974, 363, 381–382) is different in colour, fabric and hardness. The colour of the unpainted surface is 2.5 YR 5.5/4 (RUTTER 1974) to 2.5 YR 6/4 (personal inspection 5.2.2007). EDER 2006, 147 with n. 17. Swollen stems on conical kylikes FS 275 are known since LH III C Middle. – See MDP, 172 fig. 222:1 (Lefkandi 66/P302, Phase 2a). See EDER 2006, 146–154. EDER 2006, 147 n. 16 with further references. MDP, 148 conical kylix FS 274, fig. 187:2–3 (Lefkandi 66/P209; 65/P103 Phase 1b). Both examples are solidly painted on the interior and exterior. The Lefkandi phases quoted are those published by EVELY 2006. Kylikes with an inturning rim profile are attested also at Kalapodi from Layers 2 to 16 and most frequent in Layers 8 and 9 (LH III C Advanced, synchronised with Lefkandi Phase 2b). – See JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 50; tab. 24. EDER 2006, 147 n. 16 with further references to LH III C kylikes. Kylikes from Olympia see p. 150; cat. no. 7–11. DEGER-JALKOTZY 2003a, 64. Rutter notes the absence of carinated cups at the Demeter and Kore sanctuary / Terrace Wall pottery of his Phase 5 (RUTTER 1978, 60. – RUTTER 1979, 382). MDP, 174–175 (LH III C Middle, Rutter Phase 4b).

The Last Mycenaeans at Aigeira and Their Successors

167

(Fig. 10:6), fringed circular motifs (Fig. 10:7–8), horizontal rows of filled triangles (Fig. 10:9), or a checkerboard pattern (Fig. 10:10). Fringed patterns seem to be typical for LH III C in Achaia. They are attested in settlement Phase II at the Acropolis but also from the final stages of LH III C at Corinth.30 A continuation of fringed motifs into the Early Iron Age is proven by finds in the western Peloponnes for example at Olympia,31 the Ionian Islands32 or at Derveni in eastern Achaia close to Aigion.33 It seems however, as if fringed spirals and circular motifs are most common on Late Helladic vessels, whereas in the Early Iron Age fringed triangles or compass drawn circles or semicircles are more common.34 Checkerboard patterns on kraters (Fig. 10:10) are known from Late Bronze and Early Iron Age and therefore difficult to date.35 The pattern of the horizontally arranged filled triangles (Fig. 10:9) is, to my knowledge, not attested within the Mycenaean pottery on kraters,36 but known in the Attic and Euboean Protogeometric pottery.37 There, however, the pattern occurs usually as single motif or is separated with horizontal bands from the next row.38 White Ware attested at the Acropolis Phase II, is so far almost absent, maybe again an indication for the overall late stage of the pottery from the Lower Saddle.39 Rim sherds of bowls and deep bowls are most common and their diameters vary between 10 and 20 cm (Figs. 11, 12). Most examples are solidly painted on the exterior and interior. Some examples have an up to 2 cm wide band at the rim (Fig. 11:1,3) and only a few are pattern painted (Fig. 11:1–2). Short vertical bars on the interior of the rim are attested once (Fig. 11:2). All handles so far seen are solidly painted, again a late feature.40 Two kinds of rim profile can be differentiated: the first has a flaring, somewhat s-curved rim profile (Fig. 11:6–7). The second is hardly curved but rather straight sided. The upper body and shoulder is sometimes even slightly inturning and the rim could end in a pronounced rounded lip. The latter version is also found within the second macroscopic group. So far only one rim fragment has a reserved band on the interior side immediately below the lip (Fig. 12:1), a feature typical for the latest stages

30 31

32 33 34 35

36

37 38

39

40

RUTTER 1979, 359 fig. 4:8; 361–362 cat. no. 8. For fringed motifs see COLDSTREAM 1968, 222. A krater from Olympia is decorated with large fringed concentric circles (EDER 2006, 238 cat. no. 292; pl. 67:292). – EDER 2006, 181 n. 187 refers to a large closed vessel from the Heroon at Lefkandi also decorated with fringed concentric circles. Ithaca (COLDSTREAM 1968, pl. 47f; Ithaca PG). COLDSTREAM 1968 pl. 48j. – Further references regarding Derveni see below note 50. See for example: LEMOS 2002, pl. 49:1 (Toumba, T.48); pl. 84:2 (Toumba, building fill); pl. 93:4 (Toumba, T.1). See motif FM 56:1,2 (checkers) and FM 75:7,19,34 (triglyph). Motif FM 56:1 originates from a pictorial krater, found at Mycenae (FURTWÄNGLER – LOESCHCKE 1886, pl. 34:341), FM 56:2 is from a pictorial deep bowl from Asine (FURTWÄNGLER – LOESCHCKE 1886, pl. 39:402), both fragments are dated by Furumark to LH III C:1. A pictorial krater with a checker motif was found at Kalapodi (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 36–37, 146 cat. no. 231; pl. 36:231) in Layer 10, attributed to LH III C (FELSCH 1996b, XVI). At Olympia a body fragment of a krater was found (EDER 2006, 181; 239 cat. no. 297; pls. 68, 79). At Messenia a pictorial krater was dated either to LH III C Late (COULSON 1986, 81 fig. 2:2. – RMDP, 359) or PG (EDER 2006, 181 n. 189 referring to LEMOS 2002, 49). Kraters and krater-bowls with checkerboard patterns are also known from the fill of the Heroon at Lefkandi. On krater-bowls it is an exceptional pattern (CATLING – LEMOS 1990, 24, pl. 15:292), and at least two published kraters have this pattern (CATLING – LEMOS 1990, 28, pl. 21:361,362). The checkerboard pattern is also found on an imported Attic skyphos fragment (CATLING – LEMOS 1990, 87, 134 cat. no. 889; pl. 43:889). See motif FM 61A (triangle) and motif FM 71 (elaborate triangle). A “Submycenaean” stirrup jar from Salamis has two rows of filled triangles on the shoulder (MOUNTJOY 1993, 116 fig. 338). For the pattern see KUNISCH 1998, 134 fig. 53d (after lekythos KÜBLER 1943, pl. 4). See for example: DESBOROUGH 1952, pls. 6:A (shoulder handled amphora); 7:4 (trefoil-lipped oinochoe); 8:20 (kalathos); 11:29 (skyphos). – LEMOS 2002, pls. 34:8 (skyphos); 39:10 (kalathos from Lefkandi, Palia Perivolia tomb 23). RUTTER 1978, 60 reports that White Ware on larger open and closed shapes in his Phase 4 at the Demeter and Kore sanctuary “now had dwinded to virtually nothing”. LH III C Early and Middle deep bowls often have only a stroke of paint at the handle; see for example RMDP, 157 fig. 41:315–318; 173 fig. 49:363–366.

168

Walter Gauß

of Mycenaean pottery.41 Only one complete profile of a much smaller sized deep bowl is preserved so far (Fig. 12:2). The body is solidly painted apart from a reserved band at the ring base, again a feature attested only once. The almost vertical rim profile and the offset lip of another fragment (Fig. 12:5) make me believe that this fragment might belong already to the Early Iron Age.42 The slightly incurving rims of other fragments (Fig. 12:6–7) have similarities with bowls and kantharoi of the Geometric period, for examples from Olympia.43 Therefore I assume that the two fragments from Aigeira are Early Iron Age in date. As no traces of a handle are preserved, it is impossible to decide about the exact shape.44 The almost total absence of bowls and cups with one or two vertical rim handles is surprising, as the shape is well known from Geometric and Archaic sites in the north-western Peloponnes.45 Birgitta Eder noted a special distribution of the Protogeometric two handled bowl/kantharos in Aitolia, Elis, the Ionian Islands and Achaia46 and an occasional appearance in the Corinthia, the Argolis and Attica.47 Even though the Corinthian examples seem problematic to me,48 it is obvious that the shape is attested at various surrounding sites, including Aigion49 and nearby Derveni50 but at Aigeira it is so far absent. Other features diagnostic for Early Iron Age pottery are at the present absent at Aigeira, namely the ribbed stems of kylikes, high conical ring feet, compass drawn circles and semi-circles and framed zigzag patterns on the shoulder between the handles.51 Interestingly all these features are known at Corinth,52 even though in a limited number, or at Kalapodi.53

41

RMDP, 188. 196.

42

See PAPADOPOULOS 2005, 485; fig. 157:h (Tomb T.101-8). EDER 2006, cat. nos. 27, 51 and 99 for example. The rim diameters vary between 14 cm (1973/109-001) and 16–18 cm (1973/109-002), and are larger than the bowls from Olympia (see below note 48). EDER 2006, 154–172 (Olympia). – PAPADOPOULOS 2001 (Archaic). The ancestors of these vessels are Late Bronze Age (EDER 2006, 155–156 and ns. 61–63, 67). Eder notes that no fragments of kantharoi were found in the LH III C layers at the Acropolis of Aigeira (155 n. 63). EDER 2006, 156 n. 67. EDER 2006, 156 n. 68 with further references. EDER 2006, 156 n. 68 with further references. The cited example from Isthmia (MORGAN 1999, 83 cat. no. 199, pl. 26) is a rim fragment without a handle attachment. Morgan therefore attributes the fragment to a skyphos or kantharos. The rim fragment from Corinth refereed to by Morgan (MORGAN 1999, 83 C-50-112 mentioned with cat. no. 199, pl. 26) is said to be from a krater with a vertical rim handle of EPG date (a suggestion made by C. Morgan, who also refers to the opinion of J. B. Rutter and K. DeVries) or a katharos of Submycenaean date (RMDP, 242; 241 fig. 80:223). Its rim diameter of 24 cm is much larger than the average rim diameter, 7 to 12 cm, and only a few between 14 and 17 cm, of open vessels (bowls and cups) from Olympia. GADOLOU 2002, pl. 9 (AM 1720) for a LPG kantharos from Aigion. COLDSTREAM 1968, 221–222; pl. 48 (Achaean PG, maybe one vessel pl. 48f close to Achaean LG I). – DEKOULAKOU 1973. – DEKOULAKOU 1984. – NITSCHE 1987, 46 n. 139–143 (skyphoi with an offset rim are found at Kalapodi in Layer 30–32, EG II [FELSCH 1996b, XVI]). – MAYR 1992, 177 n. 68. (skyphoi like [COLDSTREAM 1968, pl. 48e] are found at Corinth until MG I). – COLDSTREAM 1998, 325. I think that the framed zigzag pattern on skyphoi should be seen as a feature of PG (see NITSCHE 1987, 38 n. 101 with further references and PFAFF 1999, 62–63 especially n. 18: “skyphoi with the zigzag framed with horizontal framed bands do not appear until the Protogeometric phase” with further references). – At Tiryns framed zigzags are found too (PAPADIMITROU 1988, 228 n. 8; 229 fig. 1:27; 241 fig. 6:4,7,10,29). – At Kalapodi framed zigzag patterns appear in Layers 24–27, dated to MPG (NITSCHE 1987, 38 n. 101. – FELSCH 1996b, XVI). – And at the Athenian Kerameikos a skyphos with a framed zigzag pattern was found in Grave PG 4, dated to EPG by LEMOS 2002, pl. 7:4). It is important to note that some of the “Submycenaean” sherds from Mycenae illustrated by Mountjoy (MOUNTJOY – HANKEY 1988, 3 fig. 2 bottom line) have framed zigzags and are therefore, if from skyphoi, most likely PG. PFAFF 1999, 62–64; 88 cat. nos. 51–2 (figs. 15; 17) and C-38-619a (figs. 17; 18). C-38-619a is one of the finds from the so called Weinberg house. The deposit and skyphos are dated by the transition of “Submycenaean”/PG or EPG: “Submycenaean”/PG: RMDP, 242 cat. no. 228; 241 fig. 80), who states: “The framed wavy line of 228 is a Protogeometric feature.” – EPG or PG: MORGAN 1999, 252 and n. 13. – PFAFF 1999, 63 n. 18; 87.

43 44

45

46 47 48

49 50

51

52

The Last Mycenaeans at Aigeira and Their Successors

169

The most common closed vessels are narrow necked jars with a variety of rim profiles (Fig. 13:1–7). Hollowed rims are present and very common, as are thickened and rounded rims (Fig. 13:1–4). Other typical Late Bronze and Early Iron Age vessels are represented only in a few examples such as small jugs or stirrup jars (Fig. 13:8–9) or are totally absent, such as trefoilmouthed jugs.54 Nevertheless the few examples are important for the latest Bronze Age and Early Iron Age activity. The shoulder fragment, shows a hand drawn multiple semi-circle at the shoulder zone (Fig. 13:9). The body fragment is from a closed vessel, presumably from an amphoriskos or jug, maybe decorated with fringed triangles (Fig. 13:10) and from another closed vessel, decorated with a vertical row of fringed triangles (Fig. 13:11). Interestingly there is so far no evidence for cooking pottery such as tripods or for handmade and burnished pottery. However the latter is attested at the Acropolis in all three settlement phases.55 The most important (preliminary) results may be summarized as follows: At the so called Lower Saddle at Aigeira, there is evidence for LH III C Middle and Late pottery, mainly deep bowls and kraters, a few of them have plain or incised plastic bands below the rim. One exceptional fragment is pictorial but not well preserved and presumably depicting a bird. Other pattern painted pieces like the framed motifs or the checkerboard pattern are difficult to date, as the patterns are known in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. The range of closed shapes is very limited. Narrow necked jars are present, showing a whole variety of rim profiles. Lekythoi are very rare and stirrup jars are rare. One shoulder fragment of a stirrup jar is decorated with handdrawn multiple semicircles. Trefoil mouthed jars are so far totally absent. The same is true for diagnostic kitchen ware, such as tripods and jars or handmade and burnished pottery. Features unambiguous for the Early Iron Age, such as high conical feet, deep bowls with compass drawn circles or framed zigzag patterns are absent, as are so far kantharoi and cups with vertical rim handles. However, there are a few fragments of Early Iron Age date. Deep bowls with a vertical or a slightly incurving profile and a rounded offset rim, a krater with the filled triangles, and maybe an amphoriskos or jug with fringed triangles. Furthermore we assume that the pottery of macroscopic group MG 13 is likely to be Early Iron Age in date. The limited amount of Early Iron Age pottery clearly identified at present makes one wonder, to what extent the Acropolis and Lower Saddle area were continuously used from the latest stages of the Bronze Age to the Late Geometric and Early Archaic period. Hopefully our future studies and a continuation of excavation work at the Lower Saddle will cover this gap.56

53

54

55 56

Another fragment from the so called Weinberg house originates from a closed vessel and is clearly handmade (C38-620). It is decorated with multiple triangles at the shoulder zone, a thick solidly painted zone below and below that again an unpainted zone (RMPD, 241 fig. 80:221). This vessel was recognized already by Weinberg as unusual. He noted in the catalogue: “The handmade, glazed jug is unusual in this context, but the variegated streaky glaze and the decoration are best placed in the Submycenaean period.” After personal inspection (5.2.2007) I could well imagine that C38-620 is not of Latest Bronze Age but of Early Helladic III date. Closed handmade vessels, solidly painted in the zone below the shoulder and pattern painted with multiple triangles are well known in Early Helladic III. – See RUTTER 1995, 552–563 pattern VIIE. NITSCHE 1987, 38 fig. 60:7 (Layer 24/27, MPG according to FELSCH 1996b, XVI). Framed zigzag patterns appear in Kalapodi in Layers 24–27, in MPG (FELSCH 1996b, XVI). – NITSCHE 1987, 38 n. 101 with further references to Corinth and Asine. JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 61 with further references (n. 242–252). – See RUTTER 1977, 3–4 (Phases 3 and 4a). –MDP, 155 for a first appearance in LH III C Middle, Developed). See the most recent comment on the handmade burnished pottery by JUNG 2006, 43–46 See also COLDSTREAM 1998, 325: “It still remains hard, however, to estimate how much time ought to be allowed for the lacuna between the Protogeometric and Late Geometric styles in Achaia, and this problem will remain with us until much more material is available from published studies of well-documented excavations, especially of single graves, which form the sinews of relative chronology.”

170

Walter Gauß

Bibliography ALRAM-STERN, E. 1987 “Die mykenischen Idole von Aigeira”, 4–7 in: POCHMARSKI – SCHWARZ – HAINZMANN 1987. 2003 “Aigeira – Acropolis: The Stratigraphy”, 15–21 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. ALRAM-STERN, E. – S. DEGER-JALKOTZY (eds.) 2006 Aigeira I. Die mykenische Akropolis. Faszikel 3: Vormykenische Keramik, Kleinfunde, Archäozoologische und Archäobotanische Hinterlassenschaften, Naturwissenschaftliche Datierung (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 24. Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Sonderschriften 43. DenkschrWien 342). Vienna. ALZINGER, W. 1974 “Ausgrabungen in Aigeira 1974”, AAA 7, 157–162. 1981/82 “Aigeira – Achaïa”, ÖJh 53, Beiblatt 8–15. 1988 “Hyperesia – Aigeira. Der Wandel eines Heiligtums von spätmykenischer bis in klassische Zeit”, 20–23 in: DELIVORRIAS ET AL. 1988. ALZINGER, W. UND MITARBEITER 1985 “Aigeira-Hyperesia und die Siedlung Phelloë in Achaia. Österreichische Ausgrabungen auf der Peloponnes 1972–1983. Teil I: Akropolis”, Klio 67, 389–451. 1986 “Aigeira-Hyperesia und die Siedlung Phelloë in Achaia. Österreichische Ausgrabungen auf der Peloponnes 1972–1983. Teil III: Palati. Zur Wasserversorgung von Aigeira Phelloë”, Klio 68, 309–347. BIETAK, M. (ed.) 2003 The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf, 2 nd of May – 7 th of May 2001 (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften / Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 29). Vienna. CATLING, R. W. V. – I. S. LEMOS 1990 Lefkandi II. The Protogeometric Building at Toumba. Part I. The Pottery (BSA Suppl. 22). London. COLDSTREAM, J. N. 1968 Greek Geometric Pottery. A Survey of Ten Local Styles and their Chronology. London. 1998 “Achaean Pottery around 700 B.C., at Home and in the Colonies”, 323–334 in: KATSONOPOULOU 1998. COULSON, W. D. E. 1986 The Dark Age Pottery of Messenia (SIMA-Pb 43). Göteborg. DAVIS, E. N. (ed.) 1977 Symposium on the Dark Ages in Greece. New York. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 1991 “Zum Verlauf der Periode SH IIIC in Achaia”, 19–29 in: RIZAKIS 1991. 2003a “Stratified Pottery Deposits from the Late Helladic III C Settlement at Aigeira/Achaia”, 53–75 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. 2003b “Work in Progress: Report on the ‘End of the Mycenaean Civilisation’ Project for the Years 1999–2001”, 455–470 in: BIETAK 2003. DEKOULAKOU, I. 1973 “Γεωμετρικοί ταφικοί πίθοι εξ Αχαΐας”, ArchEph, Chron 15–29. 1984 “Κεραμική 8ου και 7ου αι. π. Χ. από τάφους της Αχαϊας και της Αιτολίας”, ASAtene 60, N.S. 44, 1982 [1984], 219–236. DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1952 Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. DELIVORRIAS, A. ET AL. (eds.) 1988 Πρακτικά του ΧΙΙ Διεθνούς Συνέδριου Κλασσικής Αρχαιολογίας, Αθήνα, 4–10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1983, Τομος Δ’. Athens. EDER, B. 2006 “Die spätbronze- und früheisenzeitliche Keramik”, 141–246 in: KYRIELEIS 2006.

The Last Mycenaeans at Aigeira and Their Successors

171

EVELY, D. (ed.) 2006 Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (BSA Suppl. 39). London. FELSCH, R. C. S. (ed.) 1996a Kalapodi I. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis. Vol. I. Mainz. FELSCH, R. C. S. 1996b “Vorwort des Herausgebers”, IX–XVII in: FELSCH 1996a. FURTWÄNGLER, A. – LOESCHCKE, G. 1886 Mykenische Vasen. Vorhellenische Thongefässe aus dem Gebiete des Mittelmeeres. Berlin. GADOLOU, A. 2002 “The Pottery Fabrics and Worksphops from Ano Mazaraki. The 1979 Excavation Season”, 165–186 in: GRECO 2002. 2008 Η Αχαϊά στους πρώιμους ιστορικούς χρόνους. Κεραμεική παραγωγή και έθιμα ταφής. Athens. GRECO, E. (ed.) 2002 Gli Achei e l’identità etnica degli Achei d’Occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Paestum, 23–25 febbraio 2001 (Tekmeria 3). Paestum – Athens. HAINZMANN, M. 2001 “Hyperesia/Aigeira – eine historische Spurensuche”, 73–78 in: MITSOPOULOS-LEON 2001. JACOB-FELSCH, M. 1996 “Die spätmykenische bis frühprotogeometrische Keramik”, 1–213 in: FELSCH 1996a. JUNG, R. 2006 Χρονολογία comparata. Vergleichende Chronologie von Südgriechenland und Süditalien von ca. 1700/1600 bis 1000 v. u. Z. (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 26. DenkschrWien 348). Vienna. KATSONOPOULOU, D. – S. SOTER – D. SCHILARDI (eds.) 1998 Αρχαία Ελίκη και Αιγιάλεια. Πρακτικά του B Διεθνούς Επιστημονικού Συνέδριου Αίγιον, 1.–3.

Δεκεμβρίου 1995. Ancient Helike and Aigialeia. Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Aigion, 1–3 December 1995. Athens. KÜBLER, K. 1943 Neufunde aus der Nekropole des 11. und 10. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 4). Berlin. KUNISCH, N. 1998 Ornamente geometrischer Vasen. Ein Kompendium. Köln. KYRIELEIS, H. 2006 Anfänge und Frühzeit des Heiligtums von Olympia. Die Ausgrabungen am Pelopion 1987–1996 (Olympische Forschungen 31). Berlin – New York. LEMOS, I. S. 2002 The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. MARCHAND, J. 2002 “A New Bronze Age Site in the Corinthia: The Orneai of Strabo and Homer?”, Hesperia 71/2, 119–148. MAYR, W. 1992 Keramische Wechselbeziehungen am früheisenzeitlichen griechischen Festland (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Salzburg. MAZARAKIS-AINIAN, A. 1997 From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples. Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–750 B.C.) (SIMA 121). Jonsered. MITSOPOULOS-LEON, V. (ed.) 2001 Forschungen in der Peloponnes. Akten des Symposiums anläßlich der Feier ‘100 Jahre Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Athen’, Athen 5.3.–7.3. 1998 (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Sonderschriften 38). Athens.

172

Walter Gauß

MORGAN, C. 1990 Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century BC. (Cambridge Classical Studies). Cambridge. 1991 Ethnicity and Early Greek States: Historical and Material Perspectives (Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 37). Cambridge. 1999 Isthmia Volume VIII. The Late Bronze Age Settlement and Early Iron Age Sanctuary (Results of excavations conducted under the auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Princeton – New Jersey. MOUNTJOY, P. A. – V. HANKEY 1988 “LH IIIC Late versus Submycenaean. The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed”, JdI 103, 1–37. MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1993 Mycenaean Pottery. An Introduction. (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 36). Oxford. NITSCHE, A. 1987 “Protogeometrische und subprotogeometrische Keramik aus dem Heiligtum bei Kalapodi”, AA, 35–49. PAPADIMITRIOU, A. 1988 “Bericht zur früheisenzeitlichen Keramik aus der Unterburg von Tiryns. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982–83”, AA, 227–243. PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. 2001 “Magna Achaea. Akhaian Late Geometric and Archaic Pottery in South Italy and Sicily”, Hesperia 70, 373– 460. 2003 “The Achaian Vapheio Cup and its Afterlife in Archaic South Italy”, OJA 22, 411–428. 2005 The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone (Monumenta Archaeologica 24). Los Angeles. PFAFF, C. A. 1999 “The Early Iron Age Pottery from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth”, Hesperia 68, 55–134. POCHMARSKI, E. – G. SCHWARZ – M. HAINZMANN (eds.) 1987 Berichte des 2. Österreichischen Archäologentages im Schloß Seggau bei Leibnitz, vom 14. bis 16. Juni 1984 (Mitteilungen der Archäologischen Gesellschaft Graz, Beiheft 1). Graz. RIZAKIS, A. D. (ed.) 1991 Αρχαία Αχαϊα και Ηλεία / Achaia und Elis in der Antike. Akten des 1. Internationalen Symposiums Athen, 19.–21. Mai 1989 (Meletemata 13). Athens. RISSER, M. K. 2001 Corinthian Conventionalizing Pottery (Corinth. Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. VII, Part V). Princeton – New Jersey. RUTTER, J. B. 1974 The Late Helladic III B and III C Periods at Korakou and Gonia in the Corinthia (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania [Ann Arbor Nr. 75 2771]). 1977 “Late Helladic III C Pottery and some Historical Implications”, 1–20 in: DAVIS 1977. 1978 “A Plea for the Abandonment of the Term ‘Submycenaean’”, TUAS 3, 58–65. 1979 “The Last Mycenaeans at Corinth”, Hesperia 48, 348–392. 1995 Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid, Volume III. The Pottery of Lerna IV (The American School of Classical Studies at Athens). Princeton – New Jersey. SCHACHERMEYR, F. 1976 Die ägäische Frühzeit. Vol. 2: Die mykenische Zeit und die Gesittung von Thera (SBWien 309 = Mykenische Studien 4). Vienna. 1980 Die ägäische Frühzeit. Vol. 4: Griechenland im Zeitalter der Wanderungen. Vom Ende der mykenischen Ära bis auf die Dorier (SBWien 372 = Mykenische Studien 8). Vienna. SCHWARZ, G. 2001 “Korinthische und attische Keramik aus Aigeira”, 89–93 in: MITSOPOULOS-LEON 2001.

The Last Mycenaeans at Aigeira and Their Successors

173

174

Walter Gauss

The Last Mycenaeans at Aigeira and Their Successors

175

176

Walter Gauss

The Last Mycenaeans at Aigeira and Their Successors

177

178

Walter Gauss

The Last Mycenaeans at Aigeira and Their Successors

179

180

Walter Gauss

The Last Mycenaeans at Aigeira and Their Successors

181

182

Walter Gauss

REINHARD JUNG, STELIOS ANDREOU, BERNHARD WENINGER

SYNCHRONISATION OF KASTANÁS AND THESSALONÍKI TOUMBA AT THE END OF THE BRONZE AND THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE

The tell sites of Thessaloníki Toumba and Kastanás provide us with two of the most important LBA and EIA vertical stratigraphies for Central Macedonia. These two sites belong to different settlement categories, the one is a small, probably secondary site (Kastanás, perhaps related to the larger toumba at Axiochóri, see HÄNSEL 1989), while the other one is a dominating site, in fact one of the largest tells in the region (Thessaloníki Toumba, see ANDREOU 2001, 166–171). The two stratigraphies reflect different histories of settlement with differences in phase duration and stability. One of the most obvious differences between them is the fact that nearly every LBA and EIA settlement level at Kastanás ended in a fiery destruction, while such wholescale destructions never devastated Thessaloníki Toumba (ANDREOU this volume). Another remarkable difference is the development of building techniques, house plans and settlement structure. Kastanás shows a rather unstable sequence of habitation structures and an alternation between mud-brick architecture and wattle and daub houses during the LBA and EIA (HÄNSEL 1989. – IDEM 2002). Thessaloníki Toumba, which is situated to the south-west in a distance of only about 30 km as the crow flies, exhibits an astonishing continuity in the lay-out of its mud-brick buildings and the course of the narrow streets (ANDREOU this volume). In the present paper we try to build up a comparative relative chronology of these two Central Macedonian tell sites, and from this point of view their different settlement histories have strong advantages. Phases, which were rather long-lived on the one tell, were contemporary to a number of phases of short duration on the other tell. For instance, while the time of the southern Greek Mycenaean Palace Period is mostly covered by Phase 5 of Thessaloníki Toumba, at Kastanás three settlement levels followed each other during these c. two centuries (Levels 17, 16 and 15). At the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age, after a rather troubled time (of Levels 14b, 14a and 13) the inhabitants of Kastanás were able to inhabit the same houses for several generations (Level 12). During the same time span at Thessaloníki Toumba people rebuilt their homes several times (Levels 3, 2B and 2A). This means, during a certain time period there is a fine-phased stratigraphic sequence on the one tell allowing for a fine-phased analysis of the pottery development, while on the other tell houses were used for many decades and that only allows for stylistic subdivisions of the whole pottery assemblage, which accumulated over the years. It then follows that in comparing the two tell sequences one can build up a fine-phased pottery chronology for the Central Macedonian region, which can act as a master sequence of local pottery style for other sites. Our study is based on Mycenaean and Protogeometric wheelmade pottery, because 1) these are the pottery classes, which show the fastest development of type and style in the region; 2) although they make up only a small part of the local pottery assemblage these two pottery classes are present in sufficient quantities all through the LBA and EIA to be chronologically relevant; and 3) these classes can be further used for interregional comparative chronology, in order to link the local Macedonian sequence to the central and southern Greek ones, which in turn allow historical dates of the eastern Mediterranean to be transferred to the north Aegean.

184

Reinhard Jung, Stelios Andreou, Bernhard Weninger

PHASE 5 KA 1639 (Fig. 1:4) is either a linear deep bowl FT 284/285 B or a deep semi-globular cup FT 215/216. Its linear decoration consists of a rim band of slightly more than 1 cm width and a monochrome interior (decoration 9.1).1 At Kastanás this type of deep bowl is securely attested only in Level 13 (JUNG 2002, 96, pl. 19:218), but one should note that a large part of the profile must be preserved for any secure identification of the type.2 At the Toumba of Prehistoric Olynthus (Áyios Mámas) no secure specimens were found in stratified contexts. In southern Greece the earliest secure attestations of deep bowls B with this type of decoration can be found in the LH III B Final palace destruction levels of Tiryns (VOIGTLÄNDER 2003, 96 pls. 130:Si 145; 131:Si 151–153,Si 165. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 49 pl. 19:10) and Midea (DEMAKOPOULOU 2003, 84). In the case, the Thessaloníki sherd should be restored as a deep cup FT 215/216, a similar time frame is indicated. At Kastanás secure examples of linear deep cups FT 215/216 with this type of decoration (9.1) are attested not earlier than Level 12 (LH III C Advanced–EPG), but at the Toumba of Prehistoric Olynthus (Áyios Mámas) there are two specimens from mixed contexts of Levels 3 and 2, one of regular size and one miniature version. Thus, the type clearly did exist before the end of LH III C in Central Macedonia. Judging from the Áyios Mámas sequence, the earliest possible date would be LH III B Final, if one of the specimens was ascribed to the beginning of Level 3. Linear cups FT 215/216 with decoration 9.1 are found in the destruction level of Megaron A at Dhimíni, as well as in its re-occupation phase (ADRYMISISMANI 2004–2005, 28, 31–32, 34 fig. 20:BE 24287,BE 25963),3 which may be dated to LH III B Final and LH III C Early respectively (JUNG 2006, 202). The parallels at Tiryns are present in the levels from LH III B Final onwards (PODZUWEIT 2007, 113 Beil. 56 pl. 57:18,19). The sherd KA 200 (Fig. 1:1) (ANDREOU 2003, 205 fig. 5:KA 200) can be classified as stemmed bowl FT 304/305 or – taking into account the local Macedonian style – rather as a deep bowl FT 284/285 A with thickened rim.4 It shows a linear interior decoration consisting of a rim band on the in- and outside, three broad bands below the patterned zone and another band further down on the outside. The motif is a horizontal wavy band painted in wide swings. Stemmed bowls FT 304/305 / deep bowls FT 284/285 A with thickened rim are attested at Kastanás from Level 16 until Level 14b or 14a, i.e. from LH III A Late/III B Early down to LH III C Early (JUNG 2002, 74–75). They represent one of the most characteristic types of open Mycenaean vessels in Macedonia. Some whole profiles with low base from the level with pits and vessel depositions above the LH III A – LH III B Early pit tombs of Aianí-Livádhia belong to the earliest examples of the type north of the Olympus mountain. They have either linear or monochrome interiors (KARAMITROU-MEDESSIDI 2002, 605 fig. 4:middle). The lower body of one of the Aianí wavy band deep bowls with thickened rim is decorated with two

1

2

3

4

For the typology of linear decoration see PODZUWEIT 2007, 311–316; Beil. 78a–78j and JUNG 2002, 575–579, pls. I–XIV. Patterned deep bowls B, from which only small rim sherds survive, would be classed as linear deep bowls with decoration 9.1 without being secure attestations of the type. Therefore, at Kastanás sherds with fully preserved decoration were marked in the catalogue with the symbol #, in order to show that the linear decoration is fully preserved (JUNG 2002, 66). In the case of linear decoration 9.1 this would mean that enough of the wall is preserved to exclude the existence of any motifs on the body. However, it seems that only in the re-occupation phase these cups had a reserved circle on the bottom on the inside (ADRYMI-SISMANI 2006, 93, 109 fig. 15:BE 25963,BE 24287 and fig. 16:BE 25963,BE 24287). While at Kastanás two stemmed bowl feet have been found (JUNG 2002, 71, 548, pl. 17:193), these feet are not present at Thessaloníki Toumba. There are, however, several specimens of deep bowls with thickened or everted rim and ring base (ANDREOU 2003, 205 fig. 5:KA 727,KA606/673). One such vessel is known from Kastanás, Level 14b (JUNG 2002, 156–157, pl. 7:80).

Synchronisation of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba

185

broad bands framing two narrow ones (band type 3.2).5 Such a band group is defined as “Boeotian Stripe”, which in Boeotia was indeed used to decorate stemmed bowls FT 304/305 or deep bowls with thickened rim (MOUNTJOY 1983, 17. – RMDP, 670 fig. 255:111,112,116,117,121; 671). A chronological fix point for this decoration type is provided by a stemmed bowl/ deep bowl with thickened rim from a level of LH III A Late/III B Early at Thebes (Pelopídhou Str., Deposit 3c, see ANDRIKOU 2006, 26–27, 69 cat. no. 124; 108 pl. 8:124). In one of the pits above the tombs of Aianí two kylikes were found, one belonging to the deeper type with lipped rim FT 257 (KARAMITROU-MEDESSIDI 2003, 173, 183 fig. 7) and the second one belonging to the shallower type with out-turned rim FT 258B (IBIDEM, 173, 183 fig. 8). Although their patterned decoration does not find any close analogies in southern Greece, the types themselves can be dated on the basis of closed contexts from the Argolid and the Corinthia. FT 257 is characteristic for LH III A Late, but its production continued into LH III B Early and even into LH III B Middle,6 while FT 258B is to be classed as an innovation of LH III B Early.7 These vessels – together with the grave gifts themselves (closed vessels, which cannot be dated with the same precision) – confirm the early date of the deep bowls with thickened rim and broad wavy band at Aianí and – by extension – elsewhere further to the north, in Central Macedonia. They are a regional Western and Central Macedonian type starting in LH III A Late or LH III B Early and being produced until well into LH III C.8 The rim fragment KA 646 (Fig. 1:2) might belong to a linear deep semi-globular cup FT 215/216 or a deep bowl FT 284/285 A (decoration 5.1.1). It has no exact parallel at Kastanás, but a cup FT 215/216 with a single outer rim band (decoration 1.0) from Level 15 would be an analogy for the reconstruction as a deep cup (JUNG 2002, 316 cat. no. 39, pl. 4:39). The wall sherd KA 1395 (ANDREOU 2003, 205 fig. 4:KA 1395) belongs to a kylix FT 257 with an unidentifiable curvilinear motiv (tentacles?), a thin rim band and a group of four thin lower bands. It has no exact parallel at Kastanás, but the shape is attested with a different decoration in a mixed context of Levels 13–14a (JUNG 2002, 347, pl. 13:154). The parallel from the level above the LH III A Late – LH III B Early tombs at Aianí has already been discussed (see above). The rim sherd KA 1464 (Fig. 1:3) (ANDREOU 2003, 205 fig. 4:KA 1464) most probably belongs to a deep bowl FT 284/285 B with thickened rim. It is decorated with a thick rim band and a monochrome interior and shows some kind of curvilinear motif. Parallels with this type of linear decoration (9.1) are found at Kastanás in Level 15 and later levels (JUNG 2002, 72–73 with fig. 8; 454) and at LH III A Late – LH III B Early Aianí (see above and KARAMITROUMEDESSIDI 2002, 605 fig. 4:top right. – EADEM 2003, 180 fig. 5:right).

5 6

7

8

Cf. n. 1. For the production period at Tiryns and Mykene see SCHÖNFELD 1988, 155 tab. 1:7; 158, 163, 165 fig. 2:12,13,15; 166, 168–169, 171 fig. 3:19; 176, 180–183, 186, 189 with n. 185. – Examples of LH III B Middle date were also found at Tsoúngiza, EU 2 pit 1: THOMAS 1992, 148–150, 546 fig. 12:14,16,18; 547 fig. 13:1,3,4. SCHÖNFELD 1988, 155 tab. 1:43; 158, 163, 171 fig. 3:15; 175 fig. 5:4; 176, 180, 183, 191 fig. 8:1; 199 fig. 11:4; 200, 205, 206–207. – The terrace fills of three houses at Mycenae (Terrace on the Atreus Ridge, terraces below the House of Shields and the House of the Oil Merchant), which were published as find complexes dating to the end of LH III A2 Late (Terrace on the Atreus Ridge, see FRENCH 1965, 174, 184), to the transition from LH III A2 Late to LH III B1 (Terrasse below the House of Shields, see IBIDEM 192), and to LH III A2 Late or rather LH III B1 (Terrasse below the House of the Oil Merchant, see IBIDEM 192 and esp. FRENCH 1963, 32), can now all be dated to LH III B Early based on the comparison with type frequencies in the continuous vertical stratigraphy of Tiryns (SCHÖNFELD 1988, 153–154 n. 3; 163 tab. 4; 170). These terrace fills contain mainly material of the phase LH III A Late, but there are some types present, which in the continuous settlement stratigraphy are only found from LH III B Early onwards, so that the deposition of the fill happened only by that phase (IBIDEM 180–185). Thus, there is no need to date them exclusively to LH III C (as RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 224 n. 968 proposed).

186

Reinhard Jung, Stelios Andreou, Bernhard Weninger

Judging by these datable sherds, Phase 5 at Thessaloníki must have lasted until the end of Kastanás Level 15 in LH III B Final, but the start of this phase is difficult to determine. It is perhaps to be situated during Level 16 of Kastanás, but not necessarily. There is evidence for two reconstructions in Buildings E and H at Thessaloníki Toumba, but the excavated area, which belongs to this phase is too small and the characteristic Mycenaean sherds too few to provide reliable chronological distinctions. A terminus post quem for the beginning of Phase 5 may be a handle from a LH II A/II B squat jug, FT 87 that was found in the latest sub-phase of Phase 6. PHASE 4D Deep bowls with linear interior (with or without thickened rim) showing a single broad horizontal wavy band with wide swings are common from Phase 4D onwards. KA 961 (ANDREOU 2003, 205 fig. 5:KA 961) and KA 962 (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 7:4) are examples for these types. The deep bowls with thickened rim and single wavy bands painted in wide swings disappear after Phase 4. After Phase 4 wavy bands on deep bowls A and B were executed in a thin way. At Kastanás the wavy band deep bowls with thickened rim (classed as stemmed bowl FT 304/305)9 were in use from Level 16 until Level 12 (JUNG 2002, 453–454 motifs 1.6.1– 1.6.1.1). However, they had their peak in Level 14b and faded in the more recent levels, the specimens from Level 12 being most probably throw-ups (JUNG 2002, 71 fig. 6; 72; 220 fig. 73; 223). An analogous development can be observed at the Toumba of Prehistoric Olynthus, where the type with thickened rim has nearly disappeared by Level 2, which is dated to the last phases of LH III C (JUNG 2004, 42 fig. 4). The deep bowls FT 284/285 A with a single broad horizontal wavy band painted in wide swings are mainly attested from Level 15 to Level 14b at Kastanás (JUNG 2002, pls. 4:35; 6:66–68; 7:69). Later on, in Level 12, the single horizontal wavy bands have become much thinner, on deep bowls A (IBIDEM, pl. 22:249) as well as on deep bowls B (IBIDEM, pl. 23:256–258). ΚΑ 547 (ANDREOU 2003, 207 fig. 7:KA 547. – ANDREOU this volume, fig. 7:7) is a deep semi-globular cup FT 215/216 with a wide rim band as its only decoration (decoration 1.2). An approximate parallel can be found in Level 15 at Kastanás (JUNG 2002, 316 cat. no. 39, pl. 4:39), while another possible parallel from Level 14a cannot be definitely assigned to a cup, because nothing is left from its handle(s) (JUNG 2002, 341, pl. 12:129). Furthermore, it is worth noting that at Kastanás deep cups FT 215/216 with linear interior disappeared after Level 13 and were replaced by cups FT 215/216 with monochrome interior (JUNG 2002, 150 with fig. 57). KA 1459, a stemmed bowl FT 304/305 or deep bowl FT 284/285 B with thickened rim (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 7:5) is remarkable because of its decoration, a monochrome interior, a rim band and another band below (decoration 9.3). It has a good parallel at Kastanás Level 14b (JUNG 2002, 73, 323, pl. 6:64). In the Peloponnese decoration type 9.3 is common on bowls with thickened rim during LH III B Final, as examples from the debris of the palace destruction at Tiryns show. One of the published specimens should be a stemmed bowl FT 304/305 (VOIGTLÄNDER 2003, 93–94 pls. 67:Si 119; 129:Si 119), while the other one has a ring foot (IBIDEM, 94 pls. 67:Si 121; 129:Si 121). Stemmed bowls with decoration 9.3 are also attested earlier, at LH III B Middle Tsoúngiza (THOMAS 1992, 203, 557 fig. 23:15).10 Parallels for the Mycenaean cooking pot KA 1466 (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 8:2) are attested at Kastanás from Level 16 to Level 14a (JUNG 2002, 196–197, 441–442, pl. 62:513,515, 518), but these kitchen vessels are not specially relevant for building up a fine chronology.

9 10

See n. 4. Although one has to note that the stem of this example is not preserved.

Synchronisation of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba

187

PHASE 4C The linear amphoriskos KA 455 from Thessaloníki is interesting because of its dotted handle decoration (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 8:1), which at Kastanás is not securely attested earlier than Level 12 (JUNG 2002, pls. 32:337; 33:340; 35:345). However, this may not reflect the ancient reality, because one fragmentary belly-handle of a closed vessel from a mixed context of Levels 14b and 14a at Kastanás preserves the rest of such a dotted decoration (JUNG 2002, 508 [no. 78/3716]). Phases 4D and 4C can be approximately paralleled with Levels 14b and 14a at Kastanás. Kastanás Level 15 must have already come to an end during Thessaloníki Toumba Phase 5 (see above). There are no characteristics in Phases 4D and 4C of Thessaloníki, which would force us to lower their end to the time of Level 13 at Kastanás. PHASE 4B At the outset it is necessary to note that the deposits assignable to Phase 4B are very few and that the picture we can gain from them is rather fragmentary. Some kraters with monochrome interior may be ascribed to this phase, but the stratigraphical evidence is not beyond doubt for any of them. KA 881, a large part from the belly down to the ring base of a huge vessel, was reconstructed from many sherds scattered through a number of find contexts. One sherd is from a secure Phase 4B context, while the rest cannot be given a more precise assignation than Phases 4B–4A (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 9:7). Similarly, a wall fragment of another vessel can only be assigned to Phases 4A–4B (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 9:10), while a rim sherd of a third krater with a broad rim band and part of a wavy band motif belongs with certainty already to Phase 4A (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 9:5). At Kastanás monochrome decoration is first used for the interior of kraters during Level 14a (JUNG 2002, pl. 9:103), but it became common on this vessel shape only in the succeeding levels dating to the middle and late phases of LH III C (JUNG 2002, 112–113 with fig. 35). The multiple band groups of the best preserved example from Thessaloníki (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 9:7) are unusual for southern and central Greek kraters, but they are quite well matched by another Central Macedonian krater found at the Toumba of Thérmi A (REY 1921, pl. 48:on top).11 Again from Thérmi A there is a good parallel for the chain of rhomboid motifs with semi-circle fill found on the wall fragment (cf. ANDREOU this volume, fig. 9:10, and REY 1921, pl. 48:bottom). This same motif is also found on a better preserved example, again with monochrome interior, which comes from Phase 4 at Thessaloníki Toumba, but cannot be assigned to any of its sub-phases (KA 665, see ANDREOU – PSARAKI 2007, 413 pl. 9; 414 fig. 17:KA 665). Unfortunately the kraters from the Toumba of Thérmi A cannot be dated by stratigraphical context. The almost complete profile of a krater with linear interior, which either belongs to Phase 4B or to Phase 4A (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 9:8), compares well to a krater from Levels 16– 14a at Kastanás because of its shape and rim type (type 1 at Kastanás: JUNG 2002, 106) and because of its general style (JUNG 2002, 339–340,12 pl. 11:123). However, no exact parallel for the motif and linear decoration of the Thessaloníki vessel is known from the toumba at the Axiós river bank. Perhaps since Phase 4B, but not later than Phase 4A the typical Macedonian horn motifs (JUNG 2002, 83–85 with fig. 16) were used to decorate deep bowls FT 284/285 with and without thickened rim at Thessaloníki Toumba (ANDREOU 2003, 205 fig. 5:KA 879 from 4B or 4A, but more likely from 4B). At Kastanás the earliest simple horn motif is attested in Level 14b and 11

12

JUNG 2002, 563–564, pl. 72:5 shows only the upper part of the vessel, as the lower part with the ring base could not be located at the Thessaloníki museum store-rooms. With another parallel from Phase 6 at Ássiros Toumba.

188

Reinhard Jung, Stelios Andreou, Bernhard Weninger

found on a deep bowl FT 284/285 A (JUNG 2002, 323–324, pl. 6:65), which would date the invention by or introduction of the motif to the Central Macedonian potters’ workshops to LH III C Early. The only good parallels outside Macedonia are found in Thessaly. They date to LH III C Middle (probably Developed, see BATZIOU-EFSTATHIOU 1994, 219 fig. 8:top row, middle; 222 fig. 16:α,β). One possible example from Dhimíni may be earlier, i.e. LH III B Final or LH III C Early (ADRYMI-SISMANI 2006, 110 fig. 17:group on the right, 2nd row from bottom, right sherd).13 PHASE 4A KA 94/1067 (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 9:3) is a well-preserved deep bowl FT 284/285 B, which belongs to the earliest vessels of this type to be decorated with a simple horn motif. Analogous vessels were used at Kastanás from Level 14a onwards (JUNG 2002, 91, pl. 12:128 etc.). Several large fragments of large and medium sized belly-handled amphorae, collar-necked jars or hydriae with purely linear decoration or with a horizontal zig-zag or wavy band, such as KA 827 (ANDREOU 2003, 208 fig. 8:KA 827. – ANDREOU this volume, fig. 10:1), ΚΑ 884, ΚΑ 880/883 and KA 877/1428 (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 10:2–4), were found in contexts of Phase 4A. Such large closed vessels are attested at Kastanás since Level 15 at the earliest (JUNG 2002, pls. 3:28; 5:46,47; cf. also IBIDEM pl. 9:99 from Level 14b for the wavy band). The sub-phases 4B and 4A of Thessaloníki Toúmba are difficult to synchronise exactly with the Kastanás sequence. They might both overlap with the time of Level 14a, but one cannot exclude that Phase 4A is already partly contemporary with Level 13, if some of the kraters with monochrome interior should indeed belong to Phase 4B. This stylistic feature is rather innovative for Kastanás Level 14a and might thus offer an argument to lower the date of the next phase (4A) to a time contemporary with Kastanás Level 13. If however, all kraters with monochrome interior should belong to Phase 4A, no real stylistic argument is left to support even a partial synchronisation of this phase with Level 13. PHASE 3 In Phase 3 for the first time in the Toumba Thessaloníki sequence deep bowls with monochrome interior are slightly more common than deep bowls with linear interior. This statistics comprises all deep bowls, those of the regular FT 284/285 shape as well as those with thickened rim. At Kastanás Level 12 bowls FT 284/285 B are more than seven times as common as deep bowls FT 284/285 A (JUNG 2002, 220 fig. 73; 225–226 with fig. 78. – IDEM 2003, 223 fig. 9). However, in Kastanás Level 13 percentages of bowls FT 284/285 B and deep bowls FT 284/ 285 A are approximately the same (JUNG 2002, 224 with fig. 77). If stemmed bowls/deep bowls with thickened rim are included also into the Kastanás statistics, the numerical proportions do not change in any significant way.14 An important – though late (see below) – innovation of the potters’ workshops during this phase was the decision to produce monochrome deep bowls FT 284/285 (decoration 11.0) for the first time (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 11:5). This might have happened contemporaneously with the time of Kastanás Level 13, because a small monochrome ring base from this level should belong to that type (JUNG 2002, pl. 18:198). Otherwise the earliest rim sherds definitely 13

14

In the case that wall fragment shows the motif under discussion, it should be turned upside down. It is not clear from the publication, if the sherd comes from the re-occupation phase of LH III C Early or from the destruction level of LH III B Final. Level 13 would have 16 stemmed/deep bowls with linear interior and 14 with monochrome interior, while Level 12 would have 18 with linear and 128 with monochrome interior, see JUNG 2002, 453–462.

Synchronisation of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba

189

proving the use of monochrome deep bowls FT 284/285 in the small settlement at the Axiós were found in Level 12 (JUNG 2002, 99 fig. 26; 100, 224, pl. 25:275,276). It has already been commented upon that this is a retarded production start judging by the southern Greek potters’ traditions (JUNG 2002, 99–100), because regularly shaped deep bowls with decoration 11.0 were already in use by LH III B Final.15 From Phase 3 onwards, different vessel types such as deep cups FT 215/216 or deep bowls were painted occasionally with multiple (double or triple) horizontal wavy lines at Thessaloníki Toumba (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 11:6,7). At Kastanás this was an innovation, which occured during the time of Level 13 (JUNG 2002, 186, 224, 226, pl. 18:205). These multiple horizontal wavy lines then became a characteristic of the pottery style of the subsequent Level 12 and the following levels of the Early Iron Age (JUNG 2002, 226, 228), just as is the case at Thessaloníki Toumba. The finds from Thessaloníki now verify the hypothesis – based at that time on the single attestation in Level 13 (see above) – that this motif was in use earlier than PG in Central Macedonia (cf. JUNG 2003, 136). On the Peloponnese double and triple wavy lines are found from LH III C Advanced onwards on different open shapes (PODZUWEIT 2007, 39, 66 pls. 14:1,5; 26:1 [LH III C Advanced],2; 27:2. – POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 168 fig. 2.11:7; 172, 193, 194 fig. 2.24:3,4; pl. 51:6–8 [Phases 2b and 3]), but also on closed ones (cf. JUNG 2002, 180 n. 1034). A large closed vessel from Phase 3 attests to the use of groups of vertical wavy lines during that phase at Thessaloníki Toumba (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 12:7). There are good parallels from Level 12 at Kastanás, which carry the wavy line groups on the shoulder like on the Thessaloníki example (Fig. 2b:5) (JUNG 2002, 175, 186, pls. 33:342; 36:347). KA 2/1187 and KA 1190 (Fig. 2b:6; – ANDREOU this volume, fig. 12:6) prove the start of the use of tassel motifs on large closed vessels during this phase. At Kastanás this was the case in the settlement of Level 13 (JUNG 2002, 185–186, pl. 19:208). Tassel motifs also appear for the first time with certainty on deep bowls FT 284/285 during Phase 3 of Thessaloníki Toumba. These are deep bowls B with monochrome interior: KA 1074 (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 11:3) and perhaps also KA 1069 (but horn cannot be excluded, see ANDREOU this volume, fig. 11:2). This combination of vessel shape and motif is a good example for the local Central Macedonian taste, as all kinds of tassels were typically used to decorate closed and not open vessels in the central and southern Greek regions. Some pieces in central Greece are exceptions from that rule, such as a monochrome deep bowl with reserved decorative zone from Phase 2a at Lefkandí. It shows, what has been explained as a version of the antithetic streamer pattern, but it is stylistically quite close to the Macedonian tassels (Fig. 2a:2) (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 188, 191 fig. 2.22:4).16 At Kastanás the first tassels used on deep bowls FT 284/285 B were painted during Level 13 and became common in the subsequent Level 12 (Fig. 2a:1) (JUNG 2002, 91–92 with figs. 22, pls. 15:168; 23:252–255). A sherd from unit #261093 (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 12:2) testifies to the practice of shaping a hollow rim with a heavy overhanging outer lip for closed vessels. This example is close to the rim variety 6 of Kastanás (cf. JUNG 2002, 162). At Kastanás closed vessels with hollow rims first appeared in Level 13, but did not become common until the following

15

16

Tiryns, LH III B Developed and IIIB Final: PODZUWEIT 2007, 54 Beil. 16, 17. – Thebes, palace destruction of LH III B Final: ANDRIKOU 2006, tab. 6; 33. – Nichória, LH III B Final: SHELMERDINE 1992, 510–511 tab. 9-6 and 9-7; 513; 609 fig. 9-62:P3816. Other central Greek examples include conical kylikes from Lefkandí, Phases 2a and 2b(?) (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 185 fig. 2.17:7 [standing tassel]; 186 fig. 2.18:1 [hanging tassel]) and from Kalapódhi, Level 9 (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 145 cat. no. 219 pl. 34:219 [standing tassel]). But these kylikes all show regular tassels of the type principally used for closed vessels in the Greek south. An Argive deep bowl FT 284/285 B shows a similar tassel (JUNG 2002, 92, 572–573, pl. 74:4), but is a very rare exception on the Peloponnese.

190

Reinhard Jung, Stelios Andreou, Bernhard Weninger

Level 12. Heavy varieties like the one from Phase 3 at Thessaloníki are only found from Level 12 onwards (Fig. 2a:3,4) (JUNG 2002, 183 fig. 63; 184–185, pl. 37:349,350,362). Another new morphological feature of large closed vessels in this phase is the shape of their neck. In some cases the neck widens strongly towards the rim (funnel-shaped neck). These neck fragments show a monochrome decoration on the outside and strokes on the lip (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 12:1,3). They find good parallels in Level 13 at Kastanás (JUNG 2002, pl. 18:202,204). In the production of kraters FT 281/282 the invention of the horizontal, markedly protruding lip with flat upper surface (rim variety 4 at Kastanás) is the new feature of Phase 3 at Thessaloníki Toumba. This is another element, which links Phase 3 to Kastanás Level 12, and as is the case with other inventions of that time, its adoption in Central Macedonia happened later than its invention by the potters’ workshops of southern Greece (JUNG 2002, 107 fig. 29; 108). Innovations can also be found in the linear decoration. One example is the fragment of a large belly-handled amphora or a hydria (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 12:5) with a horn motif and a banded belly decoration, which can most probably be reconstructed as a thick band framed by a thin band above and below (band type 4.1), which is not attested earlier than Level 12 on large closed vessels at Kastanás (JUNG 2002, pl. 41:388). From the arguments outlined, one can conclude that Phase 3 does not only run parallel to Level 13, but certainly also to the first part of Level 12 at Kastanás. PHASE 2B During this phase strap-handled bowls FT 295 with flat rim and a stroke decoration on it (ANthis volume, fig. 13:4) were used for the first time at Thessaloníki Toumba. Based on the present evidence, it might seem that at Kastanás these decorated bowls were invented earlier, as there is one example from a Level 13 context (JUNG 2002, 130, pl. 16:176), which should be contemporary with Thessaloníki Toumba Phase 3 (see above). However, even at Kastanás the type became only common during the more recent Level 12 (JUNG 2002, 130–131, pls. 29:297–299; 44:407). #264057 (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 13:5) is a wall sherd, which most probably can be assigned to a monochrome deep bowl FT 284/285 with broad reserved outer zone. At Kastanás this type of monochrome decoration (11.11) is not attested earlier than Level 12 (WENINGER – JUNG this volume, fig. 10:1,4,7) and has parallels in southern and central Greece mainly in Submycenaean and EPG contexts. LH III C reserved zones seem to be narrower (JUNG 2002, 103). KA 947 (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 13:9) is the shoulder fragment of a neck-handled amphora or hydria with part of a hanging spiral (or a spiraloid part of a tassel motif) and triple vertical wavy lines next to it. Combinations of similar motifs are only found from Kastanás Level 12 onwards (JUNG 2002, pls. 31:336; 38:368; 369; pl. 56:482). The well-preserved belly-handled amphora with monochrome neck, reserved and strokedecorated lip and triple horizontal wavy lines on the belly would not be out of place in Level 13 of Kastanás (cf. JUNG 2002, pl. 18:204,205), but their characteristics are very common in the more recent Levels 12 and 11 (cf. JUNG 2002, pls. 35:345; 55:481). Phase 2B seems to have been inhabited contemporaneously with a later part of the use period of Level 12 at Kastanás, and probably included the Submycenaean phase. DREOU

PHASE 2A In this phase the groups of compass-drawn concentric circles made their appearance at Thessaloníki Toumba. From that first phase on they were used to decorate large closed vessels (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 15:7,8) as well as open vessels (IBIDEM, fig. 15:5,6), just as at Kastanás,

Synchronisation of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba

191

where they first appeared in Level 12 (JUNG 2002, 118–119, 187–191, 384–385, 409–410 pls. 28:293,294; 40:386,387; 41:388–390). The stratigraphy of Thessaloníki Toumba proves that this motif group represents the last innovation from the south taken up by the potters’ workshops producing during the time of Level 12 of Kastanás – a fact that previously could only be surmised based on the relative chronology of the typological parallels from southern and central Greece (JUNG 2002, 226–227). The earliest multiple tassel motifs with lateral multiple spirals or multiple horns are found in this settlement phase, on open (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 14:6) as well as on closed vessels (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 15:3). At Kastanás multiple tassels are amongst those motifs, which were not common before Level 12, although it cannot be excluded that they were introduced a little earlier than that ultimate level of the LBA (cf. JUNG 2002, pls. 20:222; 21:241; 26:283; 35:345; 36:346; 38:369–371; 39:372,373,375). A deep bowl FT 284/285 A with very wide interior rim band and no outer rim band (ANDREOU this volume, fig. 14:3) has a parallel in Level 12 at Kastanás (JUNG 2002, pl. 22:249). Phase 2A can be dated to EPG and is thus parallel with the end of Level 12 at Kastanás. In conclusion one notes that the developments of the local Mycenaean pottery production at the two sites of Thessaloníki Toumba and at Kastanás were very comparable (see ANDREOU this volume, tab. 1). This parallel development of the Macedonian Mycenaean style in the wider region of the Thermaikos Gulf is a very good precondition for building up a relative chronology of the region. This relative chronology can be based on vertical stratigraphies that can complement each other because of this very fact of a considerably uniform stylistic development. The Mycenaean repertories of the Langadhás Basin, as exemplified by Ássiros Toumba (WARDLE 1980, 250–252), and of the Chalkidhikí peninsula, as represented by the Toumba of Prehistoric Olynthus, are comparable to those of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba, but they also show several diverging, local production trends (cf. JUNG 2003, 213, 216–218). RADIOCARBON DATES FROM THESSALONÍKI TOUMBA In this last chapter we will discuss the new 14C-ages (Tab. 1) on different charred plant remains from the sub-phases of Phase 4 at Thessaloníki Toumba. Due to the achieved high dating precision (nearly all standard deviations are ≤ 35 14C-yrs) these new 14C-ages are especially promising for comparisons with the Near Eastern historic-archaeological dates for the LH III C Early phase, as well as for comparisons with the 14C-ages from Levels 14b to 13 at Kastanás. In the following we will integrate the new 14C-ages first into the detailed relative chronology between Thessaloníki Toumba and Kastanás, as worked out in the previous paragraphs. As set out by ANDREOU this volume and JUNG 2002, this combined settlement chronology is agecalibrated to the southern Greek pottery sequences, based on synchronisms obtained for the Mycenaean pottery from both sites. Due to the high complexity of all underlying dating components and procedures, then, the new 14C-data from Thessaloníki offer us a hopefully sensitive and at any rate very welcome test-case for the validity of the combined dual-settlement age-model. The samples that were dated using the 14C-AMS-technique in Poznan (Lab Code: Poz) were all carbonized seeds from hearths, while those dated using the ß-decay-method by Demokritos (Lab Code: DEM) in Athens were small charcoal fragments from secure deposits of Phase 4. The samples POZ-17429, -17428, and -17430 are more likely to belong to Phase 4B than to Phase 4C, while POZ-17426 is more likely to be Phase 4C end. It is not possible to prove either case. The sample DEM-1652 is very likely from a spot that was disturbed in EIA. Sherds joining a dark burnished, knobbed jug with cut-away neck and incised decoration (similar to an example from Ássiros Phase 2: WARDLE 1980, 256, fig. 16:41. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007,

192

Reinhard Jung, Stelios Andreou, Bernhard Weninger

Laboratory

14

Poz-17441 Poz-17431 DEM-1285 DEM-1284 Poz-17429 Poz-17428 Poz-17430 DEM-1652 Poz-17426 DEM-1704 DEM-1443

2900 ± 35 2880 ± 30 3036 ± 25 3147 ± 35 2990 ± 30 2980 ± 30 2980 ± 35 2803 ± 30 3030 ± 35 3088 ± 30 3045 ± 46

C-Age (BP)

Material

Architectural Phase

Historical age expectation (calBC)

Seeds Seeds Charcoal Charcoal Seeds Seeds Seeds Charcoal Seeds Charcoal Charcoal

4A (end) 4A (end) 4A (end) 4B (end) 4C–4B 4C–4B 4C–4B 4C (end, disturbed?) 4C–4B 4C–4A 4D (beginning)

1150 1153 1155 1170 1172 1175 1180 1182 (but cf. text) 1185 1195 1210

Tab. 1 14C-ages from the Phase 4 deposits of Thessaloníki Toumba Phases in bold indicate a higher probability of phase assignation. Note that tree-ring calibrated ages are purposely not given (see text). For the complete radiocarbon data set from Thessaloníki Toumba cf. ANDREOU this volume, tabs. 1–2. – ANDREOU – MANIATIS – KOTSAKIS forthcoming

485–486 fig. 2:4) were found in close vicinity to the charcoal. Probably a LBA pithos was taken out from this area of room A 10 during the EIA. Such a disturbance, which apparently was not recognized during the excavation, may explain the late date of the sample, which otherwise came from the bottom of the trench. Given that this interpretation is correct, the sample DEM1652 (2803 ± 30 BP) should then date to the early Protogeometric phase. This is confirmed by its calibrated age 960 ± 40 calBC (± 68%).17 For the calculation of the historical age expectations as given for each sample (Tab. 1, right column) the same criteria were applied as for the Kastanás dates. Charcoal was judged to represent the beginning of an architectural phase (construction of buildings), rather than the middle or end. We acknowledge that all such estimates are error-prone interpolations. We are aiming at achieving minimal errors. As goes for secondary use or recycling of construction materials (‘old wood’ effect), we can admittedly only hope to identify such data as “outliers”. As an alternative effect, the insertion of freshly cut beams (‘young wood’ effect) for secondary repairs of long-standing buildings during a later sub-phase we judge is a rather minor factor. Seeds can be clearly assigned to different use phases, with much more confidence than for charcoal, due to their typically well-defined position in fire-places on house floors. In consequence, we can expect the 14C-ages on seeds to have phase positions that are defined with greater security within the overall relative sequence (Tab. 1, right column) than the 14C-ages on charcoal. As at Kastanás, we have again based the site stratigraphy ultimately on historical dates of Egyptian/Near Eastern derivation, the application of which requires a large number of interpolations, to allow for factors such as: (i) the duration of Mycenaean pottery phases, (ii) the numbers of building horizons in southern Greek key sites, and (iii) site-internal stratigraphic and architectural details. Despite their complexity, when finally combined, these factors are all the more useful since they supply us with a set of absolute dates than can be applied – not only to the individual architectural phases – but also to selected historical events (e.g. house-specific building activities, burning events, garbage disposal) within these phases. It is these events we

17

Tree-Ring 14C-Age calibration based on INTCAL04 data (REIMER ET AL. 2004) using CalPal-software (WENINGER – JÖRIS 2008).

Synchronisation of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba

193

are targeting as a background for the envisaged 14C-analysis, finally, since this is the level of stratigraphic modelling that is required in the 14C-age calibration (i.e. comparison with independently dated tree-ring samples, cf. below). To illustrate this procedure, let us focus on the 14C-sample sequence we have generated for Phases 4D–4B. These phases are all assigned to LH III C Early, the overall length of which we may estimate as ~ 40 years – if only for the aim of arranging each 14C-sample at some specific position within this time-span. Following this decision (and which remains open to future stratigraphic challenge), a schematic (site-specific) subdivision of LH III C Early was chosen, alloting 15 calender years to the first two Phases (4D and 4C) and 10 years to the last Phase (4B), which is also stratigraphically less well attested. This interpolation resulted in the following historical age-expectations (as given in Tab. 1): Phase 4D: 1210–1195 hist.BC;18 Phase 4C: 1195–1180 hist.BC; Phase 4B: 1180–1170 hist.BC. As a final allotment, Phase 4A was assigned a duration of 20 years, because judged by its deposits it should have had a longer duration than Phase 4B. We note that our estimate for the extent of Phase 4A is more error-prone than for previous Phases (4D–4B), due to its unclear assignation either to LH III C Early or to the start of LH III C Developed (ANDREOU this volume).19 It will have become clear, now, that we have chosen to quantify and subdivide the length of the LH III C Early phase in this manner only for the purposes of 14C-analysis. ANALYSIS AND AGE-CALIBRATION OF THE RADIOCARBON DATES Methods The technical background (software, mathematical procedures, algorithms, data) to the methods used in the present 14C-analysis is described in detail by WENINGER – JÖRIS 2008. This allows us to focus our attention here on the archaeological 14C-data. A general description of the applied software methods may nevertheless be useful to the reader interested in similar applications. We describe here, for the first time, a new software dialog for radiocarbon calibration called ‘Reservoir Explorer’. We have used this dialog in the analysis of the Thessaloníki 14C-data (Tab. 1). It is a component of the CalPal program, which is a (freeware) tool developed for explorative research in archaeology and paleoclimatology (www.calpal.de). Despite its maybe curious name, the ‘Reservoir Explorer’ is actually a procedure that supports the detailled visual-graphic analysis of archaeological 14C-data. This is as follows. One of the main applications of the CalPal software is the automated and rapid update of 14 C-age calibration curves, which is highly advisable (even with ~ annual schedule) due to the rapidly advancing research in all paleoenvironmental sciences. Fortunately, many of the mathematical and programming procedures involved in the construction of 14C-age calibration curves can be defined as modules. This allows for some large degree of automation in the construction of the requested calibration curve update. For such purposes, the CalPal software is equipped with a variety of dialogs (including the ‘Reservoir Explorer’), as well as with a large collection of tree-ring and archaeological databases, climate proxies, topographic and bathymetric data. Although most of the CalPal modules and dialogs (others are e.g.: CalCurveComposer, ClimateComposer) have been programmed for the special purpose of calibration curve construction in the Glacial periods, they are equally applicable to the construction of radiocarbon-based chronologies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

18

19

The only secure historic-archaeological synchronism for this time period is provided by the Sea Peoples destructions in Syria as a terminus ante quem for the start of LH III C (cf. WENINGER – JUNG this volume). The dates proposed here differ from those in ANDREOU (this volume, tab. 1) where a more traditional approach to the absolute dating of the sub-phases of LH III C is adopted.

194

Reinhard Jung, Stelios Andreou, Bernhard Weninger

Needless to say, it makes little difference to any formal software specification whether the requested application should be the construction of an extended Glacial 14C-age calibration curve (covering e.g. large amounts of marine data that must first be analysed in terms of marine carbon reservoir factors, or of climate data that must first be age-synchronised), or else – why not ? – use the same software to synchronise via 14C-ages a large number of archaeological sites (or cultures). This readily explains why – although the 14C-calibration software we are using is called ‘Reservoir Explorer’ – the corresponding dialog is actually a tool equally dedicated to the analysis of archaeological 14C-data. Indeed, both kinds of applications (archaeological and palaeoclimate) have a variety of interests in common, well beyond the simple ability to conveniently introduce and visualize age-shifts on different time-scales (which is the main purpose of the ‘Reservoir Explorer’). To continue with the given example, marine carbon reservoirs show major variations all over the world’s oceans, with especially strong dependence on latitude, such that a typical marine-reservoir study will require major mapping facilities, with high topographic resolution both on land (topographic) and under water (bathymetric). But this applies just as much to the archaeological analysis of 14C-ages. Studies in cultural chronology equally require major cartographic facilities, including facilities to produce bathymetric maps, which will allow for major changes in the past distribution of land areas and sea due to changing sea-levels. Despite all such similar requirements, in both applications (archaeological and palaeoclimate), the necessary minimal data structure for any 14C-analysis is (i) a list of 14C-ages and (ii) a list of corresponding calendric ages. With this data structure given, in the case of paired tree-ring and 14C-ages, we may use the CalCurveComposer (or, for more detailed analysis, the ‘Reservoir Explorer’) in the routine construction of a new 14C-age calibration curve. But this is the data structure now available for the Thessaloníki 14C-data. As shown in Tab. 1, here we also have a set of 14C-ages and a list of independently calculated calendric ages. Hence, we can immediately analyse the Thessaloníki data using the same software as otherwise used in the construction of a new 14C-age calibration curve. Of specific interest for the analysis of the Thessaloníki 14C-data set is the ability of the ‘Reservoir Explorer’ to produce graphs of any given quantitatively seriated archaeological 14Cages. Most important hereby is the ability of this dialog to add in other requested (databaseselectable) components of the Holocene tree-ring 14C-age calibration. Using the ‘Reservoir Explorer’, quite generally, the construction of an archaeological (or palaeoclimate) calibration graph is reduced to a small number of consecutive steps: (1) manual 14 C-data entry, (2) update of the corresponding database log-file, (3) selection of the new data set and of additional 14C-dates from a list box (SELECT CALDATA SETS), (4) choice of colours, symbol-type, symbol-size, (5) optional shift of the new data set using steering bars on one (or both) of the time-scales (14C- and calendric), (6) choice of additional graphic representation of any requested (old/stored or newly-built) 14C-age calibration curve (including error analysis) and – finally – by pressing a button (STORE) (7) the requested storage of the new calibration curve to disk (e.g. for further processing by standard graphic software). Optionally, the overall aesthetic impression of the calibration picture may be enhightened by choice e.g. of colour and symbols for each data set. Results What this means for the present application is illustrated first in Fig. 3 and – in higher graphic resolution – in Fig. 4 (upper and lower). In both cases we are using the ‘Reservoir Explorer’ – quite simply – to draw a picture of the historically seriated Thessaloníki 14C-data set. Note that the Thessaloníki dates are not being wiggle-matched to the calibration curve. Nor is the calibration curve being used for any other analytical purposes. Both the Thessaloníki data and the calibration curve are simply drawn on the screen. The drawing is performed within an

Synchronisation of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba

195

adjustable time-window (here: 1500–1000 calBC). The underlying zoom-function of the ‘Reservoir Explorer’ enables us to compare the Thessaloníki data, in high graphic resolution, with the shape of the calibration curve. It appears that the Thessaloníki data and the shape of the calibration curve have very little in common, so little, that we decided to avoid the 14Ccalibration of the individual archaeological ages. That is why Tab. 1 does not show numeric calage values for the given data. But this property of the Thessaloníki data is entirely as we expected. It corresponds to the results achieved in WENINGER – JUNG this volume. These results are, in brief, (i) that the internationally recommended INTCAL04-data (REIMER ET AL. 2004) has been constructed with far too much general smoothing applied and (ii) that in the age-range under study (1500–1000 calBC) two specific wiggles of the calibration curve appear to exist, that is at ~1180 and 1130 calBC. Since these effects may be related to some quite extreme (centennial scale) distortion of any unknowledged 14C-chronology, they must be taken seriously, even to the point of supporting an entirely explorative approach. In the illustration of our new calibration method (Fig. 3; 4b) let us now project onto the picture three additional, independently established 14C-datasets. These are: (i) Kastanás archaeological 14C-sequence, (ii) Belfast laboratory INTCAL04 tree-ring rawdata, and (iii) Seattle laboratory INTCAL04 raw data. The Belfast and Seattle laboratories have supplied major raw data sets for calibration curve construction in the entire Holocene, but here we focus on values that fall into the age-range of the LBA (window: 1500–1000 calBC). Again, none of the selected tree-ring (Belfast, Seattle) and archaeological data (Kastanás) are in use for analytical purposes. We are simply drawing all this data together in one picture. By this procedure, based on the ‘Reservoir Explorer’, we have at our disposal a visual representation of the (historically age-calibrated) Thessaloníki 14C-data. It is important to note that using the ‘Reservoir Explorer’, in this manner, does not require any prior assumptions towards the validity of the applied archaeological age-model. Indeed, the ‘Reservoir Explorer’ is equipped with a steering bar (situated directly under the main graphic window, cf. Fig. 3) by which it is immediately possible to shift the Thessaloníki data en block to younger (or older) calendric ages. The steering bar is equipped to apply (and measure the statistical consequences of) such data-shifts, with annual resolution. This allows both for testing the input archaeological age-model and – conveniently – would also allow the immediate storage of any necessary changes in the archaeological age-model. In both figures (Fig. 4 upper and lower), perhaps the most important result to note is the strong jump in Thessaloníki 14C-ages (by ~ 100 14C-yrs) for short-lived seed samples from Phase 4B and late Phase 4A (i.e. within one generation), in comparison to the essentially flat INTCAL04 calibration curve (for ages 1200–1150 calBC). This jump in 14C-ages also appears at Kastanás from Level 14b (N=3 charcoal) to early Level 13 (N=2 terrestrial animal bones, N=1 charcoal) (upper graph, ~ 1170 hist.BC), but is not well-documented in the Seattle and Belfast calibration raw-data (lower graph). The existence of this strong jump of 14C-ages down from 1200 calBC (~3050 BP) to 1180 calBC (~2900 BP) was previously derived from the Kastanás 14 C-data, with additional support by high-precision 14C-data measured by the Heidelberg laboratory (cf. WENINGER – JUNG this volume, fig. 5). We judge it significant that the Thessaloníki 14 C-data show essentially the same jump, both in terms of 14C-amplitude (~ 100 14C-BP) and calendric age (~ 1180–1150 hist.BC), as the Kastanás data. Notably, it appears that strong fluctuations in atmospheric 14C-values occurred in this age, as previously inferred. Nevertheless, we would like to refrain from any further interpretation of this observation, since 14Cmeasurements on archaeological samples – even if processed with numeric precision quite similar to the INTCAL04-data – do not correctly adhere to the strict quality criteria that must be upheld for requested standardized 14C-age calibration purposes. Even finally leaving aside this observation, we conclude that the near-perfect agreement between 14C-ages achieved at Thessaloníki and Kastanás for architectural phases that were independently synchronised (by archaeological criteria), is quite remarkable. This good agreement

196

Reinhard Jung, Stelios Andreou, Bernhard Weninger

between the two site-chronologies is especially evident for Kastanás Levels 14b/a–early 13, which have been derived to run parallel to Thessaloníki Phases 4D–4A, with historical dates ~ 1210–1170/50 hist.BC.20 Admittedly, even a quick glimpse at the wide spread of data in both graphs (Figs. 4a and 4b) demonstrates it is entirely possible to shift each of the site chronologies any number of calendric decades to the older, or younger. However, such a negative approach would not be making best use of the available data. We propose this is better achieved by putting positive focus on the achieved, excellent agreement between so many different sources of absolute and relative dating, as are now quite effectively integrated within the combined dual-settlement chronology from Thessaloníki and Kastanás. E.g. a shift of the Kastanás data set to the younger would eliminate the good fit of the N=6 dates on construction timbers of early Level 12 with the upward wiggle around 1130 calBC, a wiggle the existence of which has been confirmed e.g. by the dendrochronologial wiggle match of the Ássiros timbers (JUNG – WENINGER 2002, 290. – IDEM – IDEM 2004, 217. – WENINGER – JUNG this volume). A shift to the older by several decades would bring the 14C-data for the start of LH III C Early from both Thessaloníki Toumba and Kastanás in serious disagreement with historical dates that can be linked to Mycenaean relative chronology at the Syrian sites of Ugarit and Tell Kazel (cf. WENINGER – JUNG this volume). In conclusion, the dates from Thessaloníki Toumba, especially those on seeds, confirm the results obtained at Kastanás. Most important, the jump in 14C-ages in the first two decades of the 12th century calBC is documented at both sites by two groups of short-lived samples stratified at an earlier stage of LH III C Early and the end of that phase or the beginning of LH III C Developed. One might now go a step further and suppose that the dates of final Phase 4A at Thessaloníki Toumba and of early Level 13 at Kastanás can be ascribed to the same downward wiggle ~1180 calBC (Fig. 4 upper and lower). If this is accepted, both sites provide evidence for the conclusion that 1180 or 1180/75 calBC (WENINGER – JUNG this volume, fig. 5: Seattle and Heidelberg data) is a terminus ante quem for a developed stage of LH III C Early. This conclusion can be very well combined with the historical dating evidence available from the Near East and Egypt. In this way 14C-dates from Macedonia can confirm the historical chronology of Mycenaean Greece and one arrives at a date for the Mycenaean palace destructions of LH III B Final a few decades earlier than 1180 hist.BC, probably 1210/1200 hist.BC (cf. WENINGER – JUNG this volume). This would exclude any major updating (in the range of 50 calendric years) of the post-palatial age of Mycenaean Greece.

20

The overlapping of Phase 4A of Thessaloníki with Level 13 of Kastanás, suggested by the 14C-dates and shown in Fig. 4 upper, is not clearly supported by the correlation of the ceramic data of the two sites that were discussed earlier in this paper. On the other hand however, it can neither be precluded, since several stylistic features present in the 4A wheel-made assemblage are not out of place in LH III C Developed (ANDREOU this volume) with which phase Kastanás Level 13 is mainly correlated (WENINGER – JUNG this volume). One may note on the other hand that Thessaloníki Phase 4A could have overlapped, at least partly, with Kastanás Level 14a (see above in this paper and ANDREOU this volume, tab. 1), if the length of time allotted for the duration of the earlier subphases of Phase 4 in tab. 1 would have been shortened and a longer period would have been allowed for the development of Phase 4A. The substantial deposits of the latter subphase could support this alternative interpretation for the duration of the earlier part of Phase 4.

Synchronisation of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba

197

Bibliography ADRYMI-SISMANI, V. 2004–05 “Le palais de Iolkos et sa destruction”, BCH 128–129, 1–54. 2006 “Η γκρίζα ψευδομινύεια και η στιλβωμένη χειροποίητη κεραμική από τον μυκηναϊκό οικισμό Διμηνίου”, 85–110 in: MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 2006. ANDREOU, ST. 2001 “Exploring the Patterns of Power in the Bronze Age Settlements of Northern Greece”, 160–173 in: BRANIGAN 2001. 2003 “Η μυκηναϊκή κεραμική και οι κοινωνίες της κεντρικής Μακεδονίας κατά την Ύστερη εποχή του Χαλκού”, 191–210 in: KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA – PAPAKONSTANTINOU 2003. ANDREOU, ST. – K. PSARAKI 2007 “Tradition and Innovation in the Bronze Age Pottery of the Thessaloniki Toumba. Food and Drink Consumption and ‘Tableware’ Ceramics”, 397–420 in: TODOROVA – STEFANOVICH – IVANOV 2007. ANDREOU, ST. – Y. MANIATIS – K. KOTSAKIS Forthc. “Παρατηρήσεις στην απόλυτη χρονολόγηση των φάσεων της εποχής του χαλκού στην Τούμπα της Θεσσαλονίκης”, in: Εγνατία. Επιστημονική επετηρίδα της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής. Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας. Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης. ANDRIKOU, E. 2006 “The Late Helladic III Pottery”, 11–179 in: ANDRIKOU – ARAVANTINOS – GODART – SACCONI – VROOM 2006. ANDRIKOU, E. – V. L. ARAVANTINOS – L. GODART – A. SACCONI – J. VROOM 2006 Thèbes. Fouilles de la Cadmée II.2. Les tablettes en linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou. Le contexte archéologique. La céramique de la Odos Pelopidou et la chronologie du linéaire B. Pisa – Rome. BATZIOU-EFSTATHIOU, A. 1994 “Μυκηναϊκός κεραμεικός κλίβανος”, 215–224 in: Θεσσαλία. Δεκαπέντε χρόνια αρχαιολογικής έρευνας,

1975–1990. Αποτελέσματα και προοπτικές. Πρακτικά διεθνούς συνεδρίου, Λυών, 17–22 Απριλίου 1990. Τόμος Α / La Thessalie. Quinze années de recherches archéologiques, 1975–1990. Bilans et perspectives. Actes du colloque international, Lyon, 17–22 Avril 1990. Volume A. Athens. BRANIGAN, K. (ed.) 2001 Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 4). London – New York. CHADWICK, J. (ed.) 1963 The Mycenae Tablets III (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series vol. 52, part 7). Philadelphia. DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 2003 “The Pottery from the Destruction Levels in Midea: Late Helladic III B2 Late or Transitional Late Helladic III B2/Late Helladic III C Early?”, 77–92 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. EVELY, D. (ed.) 2006 Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (BSA Suppl. 39). London. FELSCH, R. C. S. (ed.) 1996 Kalapodi. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis. Vol. 1. Mainz. FRENCH, E. B. 1963 “New Work on the House of the Oil Merchant and the House of Sphinxes”, 30–34 in: CHADWICK 1963. 1965 “Late Helladic IIIA 2 Pottery from Mycenae”. BSA 60, 159–202. HÄNSEL, B. 1989 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Grabung und der Baubefund (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 7). Kiel. 2002 “Zusammenfassende Bemerkungen zum Siedlungsverlauf in Kastanas – Kontinuität und Bevölkerungswandel”, 11–27 in: JUNG 2002.

198

Reinhard Jung, Stelios Andreou, Bernhard Weninger

HOCHSTETTER, A. 1984 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die handgemachte Keramik. Schichten 19 bis 1 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 3). Berlin. JACOB-FELSCH, M. 1996 “Die spätmykenische bis frühprotogeometrische Keramik”, 1–213 in: FELSCH 1996. JUNG, R. 2002 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Schichten 19 bis 11 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 18). Kiel. 2003 “Η μυκηναϊκή κεραμική της Μακεδονίας και η σημασία της”, 211–225 in: KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA – PAPAKONSTANTINOU 2003. 2004 “Η χρήση της μυκηναϊκής και πρωτογεωμετρικής κεραμικής στη Μακεδονία”, AEMTH 16, 2002 [2004], 35–46. 2006 Χρονολογία comparata. Vergleichende Chronologie von Südgriechenland und Süditalien von ca. 1700/1600 bis 1000 v. u. Z. (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 26. DenkschrWien 348). Vienna. KARAMITROU-MEDESSIDI, G. 2002 “Αιανή 2000. Ανασκαφή νεκροταφείου ύστερης εποχής χαλκού”, AEMTH 14, 2000 [2002], 591–606. 2003 “Μυκηναϊκά Αιανής – Ελιμιώτιδας και Άνω Μακεδονίας”, 167–190 in: KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA – PAPAKONSTANTINOU 2003. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. – Μ. PAPAKONSTANTINOU (eds.) 2003 Η Περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού Κόσμου. Β’ Διεθνές Διεπιστημονικό Συμπόσιο, 26–30 Σεπτεμβρίου, Λαμία

1999. Πρακτικά. / 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium ‘The Periphery of the Mycenaean World’, 26–30 September, Lamia 1999. Proceedings. Athens. MCDONALD, W. A. – N. C. WILKIE (eds.) 1992 Excavations at Nichoria in Southwestern Greece II. The Bronze Age Occupation. Minneapolis. MAZARAKIS-AINIAN, A. (ed.) 2006 Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας 1. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Βόλος 27.2–2.3.2003. Vólos. MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1983 Orchomenos V. Mycenaean Pottery from Orchomenos, Eutresis and other Boeotian Sites (Bayer. Akad. Wiss. Phil.-Hist. Kl. Abhandl. N. F. H. 89). Munich. PODZUWEIT, CH. 2007(†) Studien zur spätmykenischen Keramik (Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 14). Wiesbaden. POPHAM, M. – E. SCHOFIELD – S. SHERRATT 2006 “The Pottery”, 137–231 in: EVELY 2006. REIMER, P. J. – M. G. L. BAILLIE – E. BARD – A. BAYLISS – J. W. BECK – C. J. H. BERTRAND – P. G. BLACKWELL – C. E. BUCK – G. S. BURR – K. B. CUTLER – P. E. DAMON – R. L. EDWARDS – R. G. FAIRBANKS – M. FRIEDRICH – T. P. GUILDERSON – A. G. HOGG – K. A. HUGHEN – B. KROMER – F. G. MCCORMAC – S. W. MANNING – C. B. RAMSEY – R. W. REIMER – S. REMMELE – J. R. SOUTHON – M. STUIVER – S. TALAMO – F. W. TAYLOR – J. VAN DER PLICHT – C. E. WEYHENMEYER 2004 “IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26–0 ka BP”, Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058. REY, L. 1921 “Observations sur les premiers habitats de la Macédoine. Recueillies par le Service Archéologique de l’Armée d’Orient 1916–1919”, BCH 41–43, 1917–1919 [1921]. RUPPENSTEIN, F. 2007 Die submykenische Nekropole. Neufunde und Neubewertung (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 18). Munich. SCHÖNFELD, G. 1988 “Bericht zur bemalten mykenischen Keramik, Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83. Die Phasen SH IIIA-Spät bis SH IIIB-Mitte”, AA, 153–211. SHELMERDINE, C. W. 1992 “Part III: Late Helladic IIIA2–IIIB2 Pottery”, 495–517, 586–617 in: MCDONALD – WILKIE 1992.

Synchronisation of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba

199

THOMAS, P. M. 1992 LH IIIB:1 Pottery from Tsoungiza and Zygouries. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [Ann Arbor Nr. 9302568]). TODOROVA, H. – M. STEFANOVICH – G. IVANOV (eds.) 2007 The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon

Praehistoricus, Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres–Amphipolis (Greece), 27.09–01.10.2004 (In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul 2). Sofia. VOIGTLÄNDER, W. 2003 Die Palastkeramik (Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 10). Mainz. WARDLE, K. 1980 “Excavations at Assiros 1975–79. A Settlement Site in Central Macedonia and its Significance for the Prehistory of South-East Europe”, BSA 75, 229–267. WARDLE, K. A. – M. NEWTON – P. I. KUNIHOLM 2007 “Troy VIIB2 Revisited. The Date of the Transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Northern Aegean”, 481– 498 in: TODOROVA – STEFANOVICH – IVANOV 2007. WENINGER, B. – O. JÖRIS 2008 “A 14C-Age Calibration Curve for the last 60 ka: The Greenland-Hulu U/Th Time-scale and its Impact on Understanding the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Western Eurasia”, Journal of Human Evolution 55, 772–781.

200

Reinhard Jung, Stelios Andreou, Bernhard Weninger

Fig. 1

Synchronisation of Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toumba

Fig. 2

201

202

Reinhard Jung, Stelios Andreou, Bernhard Weninger

BARTŁOMIEJ LIS

THE SEQUENCE OF LATE BRONZE / EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY FROM CENTRAL GREEK SETTLEMENTS – A FRESH LOOK AT OLD AND NEW EVIDENCE∗

INTRODUCTION1 The definition of Submycenaean settlement pottery has always been a difficult task for archaeologists. The results of the excavations at Volos, where absence of clearly Submycenaean material was noticed, initially led Theocharis (THEOCHARIS 1961, 126–127) to conclude that this was either accidental or that this phase was absent at the site. Yet, later (THEOCHARIS 1964, 51) he remarked that it is impossible to differentiate between Late Bronze or Early Iron Age fragments of monochrome cups and deep bowls. Jeremy Rutter, in his work on pottery at Corinth, when searching for criteria to distinguish between LH III C Late and Submycenaean settlement pottery, came to the conclusion that the latter term (Submycenaean) should be abandoned as Submycenaean grave assemblages, used to define this period’s pottery, are contemporary with settlement deposits with LH III C Late pottery (RUTTER 1978). Since then only two settlements in southern Greece have been claimed to have produced possible Submycenaean strata with distinctive, that is, diagnostic, pottery: Tiryns and Asine. Ironically, the publishers of both corpora avoided the controversial term, calling their material Frühe Eisenzeit I (Early Iron Age I) and Final Mycenaean respectively (PAPADIMITRIOU 1988. – SANTILLO FRIZELL 1986). The period immediately following Submycenaean in the generally accepted chronological sequence is Early Protogeometric. A clear ceramic definition of EPG should be crucial for defining Submycenaean settlement pottery, yet the scarcity of EPG evidence is even more dramatic than is that of Submycenaean – in southern Greece only Asine has provided published evidence for uninterrupted continuity between Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. However, the phase immediately following Final Mycenaean is called PG I by the publisher, B. Wells (WELLS 1983), and there is controversy over how this phase should be synchronized with the Attic chronological sequence, not to mention the problems of stratigraphic interpretation (LEMOS 2002, 5). In such circumstances the archaeological evidence from the eastern part of Central Greece might be helpful, for some of the sites there were apparently in use without any detectable

∗

1

In the first place, I thank Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy for her kind invitation and warm atmosphere during the workshop. I would like to express my gratitude to Aleydis Van de Moortel for inviting me to participate in the Mitrou Archaeological Project and to study part of the ceramic material. Without her support, my presence at this conference might not have come true. I am especially indebted to Jeremy Rutter, who has been the guide through the pottery tables and has willingly commented on several versions of this text. I thank Reinhard Jung for his discussions of the text prior and following the workshop as well as for providing me with the references and scans of the latest relevant literature; and Florian Ruppenstein for critical comments and sharing of his most recent works. Furthermore, I am grateful to Krzysztof Nowicki for the reading and comments to the latest version of the manuscript; and Tina Ross, who did the inkings even when asked at the very last moment. Central Greece, as used here, does not include the region of Attica.

204

Bartłomiej Lis

interruption at least from final stages of the Bronze Age into the Protogeometric period. These are the settlements of Kynos and Mitrou and the sanctuary of Kalapodi (Fig. 1).2 Among them, Kalapodi stands out by virtue of having yielded a final publication of the relevant pottery and its well-documented stratigraphical sequence (FELSCH 1996). Therefore, this site constitutes an excellent starting point for the analysis of the pottery sequence at the transition to the Early Iron Age in this part of Greece. KALAPODI The LH III C and EPG pottery has been presented by M. Jacob-Felsch in two preliminary reports (JACOB-FELSCH 1987a. – JACOB-FELSCH 1987b), which were followed by her final publication (JACOB-FELSCH 1996) and a slight, yet important, modification of terminology by the excavator, R. Felsch (FELSCH 2001, 193, n. 3 and FELSCH 2007b). It is very interesting and instructive to follow how the chronological attribution of pottery from the 23 layers “Schichten” spanning the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age transition has changed over the years (Tab. 1). It is evident that the chronology has been significantly modified, especially with regard to the latest part of the sequence (i.e. the uppermost of the analysed layers). The duration of the EPG phase has constantly increased at the expense of the Submycenaean phase. The most recent revision of the Kalapodi chronology in 2007 established that the EPG phase encompasses Layers 16 to 23. This expansion of the EPG phase has reduced the Submycenaean phase to a meager three layers, 13 to 15. It would have become even shorter if it had not been for the LH III C Late phase that was shifted from the single Layer 13 down (stratigraphically) to Layers 11–12. This shift was appropriate, for the wavy band krater (Fig. 2:264) shows links with Lefkandi phase 2b and 3 and the LH III C Late East Mainland–Aegean Koine (MOUNTJOY this volume). Incomprehensible, however, is the reassignment of Layer 13 to the Submycenaean phase. Even in the final publication Jacob-Felsch (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 100) maintains that Layer 13 is to be equated with Lefkandi Phase 3, invariably dated to LH III C Late. Moreover, P. Mountjoy (RMDP, 39 table II) has recently synchronized this phase of Lefkandi with the middle and not the end of the LH III C Late period. There are even more controversies concerning another Submycenaean layer, Layer 15. Part of this layer in the area K25 N could not be well separated from underlying layers (4 and possibly also 7); a fact which seriously undermines the reliability and thus chronological utility of some 30% of the pottery from Layer 15 (404 out of 1395 sherds found in this layer came from area K25 N). Moreover, Layer 15 has been interpreted as a levelling fill, therefore it cannot be treated in the same way as other strata that represent rather short-time accumulations of debris; this up to 30 cm thick fill may contain a considerably higher amount of earlier sherds. Finally, in the closing discussion of the Kalapodi sequence, Jacob-Felsch calls Layers 13–15 not Submycenaean but “a transitional phase between symptoms of deterioration of the LH III C Late phase and the first impulses of the new era, the so-called Submycenaean phase” (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 99). If the following layers (16–17) were already assigned to the transition to EPG phase (and after modification in FELSCH 2001 to EPG proper, Tab. 1), an important question arises – where is the Submycenaean phase at Kalapodi? To conclude this review of the Kalapodi stratigraphy, I would like to propose conflating Layers 11–12 and 13–15 into a single horizon characterized by pottery with

2

The settlement of Volos Nea Ionia, published by M. Sipsie-Eschbach (SIPSIE-ESCHBACH 1991), is not included in the main discussion because of its complicated stratigraphy and a number of apparently mixed deposits. M. Jacob-Felsch in her review of this publication invested a lot of effort into re-interpreting the stratigraphy and associated finds (JACOB-FELSCH 1994), but the result, although undoubtedly successful, is not relevant to the specific concerns of the following study. Low number and decorative austerity of pottery fragments remaining in a meaningful stratigraphical relation does not allow pottery sequence to be discussed in a comparable degree of precision offered by other sites.

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

205

LH III C Late features.3 This should not be interpreted as another plea for the abandonment of the term Submycenaean, but I think it is a reasonable strategy not to use this term without providing a set of diagnostic criteria for it. Layers 13–15 contain virtually no ceramic criteria that would permit a differentiation of Submycenaean from the preceding LH III C Late phase. The only detectable changes include a growing proportion of handmade Kitchenware with an increased number of imitations of small Mycenaean forms and the first appearance of the lekythos. The Kitchenware “Küchengeschirr”, pottery class both wheel- and handmade and executed in rather coarse pale clay (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 78-80), should, in my opinion, be considered a similar phenomenon as the White Ware further south. The White Ware, although present, is indeed very rare at Kalapodi (only 10 sherds) and cannot be seen as a kind of widely available (possibly cheaper) alternative for local fine pottery. If such an interpretation of Kitchenware is correct, its increase in Layers 13–15 would constitute a link with Lefkandi Phase 3 (later stage), where White Ware reaches a 40–50% share in the whole assemblage also including deep bowls and other small shapes in its repertoire (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 175). The appearance of the lekythos cannot be considered a valid criterion, since it is a form that elsewhere already begins in LH III C Early (MDP, 143). The continuation of decorative and morphological simplification in addition to the technological deterioration of the pottery, first noticeable in Layers 11–12, cannot be viewed as a genuinely useful marker for a new phase. From a new phase defined in ceramic terms one should expect more precise criteria, especially such of wider, inter-site applicability. Therefore, it is more reasonable to view the changes at Kalapodi as simply the intensification of trends observable within one and the same phase.4 Following the latest Kalapodi chronology equating Layers 16–23 with EPG period, I would like to suggest combining the two Horizons 8 and 9 into one and calling it, in an already presented manner, Horizon 8/9. Some differences between the two horizons are discernible, yet the number of sherds in Layers 18–23 is too low (less than 300 per layer) to support a robust chronological distinction between them.5 The results of the revision are shown in Tab. 2, which also presents Jacob-Felsch’s original attributions of layers to horizons, along with the total number of sherds for each layer and each pottery class defined by fabric and mode of manufacture.6 Now we can discuss the criteria for distinguishing LH III C Late and EPG phases at Kalapodi. Layers 11 to 15 contained only a small number of distinctively decorated sherds, hence it is difficult to present a substantial list of diagnostic criteria for local LH III C Late pottery. However, this seems to be true of LH III C Late pottery assemblages everywhere, which are defined more by what is missing than by what is new (RUTTER 1977, 4. – PODZUWEIT 1988, 222).

3 4

5

6

In order to avoid multiplication of terminologies I would call Layers 11–15 Horizon 6/7. I would refrain from including two lower layers, i.e. 9 and 10, into this LH III C Late horizon. Decisive is the presence of a large warrior krater in Layer 10. Such an elaborate example of Pictorial Style is more at home in the LH III C Middle phase. Frequency of White Ware, which may be taken as a criterion, should not apply to Kalapodi, since only 10 out of 14719 (Layers 1–15) sherds belong to this class. The dating of Layers 9–10 in the LH III C Middle period is still in accordance with their synchronisation with Lefkandi Phase 2b, since the beginning of this Lefkandi phase is set in LH III C Middle Advanced (RMDP, 39 table II). The rest of that phase of the Lefkandi Xeropolis settlement is to be synchronized with Layers 11–12 (Krater no. 264 [Fig. 2] from Layer 11 is said to be close to kraters popular in Lefkandi Phase 2b; RMDP, 815). Fine pottery represents only 36% of the total sherd number from Layers 18–23. The rest consists of usually nondiagnostic handmade cooking pottery, Kitchenware and pithoi. This and the following Tab. 3 constitute chronological extensions of tables 1 and 2 compiled by J. Rutter for the LH III C Middle workshop (RUTTER 2007). The only difference between my Tab. 2 and Rutter’s table 3 is that I have combined numbers for areas K 25 and K 25N. In Tab. 3, I have also included closed shapes and reduced the number of open shapes. Accordingly, their relative frequencies are counted against the total fine painted sherds and not, as in Rutter’s table 2, against the total identified open shapes.

206

Bartłomiej Lis

Accordingly, the marker of Horizon 6/7 pottery is the impoverishment of the repertoire of shapes and motifs (Fig. 2). The most popular among open shapes are monochrome and linear deep bowls and cups. Kraters are also present and are decorated with a double wavy band, a panelled pattern or spirals; large closed shapes (mostly fragments of amphoras, hydrias and jugs) are adorned with bands and tassels. Trays, lekythoi, kylikes, a single trefoil-mouthed jug and stirrup jars are also attested (Tab. 3). The pottery from Layers 16–23 at Kalapodi (Fig. 3, Tab. 3), assigned to the EPG period, may be characterized as follows: • the assemblage consists mainly of cups and deep bowls and large closed shapes (amphoras/ hydrias/jugs). In addition, there are a few kylikes, kraters, small jugs and amphoriskoi; • first use of compass-drawn decoration on the shoulder of large closed vessels; particular attention has been accorded to the renowned prototype amphora (Fig. 3:391), yet it is worth stressing that the same Layer 16 contained sherds coming from amphoras decorated in a more standard way typical of PG amphoras, i.e. with sets of concentric circles on the shoulder (Fig. 3:392); • appearance of the neck-handled amphora (Tab. 3); • popularity of monochrome deep bowls: their share in the fine painted class rose from 7% in Layers 11–15 to 14% in Layers 16–23; • presence of deep bowls decorated with a dense version of a horizontal wavy band in the reserved handle zone (Fig. 3:418)7, the wavy band is also used to decorate cups (Fig. 3:411); • appearance of the so-called salami8 deep bowl (Fig. 3:406); • continuation of use of the medium-band cups; • use of high ring bases and very low conical feet for open shapes (Fig. 3:407,410,377); • application of simple decorative motifs on closed shapes – tassel, scroll, wavy band or zigzag; • presence of some vessels that find their best parallels among vases found in graves referred to as Submycenaean (Fig. 3:411,418,423 and JACOB-FELSCH 1996, Taf. 44:395). An objection, as regards the EPG date of this phase, could be raised. Since Layers 16–23 contain so much pottery of Mycenaean character, including some that might be actually called Submycenaean, why cannot we call these layers – Submycenaean? First of all, the attribution to EPG has been proposed by R. Felsch after the analysis of other, non-ceramic finds (FELSCH 2001, 193, n. 3). In purely pottery terms, the most important feature is the appearance of compass-drawn decoration applied to amphoras with an already ovoid profile, typical of the PG period.9 It is important to stress that in this case we are dealing not only with a new ornament but also with the introduction of a completely new device for its application. The place where this invention first occurred has been a matter of an intense scientific debate (VERDELIS 1958. – JACOB-FELSCH 1988. – CATLING 1998. – PAPADOPOULOS – VEDDER – SCHREIBER 1998) and is decisive in the discussion of chronology and synchronization of Central Greek settle-

7

8

9

The first example of a deep bowl decorated with a wavy band comes from Layer 10 (Kalapodi no. 230) yet that particular wavy band is very wide. The dense version of that motif, which may also be called a zigzag, shows up first in Layer 15 but is most frequent in Layers 18–19 constituting some 3% of all painted sherds. In order to define wavy band as dense, the distance between two neighbouring apexes of the band has to be similar or even smaller than the breadth of the band. This particular decoration also has another ‘charcuterie’ label – the ugly sausage motif (PAPADOPOULOS 2005, 442). The discussion of the pottery types with Submycenaean affinities will be carried out under the heading “Synchronisms with Southern Greece – Argolid and Corinthia”.

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

207

ments with other regions, especially Attica. This debate is still inconclusive, yet it seems that the hypothesis that compass-drawn decoration was first developed in Attica is still the most plausible one. Three tombs in Athens, including two newly discovered and one previously unpublished, provide important hints. Grave 126 (Fig. 5; Metrostation Syntagma; PARLAMA – STAMPOLIDIS 2000, 163) contained a cup on an apparently conical foot decorated with a very thin and stretched wavy band and an oinochoe decorated with two motifs hanging from the neck-shoulder transition. One is a hand-drawn spiral, while the other consists of a set of four concentric circles executed with the help of the compass. The number of concentric circles in the set is low. Usually, even EPG Athenian vases feature five or more well-executed concentric circles in a set, in contrast with early Central Greek amphoras decorated with only 3 to 5, sometimes poorly-drawn, circles (CATLING 1998). Not knowing this particular oinochoe one could gain an impression that this kind of decoration was already introduced to Athens in a very developed form, without any formative stage. Plausibly the oinochoe represents not only one of the first attempts with the use of the compass device for decoration10 but also an expression of potter’s pride in his/her skills. These skills were very quickly improved in Athens, as is attested by grave 146 from Kerameikos, dated to the Transitional SM/PG phase (RUPPENSTEIN this volume). One of the vases found there is a circle skyphos11 decorated with no less than nine concentric circles. Grave 57, also dated to this Transitional SM/PG phase, provides further evidence for an early introduction of compass-drawn circles (Fig. 6; Metrostation Akropolis; PARLAMA – STAMPOLIDIS 2000, 44–45; dating: RUPPENSTEIN 2007, tab. 40a). Two lekythoi were found there – one decorated with hand-drawn, the other one with compass-drawn semicircles. It seems that in the early stage of the PG period both techniques were used simultaneously, plausibly by one and the same potter. If one accepts the hypothesis of Athenian precedence, at least in terms of the compass use, the amphoras from Kalapodi and other sites in central and northern Greece (and also Troy) cannot be earlier than the Attic Transitional SM/PG (“Stufe IV” as defined by RUPPENSTEIN 2007). The evidence from chamber tombs of Elateia (Fig. 1) is in favour of this hypothesis and the terminology proposed for Kalapodi: in Elateia tombs the amphoras with sets of concentric circles are stratigraphically no earlier than the beginning of the Protogeometric period (DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999, 199). The high frequency of pottery of Mycenaean character attested in Kalapodi Horizon 8/9 and the belated adoption or even rejection of some novelties should not come as a surprise, but rather expected in the face of ceramic regionalism and conservatism. The more remote a site is from the centers of development, the more longevity of certain shapes and decorative motifs should be awaited. One of the most prominent examples of this phenomenon is the settlement of Kastanas in Macedonia. Monochrome deep bowls and carinated cups appear there very late. In Layer 11, dated to the Middle Protogeometric period, there is no trace of conical feet and some earlier motifs, such as tassels or antithetical streamers, are still in use (JUNG 2002. – JUNG 2003). Kastanas is an extreme example, yet similar developments on a smaller scale may be expected at Kalapodi. In such cases layers should be

10

11

In the recent study by F. Ruppenstein (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, tab. 40a) Grave 126 was dated to “Stufe III”, representing the late stage of Submycenaean, prior to the Transitional Submycenaean/EPG phase. However, this dating has been based on Ruppenstein’s observation that the concentric circles were hand-drawn. Even with the different assumption, this tomb would not have been dated much later because of the style of the accompanying cup and the overall decoration and shape of the oinochoe. Judging by the photo itself, there is no difference between this set of concentric circles and the sets on EPG amphoras from Mitrou examined by the author. The solidly painted centre might have obscured the hole from the compass foot. Moreover, this hole is not always discernible on the EPG amphoras. The term skyphos will be used here referring to a shape of a deep bowl with clear Protogeometric character (high conical foot or decoration consisting of concentric circles, enclosed zigzag or double or triple bands on reserved lower body).

208

Bartłomiej Lis

dated by the stylistically latest vases.12 For Kalapodi this remark gains even more importance due to the nature of the layers. These are not closed destruction deposits but they rather represent a ritual refuse that accumulated in layers of ash over some time (FELSCH 2007b, 7). Layers 24–27 at Kalapodi, following EPG Horizon 8/9, were dated by A. Nitsche (NITSCHE 1987, 40) to the MPG period, whereas Layer 28 was set at the transition to the Late Protogeometric (LPG) period. However, most of the vases published find their best parallels in the EPG period or even earlier (Fig. 4). Interestingly, this view was also shared by A. Nitsche. The skyphos with two zigzags enclosed between bands (Fig. 4:1), a successor of the deep bowl with dense wavy band, is chronologically firmly fixed by a close parallel from Weinberg’s House at Corinth (Fig. 13:2). The deep bowl with dense wavy band (Fig. 4:2) is a link with the preceding EPG horizon (Fig. 3:418), attesting to the longevity of that type. The shallow bowl with handles placed on the rim (Fig. 4:3) cannot, according to the Lefkandi evidence (DESBOROUGH 1979/80, 303), be later than EPG. Another very interesting and equally important feature of Layers 24–28 is the presence of both open and closed shapes decorated with simple sets of only two or three concentric circles (Fig. 4:4,5). Their best parallels are to be found in PG I Asine (Fig. 7:3,4),13 particularly because the sets on Asine skyphoi are sometimes enclosed by two bands as are the zigzags on contemporary skyphoi. Similarly decorated vases, both open (Mycenaean kylix) and closed, were found in Thessalian Phiki (Fig. 7:1,2), yet they cannot be precisely dated. However, the shape of the kylix suggests a date early in the PG period. P. Mountjoy (RMDP, 856) has even considered them to be Submycenaean. An important feature of the neck-handled amphora (Fig. 4:5) is the ring base; whereas the amphora from Layer 16 (Fig. 3:391) still has a flat and raised base. The conical feet of open shapes are already higher (Fig. 4:6), yet the true high conical ones, so abundant at MPG Toumba Building (CATLING – LEMOS 1990, pl. 51), are totally absent.14 There are three vases for which an MPG date was suggested. The small closed shape with its two enclosed zigzags (Fig. 4:7) finds no good parallel in either of the PG phases, yet the decoration itself is very common in the EPG phase as can be seen on the skyphos Fig. 4:1 and Fig. 13:2. The circle skyphos (Fig. 4:8), found on the upper edge of Layer 27, is indeed of the type well attested in the Lefkandi Toumba fill, yet this type is present as early as Transitional SM/PG phase (Kerameikos Grave 146, see above), which does not exclude an EPG date for the Kalapodi vessel. The skyphos with two bands on the lower body (Fig. 4:9), again common in the Toumba fill, was found in the “Oberkante” of Layer 28 (OK 28) at Kalapodi and is said to be the latest vessel in this layer (NITSCHE 1987, 40). Both observations suggest that it might be an intrusion from the following Layer 29, a substantial fill indicative of reorganization of the sanctuary.15 Nevertheless, one does not need to question the attribution of the skyphos – the assemblage of Tomb 101 from Torone (PAPADOPOULOS 2005, 172–177, fig. 156–157) shows that a similar skyphos16 was associated with another skyphos datable to the EPG period, decorated with enclosed zigzags. Moreover, skyphoi from the Toumba

12

13

14

15

16

This approach seems to be generally valid. However, an example of another dating strategy sensibly applied to closed deposits is provided by S. Vitale (VITALE 2006). A single skyphos of that type was found in the PG III phase (WELLS 1983, fig. 184:641). On problems with interpretation of Asine stratigraphy see chapter “Introduction”. This feature of Kalapodi Layers 24–28 is referred to as accidental (NITSCHE 1987, 38 n. 97). Such an approach is symptomatic for the scholar’s conviction that the layers date to MPG period. In fact, true high conical feet that, based on the Lefkandi evidence, one would associate with this type of skyphos are to be found in Layer 29 (Fig. 4:10). The decoration of the skyphos 101.7 from Torone (PAPADOPOULOS 2005, fig. 157:g) is quite sophisticated. The main decoration consists of a motif that J. Papadopoulos terms a ‘single sausage’. It is visible in the handle zone, where the reserved underside is extended following the line of the decoration of the upper handle part. Below this motif, a thick band is applied, again discernible only in the handle zone and elsewhere merging with the single sausage motif. Further below there are two thin bands. This is definitely not an exact parallel for the Kalapodi skyphos, yet influence coming from the North cannot be excluded.

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

209

fill tend to have three or even four and not two bands on the reserved lower body, which may not be without chronological significance.17 However, even if one is willing to synchronize the burnt Layer 28 with the Toumba fill, this still contradicts Nitsche’s dating (transition to LPG). Moreover, his own chronological assumptions seem to be contradictory in their own terms – Layer 28 is dated to the transition to LPG, yet all preceding layers are illustrated mostly with EPG vases, whereas no obvious gap in stratigraphy was noticed (NITSCHE 1987, 38). The reason for this internal inconsistency is not difficult to trace. Nitsche’s evaluation of Kalapodi material took place before the final publication of the material from Lefkandi Toumba building (CATLING – LEMOS 1990). He assumed that material from that building represented a stage of MPG, when, under Attic influence, the transition to LPG was taking place (NITSCHE 1987, 38, n. 98). Since the circle skyphos (upper edge of Layer 27, Fig. 4:8) was equated with the vase from the floor deposit of Toumba building, Layer 28 was dated to the transition to LPG. However, this skyphos does not have to be that late, nor is it agreed that the Toumba Building represents such a late stage in the MPG period. These reconsiderations lead me to a suggestion that at least Layers 24–27 do not represent MPG, but a more advanced (in relation to Horizon 8/9) stage of the EPG period. Burnt Layer 28 may be contemporary with the Toumba Building in Lefkandi, but, as has been shown, does not have to be. Following the terminology used for earlier strata, Layers 24–28 are termed Horizon 10. One should refrain from any ultimate statements about the dates of these layers until the final publication of relevant material. What can be claimed with confidence, however, is that in Horizon 10 the Mycenaean elements, so dominant in Layers 16–23, are no longer prevailing. Conspicuously, the amphoras decorated with concentric circles on the shoulder, are missing in Layers 24–28 after their initial appearance in Layers 16–18. After the revision of Kalapodi’s stratigraphical sequence I would like to turn towards two settlement sites, Mitrou and Kynos, that are crucial for our understanding of the Late Bronze – Early Iron Age transition in East Lokris, also in ceramic terms. MITROU The evidence for the phase at Mitrou that could be synchronized with Kalapodi Layers 11–15 is rather scarce and might be termed as unusual. A highly intriguing deposit of miniature vases and a wheelmade cooking pot recovered in Building C should be included in this discussion (Fig. 8:1–8). The vessels and their architectural context have already been presented by A. Van de Moortel (VAN DE MOORTEL this volume, p. 362, fig. 6). The assemblage is not particularly helpful for establishing the ceramic sequence but provides invaluable insight into less profane activities of Mitrou inhabitants. The dating of this deposit is very difficult in ceramic terms: I know of no good, chronologically related parallels for such crude miniatures, apart from a single vase from Asine (whose context is not precisely datable, Fig. 8:9), a miniature tray from a disturbed context at Kalapodi (Fig. 8:11) and a shallow handleless bowl (Fig. 8:10) serving as a lamp from Layer 13 at the same site. The Mitrou miniatures imitate, but seldom very closely, Mycenaean shapes whose period of use was often very long, insufficient for narrowing down the deposit’s chronology. Only the one-handled conical bowl (FS 242, Fig. 8:2), the tray (FS 322, Fig. 8:6) and the possible kalathos (FS 291, Fig. 8:8) provide a terminus ante quem non of LH III C Middle date. The presence of the tray’s imitations may narrow down this terminus to the advanced phase of the LH III C Middle period (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 160. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 87–88). Cooking pots are not as precisely datable, but the closest parallels for the vase of this kind from Mitrou (Fig. 8:5) come from Lefkandi Phases 1b and 2a.

17

There is only one secure example of a skyphos (no. 105) with two bands on the reserved lower body (POPHAM – CATLING – LEMOS 1990, 101, pl. 8).

210

Bartłomiej Lis

However, also the vast majority of complete examples derive from these two phases; in deposits of Phase 2b there were no complete one-handled cooking pots and the following phase yielded only one such example. In the fill below the floor of Building C, on which the deposit has rested, there were no traces of compass-drawn decoration and only a few fragments executed in micaceous fabric (see n. 21). These observations were reinforced by the stratigraphy18and lead me to infer a LH III C Late date for the deposit. It would therefore be contemporary with Kalapodi Layers 11–15. Based on some features connecting the deposit with Lefkandi Phase 2a and an advanced stage of LH III C Middle, its date may be suggested to fall in the earlier part of the LH III C Late period (Tab. 4). Another find that I would like to discuss under the LH III C Late heading comes, surprisingly, from a funerary context. A linear cup (Fig. 9:1) from Cist 5 displays an elegant and wellexecuted globular profile with slightly S-curved upper body, thin walls and an only slightly modified ring base. The decoration consists of a rimband, two thin bands at the height of the lower handle attachment, solidly painted foot and handle. The interior is entirely coated. Very similar decoration (apart from the reserved band on the interior) but a different, spreading profile is to be seen on a cup (Fig. 9:2) found at Lefkandi in Phase 2a–b context, still belonging therefore to the LH III C Middle period. Taller, yet still somewhat spreading cups with similar banding were found predominantly in Submycenaean contexts (Fig. 9:4–8; Fig. 5:1).19 However, they all feature a single or even double wavy band in the central decorative zone. In terms of the profile, an almost exact parallel for the cup from Mitrou is the medium band cup (Fig. 9:3) found in Lefkandi Phase 2b context, datable either to the end of the LH III C Middle or already to the LH III C Late period. Stylistically I would therefore place the Mitrou linear cup between the two Lefkandiot cups of Fig. 9:2–3 (LH III C Middle/Late) and the five later cups 9:4–8 (LH III C Late/Submycenaean) and date it to the LH III C Late period. A deposit postdating the miniatures from Building C was unearthed in 2005 in Trench LN782 (Fig. 10). It is an extensive fill composed of very worn and fragmented pottery. It is conceivable, but by no means certain, that the pottery forming the LN782 deposit accumulated over the abandoned Building B and was dumped at its final place during the construction of Building A (for a discussion of Mitrou building history see VAN DE MOORTEL this volume). This material, comprising over 3000 sherds, includes in the first place at least 28 fragments belonging to probably different amphoras decorated with compass-drawn sets of concentric circles and semicircles (Fig. 10:1). Among them, there is one piece that represents the type with concentric circles flanking a panel of vertical wavy lines, known from many sites in the central and northern Aegean and classified by CATLING 1998 as a member of his Group I. Monochrome decorated deep bowls are frequent (19% of the total painted sherds) and the type with a dense wavy band in the reserved handle zone (Fig. 10:3) is attested by 20 fragments.20 The bases of open shapes are either of a ring type or can be described as low conical feet. Closed shapes are decorated with horizontal wavy lines, zigzags and scrolls. Open shapes include cups, often decorated with a rim band on the exterior, linear kraters (Fig. 10:4) and basins (Fig. 10:2). Two possible kalathos rims were also detected, as well as a spout from a single stirrup jar. A particular feature of the LN782 deposit is the extensive use of a distinct fabric for

18

19

20

The floor on which the deposit of miniatures was placed is located above the level of the upper floor of Building B dated to the LH III C Middle to Late period (VAN DE MOORTEL this volume). Only cup Fig. 9:4 comes from a secure LH III C Late context (Phase 2b/3 at Lefkandi). Cup Fig. 9:5 comes from Kerameikos cemetery and has been redated by P. Mountjoy to LH III C Late based on stylistic reassignment of associated vases (MOUNTJOY – HANKEY 1988). This cup is thus to be dated at least to the later part of the LH III C Late period, if not to the Submycenaean period. The difference in the frequency of two types of deep bowl (monochrome vs wavy band type) may seem to be large, yet part of this difference is due to the state of material preservation. Many of the fragments classified as monochrome deep bowls (rims, lower body fragments) may in fact belong to the other type.

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

211

large closed (including most of the Group I amphoras) and, less frequently, open shapes. The fabric is characterized by many glimmering particles on the pale reddish-yellow surface.21 Dull, dark red and thickly applied paint is usually used in combination with this fabric. Apart from a few minor differences (lack of kylikes, even less variety in decoration), the pottery is closely comparable to what has been found at Kalapodi in Layers 16–23. However, it must be emphasized that due to the unclear nature of that fill and the general character of pottery in the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age, it cannot be ruled out that part of the pottery overlaps chronologically with LH III C Late and Kalapodi Layers 11–15 (Tab. 4). In addition, the deposit’s proximity to the surface renders the presence of some later sherds almost inevitable. Evidence for a phase following the creation of LN782 deposit is very limited and is connected mainly with the apsidal Building A. There is a stratigraphical indication betraying the existence of an earlier phase of Building A use. The later and main phase (providing thus the terminus ante quem for the construction and initial use of the building), of which demise is represented by a floor deposit of many mendable vases, has been initially dated to the MPG period (VAN DE MOORTEL – ZAHOU 2006, 45). However, since the pottery of Building A is currently under intensive study, any final statements on its date would be too preliminary. A terminus post quem for the construction of Building A is plausibly provided by the LN782 deposit. The chronological framework is therefore set, yet the ceramic evidence is very scarce due to a considerable disturbance of Building’s A interior. Nevertheless, among many pottery fragments contemporary with the main use of Building A recovered from the sounding in its apse,22 there were some vases that might be selected on stylistic grounds as earlier than the majority of the assemblage and, moreover, these types were not attested in the fill in Trench LN782. Additional support for this procedure is provided by the fact that the combination of ‘micaceous’ fabric and dull dark-red paint, attested for some of these fragments, is not present in the Building’s A floor deposit anymore.23 Following these criteria a few vessels were selected (Fig. 11). A belly-handled closed shape decorated with sets of only three concentric circles (Fig. 11:2) is paralleled in decoration in Layers 24–28 at Kalapodi (Fig. 4:5) and the amphora from Phiki (Fig. 7:1). The presence of an amphora with plausibly two sets of concentric circles divided by a vertical panel of straight lines (Fig. 11:1) may suggest that this is a successor of a type with wiggly lines in the panel. A closed shape decorated with a simple triangular motif (Fig. 11:3) shows degeneration of the tassel that, in its ordinary form, was still in use in the previous phase represented by the LN782 deposit. An everted, hollowed and barred rim (Fig. 11:4) from a closed shape supplements the pieces identified so far. KYNOS The LBA and EIA stratigraphy and findings from the settlement of Kynos were presented during the first conference on LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms at Vienna (DAKORONIA 2003). The current conference provides us with a detailed report on the transition to EIA on

21

22

23

In our potshed terminology this fabric has been termed micaceous. However, visiting geologist Rick Bullard has pointed out that this glimmering effect is not due to mica platelets but small particles of quartz. This observation is of great importance since most of the early amphoras decorated with concentric circles found at Mitrou are executed in a similar ‘micaceous’ fabric. This might be also true for many other similar amphoras found all over the central and northern Aegean (cf. CATLING 1998). This connection was ascertained by plentiful joins between pottery from the sounding and the disturbed floor deposit of Building A. A single exception may be represented by a large closed shape, preserved only up to the shoulders, executed in such a fabric. Interestingly, its banding system differs from that attested on ordinary examples of Group I amphoras.

212

Bartłomiej Lis

that site (DAKORONIA – KOUNOUKLAS this volume) together with the phasing of the settlement. In my short review I will refer both to the levels of 2003 publication and phases of the current division. Pottery from Phase 6 at Kynos (Level 4) is in line with the evidence from Layers 11–15 (Horizon 6/7) at Kalapodi. Bands, wavy lines and tassels adorn closed shapes, whereas monochrome deep bowls and linear cups are popular among open shapes. There are only a few instances of other shapes – kylikes, kraters, stirrup jars, carinated cups and collar-necked jars. There are no examples of compass-drawn decoration. The only strong point of divergence between the two sites is the lack of handmade burnished domestic pottery at Kynos (DAKORONIA 2003, 47). It should not be considered very odd, as such pottery exhibits quite different histories even at nearby sites (LIS 2009). Phase 5 (Level 3) witnessed the appearance of compass-drawn decoration together with handmade and burnished domestic pottery. Apart from amphoras with compass-drawn decoration, including the standard type with vertical panel of wavy bands, two vessels deserve special attention. One krater and one amphora (DAKORONIA – KOUNOUKLAS this volume) feature decoration of a very Mycenaean character, yet executed with the help of a compass and multiple brush. By this virtue they are very similar to the prototype amphora (Fig. 3:391) from Kalapodi, offering possible synchronism. Apart from these new traits, pottery does not seem to differ substantially from that of the preceding phase. Tassels as well as enclosed zigzags are attested on closed shapes. Among the open shapes, monochrome deep bowls and medium-band cups are still common. It may be concluded that the pottery is very consistent with the evidence from Kalapodi Layers 16–23. First experiments with compass-drawn decoration put this phase of Kynos closer to the earlier part of Kalapodi Horizon 8/9, i.e. Layers 16–17 (Tab. 4). The following Phase 4 (Level 2; DAKORONIA 2003, 42, figs. 2–9) is difficult to put precisely in the local sequence. It is very striking that wavy band deep bowls seem to make their initial appearance (a possible link with Kalapodi Layers 18–19; DAKORONIA 2003, 42 fig. 6: first fragment in the second row). Nevertheless, the later type with zigzag enclosed by two bands is also present. The circle skyphos is attested and so are closed shapes decorated with concentric semi- and full circles, showing much better technique – as much as seven concentric semicircles can be seen. Therefore links can be seen with Kalapodi Horizons 8/9 and 10 as well as with the Lefkandi Toumba fill. This may suggest that Phase 4 was a very long one (Tab. 4). Once again, this is just a preliminary estimation, the final publication of relevant contexts is indispensable to draw more secure conclusions.24 CENTRAL GREECE – SUMMARY AND SOME CONCLUSIONS The result of these considerations can be summarized in a table synchronizing the sequences from Kalapodi, Mitrou and Kynos, three important non-funerary sites of East-Central Greece (left part of Tab. 4). The table includes both the last Lefkandi LH III C settlement phases and the Toumba fill that were included in the discussion. Two major conclusions are worth stressing once more: Above all, the three discussed sites provide an apparently uninterrupted sequence during the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age attesting to a certain degree of continuity during these unstable times.

24

Small-scale excavation conducted in 2007 revealed another phase (numbered Phase 3) of Kynos settlement, stratified above the remains of Phase 4 (DAKORONIA – KOUNOUKLAS this volume). As the author possesses no knowledge of Phase 3 pottery, it is not placed in Tab. 4.

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

213

A pottery assemblage that could unambiguously represent a distinct Submycenaean phase in these settlements is, so far, not distinguishable in that region (for Elateia cemetery cf. DEGER-JALKOTZY this volume). The second conclusion, although controversial, may have a very simple explanation. As convincingly argued by R. Jung and B. Weninger (WENINGER – JUNG this volume) the Submycenaean period, despite considerable importance ascribed to it, may have been relatively very short-lived compared to both preceding and following periods. Short duration combined with a low number of diagnostic settlement pottery types25 renders such a period almost untraceable in settlement material unless some favourable conditions took place. These might include the destruction of a very short settlement phase or popularity of a novel vessel type like the wavy band deep bowl in the case of the Argolid. However, lack of settlement pottery assemblages identifiable as Submycenaean does not undermine the validity of Submycenaean as a chronological phase. The pottery is only one aspect of material culture that defines and substantiates our arbitrary divisions – the chronological phases.26 And, as far as Submycenaean is concerned, there are some other important aspects of material culture that undergo substantial modifications in this phase.27 In my opinion, one should quit two extreme approaches – both the pleas for abandonment of that term and the desperate search for Submycenaean pottery in settlements. SYNCHRONISMS WITH SOUTHERN GREECE – THE ARGOLID AND CORINTHIA The suggested correlation of the uninterrupted stratigraphical sequences at three Central Greek settlements has to be tied into the stratigraphical sequences at southern Greek sites. It is a difficult task, given the scarcity of settlement evidence there; nevertheless an attempt should be made. Asine, Tiryns (both located in the Argolid) and Corinth (Corinthia) are three settlements in southern Greece that will be used in this analysis. Asine and Corinth were already named as sources of parallels for the material from Central Greek settlements. The deposits from settlements of Asine, Tiryns and Corinth will be discussed together in chronological order. There is no need to repeat the discussion on LH III C Late finds from these or other southern Greek sites since they are all well known, published and thoroughly analysed in terms of chronology and mutual synchronisms. Kalapodi Layers 11–15 and contemporary deposits from Mitrou and Kynos (cf. Tab. 4), can be synchronized with the LH III C Late southern Greek settlements according to the comparison with the sequence of Lefkandi. The settlement of Lefkandi functions as a keystone between southern centers and Central Greek sites. The Terrace Wall deposit from Corinth may serve here as a good example – it has been paralleled with Lefkandi Phase 3 (RUTTER 1979, 383), which is in turn synchronized with Layer 13 at Kalapodi (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 100). The end of the Lefkandi Bronze Age sequence is exactly the point at which the difficulties with synchronisms appear.

25

26

27

The situation may be parallel to that of the LH III C Late pottery, which is better defined by what is missing in the assemblage in comparison to the previous phase. Although EPG settlement pottery is also very scarce, it would be unreasonable to claim that this is not a valid chronological phase. It is not the place to summarize the rich scholarly debate over the Submycenaean period and culture. It suffices to mention that these aspects of material culture include change in burial rites (single cist graves, more frequent appearance of cremation), settlement pattern (abandonment of well established settlements, e.g. last occupation phase on Tiryns Lower Citadel), domestic pottery (proliferation of handmade and burnished pottery) and metallurgy (iron weapons and jewellery).

214

Bartłomiej Lis

As already stated at the beginning of this paper, Submycenaean28 strata containing distinct pottery were excavated at Tiryns (Fig. 12; PAPADIMITRIOU 1988) and Asine (SANTILLO FRIZELL 1986).29 The most striking feature of pottery from these layers at both sites is the affluence of deep bowls decorated with a dense wavy band in the reserved handle zone. Quite often such deep bowls are additionally characterized by straight walls and slight carination at the transition to the lower body (Fig. 12:1–3). In addition, at Asine there are interesting cups with zigzag decoration on the rim (SANTILLO FRIZELL 1986, fig. 19:157–159) and kraters with panel decoration and sloping rims (SANTILLO FRIZELL 1986, figs. 10; 16:135; 21:183). Neckhandled amphoras dominate the closed shapes; their decoration is confined to wavy bands, tassels and necklaces. In Tiryns some more examples of stirrup jars were found, which, according to A. Papadimitriou (PAPADIMITRIOU 1988, 232), are different from the LH III C Late examples. Their decoration consists mainly of stacked triangles and concentric hand-drawn semicircles, very often fringed with dots (Fig. 12:5,6). A horizontal wavy band is also attested on large open vessels (Fig. 12:8, wide version) as well as in the belly zone (Fig. 12:7) and on the neck of closed shapes. The comparative discussion should concentrate upon the ubiquitous wavy band deep bowls, the most distinct feature of the two assemblages. This vessel type also seems to be popular at Corinth and in the Skoubris cemetery at Lefkandi (three examples from tombs dated to the Submycenaean period). However, such deep bowls are apparently very rare in West Attic Submycenaean cemeteries – the only example from Kerameikos (Grave 1)30 might in fact be an Argive import (SANTILLO FRIZELL 1986, 78–79, fig. 62). Strikingly, the wavy band deep bowls are well attested at Central Greek sites, but at Kalapodi and possibly also at two other sites they appear in quantity only after the introduction of compass-drawn decoration. In the material from Kalapodi Layers 16–23 more parallels with the Submycenaean strata of Tiryns and Asine might be found. The amphoriskos no. 423 (Fig. 3) has a similar decoration to the Tiryns example (Fig. 12:7), and the krater no. 379 (Fig. 3) is, both in profile and decoration, close to the krater from Tiryns (Fig. 12:8). General scarcity of decoration motifs and low number of shapes should not be seen as another link, as it is also characteristic of the preceding Horizon 6/7 at Kalapodi. Nevertheless, there is some inconsistency if synchronization between the Submycenaean strata of Tiryns and Asine, and the earlier part of Kalapodi Horizon 8/9 is to be accepted. This inconsistency obviously lies in the presence of compass-drawn decoration at Kalapodi. It has already been stated that it seems less probable that this mode of decoration was invented anywhere north of Attica and therefore another explanation should be given. It is by all means conceivable that the pace of change in pottery style was different in the Argolid and Attica. While in Attica the adoption of a new compass-drawn technique and possibly also the whole PG style was very quick, the Argolid remained quite reluctant and conservative (for opposite view, cf. WELLS 1983, 124). The compass-drawn decoration appears in the Argolid EPG tombs only very rarely. The manufacture of wavy band deep bowls may have followed this conservative trend and therefore it might have extended over a longer period of time, covering the beginnings of EPG in Attica. In fact, one of the EPG Tombs from Tiryns contained a deep bowl decorated with a dense wavy band (LEMOS 2002, 13). An Athenian grave hS 76 (SCHLÖRB-VIERNEISEL 1966, 6) shows another wavy band deep bowl together with an

28

29

30

Although names different than Submycenaean have been assigned to these strata (Final Mycenaean for Asine and “Frühe Eisenzeit I” for Tiryns), in terms of both stratigraphy and pottery they represent a stage following LH III C Late and preceding PG, that is, a stage usually referred to as Submycenaean. Symptomatic for this site, there are some controversies concerning the stratigraphy and interpretation of finds – for a concise critical discussion see PODZUWEIT 2007, 234–235. However, the close affinities of the Asine material to that coming from the stratigraphically more secure Tiryns layer allows us to include this material in the discussion. The deep bowl from Kerameikos Grave 10 is not counted here as it still has a very broad wavy band in a very wide reserved zone.

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

215

amphora decorated with two sets of concentric semicircles. At the same time this grave assemblage provides unquestionable evidence that these two vessel types existed simultaneously even south of the three Central Greek settlements discussed at the beginning. It may be suggested that the beginning of Attic PG would be the time when influence from both Attica and the Argolid reached Central Greece. The first appearance of dense wavy band on deep bowls at Kalapodi is connected with Layer 15, thus just before the first examples of amphoras with compass-drawn circles occured. Therefore I would suggest equating the Submycenaean layers of Tiryns and Asine with the first layers of Kalapodi Horizon 8–9 and possibly with the very end of Horizon 6–7 (Tab. 4). Although no settlement material datable to the transition to the Early Iron Age has so far been published from Athens, the apparent unpopularity of the wavy band deep bowl may cause severe problems in recognizing a distinct Submycenaean settlement assemblage there. The regrettably unfinished study of Athenian well deposits spanning the transition from the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age by E. Smithson yielded two interesting preliminary suggestions. First, she believed that three deposits predating the earliest PG wells represented the latest phase of Athenian LH III C and the application of the name Submycenaean to them was redundant (SMITHSON 1977). Secondly, the mix of LH III C and PG features in the Klepsydra channel did not, in her opinion, need to represent a mixed deposit. Vessels exhibiting these features might have been in concurrent use, attesting to a quite sudden eruption of the PG style (SMITHSON 1982, 153). If this happened at the end of a short-lived Submycenaean phase, it is hardly surprising that Athens has so far failed to yield settlement deposits which would include a distinctive Submycenaean pottery assemblage. At Corinth, the deposit from the so called Weinberg’s House (Fig. 13), i.e. a small hut with a hearth west of the museum at Ancient Corinth (WEINBERG 1943, 3–5), has been believed by J. Rutter (RUTTER 1979, 383) to represent a phase datable to the transitional Submycenaean – Protogeometric, immediately following the Terrace Wall in the Demeter Sanctuary (dated to his Phase 5, equated with LH III C Late). However, some scholars (PFAFF 1999, 63. – LEMOS 2002, 14) dated the Weinberg’s House deposit to the EPG period and I would support such an interpretation. Out of four restorable deep bowls/skyphoi in the deposit, only one (Fig. 13:1) represents the type common in the Submycenaean layers of Tiryns and Asine. Two other skyphoi (Fig. 13:2,3) are also decorated with dense wavy bands (or zigzags). However, the composition of the decoration is already different, plausibly attesting to a later development. The fourth deep bowl/skyphos with a monochrome decoration (Fig. 13:4) is decisive for a date later than Submycenaean. It already has a high and truly conical reserved foot.31 The decoration scheme – reserved foot and reserved band on the lower body below the handles – resembles EPG or even MPG cups from the Skoubris cemetery (DESBOROUGH 1979/80, 294).32 It seems that an EPG date for this deposit is secure; based on the monochrome deep bowl (Fig. 13:4), I would argue that the deposit does not represent the very beginning of PG, but its slightly later stage. Such dating raises an important question – is there a gap in a sequence from Corinth between LH III C Late Terrace Wall and EPG Weinberg’s House or do these two deposits chronologically follow each other? I would opt for the first solution. At least one important observation supports this hypothesis. It is apparent that the rarity of wavy band deep bowls in Attica is not reproduced at Corinth, probably due to the geographic proximity to the Argolid. One example from Weinberg’s House has already been mentioned, and there are more of such 31

32

P. Mountjoy (RMDP, 242) also considers this foot, as well as the framed wavy band on Fig. 13:2 and Fig. 13:3, a Protogeometric feature. A very similar deep bowl has been found in Tomb 127 at Torone (PAPADOPOULOS 2005, 233–234, fig. 183, pl. 315:a–c). According to chemical analysis, it might be an Euboean import. Another similar vessel, yet with reserved lower body, was found in Tomb 94 and is thought to be of local manufacture (PAPADOPOULOS 2005, 165– 166, fig. 150, pl. 314).

216

Bartłomiej Lis

deep bowls in the mixed deposits of the South Stoa (BRONEER 1951, pl. 89b. – RMDP, 241, fig. 80). Weinberg’s House deposit also makes clear that this type of deep bowl was not foreign in the assemblage as it was locally developed in the direction different from the one followed in the Argolid. There, the PG skyphoi featured a single zigzag enclosed by two bands (cf. Asine Phase I, WELLS 1983). As the wavy band deep bowl was not attested in the Terrace Wall deposit and in the Weinberg’s House assemblage more developed types already predominate, I would argue that there is a gap in the local sequence. A phase that would be characterized by abundance of wavy band deep bowls, comparable to the Submycenaean assemblages from Asine and Tiryns, is plausibly missing. In order to sum up this lengthy, yet necessary, discussion of the Corinth sequence, I would like to present its relevance for the synchronization with settlement sequences in Central Greece. The Submycenaean layers of Tiryns and Asine have already been paralleled with the Kalapodi Horizon 8/9 (first layers). According to the local Kalapodi sequence, the Weinberg’s House deposit should be placed later than the early part of Horizon 8/9, i.e. in Horizon 10, possibly also including last layers of Horizon 8/9 (Tab. 4).33 A quick look at the pottery and the discussion of the Kalapodi sequence above clearly confirms such synchronization. Both the wavy band deep bowl and the skyphoi with double enclosed zigzag (which is how the Corinthian example is to be restored)34 are present (Fig. 4:1,2). The same decoration scheme of two enclosed zigzags is employed on one of the closed shapes from Kalapodi (Fig 4:7). Compassdrawn decoration is not present in the Weinberg’s House deposit, which might be either due to local conservatism, comparable to that of the Argolid, or simply due to the small size of the deposit. The post-Submycenaean settlement material from Tiryns (or post-EIA I, according to the terminology applied for that site) is present, but has not been published yet (LEMOS 2002, 5). Asine, with apparently uninterrupted habitation, provides us with a published PG sequence divided into four phases (WELLS 1983). Phase I immediately follows Final Mycenaean and should, in theory, offer good synchronisms with Central Greek sites. However, it has already been remarked that the interpretation of the site’s complicated stratigraphy and evaluation of pottery were questioned and important objections were raised (LEMOS 2002, 6). Without going into detailed discussion, it may be suggested that these controversies undermine the usefulness of the Asine sequence. However, some important observations have already been made in the discussion of pottery from Kalapodi and Mitrou. Both sites have yielded vases decorated with small sets of concentric circles consisting of only two or three elements (Figs. 4:4,5; 11:2), which can be compared to the decoration on skyphoi from Asine (Fig. 7:3,4). Moreover, the skyphos from Kalapodi (Fig. 4:4) finds an almost exact parallel in PG I at Asine (Fig. 7:3). This observation combined with conclusions concerning the previous Final Mycenaean phase allows us to cautiously synchronize part of Asine PG I phase with Kalapodi Horizon 10 (Tab. 4). CONCLUSIONS At the beginning of this paper the desire was expressed that settlements in the eastern part of Central Greece, continuously occupied throughout the LBA–EIA transition, might provide firm evidence for a Submycenaean phase. After the analysis of pottery from Kalapodi, Mitrou and Kynos this desire had to be abandoned – no distinct Submycenaean pottery assemblage could be identified. Three important factors contributed to this situation. The first was the character of settlement material that quite often does not represent closed deposits and does not allow the recognition of short-lived chronological phases. The second was the conservatism

33 34

Layers 20–23 are hardly interpretable as they contain some 600 sherds. On the photo in the original publication (WEINBERG 1943, pl. 1:4) the second zigzag is clearly discernible.

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

217

of local pottery manufacture resulting in a very slow pace of change. Finally, the third was the interaction of influences coming from different regions (such as the Argolid and Attica) that also displayed strong pottery idiosyncrasies at the LBA–EIA transition. Although identifying a Submycenaean ceramic assemblage in Central Greek settlements proved impossible, it was feasible to synchronize the stratified ceramic sequences both with each other and with scarce settlement evidence from the Argolid and Corinthia. Simultaneously, a re-evaluation of some of the settlement deposits in question (Kalapodi Layers 24–28, Weinberg’s House at Corinth) proved desirable. Further attempts at synchronization should undoubtedly be carried out both by restudying material already published and by the publication of new evidence. It must be remembered, however, that the bulk of the pottery known so far from the Submycenaean and following periods derives from tombs. It is therefore an even more important task to correlate very detailed phasing of extensive and long-lived cemeteries with the sequences known from the settlements. This task goes far beyond the limits of this paper, although certain tomb assemblages were used in this study and proved very helpful in confirming or providing dates for some important settlement finds.

Index to illustrations Tab. 1 Changing chronological attribution of Layers 4–23 at Kalapodi (author’s own compilation after JACOBFELSCH 1987a; 1987b; 1996. – FELSCH 2001; 2007) Tab. 2 Kalapodi Layers 9–23 (Horizons 6–9): ceramic assemblage characterization by fabric and mode of manufacture Tab. 3 Kalapodi Horizons 6–9: frequencies of fine painted shapes Tab. 4 Synchronization table for settlements of Central Greece, Argolid and Corinthia35 Fig. 2 Pottery from Kalapodi Layers 11–15 (Horizon 6/7). The original catalogue numbers are kept for reader’s convenience (after JACOB-FELSCH 1996, pls. 38; 39; 42; 43) Fig. 3 Pottery from Kalapodi Layers 16–23 (Horizon 8/9) (after JACOB-FELSCH 1996, pls. 43; 44; 45) Fig. 4 Pottery from Kalapodi Layers 24–28 (Horizon 10) (after NITSCHE 1987, figs. 60:3–9; 61:1,2,6,7) Fig. 5 Pottery from Grave 126, Metrostation Syntagma (after PARLAMA – STAMPOLIDIS 2000, 163, figs. 128–129) Fig. 6 Pottery from Grave 57, Metrostation Akropolis (after PARLAMA – STAMPOLIDIS 2000, 44, figs. 8–9) Fig. 7 Vessels from Phiki (1–2) and Asine (3–4) decorated with simple sets of concentric circles (after RMDP, fig. 348:150,154. – WELLS 1983, fig. 133:149,150) Fig. 8 Shapes represented among the miniatures from Building C at Mitrou (1–4, 6–8) together with the cooking pot covered with krater base (5) and parallels from Asine (9) and Kalapodi (10–11) (after FRÖDIN – PERSSON 1938, 303, fig. 208:3. – JACOB-FELSCH 1996, pls. 39:287; 48:485. – Mitrou: 1) LN784-018-019; 2) LO784048-036; 3) LN784-018-023; 4) LO784-048-050; 5) LO784-048-057; 6) LO784-048-011; 7) LN784-018-026; 8) LN784-018-014 (cooking pot), LN784-018-031 (krater base) Fig. 9 Cup from Mitrou Cist 5 (1) and discussed parallels from Lefkandi: Xeropolis settlement (2–4), Skoubris cemetery (7), Salamis (6) and Athens (5, 8) (after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 168, fig. 2.11:2–4. – RMDP, figs. 237:592; 244:649,650; 279:114). – Mitrou 1) LL786-030-011 Fig. 10 Pottery from the LN782 deposit at Mitrou: 1) LN782-008-013; 2) LN782-009-012; 3) LN782-008-015; 4) LN782-019-012 Fig. 11 Possible Early Protogeometric pottery from the sounding in the apse of Building A at Mitrou: 1) LN783-034014; 2) LN783-054-015; 3) LN783-047-011; 4) LN783-028-012 Fig. 12 Early Iron Age I “Frühe Eisenzeit I” pottery from Tiryns (after PAPADIMITRIOU 1988, figs. 1–3) Fig. 13 Deep bowls from Weinberg’s House at Corinth (after RMDP, fig. 80:224,228–230)

35

The height of the cells is not an approximation of the phase duration.

218

Bartłomiej Lis

Bibliography BACHHUBER, C. – R. G. ROBERTS (eds.) 2009 Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the Conference held at St John’s College, Oxford, 25–26 March 2006. Oxford. BRONEER, O. 1951 “Investigations at Corinth, 1950”, Hesperia 20, 291–300. CATLING, R. W. V. 1998 “The Typology of the Protogeometric and Subprotogeometric Pottery from Troia and its Aegean Context”, in: Studia Troica 8, 151–187. CATLING, R. W. V. – I. S. LEMOS 1990 Lefkandi II. The Protogeometric Building at Toumba. Part 1: The Pottery (BSA Suppl. 22). London. DAKORONIA, F. 2003 “The Transition from Late Helladic III C to the Early Iron Age at Kynos”, 37–51 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. DAVIS, E. N. (ed.) 1977 Symposium on the Dark Ages in Greece. New York. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 1999 “Elateia and Problems of Pottery Chronology”, 195–202 in: Περιφέρεια. DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1979/80 “The Dark Age Pottery (SM–SPG III) from Settlement and Cemeteries”, 281–354 in: POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80. EVELY, D. (ed.) 2006 Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (BSA Suppl. 39). London. FELSCH, R. C. S. (ed.) 1996 Kalapodi I. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis. Vol. 1. Mainz. 2001 “Opferhandlungen des Alltagslebens im Heiligtum der Artemis Elaphebolos von Hyampolis in den Phasen SH IIIC – Spätgeometrisch”, 193–200 in: LAFFINEUR – HÄGG 2001. 2007a Kalapodi II. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis. Vol. 2. Mainz. 2007b “Zur Stratigraphie des Heiligtums”, 1–27 in: FELSCH 2007a. FRENCH, E. B. – WARDLE, K. A. (eds.) 1988 Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986. Bristol. FRÖDIN, O. – A. W. PERSSON 1938 Asine. Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922–1930. Stockholm. JACOB-FELSCH, M. 1987a “Die Entwicklung der Keramik der Phase SH III C fortgeschritten und spät anhand der Schichtenfolge von Kalapodi und ihre Relation zu vergleichbaren Fundkomplexen”, 37–52 in: THOMAS 1987. 1987b “Kalapodi: Bericht über die Grabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis Elaphebolos und des Apollon von Hyampolis 1978–1982. Bericht zur spätmykenischen und submykenischen Keramik”, AA 1987, 26–35. 1988 “Compass-drawn Concentric Circles in Vase Painting. A Problem of Relative Chronology at the End of the Bronze Age”, 193–199 in: FRENCH – WARDLE 1988. 1994 “Review of ‘M. Sipsie-Eschbach, Protogeometrische Keramik aus Iolkos in Thessalien (Berlin 1991)’ ”, BJb 194, 557–562. 1996 “Die spätmykenische bis frühprotogeometrische Keramik”, 1–213 in: FELSCH 1996. JUNG, R. 2002 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Schichten 19 bis 11 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 18). Kiel.

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements 2003

219

“Late Helladic III C at the Toúmbes of Kastanás and Ólynthos – and the Problems of Macedonian Mycenaean Pottery“, 131–144 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms.

LAFFINEUR, R. – R. HÄGG (eds.) 2001 Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean

Conference/8 e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22). Liège – Austin. LEMOS, I. S. 2002 The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. LIS, B. 2009 “Handmade and Burnished Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean at the End of the Bronze Age – An Attempt of Interpretation of its Diversity and Geographical Distribution”, in: BACHHUBER – ROBERTS 2009. MOUNTJOY, P. – V. HANKEY 1988 “LH III C Late versus Submycenaean. The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed”, JdI 103, 1–38. NITSCHE, A. 1987 “Protogeometrische und Subprotogeometrische Keramik aus dem Heiligtum bei Kalapodi”, AA, 35–49. PAPADIMITRIOU, A. 1988 “Bericht zur Früheisenzeitlichen Keramik aus der Unterburg von Tiryns. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83”, AA, 227–243. PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. 2005 The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone (Monumenta Archaeologica 24). Los Angeles. PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. – J. F. VEDDER – T. SCHREIBER 1998 “Drawing Circles: Experimental Archaeology and the Pivoted Multiple Brush”, AJA 102, 507–529. PARLAMA, L. – N. C. STAMPOLIDIS (eds.) 2000 Η πόλη κάτω από την πόλη. Ευρήματα από τις ανασκαφές του Μητροπολιτικού Σιδηροδρόμου των Αθηνών. Athens. PFAFF, C. A. 1999 “The Early Iron Age Pottery from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth”, Hesperia 68, 55–134. PODZUWEIT, C. 1988 “Keramik der Phase SH IIIC-Spät aus der Unterburg von Tiryns. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83”, AA, 213–225. 2007(†) Studien zur Spätmykenischen Keramik (Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 14). Wiesbaden. POPHAM, M. R. – L. H. SACKETT – P. G. THEMELIS (eds.) 1979/80 Lefkandi I. The Iron Age. The Settlement. The Cemeteries (BSA Suppl. 11). London. POPHAM, M. R. – E. V. SCHOFIELD – E. S. SHERRATT 2006 “The Pottery”, 137–231 in: EVELY 2006. RUPPENSTEIN, F. 2003 “Late Helladic III C Late versus Submycenaean: A Methodological Problem”, 183–192 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. 2007 Die submykenische Nekropole. Neufunde und Neubewertung (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 18). München. RUTTER, J. 1977 “Late Helladic III C Pottery and Some Historical Implications”, 1–20 in: DAVIS 1977. 1978 “A Plea for the Abandonment of the Term ‘Submycenaean’”, TUAS 3, 58–65. 1979 “The Last Mycenaeans at Corinth”, Hesperia 48, 348–392. 2007 “How Different is LH III C Middle at Mitrou? An Initial Comparison with Kalapodi, Kynos and Lefkandi”, 287–300 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II. SANTILLO FRIZELL, B. 1986 Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970–1974. Fasc. 3: The Late and Final Mycenaean Periods (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, 24:3). Stockholm.

220

Bartłomiej Lis

SCHLÖRB-VIERNEISEL, B. 1966 “Eridanos – Nekropole. I. Gräber und Opferstellen”, AM 81, 4–111. SIPSIE-ESCHBACH, M. 1991 Protogeometrische Keramik aus Iolkos in Thessalien (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 8). Berlin. SMITHSON, E. L. 1977 “‘Submycenaean’ and LH IIIC Domestic Deposits in Athens”, AJA 81, 78–79. 1982 “The Prehistoric Klepsydra: Some Notes”, Hesperia Supplement 20, 141–154. THEOCHARIS, D. 1961 “Ανασκαφαί εν Ιολκώ”, Prakt 1956 [1961], 119–130. 1964 “Ανασκαφαί Ιολκού”, Prakt 1961 [1964], 45–54. THOMAS, E. (ed.) 1987 Forschungen zur Aegaeischen Vorgeschichte. Das Ende der mykenischen Welt. Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums 7.–8. Juli 1984 in Köln. Köln. VAN DE MOORTEL, A. – E. ZAHOU 2006 “2004 Excavations at Mitrou, East Lokris”, Aegean Archaeology 7, 2003–2004 [2006], 39–48. VERDELIS, N. M. 1958 Ο πρωτογεωμετρικός ρυθμός της Θεσσαλίας. Athens. VITALE, S. 2006 “The LH IIIB–LH IIIC Transition on the Mycenaean Mainland: Ceramic Phases and Terminology”, Hesperia 75, 177–204. WELLS, B. 1983 Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis, 1970–1974. Fasc. 4: The Protogeometric Period. Part 2: An Analysis of the Settlement. Part 3: Catalogue of Pottery and Other Artefacts (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, 24:4). Stockholm. WEINBERG, S. S. 1943 Corinth VII. Part 1: The Geometric and Orientalising Pottery. Cambridge.

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

221

222

Bartłomiej Lis

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

223

224

Bartłomiej Lis

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

225

226

Bartłomiej Lis

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

227

228

Bartłomiej Lis

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

229

230

Bartłomiej Lis

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

231

232

Bartłomiej Lis

The Sequence of Late Bronze / Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek Settlements

233

IOANNIS MOSCHOS

WESTERN ACHAEA DURING THE SUCCEEDING LH III C LATE PERIOD – THE FINAL MYCENAEAN PHASE AND THE SUBMYCENAEAN PERIOD*

Very little, practically nothing has been written about the Submycenaean period in Western Achaea, a fact reflecting the belief that this stage was not particularly developed or that it had nothing significant to offer.1 Moreover, in the few reports the word “Submycenaean” defines objects that do not fall stylistically into the Mycenaean period and, at the same time, cannot be classified as EPG, without taking into consideration their cultural environment, as usually happens elsewhere.2 The simple definition “probably Submycenaean” is the most common in these cases and it refers exclusively to objects, so that the phase is merely being insinuated, without the slightest effort to place these objects in a general cultural frame, if there should be one. It seems that the existence of this hypothesis does not leave room for further analysis and for thorough examination so that the subject is finally overlooked and not discussed. This situation is due to objective difficulties related to the region, but also to the numerous and often different and contradictive views which are still pertinent to the use of the term Submycenaean.3 This fact gives the impression that there are only few and isolated objects, mostly pottery, in Achaea that probably belong to the Submycenaean Style, which is either rare or confused with the local LH III C Late/Mature Achaean pottery Style.4 As a result this particular phase, stage, period or whatever it is, is practically considered to be non-existent. However, this perspective is not exclusively related to pottery but it partly includes bronze items as well. If the classification of bronze or other objects in the Submycenaean period is correct, and given that the Submycenaean is not exclusively associated with a certain pottery style only, then the presence of other features, which so far have been overlooked or regarded as insignificant, must be expected. Below we are going to propose that in Achaea there is not only a particular or local Submycenaean style but features which define a Submycenaean Period. These features are beyond changes in the settlement but also beyond fashion in dressing, like the appearance of new bronze accessories, as we shall see below.

* I would like to thank Prof. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy for her invitation to join this workshop and for the encouragement to finish this paper. My warmest thanks go to Dr. Lazaros Kolonas. He gave me the permission to see the material from his precious excavations at Voúdeni and supplied me with valuable information and photos from unpublished vessels. Without his help this paper could not have been written. I also express my gratitude to my colleague and friend Dr. Joulika Christakopoulou for information concerning the extensive cemetery of Stamná, Aetolía. Both of them as also Dr. Reinhard Jung spent a good deal of their time for discussion and offered valuable suggestions to the text. A note of thanks is also due to Anna Bächle for her help and to Nicola and Georg Nightingale for reviewing the English text. 1 DESBOROUGH 1964, 100–101. – PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, 183. – RMDP, 56, 405, 441. – GADOLOU 2008, 282–284. – DICKINSON 2006, 15. 2 MORGAN 1990, 235. 3 For a brief summary of these views see RMDP, 55–56. – WHITLEY 1991, 5–7. – LEMOS 2002, 26. – DICKINSON 2006, 14–23. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 4–8. 4 For this style see MOSCHOS 2002, 24–25. – ID. in press. – KOLONAS forthcoming.

236

Ioannis Moschos

In order to raise the question as intended, the actual problem in Achaea is primarily connected with the definition of what is and what follows the LH III C Late period, i.e. not only what is Submycenaean or EPG in this region but also what is actually LH III C Late. The answer to the question of what can be considered as Submycenaean has yet to be provided and so the approach has a purely subjective character. The question on pottery is also crucial, namely, if what we consider to be the Submycenaean style in Achaea also corresponds to what we consider as the Submycenaean style in other regions. This issue is of great importance: as we know about the local Mature Style in the region, we have to assume that the pottery is different. With regards to the iron objects there is a relatively general agreement that as these items almost exclusively come from Mycenaean chamber tombs5 they should be related to the “Submycenaean” in Achaea. The presence of iron objects in burials of chamber tombs does not, in anyway, connect these burials with the Mycenaean or Submycenaean use of these tombs, since even tholos tombs in the wider region were used after the end of the Bronze Age for the disposition of primary burials, as we shall see below. However, iron was not known in Mycenaean Achaea, it was not even used in jewelry despite the attested relations with Anatolia, as early as the LH III A and in spite of the fact that rich and prestigious burials6 cover almost the entire LH III C period. Iron had not reached Western Achaea even by LH III C Late, a period in which commercial sea contacts had increased, especially with Cyprus, although this view should not be considered as final.7 The appearance of iron after the LH III C period is related to the arrival of iron-bearing people in the wider region and it is not associated with the succeeding LH III C Late in Achaea, which is still a Bronze Age period. It seems more reasonable to connect it to the EPG period8 – but not to its early stage,9 than to the Submycenaean or Submycenaean/EPG, as is usually suggested. As a conclusion, taking into consideration the data available, iron in Achaea is not connected with the Mycenaean period or even with the succeeding prehistoric phases.10 Therefore, iron is not the decisive issue in determining the Submycenaean period in Achaea. What is difficult for us to understand and what causes confusion is the survival of many LH III C features into the Submycenaean period, features which are not only related with pottery. This is not a solely Achaean characteristic, since neighboring Cephaloniá presents a similar weakness11 and to a certain extent we are confronted with the same problems in Elis12 and Northwestern Arcadía13 and also in Aetolía14 and Akarnanía.15 Despite the ambiguous 5

6 7

8 9

10

11 12

13

Two iron knives have been found at ChT 4 at Vrysárion, see PAPAZOGLOU–MANIOUDAKI 1989, 150. – ID. 1999, 269. – In Eastern Achaea three iron spearheads come from the ChT cemetery at Trapezá near Aígion, see PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, 163–164. For elite burials in Achaea during the LH III C period see MOSCHOS in press with bibliography. Iron knives have been reported in Teíchos Dymaíon. They are related to Cypriot contacts or have been considered of Cypriot origin, see PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, 156, 158. – ID. 1985, 145–146. – EDER 2006, 559. Anyway, the excavation data is not sufficient in order to suggest with certainty that they belong to the Mycenaean period (cf. MOSCHOS in press). GADOLOU 2008, 282. Τhe presence of iron in reused Mycenaean tombs in Achaea should not be regarded as contemporary with the appearance of the first characteristics of the EPG period in Aetolía (Stamná) since we observe a “bronze phase” at its beginning there, where iron was an extremely rare material. For the extensive cemetery at Stamná see CHRISTAKOPOULOU 2001. – ID. 2006, 511–516, figs. 1–5. – ID. in press. It is important to note that the first appearance of EPG elements in Achaea is connected with iron tools and weapons. However, with regard of other objects made either of bronze or of iron (jewellery or dressing accessories) the EPG phase is not attested in tombs. Such a phase might be present in the upland temple at Rakíta, although this cannot be proved by stratified evidence; see infra note 39. “There is also the possibility that some of the material could be Submycenaean.” See RMDP, 446. As for example from Pheía: “The jug from Pheia has the heavy panelled decoration found in this phase (i.e. LH III C Late), but its biconical shape and wide neck might suggest a Submycenaean date.” See RMDP, 395, fig. 138:91. SPYROPOULOS – SPYROPOULOS 1996, 28.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

237

importance of iron, the rest of the material is usually categorized as LH III C Late. Pottery is considered to be Submycenaean more often than other items. This is usually done arbitrarily and with reservation. The reason is that confirmation of a date like this is sought outside Achaea, a tendency that, as will be shown, is not always correct. This approach to the material actually deals with relations and contacts with other regions over a very short and troubled period of time. Furthermore, at the same time little attention is paid to the local production, the study of which should form a fundamental topic. Our approach involves a kind of “imperialism”, if we take for granted that the elements known of a Submycenaean culture in one place have to be the same in another. And if they are absent, it means that people did not exist. If we were to deal with the Submycenaean elements in Western Greece and then try to apply them in Eastern Greece, the presence of a Submycenaean culture would be problematic. The wrong approach to the Submycenaean period in Western Achaea is mainly caused by three factors. The first one is that part of the available data covering the period in question has come to light sporadically, mostly from excavations in Mycenaean chamber tomb cemeteries, usually many decades ago. In most of those cases, sufficient excavation reports are lacking. The second factor is related to the misdating of most of the pottery which, due to its local features, should be likewise categorized to different local dating conventions, usually stylistic ones. The absence of such an approach means that even most of the unpublished recent material tends to be dated to LH III C Late and not to Submycenaean. This fact causes an inherent weakness of this paper, since an unknown proportion of the material has not been accounted for in preliminary reports, which, for years, were our only source of information in Achaea, while awaiting the final publications. The third and most basic factor is that, so far, there is not one cemetery or settlement in Western Achaea that was first organized during the Submycenaean period. In the case of chamber tomb cemeteries, their use is continued in a few cases even to EPG,16 while some tholos tombs in the wider region were reused in the EPG period, too. The continuation of the use of the same settlements and cemeteries is a constant fact which forces to seek a different approach to the Submycenaean period. Primarily, we should pay attention to the LH III C period itself17 and particularly to LH III C Late, so as to verify the changes that took place there. This is the only way to deal with the selective continuation of certain settlements and at the same time an advantage for our approach. It is also the only way to minimize the lack of individual Submycenaean sites, which could have solved the problem immediately if they had existed. The Mycenaean presence in Achaea does not end with the abrupt interruption of the thriving LH III C Late, a fact otherwise difficult to explain, since there is no evidence of a general destruction or of other determining events, such as the establishment of the EPG culture. It lasts longer, with the existence of a special period which has chronological boundaries, a beginning and an end, but not prosperity. It is an unambiguous period with distinctive local features, which are not solely related to a special pottery style. These features have been evolved during this very period, following similar rhythms of evolution to those verified in the region from LH III B Final onwards. It is a vivid period which does not fall short of greatness in comparison

14 15 16

17

CHRISTAKOPOULOU in press. STAVROPOULOU-GATSI 2008a. The recent reservation of O. Dickinson (DICKINSON 2006, 15) in relation to the continuation in the use of tombs in Achaea and Cephaloniá during the 11th and 10th centuries, which was based upon the study of P. Mountjoy on pottery, is groundless. P. Mountjoy (RMDP, 55–56) had not reached a decision as she reported that “On Kephallonia pottery in the LH III C Late style may well continue into this phase [= Submycenaean], as also in Achaea”, due to the fact that her approach to the material in these regions was solely stylistic and not supplied by excavation data because of the lack of published material with contexts. The consideration of this period’s characteristics is not relevant to this paper. For a recent approach see MOSCHOS in press.

-

238

Ioannis Moschos

with previous parts of the post-palatial period in Achaea. This period is long and could be divided into two phases, as we are going to see right below. If we would like to summarize the features characterizing the switch from the Mycenaean period to the Iron Age in Western Achaea, at first, we would say that the transition from the LH III C Late was, in our case, a very smooth continuation (Tab. 1), as there were no decisive outside factors to lead to general troubles; although serious internal changes can be detected, mostly in political and social structures. Differences can also be detected, mainly but not solely, after close examination of the pottery and particularly from the study of the evolution of the LH III C Late Mature Achaean Style, which survived into the Submycenaean phase and constituted a link to the EPG pottery in Western Greece. This smooth transition shortens the time limits of the LH III C period. Clear-cut, separate pottery characteristics appear towards the end of the LH III C Late period, opening a new horizon and outlining a time range that overlaps the Submycenaean. This phase can be seen either as a protracted continuation of LH III C Late or as the beginning of the Submycenaean (Tab. 1, Phase 6a).18 Apart from the pottery style, other important factors related to social, political and economical evolutions,19 make us consider this transitional phase as Early Submycenaean rather than as an expanded LH III C Late. The term Final Mycenaean can be alternatively used, in order to avoid any misunderstanding which might be caused by the term Submycenaean, since the term usually has a more narrower meaning, however, in this paper it has an additional meaning.

LHIIIB2

LH IIIC

LH IIIC

LH IIIC

LH IIIC

Early

Developed

Advanced

Late

SM EPG

Τ r a n

P

P

s

H

H

i

A

A

s

S

S

i

E

E

o n a l

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

4

PHASE 5

6a

PHASE 6b

Tab. 1 Τhe Achaean Phases 1–6, according to local pottery styles and their development (MOSCHOS in press) 18

19

In order to avoid any misunderstanding I will name the largest part of the LH III C Late period Phase 5 and the two ensuing Phases, 6a (= Early Submycenaean/Final Mycenaean phase) and 6b (= Submycenaean phase), exactly as it has already appeared in recent publications (MOSCHOS in press. – PASCHALIDIS – MCGEORGE in press). Both phases (6a and 6b) constitute a separate period which together form a period that we can call Submycenaean in Achaea. The publication of the characteristics of all the proposed phases (Phases 1 to 6) is the topic of another paper and contains accounts of the significant primary burials in each phase, a list of pottery shapes and motifs, a representative picture of the local bronze production as well as the changes or developments that took place from one phase to the other, on a socio-economic level and on political account. See MOSCHOS in press.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

239

Phase 6a/Final Mycenaean defines a declining phase of LH III C Late, which was a particularly flourishing one. It is a precursor of Submycenaean proper and is not used to define what follows LH III C Late up to EPG.20 It is still a Mycenaean one but also has features of what can be considered to be Submycenaean. It is not necessary to pay special attention to the pottery style, although we came across specific characteristics, but what deserves particular attention is the course of the political and social changes and the related economic transformations which are related to primary production and to a different approach in land use. This short transitional phase is not merely an Achaean characteristic. A remarkable part of what V. Desborough thought to be Submycenaean actually belongs to this early phase.21 V. Desborough and A. Snodgrass22 were partly right when they synchronized West Attic Submycenaean with a part of Argive LH III C Late. The opposing view of J. Deshayes23 and C.-G. Styrenius24 is also partially correct, as Argive LH III C Late and Submycenaean are not contemporary with anything else, if they are to be seen together as a common phase. P. Mountjoy tried to approach both views at the revision of the Kerameikós Pompeion Cemetery.25 What she classified as LH III C Late, in terms of style, corresponds partly to the end of this phase but also extends beyond its chronological limits, thus it falls into the suggested Final Mycenaean. The same has already been proposed for the Eláteia-Alonáki cemetery by S. Deger-Jalkotzy.26 This early phase can also be recognized outside Greece, for example in Rocavecchia, Apulia. It even has an impact in local Italo-Mycenaean production.27 This widespread uniformity can be explained in Achaea by the unbroken continuity in external relations and contacts during Phase 6a, even with the Italian peninsula.28 However, the most crucial point might have been the Achaean refugees, as we shall see below, which were integrated into these societies and dominated to some extent and for a while the pottery production. Therefore Achaean presence abroad can also be seen as a kind of “colonization” or migration in existing societies. What comes next is another phase, which is not very short and which does not seem to be as smooth as the previous one (Tab. 1, Phase 6b). This stage can be identified as a clear Submycenaean phase. It is not easy to confirm its end, though evidence is available to assume that it overlaps the beginning of the EPG period in neighboring areas, namely in Aetolía and to a lesser degree in Ancient Elis. Most sites used during the previous phase (i.e. Early Submycenaean/Final Mycenaean) were abandoned, while others, such as Voúdeni, flourished. Those that did survive fade away along with the whole phase without the appearance of clear and imported EPG elements, or transformations within the local pottery style, although this hides and incorporates such elements. It can be concluded with confidence that the local Mature Style kept, in general, its own characteristics, even at this late time, thus it is always clear in Western Achaea what is Submycenaean and what is EPG. However, its development can be seen as a precursor of the latter. In terms of the progress of the local pottery style we now encounter clear elements of the Western EPG pottery. It is hard to believe that they depended solely on a course of internal development. It is not accidental that the latest Mature Style has, as its closest relative, the Western EPG style. Both phases, i.e. the Final Mycenaean Phase 6a and the Submycenaean Phase 6b constitute the Submycenaean Period in Achaea. 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28

The term was introduced by SANTILLO FRIZELL 1986 as an alternative to “Submycenaean”. DESBOROUGH 1964, 17–20. – ID. 1972, 29–111. SNODGRASS 1971, 28–34. Nevertheless, the West Attic Submycenaean did not overlap with Argive LH III C Late or with LH III C Late elsewhere. DESHAYES 1966, 247, 251. STYRENIUS 1967, 127–128. MOUNTJOY 1988. “(…) LH III C Late to Submycenaean”, see DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, 145. PAGLIARA – GUGLIELMINO 2005, 309, II.197. – Cf. MOSCHOS in press. See MOSCHOS in press with bibliography.

-

240

Ioannis Moschos

The use of the term “Submycenaean” for a period is valuable in the case of Achaea, since in these phases important changes were established which can be compared with those following the crisis years. The general frame is no longer the typical Mycenaean that we encounter during the LH III C Late period and partly during the Final Mycenaean as well. The extensive abandonment of settlements and cemeteries, that determines the beginning of the Submycenaean phase (Phase 6b), does not mean the definite abandonment of Achaea nor the end of the Late Bronze Age. The new frame is now related to the dramatic shrinkage of settlements, which probably already began in the Final Mycenaean phase, and the possible migrations to other areas which is implied in the continuation of the use of certain cemeteries, especially those of Voúdeni. The same situation is recognized at Eláteia-Alonáki in Phocís. The isolated but extremely rare examples of individual Submycenaean cemeteries in Western Greece such as in Ancient Elis and Karavómylos near Sámi signify, in all probability, the establishment of new settlements and the emigration of those who had abandoned their homes there. These few new sites were probably small and represented a political scenario that was not applied to a great extent and was not successful in saving the Submycenaean people either. A clear case is attested at Stamná, Aetolía, where minimal traces of a newly founded Final Mycenaean/Submycenaean settlement have been found,29 providing evidence concerning this alternative political scenario in the region. It was established, beyond any doubt, before the settlement of the population was related to the EPG period. This small village ceased to exist or was abandoned before or during the arrival of these EPG people, i.e. at least as late as the early Phase 6b. A different development is attested in the case of Ancient Elis, where people managed to survive in the EPG period, although the evidence comes from the cemetery only and not from a settlement. Nevertheless, I think that the EPG period started earlier there, at a time that is roughly contemporary with the first EPG at Stamná and whilst the Submycenaean period in Western Achaea was still going on. As it stands, the entire issue is related to the new conditions that began to take shape in the wider region and as far as we know, secured the establishment of the EPG period. As this development was accomplished during a long period of time, it was known to those living in the Final Mycenaean phase and especially for those in the Submycenaean phase. It was obviously possible to avoid, and it is to be expected that measures were adopted on a political level. The reaction had already been manifested by the Final Mycenaean phase, i.e. at about the same time that an establishment of new people on the Aetolian mountains around Thérmos took place, as we shall see below. This response is explicitly related to a new political plan and in particular to a new social structure. The latter probably resulted in the development of a great migration wave for the first time in Achaea that had already started, to a lesser degree, during the Final Mycenaean phase.30 The continuous contacts with Cyprus and Southern Italy,31 which had been developed at least since LH III C Middle, constitute evidence for the settlement of Achaean refugees there. Those that had been involved in commerce at an elite level now had lost their privileges at a local level and were able to leave for the places of their partners and friends. Attica, the Corinthía and Árgos and also eastern Central Greece are probable places which Achaeans reached and stayed at. Eastern Cephaloniá is also included in this migration, at least during Phase 6b, but probably for different reasons.32 In the case of Cyprus, this is 29

30

31 32

In the locality “Palaiostamná”. For a brief report see STAVROPOULOU-GATSI 2008b, 377. – Cf. CHRISTAKOPOULOU in press. This could have resulted in political changes due to the removal of the regional rank levels that probably caused the escape or the departure of entire families. The change in the political arena at an upper social and administrative level is the most probable reason for the sudden absence of rich burials that could be correlated with an elite during Phase 6a but also Phase 6b. MOSCHOS in press. It might be connected with the control of the sea route through the channel between Cephaloniá, Ithaca and Akarnanía.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

241

corroborated by memories preserved in the form of the myth of the settlement of the Achaeans in this very period.33 What strikes us as important is that the myth comprises the migration from the Dýme region to Cyprus, a vast plain and also one of great strategic importance, which appears to have been deserted during the Submycenaean phase (6b), as we shall see later on. The organized EPG establishment in Western Achaea can be seen through the separate cemeteries34 and also in reused Mycenaean tombs, but we must say that this picture is dated right after the final abandonment of the Submycenaean sites or cemeteries in the region, although we lack clear evidence from the Mycenaean and the EPG settlements. The EPG establishment in Western Achaea has to be dated later than the EPG establishment in Stamná, Aetolía, as there is unpublished data to be considered, partly synchronizing Submycenaean Achaea and EPG Aetolía, at least from the time of abandonment of settlements and cemeteries in Achaea, that is during early Phase 6b. The same picture of synchronization is attested on Cephaloniá and Ithaca. The use of some chamber tombs or tholos tombs beyond and right after the Submycenaean period shows that the sites were abandoned but habitation in Achaea continued. Thus, in Western Achaea there seems to be no time gap between the periods and the abrupt switch to the new era apparently started in the area within the limits of the Submycenaean period.35 The second phase is characterized by an odd, but in any case, selective isolation that secured the survival of the people. This state of affairs was applied to the whole Western Mainland Koine, in which small geographical areas had already been obtained and controlled by the established EPG culture. As a result, the synchronized EPG establishment in Western Greece became, in its earliest phase, partly isolated and entrenched. This is why it exhibits local peculiarities that are without a parallel in Eastern Greece.36 Another reason is also its early appearance,37 which is made earlier here than at Lefkandí and at the Kerameikós. The emerging smooth, as well as internal development from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in Achaea but also the special and particular “contact” of the two different cultures and worlds might be the decisive elements which have caused all this great confusion with regards to the transition from one era to the other. This phenomenon offers a very good explanation for the presence of clear traces of the local Submycenaean style in the Western EPG pottery production but it also explains how certain Submycenaean bronze types in the region, such as arched and twisted fibulae, long dress pins (in pairs) and Mycenaean type weapons (swords, spear-heads, shield bosses), survived into EPG bronze production at Stamná,38 Aetolía and Rakíta,39 Achaea, namely during the “bronze phase” of the EPG period. The influence of the Submycenaean civilization is in itself a sufficient element which points to its importance and significance, thus seeking to understand it is something of a challenge. Nevertheless, the epics and what they preserved are proof of the Mycenaean influence in IA societies. The Submycenaean period serves as a link to the past, or as the transformed knowledge of the past. 33

34 35

36 37 38

39

See MOSCHOS in press with references. – The direct contacts between Western Greece and Cyprus continued during the EIA, see EDER 2006, 568–579 with bibliography. For the topic see GADOLOU 2008, 73–76, pls. 2, 3. Although no evidence has been published so far, it may be assumed that during the period in question iron objects were demanded on elite level. LEMOS 2002, 193–195. – DICKINSON 2006, 18. – GADOLOU 2008, 287–290 with bibliography. In contrast to the communis opinio see LEMOS 2002, 195. A bronze Naue II type sword is the most distinctive item in this group. I have to express my warmest thanks to L. Kolonas for this important information and also to J. Christakopoulou. For bronze spear-heads and a shield boss at Stamná see CHRISTAKOPOULOU 2001, 158, 161, 163, figs. 12–14, 20. – ID. in press. Α twisted type fibula and a bronze wheel are reported; see PETROPOULOS 1987–88, 91, note 33, fig. 13. Of great significance is a violin-bow fibula with incised decoration; see GADOLOU 2008, 207, fig. 160:101. Among other material of Submycenaean origin or inspiration are some fibulae, several typical pins and many rings with spiral ends. I am grateful to Dr. M. Petropoulos who gladly gave me permission to see the bronze material of this important excavation.

-

242

Ioannis Moschos

THE SETTLEMENTS We know nothing about domestic architecture, nor is any stratigraphic evidence available so far. A noteworthy exception is expected to be Aghía Kyriakí at Áno Sychainá, near Patras (Fig. 1). This settlement is connected to the ChT cemetery at Voúdeni. The on-going rescue excavation has revealed Submycenaean pottery of Phase 6b but at present, its connection with floor levels and architectural remains is not certain. The material from the older excavations at Teíchos Dymaíon remains unpublished40 (Fig. 2), but even when it is published, the approach can only be stylistic, since any relation of pottery to architectural remains is no longer feasible. What we do know, however, is that, until today, it has not received proper attention. The settlement was destructed by fire towards the end of the LH III C Late.41 This second destruction has recently been confirmed by data that have come to light during the ongoing restoration work.42 Final Mycenaean pottery shows the survival of the site after the destruction; for the moment it is unclear whether the destruction was caused by a violent incident or whether it was the result of a random incident. In my view, this last destruction might be related to troubles concerning local authority on a regional level and to an effort to control this strategic and fortified site by people housed in another area within Western Achaea who had grown stronger, although this cannot be proven at the moment. Judging by the evidence known, I suppose that this is a good explanation for this isolated destruction in Western Achaea. Furthermore, the continuous use of the site immediately after the destruction might imply that it was about who had the control of the site. What followed this destruction is connected directly with the beginning of the Final Mycenaean phase (6a), as the small amount of published pottery43 from Teíchos Dymaíon indicates this (Figs. 28–30). Up to today this domestic pottery is the only one published in Western Achaea which corresponds with Phase 6a pottery from cemeteries. Habitation at Teíchos Dymaíon continued into the Protogeometric period,44 although a gap is attested in Phase 6b, when we look at the preliminary reports.45 The strange abandonment of this fortified site during the Submycenaean phase shows that the suggested reasons for the destruction had no further meaning or the issue had already been solved at that time. It also shows the different orientation in settlement in Western Achaea and points out that under new political conditions an alternative site or alternative sites were preferred in order to manage the sea routes in the Ionian Sea and the Corinthian Gulf, which is probably situated in the Patras region. The continuing relations and contacts of Achaeans with Cephaloniá and probably with the South Italian peninsula during Phase 6b confirm the control of the sea routes, an issue that must have been faced by other means from another place. As Teíchos Dymaíon becomes marginal for the Mycenaeans and probably insecure for the people in the vast plain of Dýme, the region of Patras becomes more prominent during the Submycenaean phase, a fact also reflected in the excavations. Such is the state which presupposes that the real problems for Achaea and also the base to solve them were centered deeper in the Corinthian Gulf. The EPG presence in Ithaca46 shows how these problems appeared later on far away from Achaea, in the heart of the Ionian Sea. This small island, mostly from 40

41 42 43 44

45

46

For references see MOSCHOS 2002, 20, note 12 (D1). – Cf. ID. 2007b, 25–27, fig. 19. – KOLONAS 2008a. – MOSCHOS in press. MASTROKOSTAS 1967, 121. KOLONAS 2006, 219–221, figs. 7–12. See MASTROKOSTAS 1966, pl. 64α. – ID. 1967, pl. 176α. GADOLOU 2008, 71–72 with references. The iron finds, which might have been confused in Mycenaean strata, could have been connected to this settlement’s period; see supra note 7. I recently had the opportunity to see the greatest amount of the Mycenaean material from Teíchos Dymaíon, thanks to L. Kolonas. There is not a sherd of Phase 6b. See in general SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, 108–117, 142–143. – RMDP, 477–478, fig. 175.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

243

Phase 6a onwards, and in particular on Cephaloniá, survived during the entire Phase 6b47 and served as a key factor to secure the sea routes of the Submycenaeans and their counterparts, who traveled through the channel to the Italian peninsula. The EPG presence in Aetolía, synchronized with Phase 6b, reflects the problems in the vicinity of Achaea as early as the early Phase 6b and reflects the new situation along the northern coasts of the Corinthian Gulf, which became a common sea. It might be safe to conclude that the Achaean fleet was the first and the most important answer to these problems on a local scale and was capable of ensuring, for a while, the survival of the region in the new era, which is described here as the Achaean Phase 6b. Furthermore, Achaea, Ithaca and Cephaloniá had the same purposes and their roles were complementary during this phase.48 The material from the Mycenaean settlement of Stavrós, Chalandrítsa remains unpublished.49 The site hardly survived into the Submycenaean Phase 6b and no destruction by fire has been documented before Phase 6a – as was the case at Teíchos Dymaíon – or even later. Additions of new houses during the period in question cannot be distinguished from the preexisting constructions (Fig. 3), since we are not familiar with the excavation material and its relation to the site. Perhaps, some of those constructions altered the original site plan, blocking older roads and open spaces, a fact that cannot be confirmed with certainty before the final publication. Anyway, there are no different habitation horizons and the new additions were constructed when neighboring houses were used. Having in mind the situation at the nearby Ághios Vasílios chamber tomb cemetery, it might be correct to suppose the continuity of the settlement during the Final Mycenaean phase and the abandonment of the site very early in the Submycenaean phase.50 This would account for the lack of a clear Submycenaean level in the settlement but also gives a good indication for the short duration of Phase 6a, which simply follows Phase 5. It also gives us some grounds for supposing the abandonment of major sites in Western Achaea during early Phase 6b. There are no reports of Final Mycenaean and Submycenaean pottery for the settlement of Pagóna in Patras51 (Fig. 4), but I suppose this should be attributed to the brief excavation accounts that focus on the presentation of the most characteristic pottery in clear strata. I believe that a future study of the material will undoubtedly display the existence of the Submycenaean period as well, at least the first phase. None of the three sites with attested Final Mycenaean/Submycenaean presence was first established during or after the LH III C Late period (Phase 5), but they were connected with the continuation of pre-existing Mycenaean settlements. We have made reference to almost all little-known excavated Mycenaean sites in Western Achaea, including the Pagóna settlement. We have reached the conclusion that the settlements continue in three of the cases and most probably in the fourth one, too. The evidence available, which is however limited, appears to be related to Phase 6a; the only exception is Aghía Kyriakí. At a first glance it seems that the major part of Mycenaean settlements was abandoned very early in Phase 6b or even during 6a. At the same time, some large and influential cemeteries continued to be in an extremely limited use during Phase 6b. In conclusion, very few settlements survived under the new circumstances, and in any case, they were considerably reduced in size and they were very soon abandoned, as early as the early Phase 6b, with the unique exception of Voúdeni and its settlement at Aghía Kyriakí.

47 48 49

50

51

MOSCHOS 2007a, 281, pl. VII. MOSCHOS 2007a, 289. For references see MOSCHOS 2002, 17, note 7 (P28). – Cf. ID. 2007b, 32–33, figs. 28, 30. – KOLONAS 2008c, 7–13, figs. 3–12. For a Phase 6a stirrup jar from Ághios Vasílios see PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, fig. 112a,b. For a stirrup jar of Phase 6b from the same cemetery see IBID., figs. 113g, 201e. STAVROPOULOU-GATSI 2001. – For references see MOSCHOS 2002, 17, note 7 (P8). – Cf. ID. 2007b, 21, 23, fig. 11.

-

244

Ioannis Moschos

THE TOMBS The use of the Mycenaean chamber tomb cemeteries continued during the Final Mycenaean Phase 6a. This tends to be the pattern in Western Achaea, with only a few exceptions, which might be due to short preliminary reports or due to the lack of completed excavations. Nevertheless, we can assume that Mycenaean chamber tomb cemeteries were, in general, the only available place for burial during the Final Mycenaean phase, and their use did not cease at all.52 Unfortunately, there is no satisfactory evidence to assume that new chamber tombs were cut during Phase 6a. In other words, no new cemetery was organized in Achaea during this phase, a fact that could be useful in a number of ways, if we want to assess the picture of Western Achaea during the succeeding Submycenaean Phase 6b. Furthermore, recent excavations in conjunction with a reassessment of the old material have illustrated the use of some chamber tombs during Phase 6b (see Appendix) but have also demonstrated the tendency to abandon the cemeteries, in accordance with one of the settlements. Among them stands Voúdeni,53 where a specific and quite extensive part of the cemetery was chosen to be used throughout the entire Phase 6b, demonstrating the general prosperity of the site. The huge number of already existing chamber tombs was the reason for the absence of new constructions at this site during the Submycenaean period, in contrast to the numerous new rock-cut tombs in the advanced use of the cemetery at Eláteia-Alonáki.54 It might be useful to argue that in most other cases it was not the cemetery that was used but merely some chamber tombs, in a manner to allow the hypothesis that some people insisted to be buried in their family tombs during Phase 6b, along with their relatives and ancestors. Such a situation can be seen as a clear reuse of chamber tombs of otherwise abandoned cemeteries as early as Submycenaean Phase 6b and not only as late as EPG or even later, as is commonly believed. The exclusive use and reuse of chamber tombs could be a good explanation for the absence of organized cemeteries with personal graves but it also demonstrates the survival of Mycenaean people and the continuity of their burial habits. This remark is perhaps most significant because the burial customs and their perpetuation show the homogeneity of the population. The aversion to the adoption of individual graves, despite some isolated instances of such graves within the boundaries of the Mycenaean chamber tomb cemeteries in Achaea throughout the LH III period,55 should probably be correlated with an aversion towards EPG civilization. As already suggested, the establishment of the EPG in Aetolía should be synchronized with almost the entire Achaean Phase 6b. Furthermore, the relocation or the migration to certain and already existing settlements, where organized cemeteries of chamber tombs were in use, guaranteed the continued use of the Mycenaean tombs and of the continuation of the related burial customs. In the course of time the abandoned cemeteries seem to become a kind of “sacred” place56 or seem to be held in people’s mind as places with a special honorary meaning. These places, where their ancestors were buried, were the proof of their roots, in contrast to EPG people whose ancestors were not buried in their new lands. Furthermore, the troubled Submycenaean society had a strong need for heroes of the past. They were a support for carry on living and at the same time they could be used as archetypes. The reuse of chamber tombs in the EPG period for burials and also in historic times for sacrifices has its roots in this Sub52

53

54 55 56

Fourteen burials have been placed in this phase at the Klauss cemetery instead of thirteen of Phase 5; see PASCHALIDIS – MCGEORGE in press. KOLONAS forthcoming. – For references see MOSCHOS 2002, 17–18, note 7 (P4, P5). – Cf. ID. 2007b, 19, 21, figs. 1, 10–11. DEGER-JALKOTZY – DAKORONIA 1991. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999 with bibliography. – DIMAKI 2003. Quite clear is the case of the Pórtes cemetery; see KOLONAS 2008c, 34-35, 39, 40, 44, 47, figs. 52, 62, 65. Cult in abandoned tombs might have already been started during the Submycenaean phase. The tholos tomb at Kazárma was reused, but according to P. Mountjoy (RMDP, 56) this activity was related “…to cult rather than burial”. – For tomb cult in historic times see KORRES 1981/82. – Cf. GADOLOU 2008, 251–253 with bibliography.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

245

mycenaean idiosyncrasy. The appearance of heirlooms in EPG tombs57 demonstrates the ideal of the Mycenaean era and has its origin in the above philosophy, which was first formed in the Submycenaean era. A feature of special value is the reuse of some Achaean chamber tombs contemporary with or immediately after Phase 6b. This reuse is testified by the presence of iron implements and weapons. However, in the region of Patras the only published case is that of Kríni: Zoitáda, which can be seen as a testimony for the presence of a foreign people in Western Achaea. The excavation’s preliminary report makes clear that chamber tomb 3 was considered poor and insignificant compared to the wealth of the two neighboring excavated tombs. The chamber’s floor had been carefully cleared of the old artifacts, with the exception of the skeletal remains of three secondary burials, along with sherds of a handmade vase. “At the rear of the chamber have been revealed remains of a destroyed, built, slab covered pit, 1.56 m long, constructed of thin slabs.”58 Unfortunately, no photographs or plans or the sherds of the handmade vase could be traced. This burial custom was quite uncommon in Western Achaea59 and it could be paralleled with examples from Stamná and Tzannáta tholos tombs, which will be examined further down. Its date, although problematic, would be either Phase 6b or immediately after it. At Vrysárion the use of one chamber tomb continues immediately after Phase 6b;60 a handmade jug and two iron knives accompanied the last burial in tomb 4, which have to be placed in the EPG period. Some iron weapons found in a chamber tomb in the Aígion region,61 have to be dated to the same period. Accordingly, the cremation in a chamber tomb at Palaiókastro Arcadía,62 with an iron Naue II type sword, belongs to the EPG period and proves the reuse of some chamber tombs in the wider region. Some other few reused chamber tombs during the EPG period in the area of Patras are yet to be published. An EPG burial use is also attested at the dromos of chamber tomb 6 at Elleniká, Messenía.63 Signs of reuse during Phase 6b and even later have also been found in tholos tombs, which were actually reused by “new owners”. The philosophy of this preference might be the same as in the case of isolated chamber tombs with Phase 6b burials. The tholos tomb at Kallithéa (Laganidiá)64 had already been plundered and abandoned by the LH III C period, a fact confirmed by the pottery. Two burials without gravegoods could be associated with later use or reuse, one by the tomb’s entrance65 and the other in a pit within the tholos’ deposits.66 An EPG reuse is also apparent, although the burial purposes are not clear in preliminary reports. In this case the tholos tomb was within the limits of a chamber tomb cemetery, so the fact that it was known is not strange at all, as some chambers in its close environment had been used during the Final Mycenaean phase. The forthcoming publication of the cemetery will surely provide a complete diachronic picture of the site.67 For the time being, we may suppose that this EPG reuse was based on the same philosophy as of the chamber tombs in the region. Furthermore, we are dealing with a contemporary reuse of tholos tombs and chamber tombs, which has to be

57 58 59

60

61 62 63 64 65 66 67

For the topic see MOSCHOS in press with bibliography. CHRYSAFI 1999, 235. A known exception is a cist tomb in the dromos of chamber tomb Σ at Kallithéa (Spénzes). The excavator provides a date within LH III C Late; see PAPADOPOULOS 1999a, 124, pl. 70β. Evidence of Phase 6b or of the contemporary EPG “bronze phase” has not been observed in this cemetery; however, only a few tombs have been excavated. As a result, Phase 6b is used here and in the following cases as a chronological borderline. The published evidence does not support continuity at these sites. For these iron implements and weapons see supra note 5. BLACKMAN 1997, 33. CHATZI-SPILIOPOULOU 2001, 293, pl. 28:3. PAPADOPOULOS 1988. – ID. 1991. PAPADOPOULOS 1991, 70, pl. 59β. PAPADOPOULOS 1991, 71, pl. 61β. For a research of the preliminary reports see MOSCHOS 2002, 18, note 7 (P 21).

-

246

Ioannis Moschos

placed after the “bronze phase”/earliest stage of EPG period at Stamná and which has to be synchronized with a developed stage of EPG period.68 Published material from Ancient Elis does not allow us to be more extensive here.69 The only thing to be mentioned is that Phase 6a is present at the cemetery, but the following Phase 6b was very soon replaced by an early stage of EPG70 which is contemporary with the first appearance of the EPG culture at Stamná and also with Phase 6b in Western Achaea. At Stamná, in Aetolía a huge cemetery of cist graves and pithoi burials have come to light71 (Fig. 5). The graves were grouped in clusters, dispersed over a large area; about twenty of them have been excavated so far. Very few included a small number of graves with pottery comparable to the Achaean Submycenaean Phase 6b.72 However, the well known Achaean Submycenaean Style was not clearly formed here and this can be explained by the precocity of the existing features. Interestingly enough, the early local EPG pottery style includes shapes and decoration patterns of the Submycenaean Phase 6b repertoire: even stirrup jars are incorporated.73 Beyond any doubt, the Mature Style has been replaced by the Western EPG pottery style; in fact, it probably constitutes its earliest appearance. Phase 6a is also present at the cemetery, with the same characteristics that occur at Ancient Elis. Although it is extremely rare at Stamná, nevertheless it is quite certain. A reused tholos tomb has recently come to light at Stamná,74 where an early EPG cist grave had been built within the vault. This tholos tomb was abandoned during the LH III C period, but the meagre Final Mycenaean and Submycenaean presence in this region might have served as a link.75 In my opinion, this reuse is contemporary either with Phase 6b in Achaea or with the EPG reuse of the tombs there. The monumental tholos tomb at Tzannáta,76 Póros in Cephaloniá continued to be in use at least during the Final Mycenaean phase, as is also the case with the tholos tomb at Mavráta77 – with even later reuse, the two tholos tombs in Akarnanía, at Loutráki78 and Kechriniá,79 and probably the tholos tomb 2 at Marathiá, Aetolía.80 A later reuse at Tzannáta included, in one case, the construction of a small cist grave with a burial without gravegoods and in another one the insertion of a large burial pithos81 with a trefoil-mouthed jug and a pair of long bronze dress pins, which can be placed in an early stage of the EPG period, that of the “bronze phase”. The cist burial is earlier than the pithos burial and could be dated to the Submycenaean Phase 6b, which at this site was very soon replaced by the EPG period that somehow came later than at Ancient Elis. The pithos burial is the only known evidence for such a suggestion. It is roughly 68 69 70

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79

80

81

That is what is contemporary or follows stage IV of Kerameikós; see RUPPENSTEIN 2007. EDER 2001. – Cf. MOSCHOS in press with bibliography. The same situation is attested in the cemetery at Néa Ionía (Vólos); see BATZIOU-EFSTATHIOU 1999. Phase 6a is the earliest of the cemetery (IBID., 118–120, figs. 3–10 – Tombs 56, 57), while Phase 6b is nonexistent. Phase 6a is directly followed by a very early stage of EPG (IBID., 120–122, figs. 11–14, Tomb 197). The shape of the bow of a twisted fibula (IBID., fig. 13) is not Submycenaean but EPG. Furthermore, the bronze long dress pins (IBID., fig. 12) are of the same type, which is once more an EPG feature (see LEMOS 2002, 108 with bibliography). See supra note 9. CHRISTAKOPOULOU in press. I would like to express my gratitude to L. Kolonas and J. Christakopoulou for this information. PETROPOULOS – SARANTI – CHRISTAKOPOULOU 2004, 231. – STAVROPOULOU-GATSI 2008b, 377. CHRISTAKOPOULOU 2006, 512. See MOSCHOS 2007a, 264–266 (no. 51α,β) with bibliography. MOSCHOS 2007a, 259–260 (no. 41). See for example the small kalathos with very concave sides in KOLONAS 1997a, 74, fig. 28a. – Cf. KOLONAS 2008b, fig. 12. STAVROPOULOU-GATSI 2008b, 375. – I would like to express my gratitude to the director of the 36th EPCA M. Stavropoulou-Gatsi that gave me permission to see the material of her recent excavation and to use this information. A basin probably belongs to this phase (RMDP, 805, fig. 321:39), which could hardly be compared to some sherds from Chalkís, Aetolía (DIETZ – MOSCHOS 2006, 57, 59, pl. 1:1). KOLONAS 1997b, 155, plan 12. – ID. 1998, pl. 50a. – Cf. MOSCHOS 2007a, 265.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

247

contemporary with the EPG establishment at Stamná and it is earlier than the EPG presence at Ithaca. Burial architecture in Cephaloniá presents a combination of elements used in Achaea and Aetolía. On the one hand we have chamber tomb cemeteries that continued their use or were reused during Phase 6b, such as the ones at Diakáta,82 Metaxáta83 and Lakkíthra,84 where large pits in the chamber floors already existed. On the other hand, the cist grave and the pithos burial insertion at Tzannáta are extremely rare indications of adopting diverse burial practices, which we have already compared with the early stage of the EPG culture at Stamná, Aetolía and the posterior sequence of the EPG tombs at Ancient Elis, where the adoption of EPG burial architecture is apparent, but not to a stage to use burial pithoi. Nevertheless, the Tzannáta pithos burial has to be placed during the EPG period and it is probably synchronized with the burials at the Diakáta chamber tombs of Phase 6b, from which a pair of bronze long pins is known.85 A. Sotiriou has recently found a cist grave at Karavómylos near Sámi,86 far away from any organized Mycenaean cemetery. It contained a handmade jug and Submycenaean pottery that could easily have been mistaken for Achaean Phase 6b, even though this option cannot be excluded. It is more than certain that the EPG pithos burial at Tzannáta chronologically corresponds to the Phase 6b pottery at Karavómylos. An independent presence of EPG on the island of Cephaloniá is probably attested in a natural rock cavity at Mavráta: Chaeráta.87 This place has been identified as an ossuary. Four handmade necked jars with plastic and incised decoration found together with human bones may probably be related with the EPG period. The handmade pottery had a long tradition during the LH III period on Cephaloniá, but comparable shapes with similar decoration have been found at Polis Cave and Tris Langádes on Ithaca, as well as in chamber tombs at Metaxáta, Lakkíthra and Mazarákata.88 In these last cases an EPG reuse of chamber tombs is apparent. Having in mind the continuing use, or even reuse until Phase 6b at these cemeteries, this phenomenon can be placed during the EPG period and synchronized with an analogous use in Achaea, Aetolía, Elis and Arcadía. A comparable reuse is attested at the tholos tomb at Mavráta, too. As a conclusion, the use of family tombs in Achaea during the Submycenaean period reflects the survival of Mycenaean burial customs on a similar scale. Double and triple Phase 6b burials at Voúdeni’s chamber tombs confirm all the above. It is also true to conclude that Submycenaean burial architecture in Achaea almost does not exist simply because Mycenaean chamber tombs continue to be in use. Anyway, it does not break from the LH III C tradition, apart from a few contemporary constructions in the adjacent regions, as the small cist grave inside the tholos tombs at Tzannáta, the cist grave at Karavómylos, the graves of Phase 6a at Ancient Elis and Stamná and a unique cist grave in Achaea, found in the floor of the Kríni’s chamber tomb, which is either later than Phase 6b or contemporary with this phase, the latter with certain reservations due to the lack of clear evidence. This cist grave has a LH III C Late parallel in the dromos of chamber tomb Σ at Kallithéa: Spénzes.89 The transition to the use of individual graves did not occur during the Submycenaean period in Achaea. The diffusion of cist or pit graves or even tumuli mounds had not reached this part, despite the fact that in the

82 83 84 85 86

87 88 89

SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, 38–39. – Cf. MOSCHOS 2007a, 238–239 (no. 15α,β). SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, 42–43. – Cf. MOSCHOS 2007a, 250–251 (no. 21α,β). SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, pl. 4:A 1313,A 1275. – Cf. MOSCHOS 2007a, 244–246 (no. 19). SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, 81, pl. 20:A 948,A 949. A recent unpublished rescue excavation. I wish to thank my colleague for sharing this information with me. An essay about the tomb is prepared for publication. – Cf. MOSCHOS 2007a, 269 (no. 59). – ID. in press. SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, 45 (no. 40), pl. 62:c. – Cf. MOSCHOS 2007a, 260 (no. 42). SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, 75–76, 107, pls. 62:c, 68:g,f with references. The suggested date is LH III C. See supra note 59.

-

248

Ioannis Moschos

aforementioned neighboring regions and even in the Argolid, with which Western Achaea had relations during Phase 6a,90 such graves had been used in organized cemeteries all along. THE BURIAL CUSTOMS The burial mounds in the Argolid included pits and cists, even with cremations,91 which are extremely rare in Western Achaea, since inhumation was the rule during the LH III C period and its succeeding phases, with the exception of at least one clear case, as will be seen below. This custom continues unabated during the Protogeometric and Geometric period in Achaea.92 The Homeric custom of cremation was probably known in Mycenaean Achaea during the LH III C period. More than five cases have been reported in preliminary accounts and considered as cremations. If so, this is a considerable number for Western Greece. Possible cremations are one at a chamber tomb in Kallithéa: Spénzes,93 one or two in Klauss94 and two at the warriors’ tomb in Spaliaréika.95 A four-handled jar had been used in one of the suggested cases at Spaliaréika, closed with a kylix base as a lid.96 A further possible case is the one at the tholos tomb of Kallithéa: Laganidiá,97 while three pyres in the tholos tomb at Petrotó have been identified as purification ones.98 These examples have to be published first in order to be certain that the rite was followed, i.e. that the corpses were indeed cremated. For the time being, we cannot exclude that the bones were not burned inside the chamber under different circumstances, not those of a cremation. The only apparent cremation in Western Achaea comes from the cemetery of Voúdeni and is clearly connected to Phase 6.99 The “cremation” with the violin bow fibula at Kallithéa: Spénzes, in my opinion, can be dated according to the pottery which was present in the chamber, either to Phase 5 or 6a. Awaiting the final publications to confirm the fact that some of the LH III C cases are indeed cremations, we can propose that this custom was known in Western Achaea at least during Phase 6, but it is extremely rare as a practice in Western Greece, in which an example from Agrapidochóri in Elis100 is the only one known. Inhumation remained the rule. Regarding the burial customs, it is quite safe to say that there is an uninterrupted continuity from the LH III C Late period to the Submycenaean. It is true that there is no real differentiation and any novelty can be considered as a mere improvement. In a few cases these novelties are hardly attested already in LH III C and they become more intense during the period in question, otherwise some continued elements are slightly differentiated.

90

91

92 93 94 95 96 97 98

99 100

Quite evident are one stirrup jar and two lekythoi from a cist grave at Árgos; see KANTA 1975, 265–266, figs. 11– 12. They are local imitations of Achaean Phase 6a style, if the stirrup jar is not an import from Achaea, as P. Mountjoy (RMDP, 179, 183, fig. 56:413) has suggested. – Cf. MOSCHOS in press. HÄGG 1987, 211, note 32. – PITEROS 2001. – EDER – JUNG 2005, 492–493. – JUNG 2007, 226–229 with bibliography. GADOLOU 2008, 247. PAPADOPOULOS 1981, 30, fig. 58. – ID. 1982, 108, pl. 93a. PAPADOPOULOS 1993, 26. – ID. 1995, 57. PETROPOULOS 2000, 68, 75. PETROPOULOS 2000, figs. 5–6. PAPADOPOULOS 1991, 71. PAPAZOGLOU–MANIOUDAKI 2003, 434. – A similar case has been reported for ChT 4 at Voúdeni; see KOLONAS 2008b, 16–17. I express my warmest thanks to L. Kolonas for this precious information. A vase from the pyre belongs to Phase 6a; see PARLAMA 1972, 54, 56–57, fig. ΛΓ,ε,ζ.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

249

At the cemeteries of Voúdeni,101 Mitópolis102 and Kallithéa: Laganidiá103 some of the latest burials in the chambers had no offerings at all, as was also the case of the small cist grave at Tzannáta; it would not be safe, however, to relate them with the period in question. We can be certain that offerings were still put alongside the corpses; in fact some burials were accompanied by a great number of vases and other artifacts. A noteworthy differentiation is the way vases were arranged around the corpse, though this is not a rule and all the known cases are exceptions. In the case of a Phase 6a burial at Pórtes,104 the vases had been arranged along the burial’s long sides (Fig. 6), in a fashion reminiscent of the EPG custom, known from Stamná (Fig. 5). A similar arrangement had been made in a LH III C Late (Phase 5) primary burial at Kríni: Zoitáda105 (Fig. 7). Generally speaking, such an arrangement of the offerings reflects a need to define the limits of the deceased inside the chamber and brings to mind the built construction or the burial pithos in the tholos of Tzannáta, the cist grave inside the tholos at Stamná and the cist inside the chamber tomb at Kríni: Zoitáda. Furthermore, it reflects the new idea of defining burial space in a discernible way, such as a cist, although local people were reluctant to adopt these constructions. This mere custom seems ideally adapted to the preexisting burial architecture, without a need for a pit or a cist construction. At Voúdeni106 (Figs. 34–36), Kríni: Zoitáda107 (Fig. 7) and Kallithéa: Spénzes108 there are four cases of large jars closed by a small stirrup jar. In a further instance at Kallithéa: Spénzes a small jug was used as a lid109 and, in another one, a straight-sided alabastron was preferred.110 Although it is attested at Palaiókastro, Arcadía111 already by Phase 4 (Tab. 1), this is a common Submycenaean and PG – G custom, also associated with cremations, not unknown in Attica, Eastern Pelopónnesus, Thessaly, Crete and elsewhere.112 Some of the above mentioned cases in Western Achaea could be related to Phase 5 too, because their date is not clear in preliminary reports and in most cases they appear in general photos only, which makes the confirmation very difficult. The aforementioned custom in Western Greece is not related to cremations and it could alternatively be seen as a development of using vase bases as lids.113 Reference has to be made to the doubtful case at Spaliaréika, where a four-handled jar of Phase 3 (Tab. 1) with a base lid is supposed to contain a cremation. The use of pits inside chamber tombs continued during this period, although this custom is not widespread in Western Achaea.114 So far there is no published evidence to determine whether some of the pits used were dug during Phase 6a or 6b. The only case known to me comes from the floor of chamber tomb 5 at Pórtes, where a pit was opened and used during Phase 6a. In this case, the pit was preferred to solve a problem related to the use of the tomb 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

113

114

KOLONAS forthcoming. CHRISTAKOPOULOU forthcoming. PAPADOPOULOS 1995, 58, pl. 18b. Connected with this primary burial were the vessels on Figs. 12–15, 19–25. CHRYSAFI 1999, 235, pl. 73γ. Unpublished. They are dated to Phase 6b. – For further cases see KOLONAS 2008b, 31, fig. 58. CHRYSAFI 1999, 235. PAPADOPOULOS 1978a, fig. 58. – ID. 1978b, 185, pl. 113b. PAPADOPOULOS 1982, pl. 92b. PAPADOPOULOS 1999b, fig. 30. – ID. 2000, 86, pl. 35 (nos. 7 and 8). SPYROPOULOS 1996, 16. A vase had been used as a lid on an urn, inside a pit grave in Athens; see ALEXANDRI 1968, 93, pl. 85γ. – It is not unknown at Kerameikós; see for example RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 29, 30, pl. 16:Gr. 145, Gr. 146. – In the burial mound in Árgos, see PITEROS 2001, 104, note 19, figs. 9, 10. – In the pit tomb Γ 23 at Mycenae and probably in the cist tomb Γ 31, see DESBOROUGH 1973, 92, fig. 2B. – In an Early Geometric tomb at Faestós; see HATZIVALLIANOU 1987, 284, pl. 193. This practice, i.e. the use of vase bases as lids, is a common custom of the Dýme area and Elis but it is quite uncommon in the Patras region where whole vessels were preferred from Phase 5 onwards. PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, 55–56. – KOLONAS forthcoming with recent bibliography.

-

250

Ioannis Moschos

and is not connected with an attempt to define a special place for the deceased; it was probably an attempt to protect the body from a collapse of the chamber roof.115 The use of pits in the floor of the tombs went on during this period and those cut for the first time do not alter the picture that we already have of the burial customs of the region during the LH III C period. The widespread use of burial beds, biers or coffins in Western Achaea116 during the LH III period lives on in Phase 6, even in Phase 6b,117 although primary burials, placed directly on the floor are also attested and are numerous, as in previous phases. It is quite safe to suggest that there is no gap towards the switch to the Protogeometric period, when the utilization of burial beds is common, as shown in depicted scenes. The depiction of a próthesis on a burial bed on a krater from Aghía Triádha in Elis,118 should in my opinion, be dated either to Phase 5 or, most likely, Phase 6a and not to the LH III C Middle as proposed.119 The main reason for such a late date is the concrete appearance of the Silhouette Style. This style was actually developed during Phase 5 and primarily Phase 6a at Achaea and Elis and was not developed first on Cyprus as is believed.120 In fact it is another element connecting Northwestern Pelopónnesus and Cephaloniá with Cyprus during the Submycenaean period.121 It was encountered at Pórtes (Fig. 13), in a well-dated assemblage of Phase 6a and more recently at Voúdeni,122 as a smooth development of the local pictorial style of the LH III C Late period, in which elements of the Silhouette Style already existed. Lately, O. Vikatou has found a very important depiction of an ekphorá near Kladéos.123 These depictions are related to analogous Protogeometric ones124 and reflect the adoption or the survival of Mycenaean customs, but only as far as the burial preparations are concerned. The Mycenaean scenes represent the social significance of the próthesis and ekphorá and they prove the presence of these objects, apart from their traces in tombs. It is exactly this social significance that is depicted on the Aghía Triádha and Kladéos vases, as well as the similar decoration themes of the large Protogeometric and Geometric vases. In other words, compared to the LH III C period, the burial ritual remains unchanged in the Submycenaean period, not only in the continuous use of such objects but also in the social display of the dead and in social meanings through funerary customs. THE COMING OF THE NORTHERNERS Maybe it sounds odd when we put forward the view that two different cultures, the one of the remote prehistory and the other of the Early Protogeometric, coexisted for a certain period of time. Someone could contradict this argument using diverse statements: that the delay of cultures is not feasible and it is impossible that the Mycenaean culture survived in a region in which the EPG culture had already prevailed, since the arrival of the iron bearing people has been correlated with the eclipse of the Mycenaean civilization. Or one can continue to argue that if they were truly contemporary we should have had tangible evidence, for instance, an EPG vessel in a closed Submycenaean context. Such a case has not yet been found and is probably not expected in Western Achaea, nonetheless it is already known at Kerameikós, Lefkandí and Mycenae. 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124

MOSCHOS 2002, 28. MOSCHOS 2002, 28 with references. – KOLONAS 2008b, 13. – KOLONAS forthcoming. There are some burials at Voúdeni; see KOLONAS forthcoming. SCHINAS 1999. – VIKATOU 2001. – HILLER 2006, 185, fig. 5. Cf. CROUWEL 2006, 16, 19, fig. 6, where he includes the krater in his LH III C Middle discussion. KARAGEORGHIS 1997, 79. – IACOVOU 1997. – For the topic see MOSCHOS in press. PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, 180. – MOSCHOS in press with bibliography. My thanks for this information go to L. Kolonas. VIKATOU 2004, 231. For a brief review see HILLER 2006.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

251

However, the co-existence of the Mycenaean culture with another one is not a fact without precedents in the region. At about the end of LH III C Late, new people arrived from the mountains and settled in Thérmos, Aetolía, i.e. after the fire destruction of the site, vaguely dated to the LH III B/C period.125 Their first appearance can be placed a little earlier or around the second destruction of Teíchos Dymaíon, that is at least Phase 6a or as early as Phase 5. These newcomers used matt-painted ware, referred to as “local Geometric” due to its local features and its supposed EPG and G date.126 Despite that, it was found stratified in a Mycenaean deposit in Aetolian Chalkís127 and is synchronized at least with the Final Mycenaean phase. Traces of Phase 6b are extremely scanty in Chalkís,128 but the abandonment of the site during the early Phase 6b, as was probably the case with the settlements in Achaea, cannot be excluded. The matt-painted ware is a branch of the North – Northwestern pottery and constitutes a common group with that from Vítsa in Epirus, Pámphio, Chalkís, Kalydón, Pleurón, Stamná and the settlement at Ághios Ilías in Aetolía, as well as pottery from Aghía Paraskeví and Kýnos in Phthiótis.129 Its classification as “South matt-painted ware” has already been proposed.130 At Stamná, Kalydón and Pleurón it was found inside cist graves among EPG pottery, so as to make clear that these people remained in their home lands during the EIA and had contacts with different cultures on the Aetolian coasts as early as Final Mycenaean Phase 6a and as late as EPG period. Furthermore, the arrival of the EPG culture does not seem to have affected this cultural group to an extent which led to their disappearance. At the same time not a single sherd of EPG pottery has been published from Thérmos and if we look into this settlement, it is isolated during the EPG period. Although the presence of the matt-painted pottery at Chalkís and on the Aetolian coast could be used as a strong element for the synchronization of Phase 6b with the early stage of EPG in the region, unfortunately the insufficient or doubtful remains of the Submycenaean Phase 6b at Chalkís do not allow safe conclusions. Furthermore, the duration of this cultural group using matt-painted pottery has not yet been confirmed with certainty.131 These mountainous people trespassed into Mycenaean territories and maintained friendly relations with the Mycenaean population of the Aetolian coasts, which probably provided them with Mycenaean pottery from Western Achaea, including a pictorial krater with warriors132 from the workshop of Voúdeni. Even so, matt-painted pottery of this cultural group has not yet been found in Achaea, but it would be wrong to assume that Achaeans ignored its existence. Its emergence is probably related to the excellent trade relations and to the Mycenaean presence in Epirus and Macedonia. Those people settled in an already destroyed Mycenaean site, in an area that had become marginal for the Mycenaeans. Its presence in the mountainous landscape had been accepted by the Mycenaean people. I think that this approval does not exclude the 125 126 127 128

129

130 131 132

PAPAPOSTOLOU 2003, 137–138. ROMAIOS 1916, 263–265. – WARDLE 1972, 80–83. – WARDLE – WARDLE 2003, 150–151. DIETZ – MOSCHOS 2006, 59–61. – DIETZ 2007, 87–89. – MOSCHOS in press. See DIETZ – MOSCHOS 2006, 57, fig. 18:210 and compare with SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD 1999, pl. 4:A 1313 and Fig. 39 in this paper. See MOSCHOS in press with bibliography. – CHRISTAKOPOULOU in press. – Cf. DIETZ 2007, 87–89, fig. 2:8. – GADOLOU 2008, 308–309. – A few sherds from Ághios Ilías settlement could be of MH date; see WARDLE 1972, 103, 367, fig. 86:427–429. – Pottery of the specific type was recently found at Pámphio, near Thérmos, by M. Stavropoulou-Gatsi whom I devoutly thank for the tip. I also want to thank F. Dakoronia and P. Kounouklas for their kind information on the existence of a similar stratified matt-painted ware at Kýnos. DIETZ – MOSCHOS 2006, 59. WARDLE – WARDLE 2003, 151. WARDLE – WARDLE 2003, 150, fig. 3. – MOSCHOS in press. – KOLONAS forthcoming. The date of the krater should be LH III C Late/Final Mycenaean (DIETZ – MOSCHOS 2006, 60). This is not only according to the very long tongue of the handgrip (Allerona class), which extends beyond the “fish-tail” of the preserved depiction of the Naue II type sword; this date also fits perfectly with the first appearance of matt-painted ware at Thérmos.

-

252

Ioannis Moschos

possibility to find this matt-painted ware civilization even in mountainous Achaea or even Elis. Indeed, if we consider these populations as the precursor tribes of the EPG civilization, a probable settlement of them in the uplands of Northwestern Pelopónnesus could be the bridgehead for the EPG culture. It would also clarify the existence of the Final Mycenaean and EPG cemetery at Ancient Elis, which is early and almost isolated for this era and area. Because the most important feature of these mountainous tribes is that with their continuous presence they break and cross the boundaries of the presumed Dark Ages. Since they appeared during the Mycenaean era and they were involved into the EPG period, the pit and cist cemetery at Ancient Elis is exactly contemporary with their presence, although the aforementioned cases cannot be related, at least for now. The most common decorative patterns and shapes (storage jar, krater) found in the mattpainted ware have parallels in the Mature Achaean Style,133 in LH III C Middle to Late down to the Submycenaean period, so that we can argue for the existence of a close relationship and interaction between the two civilizations, maybe even before they settled in the region.134 This liaison continues during the end of the Submycenaean period, with two documented cases of the presence of new inhabitants in the Patras region, in the cemeteries of Voúdeni and Kríni. Their existence is not only discernible in the pottery, but also in the diverse burial customs. At tomb 1 of Kríni: Zoitáda a broken but complete jug with cutaway neck and narrow flat base was found beside the entrance,135 made on a slow speed potter’s wheel and by a potter unfamiliar with the Mycenaean typology (Fig. 8). It is undoubtedly related to the last access to the chamber and can be associated with a primary burial without gravegoods at the chamber’s center, close to another Phase 6a primary burial. A similar vase, once again broken but complete, was found in the dromos deposits of chamber tomb 19 in Voúdeni136 (Fig. 9). The chamber had been meticulously cleared, apart from an old and forgotten primary burial with a single LH III A1 vase that had been covered by deposits which had fallen from the roof. Almost directly above this assemblage a primary crouched burial without gravegoods was placed that is apparently connected to the jug found outside the chamber. Another vase, similar to the ones found in Voúdeni and Kríni, comes from a shallow pit beside the entrance of the tholos tomb at Mavráta137 and another one is published by S. Marinatos from the cemetery at Metaxáta.138 The wrong restoration made this item appear as a small Mycenaean jug in the publication. The recent restoration shows the real shape and a completely different vase, a cutaway neck jug with a narrow base. The shape’s origin can be traced back to the local pottery of Thérmos, Aetolía139 (Fig. 10) and according to the bibliography, its date is contemporary with EPG. Thus, it is at least clear that the use of some chamber tombs at Kríni: Zoitáda, Voúdeni and on Cephaloniá and the tholos tomb at Mavráta continued after the Submycenaean Phase 6b, although local pottery production at Thérmos, including local matt-painted ware, had already started at least during

133 134

135 136 137

138

139

PAPADOPOULOU 2004, 42. – MOSCHOS in press. Compare e.g. the decoration of a double vase from Gerokomeíon, near Patras; see MASTROKOSTAS 1968, fig. 153β (Patras M. 876). – Cf. PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, figs. 172f,g, 262e. CHRYSAFI 1999, 234. – Cf. DIETZ – MOSCHOS 2006, 60. – MOSCHOS in press. KOLONAS forthcoming. – Cf. DIETZ – MOSCHOS 2006, 60. – MOSCHOS in press. WARDLE 1972, 149. – Argostóli Museum inv. no. 1689. The exact find spot is recorded in the Catalogue of the Argostóli Museum. – Cf. MOSCHOS in press with reference to a similar vase from Skaphidáki at the entrance of the Ambrakian Gulf. From ChT B, pit 4. Argostóli Museum inv. no. 1508. – MARINATOS 1935, fig. 32:B4. – Cf. DIETZ – MOSCHOS 2006, 60 (erroneously referred to as AM 1689). – MOSCHOS in press. WARDLE 1972, fig. 58:213, 214, 215. – A further link to the local pottery of Thérmos might be represented by an amphora from Metaxáta (Argostóli Museum inv. no. 1476); see MARINATOS 1935, 83–84, fig. 29 (B. Δάπεδον). Its horned horizontal handles can be paralleled by a few handmade vessels from Thérmos with knobs at the highest point of the horizontal handles (WARDLE 1972, 81, 348, 350, figs. 79:311, 81:334).

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

253

Phase 6a, as has been stated above. Admittedly, the jugs could be dated within the limits of Phase 6. The carefully cleared chamber floors and the removal of all Mycenaean vases demonstrate the advent of new habits, outside the older or contemporary Mycenaean practices. This picture is in contrast to the usual image of chambers filled with bones and offerings in Western Achaean cemeteries of the LH III C Late period and even in tombs used during the Submycenaean phase. The new custom of placing a burial without grave gifts in a chamber and a jug in the dromos is remarkable. Unfortunately, there is nothing known about tombs and burial customs at Thérmos, to compare it with. THE POLITICAL FRAME AND SITUATION The absence of rich burials that could be connected with the elite is considerable in Achaea during Phase 6. This picture is in contrast to the great number of burials that date back to Phases 3 to 5 (Tab. 1) and which were accompanied by Naue II type swords.140 For the time being, there are no published swords of this type that can be dated to Phase 6. This is a verified phenomenon that has been analyzed elsewhere.141 It should also be mentioned that the number of primary burials in Phase 6a was – more or less – the same as that of Phase 5,142 so that the absence of Naue II type swords is not a matter of chance, given the fact that, statistically, they should have already been located. What is more, the burials of Phase 6 are usually primary and undisturbed, as they are the last in the chambers. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that from Phase 6a onwards, Naue II type swords have ceased to be placed in the tombs, with a reservation that should be expressed: Naue II type swords are no longer usual items in the chamber tombs as they used to be in the previous phases; even if Phase 6 has not yet provided an example, there is no evidence for their scarcity in society. This absence does not mean that new techniques of war were adopted in Achaea and that the Naue II type sword was abandoned, or that it was not used as much as it was used since its appearance during Phase 3 and onwards. Furthermore, pictorial scenes on vases from Voúdeni present warriors with Naue II type swords, a repertoire that only ceased during Phase 6b.143 The general prosperity of Achaea during Phase 6a does not leave much space for an explanation related to the scarcity of copper. So, it does not look intentional to assume that, due to general poverty, the swords were bequeathed and not placed in the graves. I have already proposed an interpretation for this phenomenon; in my opinion, it should be viewed as a result of political developments on a local level in which the number of people involved in the authorities and in the military hierarchy was dramatically reduced.144 The more credible explanation is that the sword exclusively accompanied the deceased of a higher rank, so that in this case we reach a conclusion, that a transformed authority was in a position to impose this; its detection in Phase 6a is important. A similar exclusion is encountered a bit later at Stamná, where the custom of cremation was restricted to a few members of the society.145 Therefore, the Naue II type sword is bound to be discovered in Achaea during Phase 6 and they must especially be expected with rather rich burials, like the one found recently in Kouvarás, Akarnanía.146 They

140

141 142 143 144

145

146

There are 17 swords from Achaea, a number remarkably great in comparison with the one from the rest of Greece; see MOSCHOS in press with recent bibliography. MOSCHOS in press. See PASCHALIDIS – MCGEORGE in press. KOLONAS forthcoming. MOSCHOS in press. – New practices in burial customs might reflect a new social status; see VOUTSAKI 1998, 44. – Cf. PRESTON 1999, 134. CHRISTAKOPOULOU in press. – It was probably related to certain families, as is evident in an apsidal tomb; see CHRISTAKOPOULOU 2001. STAVROPOULOU-GATSI 2008a. – MORGAN 2008, 47.

-

254

Ioannis Moschos

have not yet been uncovered only because it was a small circle of individuals that had this privilege. The cemetery of Voúdeni is the most likely place for such a discovery in Western Achaea. The extensive abandonment of the settlements during the early Phase 6b and the simultaneous reinforcement of a few, like that of Voúdeni’s demonstrates the rejection of the model of dispersed habitation. The numerous neighboring settlements in every region representing the administrative and military system during the LH III C period and which survived to a high degree during the Final Mycenaean phase, were now definitely abandoned. Their area of jurisdiction was controlled by a strengthened settlement. Each local authority was removed and gave way to a centralized form of administration, the features of which we still do not know. A vast un-inhabited area that extends around the powerful settlement is vital for the inhabitants. This area has now the expanse of a geographical region that is governed by the settlement. I have already correlated politically this entire region with the term dāmos and its ruling class with the term oikos.147 On the basis of the excavation evidence, it can be suggested with sufficient confidence that after the end of the administrative structures which had prevailed during Phase 5 the dispersed habitation continued for a while during Phase 6a. After that it obviously changed completely in the successive Phase 6b. Perhaps the view seems appealing that a certain few of the settlements had acquired increased power and significance already during the Final Mycenaean phase or even earlier, so that the selection and survival of some of them throughout the Submycenaean phase constitutes a normal development, in a sense that there was already a kind of collective pre-formed conscience towards this direction. As far as the administration of the surviving settlements in Phase 6b is concerned, the model must already have been in force from Phase 6a onwards or otherwise the controlling power and authority of the elite members of the dispersed settlements would have been considerably too limited, in order to assume that some individuals had acquired great authority and had already been able to impose it since the Final Mycenaean phase. A related wave of immigrants during Phases 6a and early 6b has already been proposed. THE COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND CONTACTS I have recently considered this issue.148 During Phase 6a there is no confirmation of an interruption in the relations of Achaea with neighboring regions, namely Cephaloniá,149 Ithaca,150 Aetolía151 and Akarnanía,152 Elis,153 Corinthía,154 Argolid155 and the regions south of the Corin-

147 148 149

150

151

152 153

154 155

MOSCHOS in press. MOSCHOS in press. The dispersion of Achaean pottery on the island is limited during Phase 6a. A large stirrup jar from Lakkíthra (RMDP, 457, 459, fig. 165:54) could be an import from mountainous Dýme and not from Ithaca. Its date to Phase 6a is not certain, as in Achaea such huge stirrup jars are not frequent in tombs during this phase. For a Phase 6b Achaean stirrup jar from Diakáta see KYPARISSIS 1922, 107–108, fig. 24:3. Also note the pottery from Karavómylos, near Sámi. An Achaean stirrup jar FT 175 comes from Polis Cave; see RMDP, 473, fig. 172:4. It could be from Phase 5, but the pointed fringed triangles are among the Phase 6a features. A lekythos FT 122 with biconical body (RMDP, 472, fig. 172:3) and a depressed globular stirrup jar FT 175 (IBID., 473, fig. 472:5) are of Phase 6a style; the possibility to be imported from Achaea cannot be excluded. The mountainous Dýme region near the border to modern Elis is the most likely place of origin. A jar from Achaea at Stamná, see CHRISTAKOPOULOU in press. The warriors’ krater at Thérmos is probably of Phase 6a date. A few unpublished sherds from closed shapes at Loutráki, Katoúna. A lekythos FT 122 at Goúmero is an import from Achaea; see RMDP, 395, fig. 139:94. A stirrup jar FT 175 from Agrapidochóri (IBID., 397, fig. 139:95) is a product of a workshop from Dýme region. Few unpublished stirrup jars at Pórtes are imported from Voúdeni (see Fig. 19 in this paper). For a hydria from Korákou see RUTTER 1974, 363, fig. 141. See supra note 90. – MOSCHOS in press with bibliography.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

255

thian Gulf.156 These relations are the result of the local trade that was still developing or was formatted on a new base during the post-palatial period, in other words, the continuation of the activity is now being substantiated. Aside from the importance of every aspect of these relations, they synchronize the Final Mycenaean phase of Achaea with the adjacent areas, also enabling the classification of the particular local features of pottery production of these regions. The long distance sea trade from Cyprus to Southern Italy was carried on without interruption and Western Achaea continued to be a strategic partner. The fact is important that the selective destruction of Teíchos Dymaíon before Phase 6a was not able to restrict the trade activity in Achaea. This reality is also demonstrated from the continuance of the habitation in the fort during Phase 6a, in order to ensure the control of the sea routes. The political changes, however, that have been identified during this period at a local level demonstrate perhaps the effect of this destruction. The efforts for re-organization are visible in practice. In this new climate, commerce does not seem to have been influenced in a negative way, on the contrary, it preserved the significance it had held since the LH III C period. Land commerce – in a lesser degree – and long distance sea trade continued on probably the same scale as in the past. THE POTTERY PRODUCTION Phase 6a is an illustrious addition to the prehistory of Western Achaea and we can comprehend better not only the Submycenaean period, but the switch to the EPG too, and its formative stages, mainly during Phase 6b. I think, however, that the two phases in pottery style are not only valid for Achaea but also for the wider region of the Western Mainland Koine. The study of local pottery preferences and peculiarities in other regions contributes to the pottery overview of this period. Those phases do not have a solely stylistic character but a chronological one, too. It is not certain that they will be stratigraphically verified in any settlement context. What we are looking for is not a general dramatic historical event that has left its traces on the two phases. We merely hope to find habitation floor levels with no signs of discontinuity or abandonment between the two phases. Up to now, Phase 6a comes after the fire destruction at Teíchos Dymaíon and also constitutes the last prehistoric horizon at Ancient Chalkís, Aetolía, in which matt-painted ware of Thérmos was incorporated in every day activities of the inhabitants. At Ancient Chalkís, the use of Phase 5 structures continued without interruption. Both sites were abandoned at the end of the Final Mycenaean phase or in the very early Phase 6b, so the Submycenaean phase is not traced. Phase 6b is so far not connected with settlements, although pottery of this phase has been found unstratified at Aghía Kyriakí, near Áno Sychainá, Patras. Nevertheless, it is clear that in a cemetery context we are now able to distinguish to which of the two phases one vase belongs. Both are characterized by the continuation of the Mature Style or otherwise by the survival of LH III C workshops. This fact reveals once more the continuity from the LH III C Late to the end of the Submycenaean period and partly justifies our inability to identify the features of the Submycenaean period. The repertoire of shapes in the two phases is poor, being but a reflection of the burial customs that are far from representative of the ceramic production. It is certain that every day activities involved more shapes. Thus, a presentation of this range actually reflects the pottery preferred in the burial customs of the two phases. The stirrup jar is among the most common shapes, reaching 60% of the available material, but their frequency of appearance increased during Phase 6b. Two and four-handled jars, lekythoi and small jugs follow suit. This is in fact the same repertoire of shapes found in the 156

A stirrup jar from Eláteia-Alonáki; see DAKORONIA – DEGER-JALKOTZY – FABRIZII-REUER 2002, 142 (T. LXII/23ζ), fig. 6a (on top). – Cf. MOSCHOS in press with further references.

-

256

Ioannis Moschos

burial customs of Phase 5. Other shapes are not as common, such as neck-handled jars, deep bowls with vertical handles (kantharoi), duck-askoi, ring vases, square-sided alabastra or pyxides, kylikes, kalathoi, spouted kalathoi and kraters. Below, only the general frame of the styles is given, since the issue is a part of another study.157 ΤHE PHASE 6a STYLE This phase could be transitional between the LH III C Late and the Submycenaean phase. Pottery features, even in a close assemblage, can be confusing as they can be considered either LH III C Late or Submycenaean, since they do not differ considerably compared to the previous Phase 5, and the new elements that appeared were rapidly transformed to the Submycenaean style. The workshops continued their work without interruption and artisans have been recognized for having been involved in both phases, i.e. Phase 5 and 6a. This is an additional element to prove the brevity of Phase 6a. Apart from few belly-handled amphorae, four-handled jars, kalathoi and a few medium sized stirrup jars, the small vessels are more frequent and preferred in tombs. This could be a sign of poverty and might be related to problems in primary production. Such a development reflects general troubles in society. As a result, the belly-handled amphora FT 58 is sometimes minimized in size (Figs. 11, 12), so as to acquire the height of an amphoriskos FT 59.158 There are also miniature kalathoi FT 291 (Fig. 13) in contrast to the large vessels known from the region.159 Stirrup-jars FT 175 are generally of small size, some of them are indeed extremely small (Fig. 14). Stirrup jar FT 177 (Fig. 15) appears for the first time and it can also be miniature like FT 175. Nonetheless, the shape is extremely rare. It has a high cone on the disk, found only rarely on FT 175. Stirrup jar FT 184 (Fig. 16) survives from Phase 5.160 It is not so common but it has its place among the repertoire of certain workshops, even in the Kalávryta region.161 Stirrup jar FT 175 has a great variety in shape, and the most common is the depressed globular shape (Fig. 17). This shape is also found in Phase 5, although it is extremely rare. Another common variety has an almost conical body with a sliding straight shoulder (Figs. 14, 18). It derives from the frequent globular shape of Phase 5;162 some vessels still exhibit this shape, although the greater diameter is now found lower on the body (Figs. 19–21). Among the repertoire of shapes of this phase is the straight-sided alabastron FT 96 (Fig. 22), the jug FT 115 (Fig. 23), the narrow-necked jug FT 118 (Fig. 24), the lekythos FT 122 (Fig. 25), the ring vase FT 196 (Fig. 26), the duck askos (Fig. 27), the conical kylix FT 275 (Fig. 28) and the kantharos.163 Locally made bottle-shaped vases appear from this phase onwards.164 157 158

159

160 161

162 163

164

See supra note 18. Two small vessels from Klauss and Kangádhi are of this phase and not of LH III C Middle and Late as has been suggested; see RMDP, figs. 149:87, 152:105. RMDP, 440. – KOLONAS 2008b, 19, fig. 23. – KOLONAS forthcoming. – For an even more miniature kalathos at Loutráki, Akarnanía see supra note 78. For a three-legged example from Voúdeni see KOLONAS 2008b, 25, fig. 40. Two cylindrical stirrup jars have been recently published from Leóntion: Vrayiánika; see GIANNOPOULOS 2008, 129, 132, 152, pls. 65:6,7, 67:6,7. See for example RMDP, fig. 155:124. See, for example, two vases from Teíchos Dymaíon and Kanghádi (PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, figs. 178c,d, 267c). – Also from Voúdeni; see KOLONAS forthcoming. An unpublished vase comes from Pórtes ChT 8a. – See also DESBOROUGH 1972, 54, pl. 2 for comments; the shape is not “characteristic of the Cypriot style” as proposed, but it became characteristic of that style. Its mainland origin seems apparent and probably constitutes a development of the horned bottle. A locally made horned bottle from Kladéos, Elis, has been considered of Cypriot inspiration (VIKATOU – KARAGEORGHIS 2006). However, its date is not LH III C Late, as proposed (IBID., 160, 162), but quite earlier (LH III C Middle or LH III C Middle to Late, i.e. Phases 3, 4). Therefore it is prior than any known Cypriot example of the Proto-White

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

257

Apart from some linear vessels (Figs. 12, 23) a variety of decoration patterns is attested. Concentric semi-circles are either fringed (Fig. 19) or plain (Fig. 21) but the space in-between the lines in each motif is now wider (Figs. 22, 27). The same is attested in the elaborate triangle, which has a form of chevrons (Figs. 25, 27). These features are characteristics of Phase 3 and have now been revived.165 Elaborate semi-circles or triangles filled with a fringed bivalve (Fig. 20) survived from Phase 3 but they are extremely rare during Phase 6b. Open hatched triangles derive from Phase 5 but are quite unusual, as also during Phase 6b (Fig. 32). Dotfilled triangles are a typical characteristic of Phase 6a166 (Figs. 26, 29), as are the fringed bars (Figs. 16–18) and the fish bones with high fringes167 (Figs. 17, 18, 30), which are hardly found even in Phase 5. Cross-hatched triangles now begin to become pointed and have high fringes (Fig. 11), which is also a common feature in other fringed motifs.168 Among the other decorative patterns is the vertical (Fig. 20) and horizontal wavy line (Fig. 16), panelled pattern (Fig. 25), triglyph, lozenge, net-filled square patterns,169 barred fringes (Fig. 13), rosette, concentric circles and isolated or running spiral with high fringes (Fig. 11). The disk of stirrup jars is sometimes decorated with semicircles (Figs. 14, 15). Otherwise, spirals (Fig. 16) or circles with a central dot (Fig. 21) are preferred. The handles are usually barred but there is a variety of choices, since there are monochrome handles and other motifs as well (Fig. 20). The decoration on the lower body has a great range, so this is not among the typical features of pottery and therefore does not define the phase. It seems that certain workshops have their own preference in this sector. There are also impressive survivals of fine line groups flanked by a broad band,170 but this element has not come from a local development. The Silhouette Style appears at Voúdeni, Pórtes, Kangádhi and Elis. At Voúdeni a fourhandled jar with drawings of human figures consists of lines and there are several scenes on kraters.171 One depicts a hunting scene with wild animals and dogs. At Pórtes an FT 291 kalathos has depictions of birds and quadrupeds with their keeper172 (Fig. 13). A similar scene is also found on a duck-askos at Kangádhi (Fig. 27) and on a four-handled jar at Elis.173 I have already mentioned the funerary scenes from Aghía Triádha and Kladéos. In bronze production some new types appear for the first time which can serve as a good indication to consider their context as Submycenaean, either 6a or 6b. Shield rings made their first appearance in Western Achaea during Phase 6a, at Spaliaréika174 and Pórtes. A pair of long dress pins is known from Ancient Elis, already in Phase 6a, although in Western Achaea

165

166 167

168

169 170 171

172

173 174

Painted Ware. It derives from the Minoan Mainland Workshop and it is of Philistine inspiration, not unknown in other products of this workshop; see MOSCHOS in press. – For a Phase 6b vase at Metaxáta, Cephaloniá see MARINATOS 1935, 88, fig. 33:B 9. See for example the semi-circles on a stirrup jar from Chalandrítsa (RMDP, fig. 150:99) and the triangle on an alabastron from Klauss (IBID., fig. 149:93). The dot-filled rosette, too, occurs; see PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, figs. 106b, 211a. See also the decorative pattern of a legged straight-sided alabastron from Archáni, Lamía; DAKORONIA 1990, 41, 43, fig. 3. For rosettes on a stirrup jar FT 175 from Klauss see RMDP, fig. 157:129. – Note the fish bone motif and rosettes in PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, fig. 210e. – Compare also the rosettes on a fragmentary stirrup jar from Mítrou; see RUTTER 2007, 295, fig. 10. PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, fig. 109e. – RMDP, fig. 157:129. Few unpublished vessels from Voúdeni; see KOLONAS forthcoming. KOLONAS forthcoming. – The pictorial decoration of Phase 5 at Voúdeni exhibits the Silhouette Style with added white details; see RMDP, 55. – KOLONAS 2008b, fig. 18. – KOLONAS forthcoming. – This type of decoration survived in this specific workshop during Phase 6a (see WARDLE – WARDLE 2003, 150, fig. 3. – Cf. MOSCHOS in press), although added white was no longer the rule. KOLONAS 2008c, fig. 47. – A similar scene and also the closest parallel on shape and decoration comes from Cyprus, Koúklia-Xerolímni, IACOVOU 1997, 63, 67, pls. XIVb, XV. ARAPOGIANNI 1997, 118, pl. 37στ. – Cf. MOSCHOS in press with bibliography and parallels. PETROPOULOS 2000, figs. 17–20.

-

258

Ioannis Moschos

we come across this element during Phase 6b at Voúdeni.175 The pair from the Tzannáta pithos burial, dated to EPG, is contemporary. Twisted arched fibulae appear in Western Achaea during Phase 6a as do double spiral finger rings.176 Fig. 11 Belly-handled amphora FT 58. Brown fabric with buff slip; dark orange-brown paint. Ht. 0.136,177 diam. rim 0.086, diam. max. 0.148, diam. base 0.073. FM 43, fringed compressed and high semi-circles; FM 52, isolated fringed spiral; FM 61A, fringed cross-hatched triangle; FM 73, hatched lozenge; fringed circles recall those of EPG examples, although they are not compass drawn. Voúdeni, ChT 75, exc. no. 75/38. Unpublished. Fig. 12 Belly-handled amphora FT 58. Buff fabric; lustrous orange-brown paint. Ht. 0.154, diam. rim 0.081, diam. max. 0.153, diam. base 0.064. Linear. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no. 21-29. Unpublished. Fig. 13 Kalathos FT 291. Brown-buff fabric; orange-brown paint. Ht. 0.122, diam. rim 0.228, diam. base 0.117. Pictorial decoration in Silhouette Style: birds and quadrupeds with their keeper. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no. 21-46. KOLONAS 2008c, fig. 47. Fig. 14 Stirrup jar FT 175. Brown fabric; black-brown paint. Ht. 0.092, diam. rim 0.026, diam. max. 0.084, diam. base 0.043. Semi-circles on false mouth with a cross on the cone. FM 61A, stacked triangles; FM 43, semi-circles on shoulder. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no. 21-30. Unpublished. Fig. 15 Stirrup jar FT 177. Brown-buff fabric; orange-brown paint. Ht. 0.082, diam. rim 0.018, diam. max. 0.061, diam. base 0.032. Semi-circles on false mouth; FM 61A, cross-hatched triangle and stacked triangle; FM 43, semi-circles and fringed semi-circles on shoulder. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no. 21-24. Unpublished. Fig. 16 Stirrup jar FT 184. Buff fabric; lustrous orange-brown paint. Ht. 0.08, diam. rim 0.021, diam. max. 0.088, diam. base 0.08. Fringed bars with FM 55, diagonal pattern on shoulder, wavy lines and a row of dots on belly. Voúdeni, ChT 59, exc. no. 59/30. Unpublished. Fig. 17 Stirrup jar FT 175. Brown-buff fabric; black-brown paint. Ht. 0.118, diam. rim 0.023, diam. max. 0.113, diam. base 0.047. Fringed bars, fish bone with high fringes. Pórtes, ChT 9, exc. no. 9-01. Patras M. 15855. Unpublished. Fig. 18 Stirrup jar FT 175. Light brown-buff fabric; brown paint. Ht. 0.12, diam. rim 0.037, diam. max. 0.119, diam. base 0.057. Fringed bars, fish bone with high fringes. Pórtes, ChT 5, primary burial 5-Z, exc. no. 5-31. Patras Museum 15811. Unpublished. Fig. 19 Stirrup jar FT 175. Pinkish-brown fabric; orange-brown paint. Ht. 0.093, diam. rim 0.02, diam. max. 0.092, diam. base 0.039. FM 43, fringed semi-circles, ring round the base of neck and the base of spout. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no 21-39. Imported from Voúdeni. Unpublished. Fig. 20 Stirrup jar FT 175. Buff fabric; dull orange-red paint. Ht. 0.111, diam. rim 0.029, diam. max. 0.112, diam. base 0.049. FM 61A, triangle with fill of fringed bivalve and FM 53, vertical wavy line; wavy line down handles. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no. 21-26. Unpublished. Fig. 21 Stirrup jar FT 175. Buff fabric; brown-black paint. Ht. 0.11, diam. rim 0.026, diam. max. 0.15, diam. base 0.048. FM 43, semi-circles, ring round the base of neck and the base of spout. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no. 21-23. Unpublished. Fig. 22 Alabastron FT 96. Buff fabric; orange paint. Ht. 0.062, diam. rim 0.045, diam. max. 0.067, diam. base 0.058. FM 43, semi-circles. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no. 21-28. Unpublished. Fig. 23 Jug FT 115. Brown fabric; black-brown paint. Ht. 0.074, diam. rim 0.032, diam. max. 0.068, diam. base 0.029. Linear. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no. 21-38. Unpublished. Fig. 24 Narrow-necked jug FT 118. Buff fabric; red-brown paint. Ht. 0.081, diam. rim 0.03, diam. max. 0.073, diam. base 0.032. FM 43, semi-circles and FM 61A, stacked triangle. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no. 21-27. Unpublished. Fig. 25 Lekythos FT 122. Buff-brown fabric; orange-brown paint. Ht. 0.093, diam. rim 0.036, diam. max. 0.086, diam. base 0.04. FM 75, panelled with FM 43, semi-circles and FM 61A, stacked triangle. Pórtes, ChT 21, primary burial 21-Γ, exc. no. 21-33. Unpublished. 175

176 177

L. Kolonas personal communication. A pair has recently been published from ChT 75; see KOLONAS 2008b, 29, fig. 53. – Cf. MOSCHOS in press. MOSCHOS in press with bibliography. – KOLONAS forthcoming. All measures in m.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

259

Fig. 26 Ring vase FT 196. Buff fabric; orange paint. Ht. 0.086, diam. rim 0.028, diam. max. 0.115. FM 61A, dot-filled triangle. Pórtes, ChT 2, exc. no 2-32. Unpublished. Fig. 27 Duck askos. Ht. pr. 0.116, diam. rim -, L. max. 0.207. FM 75 panelled with concentric arcs; FM 53, wavy line. Pictorial decoration in Silhouette Style: quadrupeds. Patras M. 541. Kangádhi. PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, fig. 256b,c. Fig. 28 Kylix FT 275. Dull-brown fabric; Dark black-brown paint. Ht. pr. 0.185, Ht. after restoration 0.191, diam. rim 0.165. Monochrome with reserved decorative zone. Patras M. 790. Teíchos Dymaíon. MASTROKOSTAS 1967, pl. 175γ. Fig. 29 Stirrup jar FT 175. Fragmentary. Brown fabric; orange-brown paint. Ht. pr. 0.029, diam. pr. 0.075. FM 61A, dot fringed triangle with dot fill. Patras M. BE 278. Teíchos Dymaíon. MASTROKOSTAS 1967, pl. 176α. Fig. 30 Stirrup jar FT 175. Fragmentary. Brown-buff fabric; black-brown paint. Ht. pr. 0.048, diam. pr. 0.083. Fringed bars, fish bone with high fringes. Patras M. BE 144. Teíchos Dymaíon. MASTROKOSTAS 1966, pl. 64α.

THE PHASE 6b STYLE This is the last Mycenaean style that can be recognized in the cemeteries of Western Achaea, but it does not correspond to the last phase of their use, as primary burials come even after the prehistoric era. Voúdeni becomes one of the most important sites of this phase and finally the last stronghold of the Mycenaeans in the wider area. The pottery is now typically Submycenaean. The ovoid shape of FT 177 stirrup-jars is diagnostic for Phase 6b (Figs. 31–33). An extremely rare example with an air hole comes from Voúdeni (Fig. 34). The conical stirrup-jar with flat shoulder FT 175 appears from the previous Phase 6a but it is extremely rare. The four-handled jar is among the largest shapes of the phase (Figs. 35–36), followed by the belly-handled amphora FT 58. They have a globular body and a wide base; the latter, however, maintains the knobs on the shoulder. Another large shape is the kalathos FT 291 (Fig. 37). It has a cylindrical lower body; the upper is concave and flaring. Among other shapes are the lekythos FT 124 (Fig. 38) and the amphoriskos FT 60 (Fig. 39), the latter appears in this phase. It is striking that until now not a single kantharos of this phase has been found, although the shape was known in Achaea during Phase 6a. The favorite decoration patterns of Phase 6b appear on Fig. 40. Simple or elaborate pointed and fringed triangles are commonly used for the decoration on the shoulder (Fig. 40a). There are incredible combinations of their appearance. One typical decorative motif of this phase is the elaborate fringed circle, a development of the simple circle or rosette of Phase 6a (Fig. 40b). At Pórtes we encounter it in the previous phase on stirrup jar disks as a system of concentric semicircles (Figs. 14, 15). Fringed motifs are almost a rule. They comprise spirals (very popular on Cephaloniá), diaper net, chevrons, which had been widespread in Phase 6a, and panelled patterns with wavy or zigzag lines (Fig. 40c,d). Single, double or triple wavy bands are also used on the belly zone (Fig. 40e). The lower body is sometimes decorated with the multiple banding system of the Late Achaean style, but in an advanced, tighter way, a fact that proves the uninterrupted survival of the pottery workshops into the Submycenaean phase. Otherwise, there is a variety of decoration of the lower body, so that it is wrong to conclude on that this element was decisive for the definition of chronological phases in Achaea. The Silhouette Style continues at Voúdeni and there are scenes with birds. These themes now have a central character on the vases they decorate, even on stirrup jars shoulders. The pictorial motifs are clearly larger than those from Phase 6a and they demonstrate the clear establishment of the Style. This particular ware is another link to mainland Protogeometric ware. The silhouette technique is found in Late Cypriote III B Proto White Painted ware,178 which leads to Cypro-Geometric I. The vases used there are of LH III C origin: belly handled amphora, amphoriskos, krater, pyxis and kalathos, shapes that have also survived into the 178

IACOVOU 1997, 61–71, pls. XII–XV.

-

260

Ioannis Moschos

Submycenaean phase and they have been used in the mainland Silhouette Style. These are additional reasons to believe that this style has a mainland origin. Fig. 31 Stirrup jar FT 177. Dull pinkish fabric; black paint. Ht. 0.135, diam. rim 0.028, diam. max. 0.105, diam. base 0.049. FM 61A, fringed cross-hatched triangle with FM 53, vertical wavy line. Voúdeni, ChT 65, exc. no. 65/8α. It was used as a lid of the four-handled jar on fig. 36. Unpublished. Fig. 32 Stirrup jar FT 177. Buff fabric; brown-black paint. Ht. 0.12, diam. rim 0.026, diam. max. 0.107, diam. base 0.049. FM 61A, open hatched triangle with three vertical rows of dots. Pórtes, ChT 2, exc. no. 2-19. Unpublished. Fig. 33 Stirrup jar FT 177. Buff fabric; dull black paint. Ht. 0.126, diam. rim 0.033, diam. max. 0.104, diam. base 0.052. FM 61A, fringed stacked triangle with a vertical row of dashes. Pórtes, ChT 29, primary burial 29-E, exc. no. 29-12. Unpublished. Fig. 34 Stirrup jar FT 177. Pinkish-brown fabric; orange-brown paint. Ht. 0.138, diam. rim 0.028, diam. max. 0.111, diam. base 0.053. Air hole opposite spout. FM 61A, fringed cross-hutched triangle and fringed stacked triangle. Voúdeni, ChT 75, exc. no. 75/34. Unpublished. Fig. 35a Four-handled jar. Light brown fabric; black paint. Ht. 0.403, diam. rim 0.154, diam. max. 0.352, diam. base 0.16. FM 75, panelled with FM 61A, fringed cross-hutched triangle and fringed stacked triangle. Voúdeni, ChT 48, exc. no 48/8. Unpublished. Fig. 35b Stirrup jar FT 177. Buff fabric; black paint. Ht. 0.128, diam. rim -, diam. max. 0.096, diam. base 0.038. FM 61A, fringed stacked triangle with FM 53, vertical wavy line and FM 27, rosette. Voúdeni, ChT 48, exc. no. 48/8α. Unpublished. Fig. 36 Four-handled jar. Pinkish-brown fabric; black paint. Ht. 0.396, diam. rim 0.168, diam. max. 0.351, diam. base 0.188. FM 61A, fringed elaborate triangle with FM 27, rosette. Voúdeni, ChT 65, exc. no. 65/8. Unpublished. Fig. 37 Kalathos FT 291. Pinkish-brown fabric; orange-brown paint. Ht. 0.172–0.186, diam. rim 0.267–0.281, diam. base 0.15–0.152. FM 75 panelled with FM 43, fringed compressed and high semi-circles; FM 53, wavy line between bands on body. Voúdeni. ChT 59, exc. no. 59/10. Unpublished. Fig. 38 Lekythos FT 124. Pinkish-brown fabric; black-brown paint. Ht. 0.115, diam. rim 0.035, diam. max. 0.086, diam. base 0.044. FM 61A, fringed stacked triangle and fringed elaborate triangle. Voúdeni. ChT 75, exc. no. 75/97. Unpublished. Fig. 39 Amphoriskos FT 60. Brown fabric; black paint. Ht. 0.11, diam. rim 0.074, diam. max. 0.10, diam. base 0.053. FM 61, zigzag. Voúdeni. ChT 65, exc. no. 65/50. Unpublished.

CONCLUSIONS THE SUBMYCENAEAN PERIOD AND THE EPG SYNCHRONISMS The Final Mycenaean/Early Submycenaean Phase 6a has been detected in almost all the chamber tomb cemeteries of Western Achaea and the settlements of Teíchos Dymaíon and Stavrós, Chalandrítsa, too. The phase is attested at Palaiókastro, Arcadía and in chamber tomb cemeteries at Elis. The cemetery of Ancient Elis was organized for the first time during this phase. The cist graves in Árgos contained Achaean pots or imitations of the Phase 6a pottery, while certain primary burials in the chamber tomb cemetery at Deirás are also contemporary to the aforementioned. On Cephaloniá the use of chamber tomb cemeteries continued in the same way as in Achaea. What is without a parallel in Achaea is that the tholos tombs at Tzannáta and especially the one at Mavráta were used for primary burials. Ithaca seems to experience a revival during Phase 6a and becomes very important during Phase 6b. Phase 6a in Aetolía has been identified in the last prehistoric level of Ancient Chalkís and at the same time a small settlement was founded at Stamná. This phase has also been detected in the area of the EPG cemetery. Some tholos tombs in the region continue to be used, like the tholos tombs in Akarnanía (Loutráki, Kechriniá), a feature not unknown on Cephaloniá. The settlements at Thérmos and Pámphio, where matt-painted ware was used, were partly synchronized with the Phase 6a, and we should suppose the same for Kýnos and Aghía Paraskeví in Phocís. The cemetery at Eláteia-Alonáki was used without interruption all this time. In the Skoubrís cemetery at Lef-

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

261

kandí, there is no burial contemporary to Phase 6a and, beyond doubt, the use of the area as a cemetery starts after this very period. The Phase I of Kerameikós corresponds chronologically to Phase 6a, as some burials of Salamís do. A stirrup jar from Asíne exhibits the Achaean Phase 6a characteristics.179 A Phase 6a or even early 6b large stirrup jar from Tiryns, Profítis Ilías is probably imported from Achaea,180 showing that the net of land contacts with the East, known also from Phase 6a at Trípolis Street at Árgos181 and Korákou, Corinthía,182 was still in use. Nonetheless, I am not sure if there are still trade routes or if they turn to refugee and immigrant routes during the switch from Phase 6a to 6b. The Submycenaean Phase 6b is the only existing one in Western Achaea immediately after Phase 6a and presents considerable uniformity. In most cases, however, the Phase 6a settlements and cemeteries were abandoned, apart from the Phase 6b reuse of a few chamber tombs and probably the tholos tomb at Kallithéa-Laganidiá. Habitation continued at Voúdeni, probably in a new political framework that was applied to the whole territory. Among the new political actions and subsequent effects the abandonment of sites seems to be the most tangible. But most significant was the survival of the people during a span of time which is called here Submycenaean Phase 6b. Its duration in Western Achaea might have been longer than in Mainland Greece. The EPG “bronze phase” cannot be traced in Western Achaea except for the remote site of Rakíta, although this is not ascertained by stratified evidence. Nonetheless, even at this site the EPG “bronze phase” does not seem to follow Phase 6a, which is not present among the finds. An EPG reuse is known at chamber tombs at Vrysárion and in the region of Aígion, but this reuse came after a gap. The same gap is attested at Teíchos Dymaíon between Phase 6a and the EPG, which is filled at Voúdeni by Phase 6b. This gap at the Teíchos is contemporary with either Phase 6b or with the EPG “bronze phase”. Both are partly contemporary but, as a matter of fact, Phase 6b and the EPG “bronze phase” are independent and distinct phenomena of the Northwestern Pelopónnesus development. In certain places they can be traced in succession. The time of this succession generally varies from place to place, and there are no rules. When Phase 6b is succeeded in one place by the EPG “bronze phase”, as in the case of Ancient Elis, a cultural change is attested. In such cases, the Submycenaean Phase becomes either of shorter duration than in Western Achaea (i.e. on Ithaca), or very short (as at Ancient Elis and Tzannáta), or even minimum determinable (as at Stamná). The extensive survival or the long duration of Phase 6b means that whenever a succession occurs, it concerns a developed stage of EPG. The simultaneous presence of Submycenaean and EPG features is not known in Western Achaea. In my view, it will never be, at least for the Patras region. Even if it happens that Submycenaean and EPG features are detected at the same spot in the future, they should be dated to the end of Phase 6b and not to the end of Phase 6a. Such a development would precisely define the vast extremities of the territory of Submycenaean Voúdeni and it could be a decisive factor for ascertaining the beginning of the end of the Submycenaean phase in Western Achaea. According the available evidence the appearance of EPG in Western Achaea occurred at an advanced stage of EPG and after the end of Phase 6b. The two cultures were never at home together and synchronous in the land of Western Achaea, even at different sites.

179 180 181 182

RMDP, 194, fig. 60:463. RMDP, 192, 194, fig. 60:460. It might be imported from Voúdeni. See supra note 90. See supra note 154. – Earlier contacts with Northwestern Pelopónnesus can be seen in a stirrup jar FT 175 from the same site (RMDP, fig. 73:178). Its date is LH III C Middle and not Early as it is proposed (IBID., 228). Both fabric and decoration are among the characteristics of the Minoan Mainland Workshop, situated in Elis, probably at Olympía-Kladéos. For this Workshop see MOSCHOS in press. – For another stirrup jar of this Workshop at Eláteia-Alonáki see DEGER-JALKOTZY 2007, 131–132, figs. 1:7, 2:5. – Cf. MOSCHOS in press.

-

262

Ioannis Moschos

Certainly, we can always verify with absolute accuracy what is the Submycenaean Style and what is EPG. This means that we have two different worlds. Between them stood an approved boundary facing both sides, beyond whatever interaction detected. Therefore, the attempt to date objects, mostly pottery, to a Submycenaean/EPG stage does not correspond to reality but is also incorrect. A phase like Phase IV of Kerameikós,183 or the EPG dated primary burials at the Skoubrís cemetery in Lefkandí that come with Phase 6b Submycenaean pottery,184 can only be artificial. In these cases, the use of the term “transitional” has to be used in a local sense and it cannot be related, in any way, to the EPG period in general. If there was a “transitional” period, we should be looking for it at the end of Phase 6a and not at 6b, because EPG civilization had already been established in Greece. So, a “transitional” phase may be searched for in Ancient Elis, at Árgos and at Stamná, or even in Néa Ionía, Vólos,185 but this is not in an advanced stage, which on the one hand is related to the disappearance of the Submycenaean culture and on the other to the expansion and consolidation of EPG civilization, that had already existed and now simply continued. We may consider that certain regions had a chronologically different “transitional” phase, but this consideration could cause trouble with the classification and date of the earlier EPG settlements and cemeteries. Neither can the Submycenaean period as a whole be regarded as “transitional”, because it has its own distinct features, different from the ones of EPG culture, and even more, the Submycenaean Phase 6b is not a global phenomenon as the Final Mycenaean Phase 6a probably is. This phenomenon, i.e. a “transitional” phase which followed after Phase 6a between the Mycenaean period and EPG, is quite clear in a burial pit at Árgos, where a Phase 6a stirrup jar was placed together with an EPG amphora,186 so as to assume that the Submycenaean Phase 6b had never really existed at Árgos and Phase 6a was directly succeeded by the EPG period. Phase 6b is also absent at the Árgos burial mound and a trefoil-mouthed jar points to the following stage of burial use right after Phase 6a, that is EPG.187 Later on, an EPG cist grave with a child burial was added to the mound.188 The Trípolis Street graves at Árgos have some pots of Phase 6a that are related to Achaea.189 The Submycenaean phase is present according to the bibliography,190 although this is not clear from the evidence. The jug E 694 with “thin, matt, black paint” is among the earliest pots of the subsequent Phase 6a material and it is clearly of EPG date.191 It might represent an intermediate stage between the matt-paint decoration and the lustrous paint. The jug E 691 is clearly of EPG date, judging by the wide mouth, the tall neck, the ovoid body and the tall conical foot.192 Furthermore, the necklace motif arranged on clusters is indeed a peculiar decoration pattern in matt-painted ware at Thérmos.193 The paint is described as “shaded black to red, matt paint”194 but it could be “possibly once lustrous”.195

183

184

185 186 187

188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195

RUPPENSTEIN 2007. – Cf. LEMOS 2002, 9 for other sites in Attica. – For the topic see also STYRENIUS 1967, 51– 59. POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80, 110 (S. 4, S. Pyre 1A), 112–113 (S. 10), 114–115 (S. 16), 120 (S. 32), pls. 92, 94–95, 101. See supra note 70. PITEROS 2004, 114, pl. 64β,γ. PITEROS 2001, 113, fig. 38. The incised decoration on rim and neck is clearly an early feature of the EPG period and not a Mycenaean, as is implied in the publication. PITEROS 2001, 103, figs. 4, 5. KANTA 1975, figs. 11, 12, 19, 20. STYRENIUS 1967, 132–133. – KANTA 1975. – RMDP, 79. KANTA 1975, 263–264, 268–269, figs. 2, 22. KANTA 1975, 263, 272, figs. 2, 23. – Cf. RMDP, 190, 192, fig. 59:454. WARDLE – WARDLE 2003, figs. 4:1,3, 5:2. KANTA 1975, 263. RMDP, 192.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

263

The cup E 702 is of the same fabric and these vases are contemporary.196 The slight angle of the handle is an EPG feature and the whole shape can be seen as a precursor of the kantharos.197 Accordingly, the cup from the cist tomb Γ 31 at Mycenae, South House is of EPG date.198 Among the remaining material of the tomb there is a small stirrup jar with a proposed Submycenaean date.199 The feature of decorating the disk with other motifs rather than the circles or the spiral, as in the aforementioned example, is among the characteristics of Achaean Phase 6a that hardly survived throughout Phase 6b (Figs. 14, 15). The shape exhibits the depressed body found commonly during Phase 6a in Achaea, but which hardly survived in Phase 6b. V. R. Desborough states “that although the group is stylistically Submycenaean, it might yet belong to the earliest phase of the Protogeometric period as current in Athens”.200 This is partly correct. The cist grave Γ 31 at Mycenae has Final Mycenaean phase or at least early Phase 6b pottery along with EPG, so Phase 6b is not clearly developed there. The similarities to Athens have to be searched for at Kerameikós stage I or at least II and not to stage IV. At the chamber tomb cemetery at Árgos-Deirás the use continued into Phase 6a,201 as in Achaea. Very few burials of EPG date202 are connected with the reuse of the tombs. The DA I phase at Nichória depends on “uncertain stratigraphic contexts” and the presented material is mixed, since there are elements dating from the expanded LH III C Late period down to Submycenaean and even to EPG;203 however, the published pottery shows that there is a Submycenaean phase at Nichória which is contemporary with Achaean Phase 6b. The appearance of EPG at this site is not synchronous with that of Ancient Elis but it corresponds to the appearance of EPG on Ithaca. As a result, the presence of the Submycenaean phase (6b) in a region and for as long as its duration lasted, strongly suggests the absence of EPG settlements in the territory under Submycenaean control. Accordingly, the presence of EPG culture in a region signifies the lack of Submycenaean settlements and culture. When inside the Submycenaean territory and particularly towards the end of the period, evident and complete EPG characteristics appear, this means that the Submycenaean world was drained and so now the EPG culture was extended to their home lands. Obviously, it is a posterior stage that took place with delay; its time is dependent on the duration of Phase 6b in every region. The Protogeometric civilization in Greece was first established after the end of the Final Mycenaean Phase 6a and completed its expansion after the end of the Submycenaean Phase 6b. Nonetheless, the study of the EPG Style in Western Greece proves that the characteristics of the Submycenaean workshops of Voúdeni and Patras were stronger than the people that had created them and finally these features managed to leave their mask in history. Maybe it would be fair to suggest that in Achaea there was continuity between the two periods, not a transition.

196 197 198 199 200 201

202 203

KANTA 1975, 264–265, 272, figs. 2, 10. See for example EDER 2001, pl. 8:3. DESBOROUGH 1973, 95 (64-473), 97, pl. 35c. – Cf. RMDP, 194, fig. 60:465. DESBOROUGH 1973, 95 (64-475), 96, pl. 35c,d. – Cf. RMDP, 192, 194, fig. 60:462. DESBOROUGH 1973, 97. See DESHAYES 1966, pl. LXIV:5,7. – Some stirrup jars discussed by STYRENIUS 1967, 130 are either of Phase 5 (for example IBID., fig. 41) or Phase 6a (IBID., fig. 47) and none could be assigned to the Submycenaean phase. A belly-handled amphora (IBID., fig. 49) is probably of early Phase 6b, if not 6a (compare the different 6b shapes on Figs. 35, 36). See for example DESHAYES 1966, pls. LII. MCDONALD – COULSON – ROSSER 1983, 61–63, 319. – Cf. LEMOS 2002, 193. – DICKINSON 2006, 17–18.

-

264

Ioannis Moschos

APPENDIX GAZETTEER OF PHASES 6a AND 6b SITES IN WESTERN ACHAEA So far, twenty sites have been identified to be in continuous use during the period in question.

1 Voúdeni: Amygdaliá KOLONAS 2008b, 8, 29, 31, figs. 53, 31. KOLONAS forthcoming ChT 16, Primary burial Α (unpublished) ChT 19, Primary burial A (unpublished, without offerings) ChT 22, Primary burial Δ (unpublished) ChT 22, Primary burial E (unpublished, without offerings) ChT 22, Primary burial ΣΤ (unpublished, without offerings) ChT 25, Primary burial B (unpublished) ChT 25, Primary burial H (unpublished) ChT 26, Primary burial B (unpublished) ChT 42, Primary burial A (unpublished) ChT 75 ChT 77 Over recent years excavations in Voúdeni cemetery have yielded the richest pottery assemblage belonging to both phases. They come from primary burials in chamber tombs, mainly covering the western part of the cemetery. The study by L. Kolonas (due to be published in 2009) includes only a few of those tombs, some of them with more than one primary Submycenaean burial. In other cases some plain burials, the last to be made in the chambers, were probably from the same period. The second excavation period focused on the westernsouthwestern part of the cemetery, which hosted a significant number of Submycenaean burials of Phase 6b, in fact more than any other known cemetery in Western Greece. The publication of Voúdeni’s first 45 chamber tombs is eagerly awaited, but even more so is the publication of the latter part of the cemetery that will follow. The new material provides the solution to the final chronology in Mycenaean Achaea and confirms the division of the Submycenaean period into two stylistic and chronological phases. ChT 75 offered a pair of long bronze dress pins of a different type, dated to Submycenaean Phase 6b.204 – Tomb 19 was probably even used after Phase 6b.

2 Aghía Kyriakí (Áno Sychainá, Patras) Unpublished Recent rescue excavations reveal different habitation horizons from EH period onwards. The Mycenaean settlement is related to Voúdeni cemetery. Submycenaean pottery of Phase 6b is not presently connected with foundations or floor levels.

3 Pagóna No references Settlement The small amount of pottery that has been published does not provide any indication of the two phases. Nevertheless, the extent and the significance of the settlement makes the presence of a Submycenaean phase very probable.

4 Aróe-Samakiá PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, 26. ChT cemetery Submycenaean use of chamber tombs is reported.

204

KOLONAS 2008b, fig. 53.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

265

5 Klauss PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, 27. – ID. 1992b, 53–57, 59. – PASCHALIDIS – MCGEORGE in press. ChT Λ? ChT Μ1? ChT Μ2? ChT Ν? Th. Papadopoulos has proposed that some of the tombs he had excavated might have been used during the Submycenaean period. His brief report includes no account of the data, or of the tombs that might have been so used. K. Paschalidis, who is currently studying the cemetery, has kindly informed me that Phase 6a is indeed present in the cemetery. Older excavations by N. Kyparissis have confirmed the continuation of the cemetery’s use in Phase 6b.

6 Kríni: Ághios Konstantínos (site B) Unpublished ChT 1 or 3 A single cylindrical stirrup jar dating to Phase 6a has come from this cemetery after illicit excavation.

7 Kríni: Zoitáda CHRYSAFI 1999, 234–236, pl. 73α–γ. ChT 1, Primary burial A ChT 1, Primary burial B? (without offerings) ChT 2, Primary burial ΙΔ ChT 3, Primary burial B? Primary burial A in tomb 1 was accompanied, among other artifacts, by a neck-handled amphora, known from Voúdeni to have first appeared in tombs in Phase 6a. Plain burial B, the last one in this chamber relates to a cutaway-neck jug with mastoid bottom found by the tomb’s entrance. It dates either to Phase 6 or more probably right after Phase 6b. – Primary burial IΔ in tomb 2 was accompanied by vases placed along one side of the chamber. It belongs to Phase 6a. – Primary burial B in a cist grave within chamber 3 probably dates just after Phase 6b.

8 Kallithéa: Laganidiá PAPADOPOULOS 1995, 57–59. Tholos tomb ChT VIII, primary burial A (?) ChT VIII, primary burial B (?) ChT IX, primary burial A (?) General reports mention the use of the tholos tomb during the Submycenaean period; the monument’s use in the EPG period is certain. In the chamber tomb cemetery at the same site, the burials in tomb VIII had no offerings and apparently they were the last ones in the chamber. We cannot be certain that they belong to the Submycenaean period, in anticipation of the final publication. Tomb IX contained a burial without offerings and no other sign of use. The excavator has proposed that the chamber had been cleared in preparation for a new burial that was never made, perhaps due to the chamber’s collapse. This case, however, is reminiscent of the similar one in Kríni: Zoitáda and of tomb 19 in Voúdeni. The excavator vaguely dates the tomb to the Submycenaean period.

9 Kallithéa: Spénzes PAPADOPOULOS 1978a, fig. 58. – ID. 1978b, 185, pl. 113. – ID. 1982, 107–108, pl. 92b. – ID. 1998a, fig. 30. – ID. 1998b, 86, pl. 35. ChT Θ, Primary burial B (?) ChT O, Primary burial J ChT X, Primary burial ΣΤ

-

266

Ioannis Moschos

Primary burial B in tomb Θ was accompanied, among others, by a four-handled amphora with a small stirrup jar used as a lid. Although we should await the publication to know the tomb’s contents, it is probable that it dates to Phase 6a. – Burial J in tomb O was accompanied by two bronze rings with spiral endings. A large bellyhandled amphora FT 58 with a small jug as a lid and a small kantharos with vertical handles were also added to this burial. They all date to Phase 6a. A bronze leaf-shaped spearhead can perhaps be associated with the chamber’s final burial (Phase 6a). – Primary burial ΣΤ in tomb X was placed in a crouched position and went with a group of vases next to the scull. Among the offerings was a four-handled jar covered by a straight-sided alabastron and a kantharos with vertical handles. The burial dates to Phase 6a.

10 Chalandrítsa: Ághios Vasílios PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, 29. – STAVROPOULOU-GATSI 1998, 123. ChT cemetery Pottery from older excavations by N. Kyparissis belongs to Phase 6a. There is probably more material from the more recent rescue excavations.

11 Chalandrítsa: Stavrós KOLONAS 1990, 136–138, plan 23. – ID. 2006, 225. – KOLONAS – GAZIS 2006. Settlement Unpublished pottery of Phase 6a.

12 Teíchos Dymaíon PAPADOPOULOS 1978/79, 24. – MOSCHOS 2002, 20, note 12 (D1). Fortified settlement Destruction by fire towards the end of LH III C Late. Habitation continues into Phase 6a, right after the destruction. The stratigraphy is not known nor can particular house remains be associated with this phase. Only a very small part of the pottery has been illustrated in E. Mastrokosta’s preliminary reports. Human presence continues in the Protogeometric period, after a short period of abandonment during the Submycenaean Phase 6b/EPG “bronze phase”.

13 Spaliaréika Petropoulos 2000, 73, figs. 13–20. – Giannopoulos 2008, 100–101, pls. 5, 12, 14, 15. ChT 1, Primary burial I A primary burial of the upper phase on the floor of chamber 1, in crouched position was accompanied by a stirrup jar close to the scull, beads of various shapes, made of glass, carnelian and sea-shell, two shield-rings205 and two orthogonal seals with circle and pendent motifs respectively. The burial dates to Phase 6a.

14 Kalamáki No references ChT cemetery Recent excavations by A. Vasilogamvrou have confirmed the existence of at least Phase 6a.

15 Mitópolis Kolonas 2008c, 22, fig. 27. – Christakopoulou forthcoming. ChT 1, Primary burial E (unpublished) ChT 3? One stirrup jar of the early phase, found misplaced, not by human action. It should be associated with a crouched burial with no offerings that was the last one in chamber 1. ChT 3 yielded two primary burials without offerings, but their date is not certain. 205

Snodgrass considers them Submycenaean, see SNODGRASS 1971, 319–320. P. Mountjoy is hesitant when dating the rings from the Kerameikós and uses the example of a stratified LH III C Late ring from Kalapódi, see MOUNTJOY 1988, 23. Phase 6a combines both dates.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

267

16 Kangádhi: Sotiroúla or Mýlos Papadopoulos 1978/79, 25. ChT cemeteries Sporadic excavations of chamber tombs and pottery confiscations without clear excavation data. A duck-askos with pictorial decoration in the Silhouette Style belongs to Phase 6a. An undecorated deep bowl with vertical handles belongs to the same phase, if not to Phase 6b.

17 Pórtes MOSCHOS in press. ChT cemetery In the chamber tomb cemetery Phase 6a has been confirmed, while Phase 6b remains are still scanty. Phase 6 is present in 25% of the excavated tombs, which is representative of the phase in Western Achaea. The majority of the material came from primary burials.

18 Vrysárion PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI 1989, 150. – ID. 1999, 269. ChT 4, primary burial A A hand made jug and two iron knives accompanied the last primary burial of the chamber. The burial should be dated right after Phase 6b and is didactic in relation to the use of chamber tombs beyond the Mycenaean period.

19 Mánesi: Vromonéri Papadopoulos 1978/79, 32. ChT cemetery Some vases from the old N. Kyparissis excavations are known. Phase 6a is possibly present.

20 Drosiá Papadopoulos 1978/79, 33. ChT cemetery Vague reports point to an attestation of the period.

Bibliography B’ Συνέδριο Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών 1981/82 Πρακτικά του B’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών / Acts of the Second International Congress of Peloponnesian Studies, Patrae, 25–31 May 1980 (Peloponnesiaka 8). Athens. ALEXANDRI, O. G. 1968 “Αθήναι. Οδός Κριεζή 23–24”, ArchDelt 22, 1967 [1968], Chron 92–96. ARAPOGIANNI, X. 1997 “Αγία Τριάδα. Θέση «Παληομπουκουβίνα»”, ArchDelt 47, 1992 [1997], Chron 116–118. BAKIRTZIS, CH. (ed.) 2004 Αρχαιολογικές Έρευνες και Μεγάλα Δημόσια Έργα. Αρχαιολογική Συνάντηση Εργασίας, Πρακτικά. Επταπύργιο Θεσσαλονίκης 18–20 Σεπτεμβρίου 2003. Thessaloniki. BATZIOU-EFSTATHIOU, A. 1999 “Το νεκροταφείο της Νέας Ιωνίας (Βόλου) κατά τη μετάβαση από την ΥΕ ΙΙΙΓ στην ΠΓ εποχή”, 117–130 in: Περιφέρεια. BENTON, S. 1953 “Further Excavations at Aetos”, BSA 48, 255–361.

-

268

Ioannis Moschos

BLACKMAN, D. 1997 “Archaeology in Greece 1996–97”, AR 43, 1–125. BORGNA, E. – P. CÀSSOLA GUIDA (eds.) in press Dall’Egeo all’Adriatico: organizzazioni sociali, modi di scambio e interazione in età post-palaziale (XII-XI

sec. a.C.) / From the Aegean to the Adriatic: Social Organisations, Modes of Exchange and Interaction in the Post-palatial Times (12 th–11 th c. B.C.). Seminario internazionale, 1–2 Dicembre 2006 / International Workshop, December 1 st–2 nd 2006, CISM Udine (Studi e ricerche di protostoria mediterranea). Rome. BRANIGAN, K. (ed.) 1998 Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1). Sheffield. CHATZI-SPILIOPOULOU, G. 2001 “Ο 6ος θαλαμωτός τάφος των Ελληνικών Ανθείας στη Μεσσηνία”, 285–298 in: MITSOPOULOS-LEON 2001. CHRISTAKOPOULOU, J. 2001 “Πρωτογεωμετρικός τάφος στην Σταμνά Μεσολογγίου”, 155–168 in: STAMPOLIDIS 2001. 2006 “Σωστικές ανασκαφές στη Σταμνά και στο Αγγελόκαστρο Αιτωλοακαρνανίας”, 511–518 in: KAZAKOU 2006. in press Το Νεκροταφείο της Σταμνάς και η Πρωτογεωμετρική Περίοδος στην Αιτωλοακαρνανία (unpublished Ph.D thesis). University of Athens. Forthc. Μυκηναϊκό Νεκροταφείο στη Μιτόπολη Αχαΐας. Patras. CHRYSAFI, A. 1999 “Κρήνη Πατρών. Περιφέρεια Ζωιτάδας (οικόπεδο Γεωργίου Γαλανού)”, ArchDelt 49, 1994 [1999], Chron 234–236. CROUWEL, J. 2006 “Late Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery. A Brief Review”, 15–22 in: RYSTEDT – WELLS 2006. DAKORONIA, F. 1990 “Ο Αχιλλέας και η κοιλάδα του Σπερχειού”, Αρχαιολογία 34, 40–43. DAKORONIA, F. – S. DEGER-JALKOTZY – S. FABRIZII-REUER 2002 “Beisetzungen mit Leichenbrand aus der Felskammernekropole von Elateia-Alonaki, Griechenland”, ArchAustr 84–85, 2000–01 [2002] (= Festschrift für Egon Reuer zum 75. Geburtstag), 137–153. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 1999 “Elateia and Problems of Pottery Chronology”, 195–202 in: Περιφέρεια. 2007 “Defining LH III C Middle at the Cemetery of Elateia-Alonaki in Central Greece”, 129–159 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. – F. DAKORONIA 1991 “Elateia (Phocis) und die frühe Geschichte der Griechen. Ein österreichisch-griechisches Grabungsprojekt”, AnzWien 127 [1990] 1991, 77–86. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. – I. S. LEMOS (eds.) 2006 Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3). Edinburgh. DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1964 The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors. An Archaeological Survey c. 1200 – c. 1000 B.C. Oxford. 1972 The Greek Dark Ages. London. 1973 “Late Burials from Mycenae”, BSA 68, 87–101. DESHAYES, J. 1966 Argos. Les Fouilles de la Deiras (Études Péloponnésiennes 4). Paris. DICKINSON, O. 2006 The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age. Continuity and Change between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC. London – New York. DIETZ, S. 2007 “Thermon and the Matt Painted Pottery in Aitolia. New Fix Points for the Chronology”, 83–93 in: LANG – REINHOLDT – WEILHARTNER 2007.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

269

DIETZ, S. – I. MOSCHOS (eds.) 2006 Chalkis Aitolias I. The Prehistoric Periods (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 7). Athens. DIMAKI, S. 2003 “Η αρχιτεκτονική των υστεροελλαδικών τάφων της Ελάτειας”, 321–337 in: KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA – PAPAKONSTANTINOU 2003. EDER, B. 2001 Die Submykenischen und Protogeometrischen Gräber von Elis (Bιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 209). Athens. 2006 “The World of Telemachus: Western Greece 1200–700 BC”, 549–580 in: DEGER-JALKOTZY – LEMOS 2006. EDER, B. – R. JUNG 2005 “On the Character of Social Relations between Greece and Italy in the 12th/11th C. BC”, 485–495 in: LAFFINEUR – GRECO 2005. GADOLOU, A. 2008 Η Αχαΐα στους πρώιμους ιστορικούς χρόνους. Κεραμική παραγωγή και έθιμα ταφής. Athens. GALANAKI, I. – H. TOMAS – Y. GALANAKIS – R. LAFFINEUR (eds.) 2007 Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas: Prehistory across Borders. Proceedings of the International

Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe. University of Zagreb, 11– 14 April 2005. (Aegaeum 27). Liège – Austin. GIANNOPOULOS, TH. G. 2008 Die letzte Elite der mykenischen Welt. Achaia in mykenischer Zeit und das Phänomen der Kriegerbestattungen im 12.–11. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 152). Bonn. GRECO, E. (ed.) 2002 Gli Achei e l’identità etnica degli Achei d’Occidente, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Paestum, 23–25 febbraio 2001 (Tekmeria 3). Paestum – Athens. HÄGG, R. 1987 “Submycenaean Cremation Burials in the Argolid?”, 207–212 in: LAFFINEUR 1987. HATZI-VALLIANOU, D. 1987 “Καλυβιανή Φαιστού”, ArchDelt 34, 1979 [1987], Chron 384. HILLER, S. 2006 “The Prothesis Scene. Bronze Age – Dark Age Relations”, 183–190 in: RYSTEDT – WELLS 2006. IACOVOU, M. 1997 “Images in Silhouette: The Missing Link of the Figurative Representations on Eleventh Century B.C. Cypriote Pottery”, 61–71 in: KARAGEORGHIS – LAFFINEUR – VANDENABEELE 1997. JUNG, R. 2007 “Δώς΄ μου φωτιά’. Woher kamen die Brandbestattungsriten der spätbronzezeitlichen Ägais?”, 215–230 in: GALANAKI – TOMAS – GALANAKIS – LAFFINEUR 2007. KANTA, A. 1975 “The Tripolis Street Graves at Argos”, AAA 8:2, 259–275. KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1997 “The Pictorial Style in Vase-painting of the Early Cypro-Geometric Period”, 73–80 in: KARAGEORGHIS – LAFFINEUR – VANDENABEELE 1997. KARAGEORGHIS, V. – R. LAFFINEUR – F. VANDENABEELE (eds.) 1997 Four Thousand Years of Images on Cypriote Pottery. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Cypriote Studies, Nicosia, 3–4 May, 1996 (organized by the Universities of Cyprus [Archaeological Research Unit], Brussels [Vrije Universiteit], Liège, Lyon [Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen] and the A.G. Leventis Foundation). Brussels – Liège – Nicosia. KAZAKOU, M. (ed.) 2006 Πρακτικά A΄ Αρχαιολογικής Συνόδου Νότιας και Δυτικής Ελλάδος, Patras, 9–12 June 1996. Athens.

-

270

Ioannis Moschos

KOLONAS, L. 1990 “Χαλανδρίτσα”, ArchDelt 40, 1985 [1990], Chron 136–138. 1997a “Τα μνημεία της Αιτωλοακαρνανίας κατά την υλοποίηση της Προγραμματικής Σύμβασης Αμβρακικού”, PYRFOROS 27, January – February 1997, 49–83. 1997b “Τζαννάτα Πόρου”, ArchDelt 47, 1992 [1997], Chron 154–157. 1998 “Τζαννάτα”, ArchDelt 48, 1993 [1998], Chron 149–150. 2006 “Το έργο της Επιτροπής Προστασίας, Έρευνας και Ανάδειξης Προϊστορικών Εγκαταστάσεων της Επαρχίας Πατρών: α) Τείχος Δυμαίων, β) Μυκηναϊκά Νεκροταφεία”, 217–233 in: LABRINOUDAKIS ET AL. 2006. 2008a Τείχος Δυμαίων. Athens. 2008b Βούντενη. Μια Σημαντική Μυκηναϊκή Εγκατάσταση της Αχαΐας. Athens. 2008c Δίκτυο Επισκέψιμων Μυκηναϊκών Οικισμών και Νεκροταφείων Επαρχίας Πατρών. Χαλανδρίτσα, Καταρράκτης, Μιτόπολη, Σπαλιαρέικα, Ελαιοχώρι, Πόρτες. Athens. 2008d “Οι θολωτοί τάφοι στο Λουτράκι Κατούνας και η σχέση τους με τη Λευκάδα”, 389–406 in: PAPADATOUGIANNOPOULOU 2008. Forthc. Βούντενη. Ένα Σημαντικό Μυκηναϊκό Κέντρο της Αχαΐας. Athens. KOLONAS, L. – M. GAZIS 2006 “Ο μυκηναϊκός οικισμός της Χαλανδρίτσας: Νεότερα στοιχεία”, 25–30 in: KAZAKOU 2006. KORRES, G. S. 1981/82 “Η προβληματική δια την μεταγενεστέραν χρήσιν των μυκηναϊκών τάφων Μεσσηνίας και η εξέλιξις το τυπικού των εν αυτοίς εθίμων ταφής και ταφικής λατρείας”, 363–450 in: B’ Συνέδριο Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. KOUNENAKI, P. (ed.) 1996 “Οι Ανασκαφές στην Πελοπόννησο”. ΕΠΤΑ ΗΜΕΡΕΣ (Leaflet of Kathimerini issue), 28.01.1996. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. – M. PAPAKONSTANTINOU (eds.) 2003 Η Περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού Κόσμου. Β’ Διεθνές Διεπιστημονικό Συμπόσιο, 26–30 Σεπτεμβρίου, Λαμία 1999. Πρακτικα / 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium ‘The Periphery of the Mycenaean World’, 26–30 September, Lamia 1999. Proceedings. Athens. KYPARISSIS, N. 1922 “Κεφαλληνιακά”, ArchDelt 5, 1919 [1922], 83–122. LABRINOUDAKIS, V. – L. KOLONAS – S. SINOS – CH. MPOURAS – E. KOLLIAS (eds.) 2006 Το Έργο των Επιστημονικών Επιτροπών Αναστήλωσης, Συντήρησης και Ανάδειξης Μνημείων. Athens. LAFFINEUR, R. (ed.) 1987 Thanatos. Les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège, 21–23 avril 1986 (Aegaeum 1). Liège. LAFFINEUR, R. – E. GRECO (eds.) 2005 Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranea., Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25). Liège – Austin. LANG, F. – C. REINHOLDT – J. WEILHARTNER (eds.) 2007 ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΕΙΟΣ, Archäologische Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros. Festschrift für Stefan Hiller zum 65. Geburtstag. Vienna. LEMOS, I. S. 2002 The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. MARINATOS, S. N. 1935 “Αι εν Κεφαλληνία ανασκαφαί Goekoop II”, ArchEph, 1933 [1935], 68–100. MASTROKOSTAS, E. 1966 “Ανασκαφή του Τείχους Δυμαίων”, Prakt 1964 [1966], 60–67. 1967 “Ανασκαφή του Τείχους Δυμαίων”, Prakt 1965 [1967], 121–136. 1968 “Πάτραι”, ArchDelt 22, 1967 [1968], Chron 213–214.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

271

MCDONALD, W. A. – W. D. E. COULSON – J. ROSSER (eds.) 1983 Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece III. Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation. Minneapolis. MITSOPOULOS-LEON, V. (ed.) 2001 Forschungen in der Peloponnes. Αkten des Symposions anläßlich der Feier ‘100 Jahre Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Athen’,” Athen 5.3–7.3.1998. Athens. MORGAN, C. 1990 Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century BC. (Cambridge Classical Studies). Cambridge. 2008 “Archaeology in Greece 2007–2008”, AR 54, 1–113. MOSCHOS, I. 2002 “Western Achaea during the LH III C Period. Approaching the Latest Excavation Evidence”, 15–41 in: GRECO 2002. 2007a “Η περιοχή των Πρόννων και η ανατολική ακτή της Κεφαλονιάς πριν από την ιστορία. Τοπογραφία της νήσου, κατάλογος των θέσεων και συμπεράσματα”, 227–324 in: Congress for Letters, History and Folklore of Pronnoi Region, Poros, 8–11 September 2005. Póros – Cephaloniá. 2007b Οι Μυκηναίοι στην Αχαΐα / Mycenaeans in Achaea (Faedimos 1). Patras. in press “Evidence of Social Re-organization and Reconstruction in Late Helladic IIIC Achaea and Modes of Contacts and Exchange via the Ionian and Adriatic Sea”, in: BORGNA – CÀSSOLA GUIDA in press. MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1988 (with a contribution by V. Hankey) “LH III C versus Submycenaean. The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed”, JdI 103, 1–37. PAGLIARA, C. – R. GUGLIELMINO 2005 “Roca: Dalle Curiosita Antiquarie allo Scavo Stratigrafico”, 298–321 in: SETTIS – PARRA 2005. PAPADATOU-GIANNOPOULOU, CH. (ed.) 2008 Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αφιερωμένο στον Wilhelm Dörpfeld. Πρακτικά Συνεδρίου, Λευκάδα 6–11 Αυγούστου 2006. Patras. PAPADOPOULOS, T. J. 1978a “Πάτραι. Καλλιθέα”, Ergon 24, 1977 [1978], 96–98. 1978b “Ανασκαφή ΥΕ νεκροταφείου Καλλιθέας Πατρών”, Prakt 132, 1977 [1978], 184–186. 1978/79 Mycenaean Achaea (SIMA 55,1-2). Göteborg. 1981 “Καλλιθέα Πατρών”, Ergon 27, 1980 [1981], 29–30. 1982 “Ανασκαφή Καλλιθέας Πατρών”, Prakt 135, 1981 [1982], 106–110. 1985 “The Problem of Relations between Achaea and Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age”, 141–148 in: PAPADOPOULOS – CHATZISTYLLIS 1985. 1988 “Καλλιθέα Πατρών”, Ergon 34, 1987 [1988], 89–91. 1991 “Ανασκαφή Καλλιθέας Πατρών”, Prakt 142, 1987 [1991], 69–72. 1993 “Καλλιθέα – Κλάους Πατρών”, Ergon 39, 1992 [1993], 23–26. 1995 “Ανασκαφή Κλάους και Καλλιθέας Πατρών”, Prakt 147, 1992 [1995], 52–59. 1999a “Ανασκαφή μυκηναϊκού νεκροταφείου Καλλιθέας Πατρών”, Prakt 152, 1997 [1999], 121–126. 1999b “Καλλιθέα Πατρών”, Ergon 45, 1998 [1999], 37–39. 2000 “Ανασκαφή μυκηναϊκού νεκροταφείου Καλλιθέας Πατρών”, Prakt 153, 1998 [2000], 83–87. PAPADOPOULOS, TH. – S. A. CHATZISTYLLIS (eds.) 1985 Πρακτικά του Δευτέρου Διεθνούς Κυπριολογικού Συνεδρίου, Nicosia, 20–25 April 1982, Vol. A. Nicosia. PAPADOPOULOU, E. 2004 “Τοπικές ιδιορρυθμίες και επείσακτα στοιχεία στην Αιτωλοακαρνανία κατά την Ύστερη Εποχή του Χαλκού”, 41–50 in: Β΄ Διεθνές Ιστορικό και Αρχαιολογικό Συνέδριο Αιτωλοακαρνανίας, Agrinio, 29–31 March 2002. Agrinio. PAPAPOSTOLOU, I. A. 2003 “Το τέλος της μυκηναϊκής εποχής στον Θέρμο”, 135–146 in: KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA – PAPAKONSTANTINOU 2003.

-

272

Ioannis Moschos

PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI, L. 1989 “Βρυσάρι (Κάτω Γουμένιτσα)”, ArchDelt 37, 1982 [1989], Chron 150. 1999 “Πήλινα και χάλκινα της Πρώιμης Μυκηναϊκής εποχής από την Αχαΐα”, 269–283 in: Περιφέρεια. 2003 “Ο θολωτός τάφος του Πετρωτού Πατρών. Τα πρώτα στοιχεία της έρευνας”, 433–453 in: KYPARISSIAPOSTOLIKA – PAPAKONSTANTINOU 2003. PARLAMA, L. 1972 “Θαλαμοειδής τάφος εις Αγραπιδοχώρι Ηλείας”, ArchEph, 1971 [1972], 52–60. PASCHALIDIS, K. – P. J. P. MCGEORGE in press “Life and Dead in the Periphery of the Mycenaean World at the End of the Late Bronze Age: The Case of the Achaea Klauss Cemetery”, in: BORGNA – CÀSSOLA GUIDA in press. PETROPOULOS, M. 1987–88 “Τρίτη ανασκαφική περίοδος στο Άνω Μαζαράκι (Ρακίτα) Αχαΐας, 81–96 in: Πρακτικά Γ΄ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. Kalamata, 8–15 September 1985. Athens. 2000 “Μυκηναϊκό νεκροταφείο στα Σπαλιαρέικα των Λουσικών”, 65–92 in: RIZAKIS 2000. PETROPOULOS, M. – E. SARANTI – O. CHRISTAKOPOULOU 2004 “Σωστικές ανασκαφές στο πλαίσιο των έργων Ζεύξη Ρίου – Αντιρρίου και Δυτικού Άξονα (Νομός Αιτωλοακαρνανίας)”, 231–232 in: BAKIRTZIS 2004. PITEROS, CH. I. 2001 “Ταφές και τεφροδόχα αγγεία τύμβου της ΥΕ ΙΙΙΓ στο Άργος”, 99–120 in: STAMPOLIDIS 2001. 2004 “Άργος. Οδός Κοφινιώτου 27 (Ο.Τ. 19/25, οικόπεδο Β. Πετρόπουλου – Κ. Ξάμπλα)”, ArchDelt 53, 1998 [2004], Chron 112–114. POPHAM, M. R. – L. H. SACKETT – P. G. THEMELIS (eds.) 1979/80 Lefkandi I. The Iron Age. The Settlement. The Cemeteries (BSA Suppl. 11). London. PRESTON, L. 1999 “Mortuary Practices and the Negotiation of Social Identities at LM II Knossos”, BSA 94, 131–143. RIZAKIS, A. D. (ed.) 2000 Paysages d’Achaïa II. Dymé et son Territoire, Actes du colloque international: Dymaia et Bouprasia, Katô Achaïa, 6–8 Octobre 1995 (Meletemata 29). Athens. ROMAIOS, K. A. 1916 “Εκ του προϊστορικού Θέρμου”, ArchDelt 1, 1915 [1916], 225–279. RUPPENSTEIN, F. 2007 Die submykenische Nekropole. Neufunde und Neubewertung (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 18). Munich. RUTTER, J. B. 1974 The Late Helladic III B and III C Periods at Korakou and Gonia in the Corinthia (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pensylvania [Ann Arbor Nr. 75 2771]). 2007 “How Different is LH III C Middle at Mitrou? An Initial Comparison with Kalapodi, Kynos, and Lefkandi”, 287–300 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II. RYSTEDT, E. – B. WELLS (eds.) 2006 Pictorial Pursuits. Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery. Papers from the Seminars at the Swedish Institute at Athens in 1999 and 2001 (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, 53). Stockholm. SANTILLO FRIZELL, B. 1986 Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970–1974. Fasc. 3: The Late and Final Mycenaean Periods (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, 24:3). Stockholm. SCHINAS, CH. 1999 “Εικονιστική παράσταση σε όστρακα κρατήρα από την Αγία Τριάδα Ηλείας”, 257–262 in: Περιφέρεια. SETTIS, S. – M. C. PARRA (eds.) 2005 Magna Grecia. Archeologia di un sapere. Exhibition Catalogue Catanzaro. Milano.

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

273

SNODGRASS, A. M. 1971 The Dark Age of Greece. An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries B.C. Edinburgh. SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD, CH. 1999 The Ionian Islands in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age 3000–800 BC. Liverpool. SPYROPOULOS, TH. G. 1996 “Η πολυπρόσωπη Αρκαδία”, 15–19 in: KOUNENAKI 1996. SPYROPOULOS, TH. G. – G. TH. SPYROPOULOS 1996 Το Παναρκαδικό Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Τριπόλεως και η Αρχαιολογική Έρευνα της Αρκαδίας. Tripolis. STAMPOLIDIS, N. CH. (ed.) 2001 Πρακτικά το Συμποσίου Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου, Rhodes, 29 April – 2 May 1999. Athens. STAVROPOULOU-GATSI, M. 1998 “Χαλανδρίτσα. Θέση Άγιος Βασίλειος”, ArchDelt 48, 1993 [1998], Chron 123. 2001 “Ο οικισμός της Εποχής του Χαλκού στην «Παγώνα» της Πάτρας”, 29–38 in: MITSOPOULOS-LEON 2001. 2008a “Ανασκαφική έρευνα στον Κουβαρά Αιτωλοακαρνανίας (Σεπτέμβριος)” in: Αρχαιολογικές Ανασκαφές και τα Μεγάλα Έργα της Ελλάδας (Ημερολόγιο 2008). Athens. 2008b “Τοπωνυμικές επιβιώσεις για την Ομηρική Ιθάκη στην Αιτωλοακαρνανία και αρχαιολογικά τεκμήρια για τη μυκηναϊκή εποχή”, 373–388 in: PAPADATOU-GIANNOPOULOU 2008. STYRENIUS, C.-G. 1967 Submycenaean Studies. Examination of Finds from Mainland Greece with a Chapter on Attic Protogeometric Graves (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 8°, VII). Lund. VIKATOU, O. 2001 “Σκηνή πρόθεσης από το μυκηναϊκό νεκροταφείο της Αγίας Τριάδας”, 273–284 in: MITSOPOULOS-LEON 2001. 2004 “Κλαδέος”, ArchDelt 53, 1998 [2004], Chron 230–233. VIKATOU, O. – V. KARAGEORGHIS 2006 “Κερατοειδές αγγείο Κυπριακής απομίμησης από μυκηναϊκό νεκροταφείο της Ηλείας”, RDAC 2006, 155– 168. VOUTSAKI, S. 1998 “Mortuary Evidence, Symbolic Meanings and Social Change: A Comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean Period”, 41–58 in: BRANIGAN 1998. WARDLE, K. A. 1972 The Greek Bronze Age West of the Pindus: A Study of the Period ca. 3.000–1.000 B.C. in Epirus, Aetolo-

akarnania, the Ionian Islands and Albania, with Reference to the Aegean, Adriatic and Balkan Regions (unpublished Ph.D thesis). University of London. WARDLE, K. A. – D. WARDLE 2003 “Prehistoric Thermon: Pottery of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age”, 147–156 in: KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA – PAPAKONSTANTINOU 2003. WHITLEY, J. 1991 Style and Society in Dark Age Greece. The Changing Face of a Pre-literate Society 1100–700 BC (New Studies in Archaeology). Cambridge.

-

274

Ioannis Moschos

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

275

276

Ioannis Moschos

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

277

278

Ioannis Moschos

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

279

280

Ioannis Moschos

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

281

282

Ioannis Moschos

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

283

284

Ioannis Moschos

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

285

286

Ioannis Moschos

Western Achaia During the Succeeding LH III C Late Period

287

288

Ioannis Moschos

PENELOPE A. MOUNTJOY

LH III C LATE: AN EAST MAINLAND – AEGEAN KOINE

When writing RMDP I isolated a possible East Mainland – Aegean pottery Koine from the appearance of particular shapes, often in White Ware, decorated with particular motifs (RMDP, 53–54). This material is found at a range of east Mainland sites, but is best stratified in settlement contexts in the Argolid at Mycenae and Asine and on Euboia at Lefkandi (Fig. 1). It is equivalent at Mycenae to Lion Gate Strata X and XI, the Bath Grave and the Granary East Basement Upper Level (WACE 1921–23, 20–61; RMDP, 61–62), at Asine to the House G Room 32 deposit (FRÖDIN – PERSSON 1938, 74–76) and at Lefkandi to Phases 2b–3 (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 166–180). In RMDP, 38–40 I reassigned the Lefkandi phases because stylistic reassessment of the material suggested that Lefkandi Phase 2b might begin in LH III C Middle Advanced, but should belong almost entirely to LH III C Late, not to LH III C Middle Advanced, as stated in MDP, 133 Table II, 155. The LH III C Late Phase 3 is a continuation of Phase 2b. This reassignment seems to have met with general acceptance. The movement of the Lefkandi phases also effects the phases at Kalapodi. As a result Kalapodi Schicht 9–10, equated by M. Jacob-Felsch to Lefkandi Phase 2b, should now be LH III C Late not LH III C Middle (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 97); Schicht 11–12, equated to Lefkandi Phase 3, remain as LH III C Late (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 97). Jacob-Felsch notes that White Ware is most prominent in Schicht 10, albeit in small quantity, which also matches Lefkandi Phase 2b (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 97). The White Ware at Kalapodi was identified by E. Schofield (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 97). THE GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT OF THE KOINE The pottery of this koine appears on the Mainland in the Argolid, in the Demeter Sanctuary at Ancient Corinth, in Attica at Perati (Phase III), in Phthiotis at Kalapodi and in Thessaly in sherd material at Velestino; it may also be present in Phthiotis at Kynos in Level 4, where White Ware is mentioned (DAKORONIA 2003, 45–46). On Euboia it is found at Lefkandi. The koine extended across the Cyclades. On Kea the pottery from the LH III C re-use of the Temple at Ay. Irini forms part of this ceramic koine. The Temple re-use has been divided into three stages (CASKEY 1984, 241–253). The first LH III C floor level in Stage 1 has White Ware (CASKEY 1984, 246 fig. 4a, 248 fig. 6c), which appears in small quantity in Lefkandi Phase 2a and becomes popular in Phase 2b (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 167. – SCHOFIELD 2007); the latest floor level, Stage 2, also had a White Ware krater on the floor (CASKEY 1984, 246 fig. 4c–d). The pottery from both Stage 1 and Stage 2 is homogeneous and dates to LH III C Late. The two kylikes illustrated from the latest architectural Phase, Stage 3, also date to LH III C Late (CASKEY 1984, 241–243). Even though more than one architectural phase is represented, it seems that all the re-use of the Temple occurred within the LH III C Late phase, at a time equivalent to Lefkandi Phases 2b, 3. There is similar pottery from settlements on Paros at Koukounaries, on Siphnos at Ay. Andreas and on Chios at Emporio. Occupation was resumed at Koukounaries at some point after a destruction early in LH III C Middle Advanced, but remains are few suggesting to the excavator a squatter occupation; the pottery dates to LH III C Late and apparently includes vases in a

290

Penelope A. Mountjoy

ware akin to White Ware (SCHILARDI 1984, 203–204). The LH III C Late pottery suggests there is occupation at Ay. Andreas on Siphnos. Little pottery is published, so it is not possible to know if habitation was continuous through LH III C Middle or if there was a break. The pottery is not LH III B2 as published (PHILIPPAKI 1981, 226. – For a synopsis of the LH III C Late pottery see RMDP, 887–888. – See also TELEVANTOU 2001). At Emporio Area F Stage 7 and Area D Stages I and II can be assigned to LH III C Late (RMDP, 1147–1148). On Naxos at Grotta the Minoan influenced LH III C Middle style of Town II continues in LH III C Late, but alongside it there are also vases in the East Mainland Koine Style. Apart from two LH III C Late stirrup jars from Aplomata (Fig. 2) which may be Attic or Argive imports, in RMDP I did not assign pottery from the Aplomata and Kamini tombs to LH III C Late, as there is no stratigraphy in the Aplomata tombs and the Kamini tombs are unpublished (RMDP, 939), but some assignation is now possible as a result of Vlachopoulos’ work on the settlement material; he dates Aplomata to LH III C Middle and Kamini to LH III C Middle Advanced and LH III C Late (VLACHOPOULOS 2003, 221). However, the presence of the two stirrup jars suggests Aplomata may also continue into LH III C Late. In the Aegean this koine thus covers Kea, Siphnos, Paros, Naxos and Chios, but deposits from Kea, Paros, Siphnos and Chios are very limited. To these places can now be added Bademgedği Tepe close to the west coast of Turkey (MERIÇ 2003). The LH III C pottery at this site comes from Level II; it consists of wash from further up the slope caught by the fortification wall. All the LH III C phases seem to be represented, but there is no stratigraphy, so assignation can only be stylistic. THE SHAPES AND MOTIFS OF THE KOINE Where possible I have used stratified material, but pottery of this class is also present in mixed Phase II and III tombs at Perati (IAKOVIDIS 1969/70), in tombs at Asine (FRÖDIN – PERSSON 1938, 151–192, 354–421), at Epidauros Limera in Laconia (DEMAKOPOULOU 1968), and as cremation urns in the tumulus in the Kanzavelou plot in Argos (PITEROS 2001), to mention the chief examples. There are five main shapes and all are large: the amphora FS 69-70, large jug FS 106, hydria FS 128, straight-sided krater FS 282 and large basin FS 294, 302. To these I would now add two small shapes, the one-handled conical bowl FS 242 and the deep bowl FS 285, the latter in a monochrome version with reserved lower body and interior rim band and in a version with multiple wavy lines. The main motifs used in the koine are illustrated Fig. 3. Some motifs differ from the LH III C Middle forms. The scroll now has larger coils which may be slightly spiraliform; stemless spirals may have more coils; tassel may be thinner and stringy rather than fat droplets and necklace pattern may also be long and stringy. On closed shapes decoration may run over the edge of the decorative zone into the shoulder bands (Fig. 3:5). Vertical handles may slant inwards at the base and have large hooks below, often antithetic and often with multiple coils; horizontal handles are decorated in the long-splash system, that is one long splash along the handle and one round each stub, all with long tails reaching down the belly. Apart from the monochrome deep bowls, the decoration is open ground. White Ware is used for the vessels from Euboea, Phthiotis, Attica and Kea. The amphora, jug and hydria are often neck-handled and have long hollow rims. The amphorae (Figs. 4, 8:1) are all neck-handled. Figs. 4:2, 8:1 have a very large scroll running into the shoulder bands and Fig. 4:2 a large hook below the handle. Fig. 4:1,3 have a cross on the handle. This feature may start in Lefkandi Phase 2a (POPHAM – MILBURN 1971, 352 fig. 14; – POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 163); it becomes more popular in Phase 2b (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 173). The handles of Figs. 4:1–3, 8:1 are in-slanting at the base, especially Figs. 4:1, 8:1. Neck-handled amphorae with cross down the handle and elaborate scroll are also mentioned from Koukounaries (SCHILARDI 1984, 204). Although

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

291

Aplomata is assigned to LH III C Middle an amphora (Fig. 4:4) with scroll, cross down the handle and a large hook below it might be LH III C Late. It has a heavy rolled rim instead of the usual hollow rim and the handles are not in-slanting, but the cross on the handle suggests a LH III C Late (Lefkandi Phase 2b) date is possible. The examples of the large jug (Fig. 5) all have a long hollow rim. The shape can be neckhandled or rim-handled. The handles (Fig. 5:1–3) are in-slanting at the base; the necklace and stemless spirals in combination on the Perati vase is a common combination; the necklace is the stringy type. A neck-handled jug from Aplomata (Fig. 5:4) also with long hollow rim, stringy necklace, stemless spirals and a large handle hook might be LH III C Late. As in the case of Fig. 4:4, it does not have an in-slanting handle. The hydriae (Fig. 6:1–2) have a large hook below the handle, Fig. 6:1 with the long splash system on the horizontal handles. In contrast to other shapes, the hydria may have decoration on the belly as well as the shoulder. The hydria from Velestino (Fig. 6:3) has scroll and the edge of antithetic hooks round the handle; the scroll now has an inner coil. The vase from Ay. Andreas (Fig. 6:4) has multiple coiled antithetic hooks; they are probably below a vertical handle, but the handle is not extant and it is just possible that stemless spirals are represented. A complete hydria from Ay. Andreas with inslanting handle is illustrated in TELEVANTOU 2001, 207 fig. 10. Fig. 7:1 from Bademgediği Tepe with long slightly hollowed rim could belong to any of the three shapes just discussed, as also Fig. 7:2 from Troy found in House 761 in VIIb2 context. It has a large scroll and on the left is the tip of what would be a hook below the handle. The Athens pieces (Fig. 7:3–4) are from the fill of the Fountain House. The fill is LH III C Middle Advanced, but I wonder if these sherds could be LH III C Late, since multiple coils are more a feature of this phase than LH III C Middle. Indeed, the multiple coils below the handles are extremely similar to those on the Siphnos hydria (Fig. 6:4), supporting the idea that handle coils are represented on the Siphnos piece. A vertical handle from the Fountain House, which might belong to this phase, has a probable cross down it (RMDP, Attica no. 430). There is also a vertical handle in White Ware with cross down it from the Demeter Sanctuary at Korinth (RUTTER 1979, 365 cat. no. 21 pl. 91). The krater (Figs. 8:3–5, 9) is the most characteristic vase of the koine. It is straight-sided with square rim and corresponding banding on exterior and interior at rim and belly, the belly generally with three bands out and two bands in; the rim may have three and three bands, three and two, or two and two. The Perati vase (Fig. 9:3) is unstratified, but its shape and decoration suggest it belongs to the koine type. The Kalapodi vase (Fig. 9:7) is uncanonical with slightly rounded rim and a monochrome interior, but it obviously belongs to this group; it comes from Schicht 11, a LH III C Late Schicht (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 150 no. 264). Main decoration on these kraters usually consists of wavy line or running spiral, the latter often with open centre which may have cross fill. Antithetic loops and triglyph also appear. The Granary vase (Fig. 9:1) has quadruple wavy lines and the long-splash system on the handle, but the rim banding is not typical; the rim is also slightly rounded. Fig. 9:11 from Bademgediği Tepe has the edge of an unidentifiable motif and a local version of the rim; indeed, the rim of the spiral krater Fig. 9:10 is also not quite square. Other pieces belonging to this shape from Lefkandi include POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig. 2.11:7 (with uncanonical rim banding) and fig. 2.13:8,9. Pieces which may belong to this shape (unfortunately they are illustrated with photos only, so the interior banding is unknown) include POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, pls. 44B; 45B:4; 51:4,6,7. Variations of the decoration are shown by pl. 51:4 with antithetic loops flanking a lozenge and pl. 51:6 with widely spaced triple wavy lines. Two White Ware krater rims from the Demeter Sanctuary at Korinth with square lip may also belong to this type of krater, but too little is extant to be sure (RUTTER 1979, 366 cat. nos. 29–30 fig. 2). This krater type is also present at Kynos (I thank F. Dakoronia for this information). There are also rim sherds from at least 20 of these kraters from Grotta; they have main decoration of spiral, wavy line or triglyphs (I thank A. Vlachopoulos for this information). The rim diameter

292

Penelope A. Mountjoy

of these kraters is generally 30–36 cms, but those from Bademgediği Tepe are much larger, ca. 46 cms. Those from Perati, Kea and Euboea are of White Ware, as also the possible fragments from Ancient Korinth. The spouted basin Fig. 8:7 also has a square rim with similar corresponding banding. It is in White Ware. A squared-rim fragment in White Ware from the Demeter Sanctuary at Korinth has a monochrome interior and a normal rim band. It could belong to FS 294 without a spout or to FS 302 (RUTTER 1979, 368 cat. no. 62 fig. 2). The one-handled conical bowl (Figs. 10–12) has a wide distribution. I have previously suggested (MOUNTJOY 2007, 587–589) that the shape might have moved across the Aegean to the Mainland and perhaps originated in Cyprus, since there are LH III C Early examples there and at nearby Tarsus. This idea was based on the fact that there were no examples in good LH III C Early contexts from the Mainland. Sherds had been illustrated from Tiryns, but with two handles and it was unclear if they were wrongly restored on paper or if they really had two handles and belonged to another shape. Now in a recent publication Podzuweit has stated that the sherds were wrongly restored on paper and has illustrated a few other examples from Tiryns in LH III C Early context (PODZUWEIT 2007, 82 n. 366, pl. 45:7–15). He further notes that the shape does not seem to be common in the Argolid (PODZUWEIT 2007, 83). The shape is very rare at Mycenae. One example in LH III C Early context is now published, but it is described as a round-based version not a conical one and it is suggested that it resembles the shape of a Cypriot Milk Bowl, but with a round horizontal handle instead of a wishbone handle (FRENCH – TAYLOUR 2007, 25). Thus, a Cypriot origin for the shape might indeed be possible. However, it is clear that it is present in LH III C Early on the Mainland, rather than appearing there in LH III C Middle. In Cyprus, the shape is already present at Maa in both Period I and Period II at this site (MOUNTJOY 2007, 588–589), equivalent to LH III C Early Phase 2 (Fig. 10:2–3). A possible prototype comes from Kition Tomb 9 Upper Burial with two strap handles instead of one round handle (Fig. 10:1). This would be LH III C Early Phase 1 (MOUNTJOY 2007, 588– 589). The shape is common in the unstratified LH III C pottery at Tarsus (Fig. 10:4–10) on the south coast of Turkey, a short sail from Cyprus. The bulk of the LH III C pottery from Tarsus is LH III C Early suggesting that the bowls should also be this date (MOUNTJOY 2005, 83–134). There are a few monochrome interiors, but usually the interior is linear with concentric circles or spiral in the base, the latter perhaps derived from Cyprus, where the spiral is common on the interior base of deep bowls. Then the shape is found in the Aegean in LH III C Middle Advanced contexts (Fig. 11) at Emporio, Aplomata, Kamini and Grotta (VLACHOPOULOS 2003, 225 fig. 8), at Phylakopi on Melos, at Lefkandi, at Kalapodi where it appears in Schicht 6 (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 96), in the Athens Fountain House and at Perati. Interiors usually seem to be monochrome. The bowl is then found in LH III C Late (Fig. 12) at Lefkandi in Phases 2b, 3 and on Kea (Fig. 8:2). The unstratified examples from Bademgediği Tepe have a low ring base (Fig. 12: 3rd row) or a high conical base (Fig. 12: 4th and 5th rows); on analogy with bowls from other sites, the low ring bases might belong to Early and Middle LH III C and the high conical to LH III C Late. The Kea vase also has a high conical base, but oddly the Lefkandi Phase 2b and 3 vases have a low ring base. LH III C Late interior decoration seems to be monochrome at Lefkandi; the Kea bowl also has a monochrome interior with reserved centre base; bowls from Bademgediği Tepe may have concentric circles or a spiral on the interior base; those with monochrome interior seem to belong to the type with low ring base. The Grotta examples have a low ring base not a high one (I thank A. Vlachopoulos for this information). The monochrome deep bowl (Fig. 13) with reserved base or lower body, narrow reserved line on the lower belly and on the interior lip may also belong to this koine. The examples from Bademgediği Tepe (Fig. 13:6–7) have a deep oval body moving towards that of Protogeometric shapes; one also has a relatively high conical foot. The bowl from Lefkandi Phase 3 (Fig. 13:5) also has a deeper body. The deep bowl with flowing wavy lines (Fig. 14) appears at Mycenae,

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

293

Asine, Kea (Fig. 8:6) and Bademgediği Tepe. It has a monochrome interior with reserved band below the rim, except the Bademgediği Tepe vase (Fig. 14:3), which has the multiple bands local to this site. A rim sherd from Lefkandi with double wavy lines (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, pl. 45A:4) looks from the photo as though it may belong to a deep bowl. Other possible motifs which might be used in the koine (Fig. 15) are antithetic loops (Fig. 15:1), narrow wavy line (Fig. 15:2), panelled pattern (Fig. 15:3) and tassel (Fig. 15:4). The Bademgediği Tepe bowl (Fig. 15:2) has the long splash system on the handles. Further excavation/publication may produce bowls with these motifs at other koine sites. Other possible candidates for inclusion in the koine are the trefoil-mouthed jug FS 137 and the tray FS 322. The trefoil-mouthed jug (Fig. 16) is not limited to the koine, but examples found in the koine have the koine decoration of stemless spirals with open centre (Fig. 16:1) and necklace (Fig. 16:2). Unstratified examples have running spiral (RMDP, Attica no. 549, 555) or wavy line (RMDP, Argolid no. 393). Examples from Lefkandi have necklace and necklace with wavy line (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, pl. 43:5,6). There are several rim sherds from Bademgediği Tepe (Fig. 16:3–4). The unstratified jug from Laconia (Fig. 16:5) lacks the rim and might not have a trefoil mouth, but, even if not, its decoration suggests it should still belong to the koine. The tray (Fig. 17) may be a candidate. It first appears at Lefkandi in Phase 2a, but may have been more popular in Phase 2b (POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 195). It is not a common vessel, perhaps because of specialised use. However, the fact that it is present in Phases 2b–3 at Lefkandi with similar examples across the Aegean at Bademgediği Tepe permits its inclusion. There are several bases at Bademgediği Tepe with multiple concentric circles (Fig. 17:5) similar to those of the Lefkandi example (Fig. 17:3). Trays are also found at Kalapodi especially in Schicht 8–12 (JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 41–42). The shapes and motifs belonging to the koine are a continuation of the LH III C Middle Advanced Granary Style; but there are some differences. The two large open shapes, the krater and basin, with distinctive square rim and reduplicated banding on exterior and interior, are a new addition in this phase (but see STOCKHAMMER this volume). This examination is based on stratified material; there are a number of similar vases from less well stratified contexts, especially tombs. The koine does not seem to appear further north than Thessaly. It is possible that on the Mainland the koine is not limited only to the east, in which case it is a pan-Helladic style and not a koine. However, as far as I know, with one exception the vessels of the Eastern Koine with their particular shapes and motifs do not appear in the west Mainland. The exception is a conical bowl FS 242 from Tragana in Messenia with a monochrome interior and a very high conical base (KOUROUNIOTIS 1914, 104 fig. 6:5). As far as I know it is the only example of this shape from the west Mainland. I have not had access to this vessel to know if it is imported or locally made. A neck-handled hydria from Ramovouni: Lakkathela in Messenia (RMDP, Messenia no. 133) is decorated with tassel, but has the wide base found on vases in this area; it seems to be a local copy. More settlement deposits from western Greece might show these vases with their particular decoration were all present, but this seems unlikely, since there are none among the hundreds of vases extant from tombs in Achaea and Kephallonia. The koine range of shapes and motifs is very small and only makes up a part of the corpus at each site. However, the vessels seem to be locally made at each site, as far as I can tell (I have not seen the Paros and Siphnos material), and the shapes and motifs have little variation, suggesting that it is indeed a koine. Whether it is a koine or not, the presence of this idiosyncratic material in stratified contexts, especially the kraters, could be a useful dating criterion for LH III C Late at sites with little or no stratigraphy.

294

Penelope A. Mountjoy

Index to illustrations∗ Fig. 2 1) RMDP, Naxos no. 74; 2) RMDP, Naxos no. 75 Fig. 4 1) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig. 2.14:1; 2) RMDP, Chios no. 15; 3) after HOOD 1982, fig. 272:2839; 4) RMDP, Naxos no. 20 Fig. 5 1) RMDP, Argolid no. 378; 2) RMDP, Argolid no. 379; 3) RMDP, Attica no. 436; 4) RMDP, Naxos no. 27 Fig. 6 1) MDP, fig. 243; 2) RMDP, Attica no. 544; 3) after KAKOVOYIANNI 1977, 184 fig. 5; 4) after PHILIPPAKI 1979, pl. 186b; 5) RMDP, Chios no. 16 Fig. 7 1) Bademgediği Tepe; 2) Troy; 3) RMDP, Attica no. 434; 4) RMDP, Attica no. 433 Fig. 8 Photographs provided by M. Caskey: 1) Amphora (CASKEY 1984, 251 fig. 9f); 2) One-handled conical bowl (CASKEY 1984, 251 fig. 9a); 3) Krater (CASKEY 1984, 246 fig. 4c); 4) Krater (CASKEY 1984, 251 fig. 9e left); 5) Krater, CASKEY 1984, 251 fig. 9e right; 6) Deep Bowl (after CASKEY 1984, 246 fig. 4e); 7) Basin (CASKEY 1984, 251 fig. 9b) Fig. 9 1) RMDP, Argolid no. 438; 2) RMDP, Argolid no. 437; 3) RMDP, Attica no. 594; 4) RMDP, Euboia no. 88; 5) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig. 2.24:4; 6) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig. 2.24:3; 7) RMDP, Phthiotis no. 29; 8) after PHILIPPAKI 1981, 227 fig. 1; 9) RMDP, Chios no. 18; 10–11) Bademgediği Tepe Fig. 10 1) Kition (KARAGEORGHIS 1974, pl. CLXII:328); 2) KARAGEORGHIS – DEMAS 1988, pl. CCX:414; 3) KARAGEORGHIS – DEMAS 1988, pl. CCXXXV:474; 4) MOUNTJOY 2005, no. 74; 5) MOUNTJOY 2005, no. 75; 6) MOUNTJOY 2005, no. 76; 7) MOUNTJOY 2005, no. 83; 8) MOUNTJOY 2005, no. 109; 9) MOUNTJOY 2005, no. 118; 10) MOUNTJOY 2005, no. 123 Fig. 11 1) RMDP, Chios no. 5; 2) RMDP, Chios no. 6; 3) RMDP, Naxos no. 61; 4) RMDP, Naxos no. 63; 5) RMDP, Melos no. 201; 6) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig.2.6:9; 7) RMDP, Attica no. 464; 8) RMDP, Attica no. 465 Fig. 12 1) RMDP, Euboia no. 87; 2) RMDP, Euboia no. 94; 3) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig. 2.19:9; 4–7) Bademgediği Tepe; 8) MERIÇ – MOUNTJOY 2002, 89 fig. 4:26; 9) Bademgediği Tepe; 10) MERIÇ – MOUNTJOY 2002, 89 fig. 4:24 Fig. 13 1) RMDP, Argolid no. 445; 2) RMDP, Argolid no. 446; 3) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig. 2.21:1; 4) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig. 2.21:2; 5) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig. 2.21:7; 6–7) Bademgediği Tepe Fig. 14 1) RMDP, Argolid no. 440; 2) RMDP, Argolid no. 441; 3) Bademgediği Tepe Fig. 15 1) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig. 2.22:6; 2–3) Bademgediği Tepe; 4) MERIÇ – MOUNTJOY 2002, 89 fig. 6:49 Fig. 16 1) RMDP, Argolid no. 392; 2) RMDP, Attica no. 528; 3–4) Bademgediği Tepe; 5) RMDP, Laconia no. 237 Fig. 17 1) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, fig. 2.26:1; 2) RMDP, Euboia no. 97; 3) after POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, pl. 44:8; 4–5) Bademgediği Tepe

Bibliography BIETAK, M. – E. CZERNY (eds.) 2007 The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2 nd EuroConference, Vienna 28 th of May – 1 st of June 2003 (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften / Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 37). Vienna. CASKEY, M. 1984 “The Temple at Ayia Irini, Kea: Evidence for the LH III C Phases”, 241–253 in: MACGILLIVRAY – BARBER 1984. DAKORONIA, F. 2003 “The Transition from Late Helladic III C to the Early Iron Age at Kynos”, 37–51 in: LH III C Chronology

and Synchronisms.

∗

I would like to thank Dr. M. Caskey for providing the photographs Fig. 9:1–5,7.

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

295

DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 1968 “Μυκηναϊκά αγγεία εκ θαλαμοιδών τάφων περιοχής Αγίου Ιωάννου Μονεμβασίας”, ArchDelt 23, Mel 145–196. EVELY, D. (ed.) 2006 Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (BSA Suppl. 39). London. FELSCH, R. C. S. (ed.) 1996 Kalapodi. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis. Vol. I. Mainz. FRENCH, E. B. – W. D. TAYLOUR 2007 The Service Areas of the Cult Centre (Well Built Mycenae. The Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at Mycenae, 1959–99, Fasc. 13). Oxford. FRÖDIN, O. – A. W. PERSSON 1938 Asine: Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922–30. Stockholm. HOOD, M. S. F. 1982 Prehistoric Emporio and Ayia Gala II (BSA Suppl. 16). London. IAKOVIDIS, S. E. 1969/70 Περατή. Το Νεκροταφείον (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 67). Athens. JACOB-FELSCH, M. 1996 “Die spätmykenische bis frühprotogeometrische Keramik”, 1–213 in: FELSCH 1996. KAKOVOYIANNIS, E. 1977 “Ανασκαφικές έρευνες στις Φερές της Θεσσαλίας το 1977”, ΑΑΑ 10, 174–187. KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1974 Kition I. The Tombs. Nicosia. KARAGEORGHIS, V. – M. DEMAS 1988 Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro 1979–86. Nicosia. KARAGEORGHIS, V. – C. MORRIS (eds.) 2001 Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 B.C. Proceedings of an International Workshop held at Trinity College Dublin, 7th–9th May, 1999 (Committee for Mediterranean and Near Eastern Studies, Trinity College Dublin – The Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation). Nicosia. KOUROUNIOTIS, K. 1914 “Πύλου Μεσσηνιακής θολωτός τάφος”, ArchEph, 99–117. MACGILLIVRAY, J. A. – R. L. N. BARBER (eds.) 1984 The Prehistoric Cyclades: Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology (University of Edinburgh, Department of Classical Archaeology). Edinburgh. MERIÇ, R. 2003 “Excavations at Bademgediği Tepe (Puranda) 1999–2002: A Preliminary Report”, IstMitt 53, 79–98. MERIÇ, R. – P. A. MOUNTJOY 2002 “Mycenaean Pottery from Bademgediği Tepe (Puranda) in Ionia: A Preliminary Report”, IstMitt 52, 79–98. MOUNTJOY, P. A. 2005 “The Mycenaean Pottery from the 1934–1939 Excavations at Tarsus”, 83–134 in: ÖZYAR 2005. 2007 “The Dating of the LCIIIA Phase at Enkomi”, 583–594 in: BIETAK – CZERNY 2007. ÖZYAR, A. (ed.) 2005 Field Seasons 2001–2003 of the Tarsus-Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project. Istanbul. PHILIPPAKI, B. 1979 “Ανασκαφή ακροπόλεος Αγίου Ανδρέου Σίφνου”, Prakt 1976 [1979], 284–286. 1981 “Ανασκαφή ακροπόλεος Αγίου Ανδρέου Σίφνου”, Prakt 1979 [1981], 226–227. PITEROS, C. 2001 “Ταφές και τεφροδόχα αγγεία τύμβου της ΥΕ ΙΙΙΓ στο Αργος”, 99–120 in: STAMPOLIDES 2001.

296

Penelope A. Mountjoy

PODZUWEIT, C. 2007(†) Studien zur Spätmykenischen Keramik (Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 14). Wiesbaden. POPHAM, M. R. – E. V. MILBURN 1971 “The Late Helladic IIIC Pottery of Xeropolis (Lefkandi), a Summary”, BSA 66, 333–352. POPHAM, M. R. – E. V. SCHOFIELD – E. S. SHERRATT 2006 “The Pottery”, 137–231 in: EVELY 2006. RUTTER, J. 1979 “The Last Mycenaeans at Corinth”, Hesperia 48, 348–392. SCHILARDI, D. U. 1984 “The LH III C Period at Koukounaries Acropolis, Paros”, 184–206 in: MACGILLIVRAY – BARBER 1984. SCHOFIELD, E. V. 2007(†) “Lefkandi in Late Helladic IIIC Middle”, 301–313 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II. STAMPOLIDES, N. (ed.) 2001 Πρακτικά του Συμποσίου Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου’, Ρόδος, 29 Απριλίου – 2 Μαϊου 1999. Athens. TELEVANTOU, C. 2001 “Ayios Andreas on Sifnos: a Late Cycladic III Fortified Acropolis”, 191–223 in: KARAGEORGHIS – MORRIS 2001. VLACHOPOULOS, A. 2003 “The Late Helladic IIIC ‘Grotta Phase’ of Naxos. Its Synchronisms in the Aegean and its Non-Synchronisms in the Cyclades”, 217–234 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. WACE, A. J. B. 1921–23 “Excavations at Mycenae § VII. – The Lion Gate and Grave Circle Area”, BSA 25, 9–126.

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

297

298

Penelope A. Mountjoy

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

299

300

Penelope A. Mountjoy

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

301

302

Penelope A. Mountjoy

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

303

304

Penelope A. Mountjoy

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

305

306

Penelope A. Mountjoy

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

307

308

Penelope A. Mountjoy

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

309

310

Penelope A. Mountjoy

LH III C Late: An East Mainland – Aegean Koine

311

312

Penelope A. Mountjoy

TOBIAS MÜHLENBRUCH

TIRYNS – THE SETTLEMENT AND ITS HISTORY IN LH III C*

In the history of the Mycenaean culture three periods can be distinguished: the prepalatial period (LH I/II, ca. 1650/1600–1400 B.C.), the palatial period (LH III A/B, ca. 1400–1200 B.C.), and the postpalatial period (LH III C, ca. 1200–1050 B.C.).1 Already Heinrich Schliemann, excavating Tiryns and Mycenae, noticed the indications of a massive destruction, which today is understood as the end of the palatial period, and concluded that both settlements had been destroyed at the same time. He assumed that this had also been the end of the Mycenaean culture (MÜHLENBRUCH 2003a, 47. – Schliemann in: SCHLIEMANN 1886, 97). Once the existence of a Mycenaean culture following the destruction of the palaces had been proven this view was challenged and the postpalatial period was considered as a phase of cultural decline (DESBOROUGH 1964). It was the excavation led by Klaus Kilian in the Lower Citadel of Tiryns between 1976 and 1983 which increased our knowledge of LH III C in several aspects and raised the question as to whether there was continuity or change between the palatial and the postpalatial period. Studying the architecture, Kilian was able to distinguish four sub-phases – LH III C Early/ Developed/Advanced/Late – each with several building horizons. It should be mentioned that Christian Podzuweit’s definition of the sub-phases, based on the pottery of Kilian’s excavation (see also STOCKHAMMER in this volume), diverged to a certain degree from the sub-phases as defined by Kilian (KILIAN 1978. – KILIAN 1979. – KILIAN 1981. – KILIAN 1982. – KILIAN 1983. – KILIAN 1988. – PODZUWEIT 1978. – PODZUWEIT 1979. – PODZUWEIT 1981. – PODZUWEIT 1983. – PODZUWEIT 1988. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 3–8). In the following paper, I will first deal with the architecture of Tiryns (Fig. 1). Secondly I will present some new aspects of the economy. I will conclude with a survey of the postpalatial settlements in the Argolid and some historical remarks. TIRYNS: THE SETTLEMENT In LH III B Developed/End, Tiryns was a palatial settlement with the palace on the Upper Citadel. The structure of the palace shows a conception of architectural hierarchy (Fig. 2): the visitor was led to the centre, the so called “Megaron”, on a way that turned off rectangularly and so the visitor was directed through several gates and courts (e.g. KILIAN 1987. – KÜPPER 1996, 111–119. – MÜHLENBRUCH 2003b). The Middle Citadel might have been used as a garden or been covered with palatial buildings. To me it seems very likely that the large buildings in the Lower Citadel were also part of the palace system (Fig. 3) (DAMM-MEINHARDT unpublished). Unfortunately, the Lower Town has not been excavated for the most part. Only a few * I would like to thank Sigrid Jalkotzy and Michaela Zavadil for inviting me to this workshop. My lecture is the summary of a part of my doctoral dissertation; my advisors were Joseph Maran in Heidelberg and Sigrid Jalkotzy in Salzburg (MÜHLENBRUCH 2004). Thanks to Anselm Drafehn, Elizabeth French, Sigrid Jalkotzy, Joseph Maran, Roland Oetjen and Bernhard Weninger for several discussions and reviewing my English text. 1 DEGER-JALKOTZY 1995, 373: “the palace system did not prevail in the whole area of the Mycenaean culture.” – MÜHLENBRUCH 2004, 469 for my definition of “archaeological culture”. LH III B2 means LH III B Developed/End, LH III C Middle means LH III C Developed/Advanced.

314

Tobias Mühlenbruch

houses north, west and east of the ridge of Tiryns can be reliably dated to LH III B, however, we do not know the expansion and the density of the settlement south of the Citadel. Tiryns might have been the second palace of Mycenae’s ruler, the Wanax, because in the palace of Tiryns conglomerate, which can be found in the vicinity of Mycenae, was used to mark the way to the “Megaron” (KÜPPER 1996, 115–118. – MARAN 2004, 275). After the destruction of the palaces at the end of LH III B, the “Antenbau” on the Upper Citadel was erected (Fig. 4). This building was excavated by Schliemann and Wilhelm Dörpfeld and had been placed in the eastern part of the former “Megaron”. Kilian connected this fact with a palatial tradition, especially with the area of the “throne”, and dated the “Antenbau” to LH III C. The most recent excavations on the Upper Citadel were carried out by Joseph Maran. He proved Kilian’s assumption and placed other architectural aspects of the building in the tradition of the “Megaron” (MARAN 2000. – MARAN 2001. – MÜHLENBRUCH 2001, 48. – MÜHLENBRUCH unpublished). In my opinion, the erection of the “Antenbau” should be dated to LH III C Early because of these traditions. It is uncertain whether the Middle Citadel was used in the postpalatial period. In the Lower Citadel, the “squattering” with provisional houses was the first building horizon erected after the destruction of the palace (DAMM-MEINHARDT unpublished). At the end of LH III C Early, the “initial horizon” 19b1 (Fig. 5 with a synopsis of buildings of LH III C) is very important. It is the first horizon to cover nearly the entire western part of the Lower Citadel, and its principal plan remained unchanged in Mycenaean times. There must have been at least some planning of the orientation of the buildings, of the ways, as well as the courtyards, although their shape changed in the course of the postpalatial period. In horizon 19b1 a first shrine (room 117) was built with which a sequence of shrines was found covering the whole LH III C-period. The shrines opened onto a courtyard. This postpalatial courtyard H 1 was larger than the palatial “Zwinger” and could have had a special meaning for the people, judging by the location and the vicinity of the shrines. In the east of courtyard H 1, the important building VIa was erected. It used the walls of LH III B-building VI. This could have been an attempt by the inhabitants to show or to construct continuity to the palatial period in order to legitimize an elitist position in the settlement. As regards the Lower Town in LH III C, one has to ask if the foundation of a new quarter north of the ridge was the reaction to a synoicism or the resettlement of people who had lived in the Lower Citadel or a Lower Town. After the end of the palace system, we may assume that Tiryns was independent from Mycenae and was led by charismatic persons, perhaps former officials of the palace, who were responsible for several parts of the reorganisation. In LH III C, they might have used the “Antenbau” for meetings with a primarily political character, chaired by a leader on the “throne”. Building VIa in the Lower Citadel might have served as the house of a former official and his “oikos”.2 We may further assume that he also served religious functions as the shrines are located nearby. A second important oikos can be associated with room 8/00 in the Lower Town (MARAN 2004, 277–278). This fact may be interpreted in the sense that differences in the status of people in the Citadel and in the Town may have been eliminated. We do not know many building activities from LH III C Developed, but at the beginning of LH III C Advanced, the large room 127 in the Lower Citadel was erected. Several interesting features indicate an elitist position of its inhabitants, and courtyard H 3 has to be seen as a “private” area in front of room 127. Room 115 dates to the end of LH III C Advanced. It was a hall reconstructed by Kilian with three aisles next to the shrine room 110 and it had, at least in part, religious functions (ALBERS 1994, 111). Several buildings in the Lower Citadel point to a destruction caused by an earthquake at the end of LH III C Advanced.

2

This term is used without reference to Homer.

Tiryns – The Settlement and its History in LH III C

315

The elaborate “Megaron” W and house O in the east of the Upper Citadel can also be dated to LH III C Advanced or LH III C Late (Fig. 6). A Linear B-tablet, found near house O, raises the question of the possibility of a – very limited – use of this writing even in the postpalatial period. In my opinion, the “Antenbau” still served as a meeting-hall of the leading persons at the end of the Mycenaean period. Other elaborate houses of LH III C Advanced may have been residences (building VIa and room 127.a.b) or been used as “private” meeting places by oikoi with living space nearby or in the upper storey (“Megaron” W or room 8/00/LH III C Early). Room 115 could have served as a shrine for the most important oikoi or their leaders. Oikoi may have risen or declined; the groups may have cultivated all kinds of relationships. A possibly competitive behaviour may have caused conflicts, but may also have had positive effects for the community. If we take a look at the building horizons of LH III C Late, we can still see an impressive settlement in the Lower Citadel. The large room 106.a.124 with a kiln and several storage-bins can be understood as the residence of an elite. Of particular interest is a seal impression, found in this building, refering to late sealing activities. The end of the Mycenaean period in the Lower Citadel is indicated by a layer of debris. A number of findings point to a small settlement in the Lower Citadel, e.g. room 104.a. It seems likely that most of the inhabitants left the Citadel, either for the Lower Town or for other settlements such as Asine. We know little about Submycenaean building activities in Tiryns and only room 102a in the Lower Citadel is from this phase. However, the significant warrior grave in the Lower Town indicates an important settlement at that time in that area (GROSSMANN 1975). TIRYNS: THE ECONOMY Angela von den Driesch and Joachim Boessneck studied the archaeozoological finds from Tiryns. They deduced that the animals – largely cattle, sheep and goats, and pigs – were kept for working, breeding, slaughtering, the production of milk and wool, as well as for cult activities in a balanced proportion. We can assume that most of the slaughtering took place in the Lower Citadel. After the end of the palatial period, there was a decline of the quantity of finds – according to Von den Driesch and Boessneck as part of a reorganization of the settlement. The time of a postpalatial prosperity, as proposed for LH III C Middle (DEGER-JALKOTZY 1991, 64), can be seen from the multitude of bones from this sub-phase. Only few finds could be dated to LH III C Late. Von den Driesch and Boessneck argued in favour of a decline in population at the end of the Mycenaean period in Tiryns (VON DEN DRIESCH – BOESSNECK 1990). I do not believe that this model is compelling: It does not pay attention to the fact that the sub-phases consist of a different number of horizons. The result of evaluating the different durations of the sub-phases is a break in the aftermath of the end of the palace system and a more balanced relation between the horizons of the postpalatial period. This can be explained by another way of slaughtering in LH III B and LH III C: It is possible that in LH III B all animals were killed for the whole settlement in the Lower Citadel; in LH III C, however, everybody slaughtered for his own needs both in the Citadel and in the Town (MÜHLENBRUCH 2004, 456–459). (Of course we also have to take into account that bones might have been lost, moved, and removed from the Citadel, which weakens the arguments concerning the interpretation of the archaeozoological finds.) Helmut Kroll analysed the archaeobotanical samples, in particular those from the Lower Citadel. He deduced a “traditional agriculture” in LH III B2 and LH III C. Kroll thought of a less intensive agriculture in LH III C in comparison with LH III B2, because some grains from LH III C Advanced were bigger than the grains from LH III B2 (KROLL 1982. – KROLL 1984).

316

Tobias Mühlenbruch

It is very difficult to reconstruct the everyday life of the inhabitants of prehistoric settlements. The main reason is the lack of organic finds. Kilian convincingly suggested for the postpalatial buildings in the Lower Citadel a combination of residence, storeroom, and workroom, comparing the economy of LH III C with the system of the homeric oikoi (KILIAN 1985, 76, 80). Methodologically we have to bear in mind the “Homeric question” (ULF 1990) and the chronological distance of the Epics to LH III C, but it is useful to try to reconstruct the living conditions of the people in LH III C. For the Lower Citadel, the preparation of food in residential contexts, a small scale metallurgy, the manufacture and use of artefacts made of stone and bone, the manufacture of textiles, and storage are attested. The extent and the degree of specialisation may have varied, as is indicated by the distribution of kilns, looms, and storage bins (e.g. RAHMSTORF 2001). In several buildings, figurines were found and can be interpreted as religious objects in the everyday life of the Mycenaeans. THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE ARGOLID In LH III B2, Mycenae was a palatial centre like Tiryns with a palace including a “Megaron” and buildings which were part of the palace, e.g. corridor-houses. After the destruction of the so called “Granary” at the end of LH III C Advanced, caused by an earthquake, only isolated houses were inhabited in Mycenae (FRENCH 1998. – FRENCH 1999. – FRENCH 2002, 135–140. – IAKOVIDIS 1983. – IAKOVIDIS 1986. – IAKOVIDIS 2003. – MÜHLENBRUCH 2004, 471–493). Midea was an important settlement of the palatial period as can be concluded from the fortification wall and the so-called “Megaron” on the “Lower Terraces”. The site possibly served as a bulwark in the eastern part of the Argolid and it was destroyed by an earthquake at the end of LH III B2 together with Tiryns and Mycenae. Already in LH III C Early, a building with two aisles was erected, as a successor building to the “Megaron”. Judging by its elaborate furnishing it might have had a special function and been the Midean counterpart of the “Antenbau” in Tiryns. In LH III C Early or in LH III C Developed, Midea and the building above the “Megaron” were destroyed. Midea was inhabited until LH III C Late (DEMAKOPOULOU 1996. – DEMAKOPOULOU – DIVARI-VALAKOU – ASTRÖM – WALBERG 1996. – WALBERG 1995. – WALBERG 1998). There are not many indications for Asine being densely inhabited in LH III B2 and LH III C Early. We do not know what happened to the settlement at the end of the palatial period. Several buildings, among them the shrine, can be dated to LH III C Middle. These houses were inhabited until the Early Iron Age and apparently reorganized in the course of the centuries. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the planning of the structure of Asine in comparison to the settlement of Tiryns (FRÖDIN – PERSSON 1938. – SJÖBERG 2003). THE ARGOLID IN LH III B/C Now that I have presented the development of the settlements chronologically, I want to conclude with some historical remarks: My reconstruction is that in LH III B2 Mycenae was the centre of the Argolid. Tiryns was the second palace of Mycenae’s Wanax (LAUTER 1987, 225. – MARAN 2004, 274), and Midea was a fortification and the seat of a governor. Asine can be seen as a small village with a harbour. There were also farms in the Argolid and possibly also in the neighbourhood of Tiryns, as we do not exactly know, whether there was a Lower Town in LH III B. The destructions at the end of the palatial period in Mycenae, Tiryns and Midea can be traced back to an earthquake. Unfortunately we do not know anything about the consequences of this event for Asine. In LH III C Early, the inhabitants set up a completely new settlement structure at Tiryns. In my opinion, an elite formed from former officials of the palace was responsible for the new

Tiryns – The Settlement and its History in LH III C

317

plan, as only they had the appropriate knowledge, experience, and contacts. Tiryns may now have been independent and the new centre of the Argolid (MARAN 2004, 284). The foundation of the Lower Town north of the Citadel may point to the resettlement of people who had possibly lived south of the Citadel or in other settlements in LH III B. It is difficult to evaluate the settlement of Mycenae in LH III C, because there were later building activities, but it can be assumed that probable fugitives from Midea left Tiryns again in LH III C Early to build up Midea. The successor of the “Megaron” demonstrates the existence of an elite in Midea in the postpalatial period. Midea lost its importance in the course of LH III C, judging by the archaeological record. Asine, however, gained importance – perhaps in consequence of the decline of Midea and possibly Mycenae. The importance of Tiryns in the Early Iron Age is obvious from the graves in the Lower Town (GROSSMANN 1975). Argos is an unknown factor in Late Helladic Argolid, but we can assume a boom in the Submycenaean and/or Proto/Geometric period, because later it was the most important and eponymous settlement of the Argolid (TOUCHAIS – DIVARI-VALAKOU 1998). The model of a postpalatial prosperity has to be specified for each of the sites. In Tiryns, judging by the architecture, the small finds, and the archaeozoological and archaeobotanical finds, it lasted from the end of LH III C Early until late in LH III C Late.

Index to illustrations Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6

3

GERCKE – HIESEL 1971, Beilage 1 JANTZEN 1975, Fig. 6 KILIAN 1982, Fig. 23 MARAN 2000, Fig. 1 KILIAN 1981, Fig. 53 GERCKE – HIESEL 1971, Beilage 8

R 134.135 as marked on the plan were not rooms, but only terrace-walls (R 134 here does not mean R 134 = R 140 from horizon 21c1); R 138 is uncertain.

318

Tobias Mühlenbruch

Bibliography ALBERS, G. 1994 Spätmykenische Stadtheiligtümer. Systematische Analyse und vergleichende Auswertung der archäologischen Befunde (BAR-IS 596). Oxford. ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΝ AΘΗΝΑΙΣ AΡΧΑΙΛΟΓΙΚΗΣ EΤΕΙΡΙΑΣ (ed.) 1986 Φιλία επή εις Γεώrγιον Ε. Μυλωνάν διά τα 60 έτη του ανασκαφικού έργου. Τόμος Α. Athens. DAMM-MEINHARDT, U. unpublished Architekturbefunde und Stratigraphie der Phase Späthelladisch (SH) III B und der beginnenden Phase SH III C in der Unterburg von Tiryns. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 1991 “Diskontinuität und Kontinuität: Aspekte politischer und sozialer Organisation in mykenischer Zeit und in der Welt der Homerischen Epen”, 53–66 in: MUSTI – SACCONI – ROCCHETTI – ROCCHI – SCAFA – SPORTIELLO – GIANNOTTA 1991. 1995 “Mykenische Herrschaftsformen ohne Paläste und die griechische Polis”, 367–377 in: LAFFINEUR – NIEMEIER 1995. DE MIRO, E. – L. GODART – A. SACCONI (eds.) 1996 Atti e memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma – Napoli, 14–20 ottobre 1991 (Incunabula Graeca 98,3). Rome. DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1964 The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors. An Archaeological Survey c. 1200–c. 1100 B.C. Oxford. DEMAKOPOULOU, K. 1996 “Midea in the Light of Recent Excavations”, 979–994 in: DE MIRO – GODART – SACCONI 1996. DEMAKOPOULOU, K. – N. DIVARI-VALAKOU – P. ÅSTRÖM – G. WALBERG 1996 “Excavations in Midea 1994”, OpAth 21, 13–32. FRENCH, E. B. 1998 “The Ups and Downs of Mycenae: 1250–1150 BCE”, 2–5 in: GITIN – MAZAR – STERN 1998. 1999 “The Post-Palatial Levels at Mycenae: An Update”, BICS 43, 222–223. 2002 Mycenae. Agamemnon’s Capital. The Site in its Setting. Stroud. FRÖDIN, O. – A. W. PERSSON 1938 Asine. Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922–1930. Stockholm. GERCKE, P. – G. HIESEL 1971 “Grabungen in der Unterstadt von Tiryns von 1884 bis 1929”, 1–19 in: Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 5. Mainz. GITIN, S. – A. MAZAR – E. STERN (eds.) 1998 Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Century BCE. In Honour of Professor Trude Dothan. Jerusalem. GROSSMANN, P. 1975 “Die Dunklen Jahrhunderte”, 95 in: JANTZEN 1975. HÄGG, R. – N. MARINATOS, (eds.) 1987 The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984. Stockholm. IAKOVIDIS, S. E. 1983 Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece. Leiden. 1986 “Destruction Horizons at Late Bronze Age Mycenae”, 233–260 in: ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ AΡΧΑΙΛΟΓΙΚΗΣ EΤΕΙΡΙΑΣ 1986. 2003 “Late Helladic III C at Mycenae”, 117–123 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. JANTZEN, U. (ed.) 1975 Führer durch Tiryns. Athens.

ΤΗΣ ΕΝ

AΘΗΝΑΙΣ

Tiryns – The Settlement and its History in LH III C

319

KILIAN, K. 1978 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1976. Bericht zu den Grabungen”, AA, 449–470. 1979 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1977. Bericht zu den Grabungen”, AA, 379–411. 1981 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1978. 1979. Bericht zu den Grabungen”, AA, 149–194. 1982 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1980. Bericht zu den Grabungen”, AA, 393–430. 1983 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1981. Bericht zu den Grabungen”, AA, 277–328. 1985 “La caduta dei palazzi micenei continentali: aspetti archeologici”, 73–115 in: MUSTI 1985. 1987 “Zur Funktion der mykenischen Residenzen auf dem griechischen Festland”, 21–37 in: HÄGG – MARINATOS 1987. 1988 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83. Bericht zu den Grabungen”, AA, 105–151. KROLL, H. 1982 “Kulturpflanzen aus Tiryns”, AA, 467–485. 1984 “Zum Ackerbau gegen Ende der mykenischen Epoche in der Argolis”, AA, 211–222. KÜPPER, M. 1996 Mykenische Architektur. Material, Bearbeitungstechnik, Konstruktion und Erscheinungsbild (Internationale Archäologie 25). Espelkamp. LAFFINEUR, R. – R. HÄGG (eds.) 2001 Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean

Conference / 8 e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22). Liège – Austin. LAFFINEUR, R. – W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds.) 1995 Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12). Liège – Austin. LAUTER, H. 1987 “Nouveaux aspects du palais de Mycènes au HR IIIB”, 219–225 in: LEVY 1987. LEVY, E. (ed.) 1987 Le système palatial en Orient, en Grèce et à Rome. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 19–22 juin 1985 (Universitè des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg / Travaux du centre de Recherque sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 9). Straßburg. MARAN, J. 2000 “Das Megaron im Megaron. Zur Datierung und Funktion des Antenbaus im mykenischen Palast von Tiryns”, AA, 1–16. 2001 “Political and Religious Aspects of Architectural Change on the Upper Citadel of Tiryns. The Case of Building T”, 113–122 in: LAFFINEUR – HÄGG 2001. 2004 “Architektonische Innovationen im spätmykenischen Tiryns – Lokale Bauprogramme und fremde Kultureinflüsse”, 261–288 in: VEREIN ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER AUFARBEITUNG DER HELLENISCHEN GESCHICHTE e.V. 2004. MÜHLENBRUCH, T. 2001 Mykenische Architektur. Studien zur Siedlungsentwicklung nach dem Untergang der Paläste in der Argolis und Korinthia (unpublished MA dissertation). Heidelberg. 2003a “Heinrich Schliemann und Tiryns”, Informationsblatt der Heinrich-Schliemann-Gesellschaft Ankershagen 15, 43–47. 2003b “Zu vorderorientalischen Parallelen in der mykenischen Palastarchitektur”, AKorrBl 33, 479–491. 2004 Ein dunkles Zeitalter? – Untersuchungen zur Siedlungsstruktur der Unterburg von Tiryns in der mykenischen Nachpalastzeit (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Heidelberg. unpublished “Wilhelm Dörpfeld und Tiryns – sein Anteil an Heinrich Schliemanns Ausgrabungen 1884/1885”, Mitteilungen aus dem Heinrich-Schliemann-Museum Ankershagen 9. MUSTI, D. (ed.) 1985 Le origini dei Greci: Dori e mondo Egeo. Rome. MUSTI, D. – A. SACCONI – L. ROCCHETTI – M. ROCCHI – E. SCAFA – L. SPORTIELLO – M. E. GIANNOTTA (eds.) 1991 La transizione dal Miceneo all’Alto Arcaismo. Dal palazzo alla città. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Roma, 14–19 marzo 1988 (Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche). Rome.

320

Tobias Mühlenbruch

PARIENTE, A. – G. TOUCHAIS (eds.) 1998 Άργος και Αργολίδα. Τοπογραφία και πολεοδομία / Argos et L’Argolide. Topographie et urbanisme.

Πρακτικά διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Αθήνα – Άργος 28/4 –1/5/1990 / Actes de la Table Ronde internationale Athènes – Argos (Ελληνογαλλικές Έρευνες / Recherches Franco-Helléniques III). Athens. PODZUWEIT, CHR. 1978 “Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik”, AA, 471–498. 1979 “Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik”, AA, 412–440. 1981 “Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik”, AA, 194–220. 1983 “Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik – Tiryns 1981”, AA, 359–402. 1988 “Keramik der Phase SH IIIC-Spät aus der Unterburg von Tiryns. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83”, AA, 213–225. 2007(†) Studien zur spätmykenischen Keramik (Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 14). Wiesbaden. RAHMSTORF, L. 2001 Kleinfunde aus Tiryns aus Terrakotta, Stein, Bein und Glas/Fayence vornehmlich spätbronzezeitlicher Zeitstellung (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Heidelberg. SCHLIEMANN, H. 1886 Tiryns. Der prähistorische Palast der Könige von Tiryns. Ergebnisse der neuesten Ausgrabungen. Leipzig. SJÖBERG, B. L. 2003 “Settlement Activity at Late Helladic Asine in the Argolid”, OpAth 28, 185–201. TOUCHAIS, G. – N. DIVARI-VALAKOU 1998 “Argos du Néolithique à l’époque Géométrique: Synthèse des données archaéologiques”, 9–21 in: PARIENTE – TOUCHAIS 1998. ULF, CHR. 1990 Die homerische Gesellschaft. Materialien zur analytischen Beschreibung und historischen Lokalisierung (Vestigia 43). München. VEREIN ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER AUFARBEITUNG DER HELLENISCHEN GESCHICHTE E.V. (ed.) 2004 Althellenische Technologie und Technik von der prähistorischen bis zur hellenistischen Zeit mit Schwerpunkt auf der prähistorischen Epoche, Tagung 21.–23.03.2003 in Ohlstadt/Obb. Weilheim. VON DEN DRIESCH, A. – J. BOESSNECK 1990 “Die Tierreste von der mykenischen Burg Tiryns bei Nauplion/Peloponnes”, 87–164 in: Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 11. Mainz. 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 under the Direction of Katie Demakopoulou and Paul Åström. Vol. I:1 Text. The Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1985–1991 (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4°, 49:I:1). Stockholm.

Tiryns – The Settlement and its History in LH III C

321

322

Tobias Mühlenbruch

Tiryns – The Settlement and its History in LH III C

323

324

Tobias Mühlenbruch

Tiryns – The Settlement and its History in LH III C

325

326

Tobias Mühlenbruch

FLORIAN RUPPENSTEIN

THE TRANSITIONAL PHASE FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO PROTOGEOMETRIC: DEFINITION AND COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY∗

The definition of a transitional phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric is not a recent refinement but was introduced to the scholarly discourse as early as 1939. It was W. Kraiker who used the term (Übergangszeit) for the first time in the first volume of the Kerameikos publication series (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, 140–144). Kraiker assigned the Kerameikos graves PG A, PG B and PG 1 to this phase.1 The pottery from these graves still form the back bone of the transitional phase and therefore Kraiker’s definition has certainly passed the test of time. In the fourth volume of the Kerameikos series, which is devoted to the Protogeometric graves, K. Kübler did not follow Kraiker but classified the earliest graves as Early Protogeometric (Frühstufe) (KÜBLER 1943, 13, 22–23). Nevertheless, Kübler was not arguing against a transitional phase; a term that he himself had used in the first Kerameikos volume (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, 215). In 1952, V. Desborough took up Kraiker’s definition and terminology and added some graves to the transitional phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric that had been published by Kübler in the Kerameikos IV volume (DESBOROUGH 1952, 1–6). Furthermore, Desborough introduced the striking term “wild style” for some of the vessels of the transitional style to describe their experimental character (DESBOROUGH 1952, 4). C.-G. Styrenius divided the transitional graves of the Kerameikos cemetery in his “Submycenaean Studies”, for unconvincing reasons, in two chronological groups, which were labeled Late Submycenaean B and transitional respectively (STYRENIUS 1967, 51–65, 75–76). Styrenius based his argumentation on stylistic analysis but he failed to explain his observations in detail. Therefore, it is hardly possible for the reader to understand his reasons for assigning a certain grave to a certain chronological phase.2 G. Krause did not use the term transitional phase in his study that is committed to a reanalysis of the Early Iron Age cemetery in the Kerameikos. But his phase (Zeitstufe) 3 roughly corresponds to the transitional phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric, as defined by Desborough, and to Styrenius’ Late Submycenaean B and transitional phase, if taken together (KRAUSE 1975, 57–66, tab. 20). A transitional phase has also been recognized by I. Lemos in her 2002 study dedicated to “The Protogeometric Aegean” (LEMOS 2002, 9–10). Surprisingly, Lemos assessed some graves which until then had been classified as transitional graves such as Kerameikos PG A and PG 1 for the first time as EPG, without giving sufficient reasons. Moreover, Lemos believed the transitional period and EPG to be “two stages of one phase” (LEMOS

∗

1 2

I would like to thank the organizers S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil for their kind invitation to participate in this conference. For the naming of the graves in the Kerameikos cemetery used in this article see RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 1–2. Styrenius’ Early Submycenaean, Middle Submycenaean and Late Submycenaean A phases are very different from phases (Stufen) I–III that have been defined in RUPPENSTEIN 2007. This has not been understood by PAPADOPOULOS 2008. The phases (Zeitstufen) 1, 2a and 2b in G. Krause’s work (KRAUSE 1975) are also dissimilar to the phases I–III in RUPPENSTEIN 2007.

328

Florian Ruppenstein

2002, 9 n. 59). However, it is not clarified what the principal difference between a stage and a phase is. An explanation would have been necessary because a stage as well as a phase is both characterized by certain duration. The knowledge of the transitional phase could be broadened in the Kerameikos XVIII volume through the publication of hitherto unknown graves (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 195–200, 243– 245, tab. 40a, 40b). The richly furnished woman’s grave SM 146 is certainly the most spectacular of the recently published ones (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 30–35, fig. 15–17, pl. 35–40. – LAGIA 2007, 277).3 Pottery of a transitional SM/PG style characterizes phase IV of the Kerameikos and other Athenian cemeteries with single burials according to the chronological system that has been defined in Kerameikos XVIII (RUPPENSTEIN 2007). In view of the controversy about the Submycenaean period (RUPPENSTEIN 2003. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 5–7) it is remarkable that most scholars who have dealt intensively with the Early Iron Age in Attica agree in general lines about the SM/PG transitional phase. The differences between the proposed chronological divisions can be seen in Tab. 1. Similar to Submycenaean, a transitional phase and a transitional pottery style are, at the moment, only clearly recognizable in Attica. This is not surprising because nowhere else in mainland Greece is there such a wealth and variety of evidence from the beginning of the Early Iron Age. Furthermore, it is neither unusual nor especially problematic that the definition of the transitional phase is based on material from graves because the same is true for the Protogeometric, Early Geometric, Middle Geometric, and Late Geometric periods. Many examples from other regions and periods could easily be added. However, so far nobody has felt the need to call for the abandonment of the terms Protogeometric, Early Geometric, Middle Geometric, or Late Geometric, as has been claimed for the term Submycenaean (RUTTER 1978). Moreover, even for A. Furumark’s classification of the Mycenaean pottery which is still fundamental, tomb groups were of highest importance, as he clearly states when comparing the evidence from settlements and tombs: “Incomparably much more complete and decisive is the evidence of sequence given by the position of the material found in tombs” (FURUMARK 1941, 31).4 Despite existing difficulties, it is possible to identify pottery in other parts of Greece, which is at least roughly contemporary with the transitional material from Attica. A first attempt was made by Desborough in 1973, who dated the tomb Γ 31 at Mycenae convincingly to the SM/PG transitional period (DESBOROUGH 1973, 94–98, pl. 34d–e, 35). The material from this grave is of crucial importance because it shows stylistic similarities with other Peloponnesian find groups as well as with Attic pottery. Therefore, it can be used to connect Attica with more remote Peloponnesian areas, as for example Elis.5 I. Lemos ascribed persuasively some graves in Volos-Nea Ionia,6 the Skoubris cemetery at Lefkandi and the famous warrior grave XXVIII in Tiryns (VERDELIS 1963, 10–24) to the transitional phase (LEMOS 2002, 10–13). Settlement layers have been assigned to the SM/PG transitional phase in Kalapodi (FELSCH 1996, XVI. – JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 99–101) and Kynos-Livanates (DAKORONIA 2003, 47). 3

4

5

6

A preliminary report about this grave was published by the excavator B. von Freytag gen. Löringhoff. The grave is called TN 94–2 in this article (VON FREYTAG GEN. LÖRINGHOFF 1995, 647–649, figs. 33–35). This provisional name is also used by LEMOS 2002, 9. Therefore, J. Rutter’s statement: “…; the fact that the relative chronology of the Greek Bronze Age is otherwise based on settlement ceramics in itself makes use of the term ‛Submycenaean’ awkward” (RUTTER 1978, 61) is at least inaccurate, as far as Furumark’s work is recognized as basic for the relative chronology of the Greek Late Bronze Age. The jug from grave Γ 31 at Mycenae (DESBOROUGH 1973, 95 no. 2, pl. 35c) has a similar shape and a comparable organization of the decoration as a jug from Lasteïka in Elis (EDER 2001, 44, 67, pls. 9:1a–d; 12a). Therefore, both vessels should be approximately contemporary. The grave 1961/12 in Volos-Nea Ionia (SIPSIE-ESCHBACH 1991, pl. 58:3–5) could already be EPG because of a cup with a wavy line just below the rim. This decoration reminds one of the Attic cups with zigzag band below the lip that make their first appearance in EPG.

The Transitional Phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric

329

The SM/PG transitional phase in Athens is not only of interest for the connoisseur of early Greek pottery but even more for the student of the socio-cultural history of the Early Iron Age because two very significant events can be dated exactly to this period: The introduction of Iron for the manufacture of tools and the beginning of practising cremation as the predominant burial rite. Iron had already been used in the Submycenaean period but only for a few pieces of jewellery, especially for rings (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 216–217). Iron weapons appear for the first time in the transitional phase. In the Athenian transitional graves swords,7 daggers, a knife and an arrowhead were found (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 202–204, 206). Iron spearheads have not been discovered yet but this may be by chance. Though, bronze spearheads were still in use during the SM/PG transitional phase (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 200–202). In other regions the evidence is not as good as in Attica but the aforementioned warrior grave XXVIII in Tiryns with its two iron daggers8 (VERDELIS 1963, 14–17, fig. 8, pl. 5:4) indicates that the new technology spread at the same time in various parts of the Greek mainland. It is remarkable that the Tiryns warrior was equipped with a bronze spearhead (VERDELIS 1963, 11–12, pl. 5:1). Hence, the situation in Athens and in Tiryns is also comparable in this respect. If the widespread use of iron for the production of tools is taken as defining the Iron Age, then the beginning of the Iron Age in Greece can be dated to the SM/PG transitional phase. In contrast to the introduction of iron technology, the change from inhumation to cremation as the favoured burial practice is only of regional importance for Attica. Other areas, for example the Argolid (HÄGG 1974), did not follow the Attic model and retained the traditional custom of inhumation. In defining a transitional phase it is necessary to explain why the use of the term ‛transitional’ is meaningful. An explanation is needed because every pottery style is at every point of its development in transition. This means that traditional and progressive elements always coexist. Therefore, the use of the term transitional phase deserves special circumstances to be significant. Such an unusual situation can be detected in Attica at the very beginning of the Iron Age. There are some vessel types and decoration systems without a predecessor in the Submycenaean phase nor with a successor in the Protogeometric period. Most of the new types can be derived from Cypriot prototypes, as will be shown later. Furthermore, there are some unique vessels, which illustrate the delight of the Athenian potters of this time to experiment. The existence of this group of vessels makes the use of the term transitional phase meaningful in this certain case. It is noteworthy that an extraordinary experimental pottery style was prevalent at the same time when iron replaced bronze as the most important metal and cremation displaced inhumation as the customary burial practice. Probably it was a time of intellectual mobility or even upheaval. At this point, it may not be out of place to present a short summary of the methods that were used in Kerameikos XVIII (RUPPENSTEIN 2007) to establish a relative chronological sequence of the graves in the Kerameikos and other Athenian cemeteries.9 In a first step a stylistic analysis of the pottery was conducted with the aim to separate the vessels of every type in stylistic groups. This examination was carried out without considering the context of the pottery because the context does not contribute to the understanding of style. After the definition of the stylistic groups an investigation of the grave contexts followed. The intention of this analysis was to search for regularities in the co-occurrence of stylistic groups of the same and different vessel types. In fact, such regular co-occurrences could be detected in the graves of the Kerameikos and other Athenian cemeteries. There is no indication that these regular 7

8

9

For the early iron swords that follow typologically the tradition of the bronze Naue II swords see KILIANDIRLMEIER 1993, 106–115, 121–126). The better preserved of the two iron weapons can be called either a short sword or a long dagger according to individual definition. For a more detailed treatment of methodological questions see RUPPENSTEIN 2003 and RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 41– 45.

330

Florian Ruppenstein

co-occurrences of stylistic pottery groups are based on other than chronological reasons. A special preference of age, gender or social groups for certain stylistic ceramic groups could not be recognized. Differences in the combination of grave goods related to the gender or age of the deceased are detectable but these differences are not connected with stylistic groups (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 262–265). For example, two or more amphoriskoi have been found exclusively in women’s graves (RUPPENSTEIN 1999). Yet, these amphoriskoi do not belong to the same but to diverse stylistic groups. Therefore, the most reasonable explanation for the regular cooccurrence of stylistic ceramic groups in the graves is a chronological development. The above described analysis could be carried out because the graves under study contain single burials. Therefore, all grave goods were deposited at the same time. A deposit with this characteristic is usually called ‛closed find’ (“geschlossener Fund”) or ‛closed find group’ in the words of A. Furumark (FURUMARK 1941, 33).10 The examination of closed finds is the prerequisite for the establishment of every comparative, relative chronology, independently if the closed finds have come to light in a settlement or in a tomb. The character of a certain deposit is essential, not where it was found. Consequently, a general higher esteem of pottery from settlement contexts in comparison with pottery from tomb contexts is as naïve as the reverse case. The method of searching for regular co-occurrences of certain groups of objects in certain contexts is called ‛combination statistics’ (“Kombinationsstatistik”) or ‛contextual seriation’. Of course, the method of contextual seriation can be applied successfully only to closed contexts. Although diverse variants of this method have effectively been used in prehistoric archaeology for many decades it has sometimes been neglected even in recent scholarship of Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Greece. An example is provided by J. K. Papadopoulos who obviously believes that the quality of a certain context is determined by its volume: “The logic here is difficult to follow: for Ruppenstein, a tomb with two pots is a good context, a well or pit with several hundred or several thousand fragments is not” (PAPADOPOULOS 2008).11 After these more general remarks, a short overview of the characteristics of the pottery of the Attic SM/PG transitional style can be given. Because all details can be found in Kerameikos XVIII (RUPPENSTEIN 2007) it seems sufficient to present the results without repeating argumentation and reasoning:

Novelties without a predecessor in the Submycenaean period nor with a successor in the Protogeometric period • Amphorae and amphoriskoi with handles from shoulder to lip (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pls. 29, 44. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 146‒151, fig. 16, pls. 38, 43. – Fig. 3:2). This vessel shape is in all probability derived from Cypriote prototypes as was proposed first by A. Demetriou (DEMETRIOU 1989, 7–8). Amphorae with handles from shoulder to lip are prominent in the repertoire of Proto-White Painted pottery, which were in use during the Late Cypriot III B phase. But the same vessel type is also attested in bronze. Its ultimate predecessor may have been the Mycenaean amphoroid krater. Amphorae with handles from shoulder to lip reappear in Athens in the Late Protogeometric period. • Bird-vases or bird-askoi (GUGGISBERG 1996, pls. 16:7,8; 17:1–3. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 135– 140, fig. 16, pls. 19, 38. – Fig. 3:3). The introduction of this vessel type is again clearly the result of Cypriot influence (DESBOROUGH 1972, 54. – GUGGISBERG 1996, 250–252). The re-

10

11

For the historical development of the concept of the closed find see EGGERT 2001, 54–55. The fundamental definition was given by O. Montelius over hundred years ago. Inadequate observance of the concepts of closed find and contextual seriation could be an explanation for Papadopoulos’ belief (PAPADOPOULOS 2008) that the method, which was used to define chronological phases in RUPPENSTEIN 2007, is based exclusively on stylistic analysis.

The Transitional Phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric

• •

•

•

•

•

331

lation to the bird-askoi of the LH III C period in Achaia seems to be only indirect because also the Achaian examples are probably connected to Cypriot bird-vases. Ring vases (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 156–158, fig. 16, pl. 38. – Fig. 3:1). In the case of the ring vases the Cypriote ancestry is obvious. Rectangular chests (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 59. –KÜBLER 1943, pl. 3. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 158–159). Cypriot influence is a possible explanation for the introduction of this shape but the evidence is insufficient to be sure. So far only two examples of this type have been found (Kerameikos graves PG 13 and PG 22). Shoulder-handled amphora and amphoriskoi (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 161‒163). This vessel type is characteristic for the central Greek regions northwest of Attica. The few Athenian examples are probably related to this area. Very similar to the pots from central Greece is a shoulder-handled amphoriskos from grave Z in the cemetery on the Erechtheion Street (BROUSKARI 1980, 22 no. 11, pl. 3f). Cylindrical pyxides (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 61. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 154–156, pl. 21). The cylindrical pyxides show clear similarities to the Mycenaean alabastra with three legs (FS 99) of the LH III C period, which were especially popular in Attica. Despite the lack of pyxides in Submycenaean graves, it is likely that the cylindrical pyxides are direct successors of the alabastra. Furthermore, there are some unique vessels that exemplify the experimental character of the SM/PG pottery style: A kantharos (WILLEMSEN 1963, 152 no. 8, pl. 54:2. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 165, pl. 18) and a jug with narrow neck that could be called a giant lekythos (KÜBLER 1943, pl. 4. – STYRENIUS 1967, fig. 20. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 165) were found in the Kerameikos. Both vessels are decorated in an exceptional manner. A globular pyxis and a shallow bowl with two handles were found in the Erechtheion Street cemetery (BROUSKARI 1980, 22 no. 12, pl. 3g; 26 no. 26, pl. 5a). Moreover, trefoil-lipped jugs or oinochoai of the stylistic group 3 occurred exclusively in the SM/PG transitional period. These vessels are characterized through a nearly complete monochrome-painted body. The shoulder zone is reserved and often decorated with handdrawn concentric semicircles (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 105–106). The vessel type of the oinochoe was in use during the Submycenaean phase as well as in the Protogeometric period but with different decoration systems.

Novelties without a predecessor in the Submycenaean period but with a successor in the Protogeometric period • The belly-handled amphora with an almost cylindrical neck and a turned-out lip (stylistic group 2 = Desborough type I) (DESBOROUGH 1952, 23. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 113–116, pls. 20, 35). This type of amphora is probably inspired by Cypriote models. • There is just one prototype for the belly-handled amphora with flaring neck without lip in the late Submycenaean phase (Stufe III) (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, pl. 23). But this type of amphora became prominent for the first time in the SM/PG transitional phase (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 109–113, fig. 14, pl. 34. – Fig. 1:4). • Kraters and krateriskoi (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 130–135). This shape clearly follows a Mycenaean tradition. Therefore, kraters were probably manufactured during the Submycenaean period as well but were not used in burial contexts. There is a lack of well preserved pieces from the Protogeometric period but quite a lot of fragments (BOHEN 1997, 49 fig. 3).

332

Florian Ruppenstein

• Light-ground skyphoi (stylistic group 2) (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 30. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 94–96, fig. 17, pl. 39). These skyphoi displace during the SM/PG transitional phase the traditional, fully monochrome-painted type. Some but not all of them are decorated with compass-drawn concentric circles. • The first neck-handled amphora with a set of two compass-drawn concentric circles (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 29) is certainly an important novelty of the SM/PG transitional phase. The vessel type is already attested in the Submycenaean period (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 120–127). • The introduction of the pivoted multiple brush for drawing concentric circles (PAPADOPOULOS – VEDDER – SCHREIBER 1998. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999, 200–201) is apparently the most forward-looking innovation of the SM/PG transitional period. Concentric circles were applied in the transitional phase only to very few vessels. There is evidence for some skyphoi, belly-handled amphorae, lekythoi, a stirrup jar (see below) and the aforementioned neck-handled amphora from Kerameikos grave PG A.

Submycenaean traditions without continuation in the Protogeometric period • The most numerous group of this category are the lekythoi with hand-drawn concentric semicircles (Figs. 1:3; 2:1‒4) or triangles (Fig. 1:1) that belong to the stylistic group 3 (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 53–56). Specimens belonging to the late Submycenaean stage (Stufe III) (Fig. 2:1‒4) and to the SM/PG transitional phase (Stufe IV) (Fig. 1:3) are not distinguishable. There are only two lekythoi with hand-drawn concentric semicircles from EPG contexts. One was found in Kerameikos grave PG 12, the other in Heidelberg grave B (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pls. 67, 37). • Cylindrical lekythoi (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 140–144. – Fig. 3:4‒6). This vessel type is often called bottle (LEMOS 2002, 81–82) but the shape of its mouth clearly shows that it was used in the same way as a lekythos. The cylindrical lekythos was added to the Athenian pottery repertoire in the late Submycenaean phase (Stufe III). It apparently follows a Cypriot models as shown by Desborough (DESBOROUGH 1964, 27. – DESBOROUGH 1972, 54). In the EPG phase there is only one similar vessel but with a handle from neck to shoulder instead of two small handles at the edge of the shoulder (Heidelberg grave B: KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 37. – DESBOROUGH 1952, pl. 1). • Lentoid flasks (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 144–146). The flasks appeared together with the cylindrical lekythoi in the late Submycenaean phase (Stufe III). The flasks belong to the large group of vessels that reflect Cypriot models. • The stirrup jars made their last appearance in the SM/PG transitional phase. They are still represented in the Kerameikos graves PG 1, PG 13 and PG 22 (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pls. 62, 61. – KÜBLER 1943, pl. 4). There are fragments of a large stirrup jar without context that is decorated with hand-drawn as well as with compass-drawn concentric semicircles (KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 46. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 37, pl. 42). It probably belongs to the SM/PG transitional period. • Monochrome-painted skyphoi are still in use during the transitional phase but they have become rare (Fig. 1:4). A skyphos with reserved zone that is decorated with a wavy line was found in Kerameikos grave SM 1 (Fig. 1:2). It is not known if the skyphos, which is probably an Argive import, belongs to the late Submycenaean phase (Stufe III) or to the SM/PG transitional period (Stufe IV) because it was found together only with a lekythos of group 3 (Fig. 1:1) that cannot be dated precisely (see above). • There is still one example of the traditional light-ground cup with wavy line (Heidelberg grave A: KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 36. – STYRENIUS 1967, fig. 37. – RMDP, 634

The Transitional Phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric

333

no. 650, fig. 244). It is the only Attic specimen of its type, which is decorated with a double wavy line. The change from light-ground to dark monochrome-painted as basic decoration of cups started in the late Submycenaean phase (Stufe III) and was complete by the beginning of the Early Protogeometric period (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 127–130). It is noteworthy that the decoration system of the skyphoi was changed at the same time but in the opposite direction: from monochrome-painted to light-ground. • Fragments of a few amphoriskoi have been found in graves of the SM/PG transitional phase (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 24, 58–59 n. 191, fig. 17, pl. 40). • Two multiple vases are known from Athenian cemeteries (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 166). One of these consists of three amphoriskoi. It was found in Kerameikos grave PG 1 and can be dated to the SM/PG transitional phase. The other specimen, consisting of four amphoriskoi, came to light in grave I in the Aiolos Street (ALEXANDRI 1984). This grave can be assigned to the late Submycenaean phase (Stufe III). Furthermore, novelties that were introduced in the EPG period help to differentiate this stage from the preceding SM/PG transitional phase. The most significant are the widespread use of lekythoi decorated with compass-drawn concentric semicircles and the first appearance of the cup with zigzag band below the rim. Unfortunately, the Greeks of the Early Iron Age did not do us the favour of introducing this type at the same time in other regions outside of Attica (LEMOS 2002, 30–33). Otherwise, a comparative chronology would have been easier. Yet, it is certainly possible to recognize similarities in the pottery of Athens and other areas that allow significant conclusions with regard to chronology. The methodological base for studies of comparative chronology is the assumption that similar objects were in use at different places at the same time. Sometimes traditional elements prevail longer in one region than in another, or, progressive elements are introduced earlier in one place than in another. These possibilities certainly constrain the effectiveness of the method of comparative chronology. However, it is the task of anyone who disputes the contemporaneity of a certain group of similar objects in different places to prove his doubts. Pure speculation about an assumed backwardness of a certain region is not sufficient to disprove the general rule of contemporaneity of stylistic or otherwise similar objects. If this rule is not accepted, comparative chronology loses its methodological foundation. In the following an attempt will be made to synchronize the Skoubris cemetery in Lefkandi with the Athenian cemeteries. It seems advantageous to begin with the presentation of the two main results: 1. There are no decisive differences between the finds from the graves at the Skoubris cemetery that were classified by Desborough as either Submycenaean or Early Protogeometric (POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80, 418, tab. 1). Consequently, the graves of both groups should be united to one single group. 2. This group, i.e. all, or nearly all the graves of the Skoubris cemetery, is contemporary with the SM/PG transitional phase in Attica. A first step in this direction has been made by I. Lemos in re-assigning the Skoubris graves 4, 10, 16, 32 and pyre 1A to the SM/PG transitional phase (LEMOS 2002, 10). All these graves were assessed as EPG by Desborough. According to the Attic sequence there are only very few, if any, graves in the Skoubris cemetery, which could perhaps be classified as either SM or EPG proper. Desborough’s reasoning for differentiating SM and EPG grave deposits in the Skoubris cemetery is not convincing (Desborough 1980, 283–284). He mentions the stirrup jar, the alabastron, the feeding bottle with basket handle, and the askoid vase as vessel types that were no longer in use after the end of the Submycenaean period. The feeding bottle (Skoubris grave 44) and the alabastron (Skoubris grave 43) are both unique types and, therefore, chronological not very significant. Furthermore, the so called alabastron shows a general similarity with the Attic

334

Florian Ruppenstein

cylindrical pyxides that can be detected only during the SM/PG transitional phase. The askoid vase (Skoubris grave 19) should better be taken as a variant of the bird vase. There are still some stirrup jars in the graves of the SM/PG transitional phase in Attica, as has been shown above. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that the production of this traditional shape stopped earlier in Lefkandi than in Athens. According to Desborough, the amphoriskos with belly handles (Skoubris graves 16, 32, 53), the multiple vase (Skoubris graves 2, 10, 16, 19, 38, pyre 1) and the bird-vase (Skoubris grave 16) belong to the pottery types “which link SM with EPG but go no further, …” (DESBOROUGH 1980, 283). In Athens the amphoriskos is still represented with a few fragments in the SM/PG transitional period but not at all in the EPG period. The amphoriskos from Skoubris grave 32 (POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80, pl. 101) is stylistically nearly identical to the Attic amphoriskoi of stylistic group 4 (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 67–71). The bird-vase is attested in Athens only during the SM/PG transitional period. One multiple-vase dates to the Late Submycenaean phase (Stufe III) the other to the SM/PG transitional phase. In Athens there is no evidence for multiple vases in the EPG period. As stated by DESBOROUGH (1980, 284) the shallow bowl with high conical foot is the only type, which was introduced during the EPG period to the regular repertoire at Lefkandi. A straight sided pyxis, a bottle, a four handled bowl with high conical foot, a tripod dish and a lentoid flask made their appearance during the EPG phase as unique pieces. For the tripod dish (Skoubris grave 4) and the four handled bowl with high conical foot (Skoubris grave 20/4) there are no parallels in Athens. The appearance of the cylindrical pyxis, which is typologically very similar to the straight sided pyxis (Skoubris pyre 1A), is restricted in Athens to the SM/PG transitional period. The lentoid flask (Skoubris pyre 1A) was used in Athens during the late Submycenaean and the SM/PG transitional phase. A shallow bowl comparable to the pieces from Lefkandi was found in Athens only in grave K of the cemetery in Erechtheion Street (BROUSKARI 1980, 26, pl. 5a). This grave can be dated to the SM/PG transitional phase. In Athens cylindrical lekythoi (bottles) can be detected only in graves of the late Submycenaean and the SM/PG transitional phase. It has become clear that the pottery from the Skoubris cemetery shows a lot of similarities to Attic ceramics that can be dated to the SM/PG transitional period. In approving Desborough’s chronological division of the Skoubris cemetery one has to accept that some pottery types (cylindrical lekythoi, flasks, shallow bowls) were introduced later than in Athens, while one type – the stirrup jar – went out of use earlier. Furthermore, according to Desborough, types that had ceased to be manufactured in Athens were still produced in Lefkandi (bird-vases, amphoriskoi, multiple vases). In applying the general rule of comparative chronology one does not have to accept this unlikely result. It is a much more convincing hypothesis to assess the graves of the Skoubris cemetery as contemporary with the SM/PG transitional phase in Attica. Moreover, it has to be emphasized that the Lefkandian EPG style as defined by Desborough does not show a single characteristic of the Attic EPG style. A further parallel between the Skoubris and the Athenian cemeteries is provided by the lekythoi with hand-drawn concentric semicircles (Skoubris graves 9, 10, 20, 31, 55, 60). The Lefkandian vessels correspond closely to the Attic Lekythoi of stylistic group 3 (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 53–56) that is characteristic of the late Submycenaean as well as for the SM/PG transitional phase. With the exception of two cases, these lekythoi were no longer used in the EPG period in Athens. Furthermore, some Lefkandian cups with light-ground and monochromepainted parts seem to be characteristic of the SM/PG transitional phase (Skoubris graves 40, 42, 49. – Fig. 4:1‒2). Comparable pots in Athens are rare (BROUSKARI 1980, pl. 3g) maybe because of the general lack of cups. Apparently, the same change of preference from lightground to monochrome-painted for the decoration of cups took place in Athens and Lefkandi. There is still one light-ground cup of Submycenaean tradition in the Skoubris cemetery (grave 24). It can be connected through its double wavy line to the cup from Heidelberg grave A (RMDP, 634 no. 650, fig. 244). Therefore, a date in the SM/PG transitional phase is more likely

The Transitional Phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric

335

than in the late Submycenaean stage. A further candidate for a chronological position in Submycenaean proper is the amphoriskos from Skoubris grave 32 because of its close similarity to Athenian vessels of stylistic group 4 that was popular in the late Submycenaean phase. However, in the same grave an iron fibula was found. This kind of object has not been detected yet in a SM/PG context in Athens. Nevertheless, the iron fibula does not support a date to the EPG period because it is a roughly symmetrical arched fibula, and this type had lost its popularity in Protogeometric times. Therefore, even for Skoubris grave 32 a dating to the SM/PG traditional phase has the highest probability. Presumably, not a single grave of the Skoubris cemetery can be equated to the Submycenaean period in Attica. A date in EPG proper can be considered for the Skoubris grave 8 because of a high monochrom-painted cup with a relatively small diameter. The changing ratio between the height and the diameter of cups is a chronologically very significant criterion. LH III C cups are comparably low with a wide diameter; PG cups are high with a small diameter (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 128). Therefore, Skoubris grave 8 could belong to the EPG phase. An argument against this dating is the two simple bronze arched fibulae from the same grave. In the case of Skoubris grave 8 it is difficult to come to a conclusive decision. At the end of the discussion of the chronological position of the Skoubris cemetery at Lefkandi it does not seem inappropriate to point out that Desborough was aware of the tentativeness of his chronological division because he stated: “It may sound from the above that the change in style was a simple and logical affair. This is not, however, the case, to judge by the number of tomb groups in which vases of SM style are found with those which should be classed as EPG, and by the number of instances where a single vase – if we use the criteria suggested, which are of course subjective – may combine features of both phases. In other words, what we have is a gradual and tentative evolution” (DESBOROUGH 1980, 284). With the preceding analysis as a base, it can be attempted to incorporate the sanctuary site of Kalapodi in the proposed chronological scheme for Athens and Lefkandi. A monochromepainted cup with a reserved zone that is decorated with a wavy line has been found in layer 17 at Kalapodi.12 Layer 17 was assigned to horizon 8 (FELSCH 1996, XVI), which is of special interest because of some amphora fragments decorated with compass-drawn concentric circles. The decoration system of the cup from Kalapodi finds close parallels in two aforementioned cups from the Skoubris cemetery at Lefkandi (Fig. 4:1‒3).13 Consequently, the cup from Kalapodi can be dated to the SM/PG transitional period. The same date should be applied to horizon 8 because the cup no. 411 is the most significant piece of pottery from this horizon with the exception of the amphorae with compass-drawn concentric circles. However, these should not be used in determining the first appearance of compass-drawn concentric circles at Kalapodi because circular reasoning could easily be the result. Yet, it appears that the chronological position of horizon 8 that was proposed by R. Felsch and M. Jacob-Felsch in 1996 is still the most convincing (FELSCH 1996, XVI. – JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 99–101).14 It follows, that the multiple brush and compass were introduced to Athens and the, presumably, central Greek production center of the Kalapodi amphorae at approximately the same time. The same date can be reasonably assumed for the first amphorae with concentric circles at nearby Kynos (DAKORONIA 2003, figs. 14–15) and the amphorae of the Trojan group I (LENZ ET AL. 1998, 197–204, pls. 1; 2:1; 3–6). It is odd that according to current knowledge Lefkandi introduced

12 13

14

JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 166 no. 411, pls. 7, 45. – Fig. 4:3. One fragment of this pot was found in layer 18. The cup no. 411 from Kalapodi has already been compared to the cup from Skoubris cemetery grave 49 by JACOB-FELSCH 1996, 100. In RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 133 no. 525 I presumed that horizon 8 at Kalapodi could be contemporary with the early Submycenaean stage (Stufe I) at Athens. This estimation was based on a fragment of a stirrup jar (JACOBFELSCH 1996, 164 no. 395, pls. 18, 44). A date no later than the Early Submycenaean phase in Attica seems to me still persuasive for this piece (cf. KRAIKER – KÜBLER 1939, pl. 11, inv. no. 503). However, at the time of writing Kerameikos XVIII I did not pay enough attention to the cup no. 411.

336

Florian Ruppenstein

the new device significantly later than its neighbours to the north and south. Hopefully, the ongoing excavations in Lefkandi will resolve this problem. At the end of this paper the chronological framework can be augmented by the site of Volos-Nea Ionia because the grave 1961/10 contained a cup (SIPSIE-ESCHBACH 1991, pl. 58:1. – Fig. 4:4) that corresponds closely to the cups with reserved zone and wavy line from Lefkandi and Kalapodi. Therefore, it can be securely dated to the SM/PG transitional phase.15 Future studies will certainly deepen our present knowledge of the transitional phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric.

Bibliography ALEXANDRI, O. 1984 “Οδός Αιόλου 72”, ArchDelt 31, 1976 [1984], Chron 26–27. BOHEN, B. 1997 “Aspects of Athenian Grave Cult in the Age of Homer”, 44–55 in: LANGDON 1997. BROUSKARI, M. 1980 “A Dark Age Cemetery in Erechtheion Street, Athens”, BSA 75, 13–31. DAKORONIA, F. 2003 “The Transition from Late Helladic III C to the Early Iron Age at Kynos”, 37–51 in: LH III C Chronology

and Synchronisms. DEGER-JALKOTZY 1999 “Elateia and Problems of Pottery Chronology”, 195–202 in: Περιφέρεια. DEMETRIOU, A. 1989 Cypro-Aegean Relations in the Early Iron Age (SIMA 83). Göteborg. DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1952 Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. 1964 The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors. An Archaeological Survey c. 1200–c. 1000 B.C. Oxford. 1972 The Greek Dark Ages. London. 1973 “Late Burials from Mycenae”, BSA 68, 87–101. 1979/80 “The Dark Age Pottery (SM–SPG III) from Settlement and Cemeteries”, 281‒354 in: POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80. EDER, B. 2001 Die submykenischen und protogeometrischen Gräber von Elis (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 209). Athens. EGGERT, M. K. H. 2001 Prähistorische Archäologie: Konzepte und Methoden. Tübingen – Basel. FELSCH, R. C. S. (ed.) 1996 Kalapodi. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis. Vol. I. Mainz. VON FREYTAG GEN. LÖRINGHOFF, B.

1995

15

“Kerameikos, Tätigkeitsbericht 1992–1994. Untersuchungen in Turm N”, AA, 639–649.

The grave Volos-Nea Ionia 1961/10 has already been dated to the SM/PG transitional phase by LEMOS 2002, 12.

The Transitional Phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric

337

FURUMARK, A. 1941 The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery. Stockholm. GUGGISBERG, M. A. 1996 Frühgriechische Tierkeramik. Zur Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Tiergefässe und der hohlen Tierfiguren in der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit (ca. 1600–700 v.Chr.). Mainz. HÄGG, R. 1974 Die Gräber der Argolis in submykenischer, protogeometrischer und geometrischer Zeit. 1. Lage und Form der Gräber (Boreas. Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 7:1). Uppsala. JACOB-FELSCH, M. 1996 “Die spätmykenische bis frühprotogeometrische Keramik”, 1–213 in: FELSCH 1996. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, I. 1993 Die Schwerter in Griechenland (außerhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien (Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 12). Stuttgart. KRAIKER, W. – K. KÜBLER 1939 Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1). Berlin. KÜBLER, K. 1943 Neufunde aus der Nekropole des 11. und 10. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 4). Berlin. KRAUSE, G. 1975 Untersuchungen zu den ältesten Nekropolen am Eridanos in Athen (Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie, Beiheft 3). Hamburg. LAGIA, A. 2007 “The Human Skeletal Remains”, 273–281 in: RUPPENSTEIN 2007. LANGDON, S. (ed.) 1997 New Light on a Dark Age. Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece. Columbia – London. LEMOS, I. 2002 The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. LENZ, D. – F. RUPPENSTEIN – M. BAUMANN – R. CATLING 1998 “Protogeometric Pottery at Troia”, Studia Troica 8, 189–222. PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. 2008 “Review of ‘F. Ruppenstein, Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Bd. XVIII. Die submykenische Nekropole: Neufunde und Neubewertung. München. 2007’”, BMCR 2008.06.16. (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-06-16.html) (10 July 2008) PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. – J. F. VEDDER – T. SCHREIBER 1998 “Drawing Circles: Experimental Archaeology and the Pivoted Multiple Brush”, AJA 102, 507–529. POPHAM, M. R. – L. H. SACKETT – P. G. THEMELIS (eds.) 1979/80 Lefkandi I. The Iron Age. The Settlement. The Cemeteries (BSA Suppl. 11). London. RUPPENSTEIN, F. 1999 “Geschlechtsspezifische Beigabenkombinationen in der submykenischen Kerameikos-Nekropole”, AM 114, 13–28. 2003 “Late Helladic III C Late versus Submycenaean: A Methodological Problem”, 183–192 in: LH III C 2007

Chronology and Synchronisms. Die submykenische Nekropole. Neufunde und Neubewertung (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 18). Munich.

RUTTER, J. B. 1978 “A Plea for the Abandonment of the Term ‛Submycenaean’”, TUAS 3, 58–65.

338

Florian Ruppenstein

SIPSIE-ESCHBACH, M. 1991 Protogeometrische Keramik aus Iolkos in Thessalien (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 8). Berlin. STYRENIUS, C.-G. 1967 Submycenaean Studies. Examination of Finds from Mainland Greece with a Chapter on Attic Protogeometric Graves (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 8°, VII). Lund. VERDELIS, N. 1963 “Neue geometrische Gräber in Tiryns”, AM 78, 1–62. WILLEMSEN, F. 1963 “Archaische Grabmalbasen aus der Athener Stadtmauer. Anhang: Das protogeometrische Grab N 114 unter der südlichen Torwand des Dipylon”, AM 78, 148–153.

The Transitional Phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric

339

340

Florian Ruppenstein

The Transitional Phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric

341

342

Florian Ruppenstein

The Transitional Phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric

343

PHILIPP STOCKHAMMER

NEW EVIDENCE FOR LH III C LATE POTTERY FROM TIRYNS1

My new analysis of the LH III C Late pottery from Tiryns first requires an explanation of the methodology and the material basis. In contrast to conventional methodology, it was not the stratigraphy of the Lower Citadel on which I concentrated in the beginning, but the different systems of chronologisation of the post-palatial period. At first I tried to characterise out those features which have been considered to be diagnostic for LH III C Late by different authors. I then based my analysis of the sources on this list of diagnostic features. I chose as my source the countless drawings of pottery from the publications of K. Kilian and C. Podzuweit – including his unpublished habilitation thesis – as well as the drawings stored in the Tiryns archive in Heidelberg. This approach was necessary because the pottery of the excavations in the Lower Citadel is not stored by context of find in the storehouse in Tiryns, but by the type of ware and parts of vessels. Therefore, a systematic compilation of LH III C Late contexts was not possible. However, during the extensive excavations under the direction of Kilian, pencil drawings of several tens of thousands of vessels and vessel fragments were made and afterwards stored in the Tiryns archive of the German Archaeological Institute at Athens. Several 1.000 of these drawings were inked, photocopied and brought to Heidelberg. I examined these drawings systematically to identify vessels which displayed one or several of the features considered relevant for my analysis. Afterwards, the find contexts of these items were checked on the basis of Kilian’s stratigraphy of the Lower Citadel in its revised version by T. Mühlenbruch (MÜHLENBRUCH 2005). It is necessary to point out a basic terminological problem of this stratigraphy, namely the correlation of building horizons with the common ceramic phases (Fig. 1). Kilian took over the terms LH III C Early, Developed, Advanced and Late from the stylistic evolution of the pottery to embrace horizons which he considered as a unity from an architectural perspective. Therefore, in spite of using the same terminology Kilian’s phases of LH III C in the Lower Citadel are not necessarily identical with these phases defined by pottery. Podzuweit, in turn, preferred pottery to architecture in assigning horizons to phases (MARAN 2007, x. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 7). Consequently, Kilian and Podzuweit differ in their assignment of horizons of the Lower Citadel to the phases of LH III C. I follow Kilian’s system. For a long time, the definition of LH III C Late has been regarded to be problematic, due to the lack of published significant find complexes and due to the evolution of pottery itself. There is general agreement that LH III C Late is mostly characterized by the omission of many pottery features diagnostic of LH III C Middle 2 as well as by the simplification and impoverishment of forms and motifs (RUTTER 1977, 4. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 360. – MDP, 181. – PODZU-

1

I would like to thank Professor Joseph Maran for generously allowing me to use so far unpublished pottery drawings of C. Podzuweit’s habilitation thesis and further drawings stored in the Tiryns archive in Heidelberg. Dr. Tobias Mühlenbruch kindly supported me in the contextualisation of the pottery finds within the postpalatial horizons of the Lower Citadel. Moreover, I want to thank Dr. Christina Sanchez and Dr. Carol Bell for their advice regarding the English translation of my text. All drawings of pottery from the Lower Town are by the author, all drawings of material from the Lower Citadel have been re-worked by the author.

346

Philipp Stockhammer

1988, 222–223. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 217. – FRENCH forthcoming).2 In order to avoid a ‘negative definition’ based on the absence of features, there was a search for forms and motifs which could have emerged in LH III C Late for the first time. A survey of relevant publications provided some repeatedly mentioned diagnostic features for LH III C Late in the Argolid:3 1. small closed vessels (Lekythos FS 122, 123, 124; trefoil-mouthed jug FS 137, 138; feeding bottle FS 162; stirrup jar FS 175) with disintegrated fine line groups, i.e. different combinations of very broad, broad, narrow and very narrow body bands (MDP, 181–183, 185–189. – MOUNTJOY 1988, 5. – RMDP, 78–79, 177, 179, 184) 2. a horizontal wavy line FM 53 on the neck of huge closed vessels (RUTTER 1978, 60. – SHERRATT 1981, 379. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 388)4 3. krater FS 282 with straight or very slightly incurving upper body, squared rim and corresponding rim banding inside and outside (RMDP, 53, 79, 186, 188)5 4. monochrome deep bowl FS 284 with narrow reserved zone with undulating wavy line FM 53 (SHERRATT 1981, 79. – MDP, 191–192. – MOUNTJOY 1988, 4. – FRENCH forthcoming)6 5. multiple wavy bands/lines FM 53:21–22 on cups, kraters and deep bowls (MDP, 191–192. – RMDP, 79, 186, 188. – MOUNTJOY 2005a, 128, 159, 164–166)7 6. hatched or concentric triangles FM 51A, isolated semi-circles with filled centre FM 43 or the so-called ‘bivalve flower’ FM 18C on the shoulder of small closed vessels (SHERRATT 1981, 80. – MDP, 181–183, 189. – MOUNTJOY 1988, 6, 8. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 134. – RMDP, 78–79, 179, 184. – MOUNTJOY 2005b, 96)8 7. broad monochrome and reserved banding on closed vessels, with vessels sometimes showing a pattern in the reserved zones, frequently a wavy band FM 53 (SHERRATT 1981, 80. – MDP, 181–182, 184, 188. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 133: since LH III C Middle 2. – RMDP, 79). WEIT

Moreover, I analysed the stratification of selected diagnostic features of LH III C Middle 2 and the Submycenaean Phase in the Lower Citadel. Out of the huge number of type fossils of LH III C Middle 2, I selected some features whose lifespan is often considered to end with this phase:

2 3

4 5

6

7

8

Still MOUNTJOY 1993, 109 states: “The pottery of this phase is not yet fully defined”. This list must not be considered to be a communis opinio of LH III C Late type fossils. Some features are regarded to emerge earlier than LH III C Late by some editors of pottery material. PODZUWEIT 1988, 222 places the start of this feature already in LH III C Advanced, i.e. LH III C Middle 2. In contrast to Mountjoy, Podzuweit sees the beginning of these kraters already in LH III C Middle 2 (PODZUWEIT 1983, 370, 380. – PODZUWEIT 1984, 13. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 66). MDP, 175–176 still dated Lefkandi 2b including the relevant kraters in LH III C Middle. In contrast to her earlier publications, Mountjoy (RMDP, 172) dates the beginning of those deep bowls already in LH III C Middle 2, and she particularly points to the evidence in Tiryns. The deep bowl with wiggly wavy line in the reserved zone in MDP, 192 fig. 254:5 has been wrongly included in the illustration in the context of LH III C Late (cf. MOUNTJOY 2004, 527). Podzuweit assumes the beginning of this feature as early as LH III C Advanced (PODZUWEIT 1983, 368. – PODZUWEIT 1988, 214. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 39–40). In contrast to Mountjoy, Podzuweit places the beginning of the relevant kraters already in his LH III C Advanced (PODZUWEIT 1983, 370, 380. – PODZUWEIT 1984, 13. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 39–40, 66–67). Mountjoy (MDP, 156, 175–176) also sees the appearance of this feature in LH III C Middle, as she parallelises this phase with Lefkandi Phase 2b. However, MOUNTJOY 2005b, 105 places the start of concentric triangles with solid centre and dotted frame already in LH III C Middle 2 on the Greek Mainland and even earlier on the Dodekannesos.

New Evidence for LH III C Late Pottery from Tiryns

347

1. Close Style (RUTTER 1977, 3. – SHERRATT 1981, 71–73, 79. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 371. – MDP, 155–156, 181. – PODZUWEIT 1988, 223. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 55, 67–68 71, 98. – RMDP, 50, 77, 79, 165)9 2. patterned carinated cups FS 240 and carinated cups with a bull’s head protome on the top of the handle (SHERRATT 1981, 75–76. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 377–378. – PODZUWEIT 1984, 13. MDP, 155–156, 171–172. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 48–49, 114, 116, 210. – RMDP, 77, 170) 3. Kalathos FS 291 with pictorial decoration on the interior, where fish FM 20 is a particularly popular motif (SHERRATT 1981, 75–76. – MDP, 155–156, 179–180: since LH III C Middle 1. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 94, 100. – RMDP, 77, 174) and features which are assumed to continue into LH III C Late, namely: 1. reserved and dotted rim of open and closed vessels (RUTTER 1977, 3. – SHERRATT 1981, 70. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 368, 380. – PODZUWEIT 1988, 214. – MDP, 156, 165, 177–178. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 32, 39, 52–53, 133, 214. – RMDP, 77) 2. multiple reserved lines on the monochrome exterior of open and closed vessels (RUTTER 1977, 3. – SHERRATT 1981, 70. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 361, 371, 374, 392. – PODZUWEIT 1984, 13. – MDP, 177–178, 191. – PODZUWEIT 1988, 214. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 36, 52–53, 55, 133, 187, 215. – RMDP, 77, 172–174). For the Submycenaean Phase I chose the following features: 1. monochrome deep bowl FS 284 with narrow reserved zone with tight and wiggly wavy line FM 53 or zigzag FM 61 (RUTTER 1978, 60. – SHERRATT 1981, 383: since Phase 5 Late. – SHERRATT 1981, 79: since LH III C Late. – MDP, 195, 200. – MOUNTJOY 1988, 4, 15. – PAPADIMITRIOU 1988, 234. – RMDP, 57, 80, 190)10 2. vertical wavy lines FM 53 on the shoulders of stirrup jars (MDP, 195, 199). A fourth group consists of further 25 features, whose stratification I analysed, as they seem potentially relevant for the characterisation of LH III C Late in Tiryns.11 I will refer to a selected few of those features after discussing the mentioned type fossils.

9

10

11

In contrast to the common definition of Close Style as a miniature style (e.g. SHERRATT 1981, 71–73. – MDP, 155–156). – PODZUWEIT 2007, 67–68, 108, fig. 115, 116 also calls the Pleonastic Style of LH III C Middle 2 Close Style, although it clearly differs in its appearance from the proper Close Style. I divided those vessels classified by Podzuweit as Close Style into proper Close Style and Pleonastic Style/Rosettestyle on the basis of the drawings. Podzuweit sees the beginning of this feature already in LH III C Middle 2 (PODZUWEIT 1983, 368. – PODZUWEIT 1988, 214, 216. – PODZUWEIT 2007, 39–40). The following features have been considered: • closed vessel with tassel FM 72:6–8 or necklace FM 72:12–14 on the shoulder and antithetic loops FM 50:29– 32 on the belly • closed vessel with antithetic necklace FM 72:12–13 (e.g. PODZUWEIT 1979, 428 fig. 44:5 = PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 68:6) • closed vessel with isolated semi-circles FM 43 with fringes and dotted frame on the shoulder • monochrome closed vessel with a narrow reserved and patterned zone (except wavy band/zigzag) • monochrome closed vessel with a narrow reserved zone with undulating wavy band/line FM 53 • monochrome closed vessel with a narrow reserved zone with tight and wiggly wavy band/line FM 53 or zigzag FM 61 • beginning disintegration of fine line groups on closed vessels • ‘Achaia’-banding (cf. MOUNTJOY 1990, 267–270) on closed vessels • closed vessel with monochrome lower part and a narrow band on top • cup or bowl, inside linear, outside medium rim band and wavy band FM 53 below • monochrome open vessels like cup FS 215, conical kylix FS 275, carinated krater FS 282 or deep bowl FS 284 with a narrow reserved zone • monochrome conical kylix FS 275 with a narrow reserved zone with undulating wavy band/line FM 53

348

Philipp Stockhammer

Armed with my list of features, I analysed both the published pottery drawings and the unpublished ones stored in the Heidelberg Tiryns archive and selected relevant examples. I did not incorporate vessels from excavations earlier than those of Kilian, the pottery from the Syringes and vessels from the uppermost layers of the Lower Citadel, for which a Postmycenaean stratification was certain.12 As a next step, the find contexts of the 228 relevant fragments and more or less complete vessels were checked in their stratification due to the system Kilian/ Mühlenbruch. 175 individuals were assigned to one or more horizons of the Lower Citadel; the remaining pieces turned out to be from Postmycenaean strata only through this contextualisation. All of my figures are based on this list of 228 individuals. 1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

The following horizons were grouped together for presentational purposes: 19b–20a0 comprises horizons dating in LH III C Early and the early LH III C Middle 1. I did not expect any of the relevant features to appear in these horizons. 20a2–21b0 covers sherds whose contextualisation was only possible in a broader range. Kilian saw horizon 21a as the beginning of LH III C Middle 2 on the Lower Citadel.13 These individuals could therefore be older than LH III C Middle 2, but they do not have to be so. 21a0–21a1 are the horizons which in Kilian’s view present the first building horizon of LH III C Middle 2 on the Lower Citadel.14 With the horizons 21b–21c we cover the acme of building activities and floors of LH III C Middle 2. Therefore, we have several, meaningful find contexts from these horizons, e.g. the stratified superposition of floors with several sherd plasters in room 127. Horizons 21d–22a0 comprise the destruction and levelling of the LH III C Middle 2 buildings with horizon 21d, the following construction horizon 22a0 frequently being not easy to discriminate. Kilian sees the beginning of LH III C Late with horizon 22.15 Here we are confronted with the well-known phenomenon that terraces constructed as part of extensive building activities often mainly contain pottery of the previous phase.16 Therefore, one should expect the first type fossils of LH III C Late to appear in these horizons, even though in smaller numbers.

• • • •

12 13 14 15 16

conical kylix FS 275 with ripped stem krater FS 282 or deep bowl FS 284 with running spirals FM 46:58 with empty centres krater FS 282 or deep bowl FS 284 with antithetic loops FM 50:29–32 krater FS 282 or deep bowl FS 284 with thin-thick-thin banding under the handle on the exterior (e.g. PODZUWEIT 1978, 488 fig. 36:6 = PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 13:5) • krater FS 282 or deep bowl FS 284 with monochrome lower part and a narrow band on top • deep bowl FS 284, inside linear or monochrome and medium rim band and wavy band FM 53 below on the exterior • monochrome deep bowl FS 284 with a narrow reserved zone with tight and wiggly double wavy band FM 53 or zigzag FM 61 • monochrome deep bowl FS 284 with reserved hourglass motiv (so-called ‘Salami deep bowl’) • monochrome deep bowl FS 284 with reserved base or lower part • Close Style derivatives (e.g. PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 114:7) • Pleonastic Style/Rosette Style (e.g. PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 116:1–10) • ‘Teppichstil’ after SCHACHERMEYR 1982, 161 (e.g. PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 119) • ‘late triglyphs’ FM 75 (e.g. MDP, 183 fig. 235:23,24. – PAPADIMITRIOU 1988, 233 fig. 3:10). Only for the feature of multiple wavy bands the uppermost layers have been included in the analysis. PODZUWEIT 2007, 7 sees the beginning of LH III C Middle 2 in horizon 21b1. PODZUWEIT 2007, 7 still assigns these horizons to LH III C Middle 1. PODZUWEIT 2007, 7 places 22a0 in LH III C Middle 2 on the basis of the pottery. This phenomenon was encountered several times in Mycenae, e.g. with the LH III B pottery from the postpalatial terraces under the LH III C Early 1 buildings (FRENCH forthcoming) or the LH III A2 pottery from the terraces constructed at the beginning of LH III B (FRENCH 1965, 161).

New Evidence for LH III C Late Pottery from Tiryns

349

6. 22a1–22c0 covers the largest part of the LH III C Late buildings on the Lower Citadel – irrespective of the first building phase and the destruction layers of the latest buildings.17 7. Horizon 22d consists of the partly very thick layers of the destruction of the last Mycenaean buildings on the Lower Citadel. 8. Horizon 22 or younger comprises material which could be LH III C Late from its stratigraphic position, but a Postmycenaean stratification could not be excluded. 9. The term Postmycenaean designates all strata later than LH III C Late. The stratification of diagnostic features of LH III C Middle 2 displays the expected pattern: Close Style and Pleonastic Style/Rosette Style have never been found earlier than horizon 21 (Fig. 2a–b), which is the beginning of LH III C Middle 2 after Kilian. Surprisingly, Close Style sherds continue in equal quantity up to the Postmycenaean layers. This may result from the massive building activities during LH III C Late, if one wants to keep the end of LH III C Middle 2 as the end of the production of Close Style vessels. Open and closed vessels with reserved and dotted rim and/or multiple reserved lines – under the rim and on the lower body, respectively – have never been found earlier than horizon 21 (Fig. 2c–d). As is commonly believed, those vessels seemed to be continuously produced in LH III C Late because the graphs’ maxima in horizons 22a1–22c0 cannot be explained in another way. The kalathoi FS 291 with pictorial decoration on the interior, patterned carinated cups FS 240 and carinated cups with a bull’s head protome on the top of the handle also first appear in LH III C Middle 2 (Fig. 2e–f). However, it remains to be seen whether they were still produced in LH III C Late. On the basis of the first appearance of those features we can determine the beginning of LH III C Middle 2 very well. Yet they continue into LH III C Late in great number, sometimes even more than before. This is partly due to secondary formation processes, and also due to the continuous use of old vessels, which maybe even continued to be produced. Considering the distribution of the supposed type fossils of LH III C Late, some graphs confront us with surprising results (Fig. 3): Huge closed vessels with wavy band on the neck have hardly been found on the Lower Citadel (Fig. 3a). The oldest evidence (Fig. 4:1. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 369 fig. 3:4 = PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 97:14), however, stems from a context in LH III C Middle 2 sealed off by several floors of room 127 (LXII 43/81 X R 127), which leaves no doubt about the early start of this feature before LH III C Late. The krater FS 282 with straight or very slightly incurving upper body, squared rim and corresponding rim banding inside and outside has only been found in the horizons of LH III C Middle 2 on the Lower Citadel (Fig. 3b). The latest context dates to ‘horizon 22a0 or older’ (Fig. 4:2 LXI 39/45 IVa R 100).18 This evidence calls into question the position of this type as an absolute diagnostic feature for LH III C Late. The mentioned krater bears a triple wavy line FM 53, which has been considered to be another type fossil of LH III C Late (Fig. 3c). This kind of multiple wavy band is evidenced as early as horizons 21b–c in meaningful contexts with two nearly complete kraters with triple wavy band, which do not show corresponding rim banding or a squared rim. The smaller krater (Fig. 4:3 LXII 45/79.80 IVa Nr. 11; LXIII 45/71 V; LXIII 45/71 VI R 136. – PODZUWEIT 1981, 209 fig. 58:8 = PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 26:2) was part of a sherd plaster around a storage jar in room 128 (horizon 21b2–21c0), the larger one (Fig. 4:4 LXII 43/83 X R 127 Nr. 9. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 380 fig. 6 = PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 26:1) has been taken as the substruction of a hearth in room 127 (horizon 21b1). Both vessels

17

18

PODZUWEIT 2007, 7 still classifies horizon 22a1 as LH III C Middle 2 on the basis of the pottery. In the light of the fact that I only included three relevant individuals from this horizon and that the important LH III C Late feature ‘broad monochrome and reserved banding’ is found in 22a1 for the first time, I saw no need for placing a section after horizon 22a1. For the sake of statistics, the object was placed in the category 21d–22a0, although an older date is possible.

350

Philipp Stockhammer

were surely in use for some years, probably at the same time, before they were intentionally selected for the construction of the sherd plasters.19 It is indisputable that open vessels with multiple wavy band were still produced in LH III C Late.20 However, the evidence from Tiryns may call into question the position of this type as an absolute diagnostic feature for LH III C Late. Considering the monochrome deep bowls FS 284 with narrow reserved zone with undulating wavy line (Fig. 3d), there is a possible first evidence at the beginning of LH III C Middle 2 (horizon 21a0). However, the sherds of this deep bowl (Fig. 4:5 LXII 41/11 VI) were found in the courtyard, where post-depositional processes may very well have dislocated the pieces. The first meaningful evidence was found in the layers of LH III C Late, one nearly complete individual inside a larnax (Fig. 4:6 LXII 43/99 X R 127 G 14. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 369 fig. 3:12 = PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 13:11), which Kilian dated to horizon 22a1.21 Thus, those deep bowls can be taken as diagnostic feature for LH III C Late in Tiryns, even though their infrequent appearance lowers their status as type fossil. The same is true of the feature of ‘monochrome and reserved banding’ on closed vessels in settlement context, as close vessels are rarely found in parts big enough to identify this feature (Fig. 3e). However, there is no evidence for this feature before LH III C Late in Tiryns. The earliest context is again the larnax of horizon 22a1, where a small closed vessel with this feature was found together with the mentioned wavy band deep bowl (Fig. 5:1 LXII 43/99 X R 127 G 14. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 373 fig. 4:3 = PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 106:9). The excavations in the North-Eastern Lower Town also brought to the fore a small closed vessel with this decoration (Fig. 5:2 LXIX 30/36 VIII Nr. 43/99. – STOCKHAMMER 2008), but unfortunately it came from a disturbed context. The feature of ‘monochrome and reserved banding’ is obviously connected with the disintegration of the fine line groups (Fig. 3f). Even though vessels on which the beginning of this disintegration may be detected seem to appear already in horizons 21a0–21a1 at the beginning of LH III C Middle 2,22 disintegrated fine line groups in their proper definition have been found in the horizons of LH III C Late for the first time (Fig. 5:3).23 Another feature confined to closed vessels are hatched or concentric triangles FM 51A, isolated semi-circles with filled centre FM 43 or the so-called ‘bivalve flower’ FM 18C on the shoulder of small closed vessels. All these motifs were not found in sufficient numbers in meaningful contexts to allow the determination of their exact chronological position. In the discussion that follows, I will only discuss a small selection of the other 25 features I considered to be potentially relevant and whose stratification I checked: The only evidence for the so-called ‘Achaia-banding’ in the ceramic material from the Lower Citadel was found on a small closed vessel in horizon 21a1 (Fig. 5:4 LXII 44/09 Ofl. X R 127a. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 369

19

20

21

22 23

Ethnographic evidence (DAVID – KRAMER 2001, 99–100 with further literature) shows that huge mixing vessels can easily be in use for several years, sometimes even several decades, before they break into pieces. The value assigned to kraters, for example, is indicated by the repeated evidence of mending (PODZUWEIT 2007, 58). There is no reason to presume that these kraters were intentionally broken to construct the plasters, but they were very well chosen for this purpose. In Tiryns the sherd plasters repeatedly show a certain selection of shapes and vessel parts. It is possible, however, that deep bowls with multiple wavy band may start later than kraters with the same motif. The earliest evidence for deep bowls with multiple wavy band is an unpublished deep bowl from the horizons 21d–22a0 (LXIII 43/04 IV). Mistakenly, Podzuweit gives LXI 43/99 R 127 G 14 as the find context. However, the position of the vessel inside the larnax is out of question (cf. KILIAN 1983, 280). The deep bowl seems to have broken into two halves, as a second unpublished drawing showing the rear side of the vessel is stored in the Tiryns archive. E.g. stirrup jar from horizons 21a0–21c0 (LXI 42/39 VIb; LXI 42/24 VII) (PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 88:1). E.g. jug from horizons 22b–22c0 (LXI 35/53.55.64.65 IV KW 14; LXI 35/54.63.64 IVa KW 14; LXI 35/63 VI KW 14) (PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 106:6).

New Evidence for LH III C Late Pottery from Tiryns

351

fig. 3:3 = PODZUWEIT 2007, fig. 88:4)24, i.e. in the beginning of LH III C Middle 2. The vessel was probably found in situ on the floor of the oldest phase of use of room 127. Monochrome deep bowls and cups with a narrow reserved and undecorated zone are also evidenced much earlier than expected. A deep bowl (Fig. 5:5 LXI 40/1–11 XII Nr. 46) built into a LH III C Early hearth substruction (horizon 19ba–19b1) is the oldest evidence. The second oldest piece comes from another hearth substruction, this time dating to horizon 21b1 in LH III C Middle 2 (Fig. 5:6 LXII 43/81.91 Ofl. X Nr. 10 R 127. – PODZUWEIT 1983, 373 fig. 4:10). It can still be considered the best indicator for a Submycenaean (or Early Iron Age) dating, if a monochrome deep bowl shows either a tight wiggly wavy line or zigzag in the narrow reserved zone. This feature has never been found in Mycenaean layers on the Lower Citadel and starts abruptly in the Postmycenaean layers. Only a small part of these deep bowls have been included in my statistics.25 Stirrup jars FS 175 with vertical wavy lines FM 53 on the shoulder and without further patterning, such as those deposited in the graves of the Kerameikos cemetery (MDP, 199 fig. 267), have not been found on the Lower Citadel. Vertical wavy lines interspersed between other motifs on the shoulders of stirrup jars seem to appear in LH III C Late contexts for the first time. CONCLUSION The restricted number of type fossils for LH III C Late in Tiryns – monochrome deep bowls with a narrow reserved zone with undulating wavy line, disintegrated fine line groups and broad monochrome and reserved banding on closed vessels – as well as their infrequent appearance pose the problem of identifying LH III C Late in the North-Eastern Lower Town, where pottery possibly datable in LH III C Late has only been found in disturbed contexts. Rich LH III C Middle 2 ceramic complexes have been found in several areas of the Lower Town in meaningful contexts, e.g. in the North-Eastern Lower Town and in the old excavations of ‘Megaron W’ and ‘Haus O’.26 Providing clear evidence for the continuation of the Town into LH III C Late remains problematic (STOCKHAMMER 2008). Two kraters from the North-Eastern Lower Town (Fig. 5:7 LXVIII 30/95 V. – Fig. 5:8 LXVIII 31–26 VI and LXIX 30/15 VIII Nr. 43/99), which so far would have been dated in LH III C Late on stylistic grounds, cannot be dated later than LH III C Middle 2 without reservation considering the evidence from the Lower Citadel. In contrast, we have Submycenaean pottery in the form of one typical Submycenaean deep bowl from the North-Eastern Lower Town, even if once more from a disturbed context (Fig. 5:9 LXIX 31/25 VIII). The question whether we can postulate a settlement continuity from LH III C Early until the Submycenaean Period in part of the Lower Town, therefore, has to remain unanswered, if we believe that the definition of LH III C Late is still not precise enough. However, there is at least a possibility that while the inhabitants of Tiryns left the Lower Citadel in the course of the Submycenaean Period at the latest, the Lower Town of Tiryns may have been settled continuously from the beginning of the Post-Palatial Period into the Geometric Age.

24

25

26

Podzuweit already 1983 recognises the reference of banding and ware to the North-West Peloponnesos (PODZUWEIT 1983, 384). It should therefore be considered to be an import from this area. – For a definition of Achaia banding cf. MOUNTJOY 1990, 267–270. Most of the relevant deep bowls illustrated by Papadimitriou have not been included in my statistics, as their stratification was Postmycenaean at first glance. For ‘Megaron W’ and ‘Haus O’ cf. GERCKE – HIESEL 1971, 14–15. – GERCKE – NAUMANN 1974, 15–17. – GERCKE – GERCKE – HIESEL 1975, 10–12. – The pottery from the excavations in the North-Eastern Lower Town has been edited as part of the Ph.D project of the author (STOCKHAMMER 2008).

352

Philipp Stockhammer

Index to illustrations Fig. 4 1) LXII 43/81 X R 127; 2) LXI 39/45 IVa R 100; 3) LXII 45/79.80 IVa Nr. 11; LXIII 45/71 V; LXIII 45/71 VI R 136; 4) LXII 43/83 X R 127 Nr. 9; 5) LXII 41/11 VI; 6) LXII 43/99 X R 127 G 14 Fig. 5 1) LXII 43/99 X R 127 G 14; 2) LXIX 30/36 VIII Nr. 43/99; 3) LXI 35/53.55.64.65 IV KW 14; LXI 35/54.63.64 IVa KW 14; LXI 35/63 VI KW 14; 4) LXII 44/09 Ofl. X R 127a; 5) LXI 40/1–11 XII Nr. 46; 6) LXII 43/81.91 Ofl. X Nr. 10 R 127; 7) LXVIII 30/95 V; 8) LXVIII 31–26 VI; LXIX 30/15 VIII Nr. 43/99; 9) LXIX 31/25 VIII

Bibliography DAVID, N. – C. KRAMER 2001 Ethnoarchaeology in Action (Cambridge World Archaeology). Cambridge. DAVIS, E. N. (ed.) 1977 Symposium on the Dark Ages in Greece. Sponsored by the Archaeological Institute of America, New York Society and Hunter College, City University of New York, 30th of April 1977. New York. FRENCH, E. B. 1965 “Late Helladic III A2 Pottery from Mycenae”, BSA 60, 159–202. Forthc. The Post-Palatial Levels (Well Built Mycenae. The Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at Mycenae, 1959–1969, Fasc. 16/17). Oxford. GERCKE, P. – G. HIESEL 1971 “Grabungen in der Unterstadt von Tiryns von 1889 bis 1929”, 1–19 in: Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 5. Mainz. GERCKE, P. – U. NAUMANN 1974 “Tiryns-Stadt 1971. Tiryns-Stadt 1972”, AAA 7–1, 15–24. GERCKE P. – W. GERCKE – G. HIESEL 1975 “Tiryns-Stadt 1971: Graben H”, 7–36 in: Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 8. Mainz. KILIAN, K. 1983 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1981. Bericht zu den Grabungen”, AA, 277–328. MARAN, J. 2007 “Vorwort des Herausgebers”, ix–xi in: PODZUWEIT 2007(†). MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1988 “LH III C Late versus Submycenaean. The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed”, JdI 103, 1–33. 1990 “Regional Mycenaean Pottery”, BSA 85, 245–270. 1993 Mycenaean Pottery. An Introduction (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 36). Oxford. 2004 “Review of ‘R. Jung, Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Schichten 19 bis 11 I, PAS 18 (Kiel 2002)’ ”, Germania 82, 2, 525–529. 2005a “The End of the Bronze Age at Enkomi, Cyprus: The Problem of Level III B”, BSA 100, 125–214. 2005b “The Mycenaean Pottery from the 1934–1939 Excavations at Tarsus”, 83–134 in: ÖZYAR 2005. MÜHLENBRUCH, T. 2005 Ein dunkles Zeitalter? Untersuchungen zur Siedlungsstruktur der Unterburg von Tiryns in der mykenischen Nachpalastzeit (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Heidelberg. ÖZYAR, A. (ed.) 2005 Field Seasons 2001–2003 of the Tarsus-Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project. Istanbul. PAPADIMITRIOU, A. 1988 “Bericht zur früheisenzeitlichen Keramik aus der Unterburg von Tiryns. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83”, AA, 227–243.

New Evidence for LH III C Late Pottery from Tiryns

353

PODZUWEIT, C. 1978 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1976. Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik”, AA, 471–498. 1979 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1977. Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik”, AA, 412–440. 1981 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1978, 1979. Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik”, AA, 194–220. 1983 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1981. Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik”, AA, 359–402. 1984 “Die bemalte spätmykenische Keramik von Tiryns”, 12–13 in: Forschungen zur ägäischen Vorgeschichte in Deutschland. Kolloquium des Deutschen Archäologenverbandes Freiburg i. Br., 11th–13th of February 1983 (MDAV 15/1). 1988 “Keramik der Phase SH IIIC-Spät aus der Unterburg von Tiryns. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83”, AA, 213–225. 2007(†) Studien zur spätmykenischen Keramik (Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 14). Wiesbaden. RUTTER, J. B. 1977 “Late Helladic III C Pottery and Some Historical Implications”, 1–20 in: DAVIS 1977. 1978 “A Plea for the Abandonment of the term ‘Submycenaean’”, TUAS 3, 58–65. 1979 “The Last Mycenaeans at Corinth”, Hesperia 48, 348–392. SCHACHERMEYR, F. 1982 Die ägäische Frühzeit. Vol. 5: Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen vom 13. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (SBWien 387 = Mykenische Studien 9). Vienna. SHERRATT, E. S. 1981 The Pottery of Late Helladic III C and its Significance (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Oxford. STOCKHAMMER, P. W. 2008 Kontinuität und Wandel – Die Keramik der Nachpalastzeit aus der Unterstadt von Tiryns. Heidelberg.

354

Philipp Stockhammer

New Evidence for LH III C Late Pottery from Tiryns

355

356

Philipp Stockhammer

New Evidence for LH III C Late Pottery from Tiryns

357

358

Philipp Stockhammer

ALEYDIS VAN DE MOORTEL

THE LATE HELLADIC III C – PROTOGEOMETRIC TRANSITION AT MITROU, EAST LOKRIS∗

The site of Mitrou is a small tidal islet (3.6 ha) located in East Lokris on the North Euboean Gulf, 20 km north of Orchomenos and Gla, 50 km north of Thebes, and 60 km northwest of Lefkandi (Fig. 1). Its surface is quite flat, rising gently to the north to about 12 m above sea level. Archaeological remains cover the entire islet and continue below sea level for about 50 m to the east and west of the islet, to a depth of 3 m. Thus in antiquity, sea level must have been several meters lower than at present, and the site probably was part of the mainland, situated on a low rise close to the shore. The University of Tennessee and the 14th Ephorate of the Greek Archaeological Service are conducting a 5-year (2004–2008) collaborative program of excavation and survey of the islet of Mitrou under the direction of Eleni Zachou and the author. The site had never been systematically excavated before the current project. No architectural remains are visible on the surface, but a surface survey conducted in 1988–1989 by Cornell University recovered pottery from the Neolithic through Late Roman periods, the large majority dating to the Late Bronze Age and Protogeometric period (KRAMER-HAJÓS and O’NEILL 2008). In addition, natural scarps created by the sea on the east and west sides of the islet revealed the presence of deep stratigraphic sequences with readily identifiable architectural features. With its seemingly uninterrupted sequence of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age strata, Mitrou is an ideal place to study crucial and poorly understood periods of Greek prehistory, such as the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age – the topic of the present volume. Adding to the site’s importance is its location on the main passageway, both by land and by sea, between northern and southern Greece. If the changes seen in Greece at the Bronze Age – Iron Age transition were at all related to population movements or cultural influxes between north and south, one would expect these to have left traces at Mitrou. Thus Mitrou is an excellent site at which to study the Bronze Age – Iron Age transition. Our excavation focuses on two areas located in the northeast and northwest of the islet (Fig. 2). Their choice was based on the results of our 2003 and 2005 geophysical surveys, which suggested that they contain imposing architectural remains (TSOKAS ET AL. forthcoming). In the northeast excavation area we indeed uncovered a sequence of three superimposed large

∗

We would like to thank Mrs. Maria Papakonstantinou, Director of the Ephorate of Lamia, for her strong support of the Mitrou project. Generous financial support of our project is provided by the University of Tennessee, the Institute of Aegean Prehistory, the National Endowment for the Humanities (Collaborative Research Grant No. RZ-50652-06), the Loeb Classical Library Foundation, the Greek Archaeological Service, Colby College, and private donors. The preliminary results presented here are the work of the 2004–2006 Mitrou excavation teams, and in particular: Kerill O’Neill, Colby College (field director), Giuliana Bianco and Alexandra Costic (architects), Nick Herrmann, University of Tennessee (physical anthropologist, G.I.S. specialist), Grigoris Tsokas and his team, University of Thessaloniki (geophysical prospection), Caroline Belz, UCLA (surface survey), Jeremy B. Rutter, Dartmouth College, Patrick Thomas, University of Evansville, Salvatore Vitale, University of Pisa, Bartłomiej Lis, Polish Academy of Sciences, and Stepan Rückl, University of Prague (pottery analysts), Evi Goroyianni, University of Cincinnati, Barbara Nielsen Wold, and Teresa Hancock (lab directors).

360

Aleydis Van de Moortel

structures: apsidal Building A of Early to Middle Protogeometric date, built inside orthogonal Building B of LH III C date, which in turn had been constructed on top of early LH Building D (Fig. 3). Walls of other Late Bronze Age structures uncovered nearby are thinner and less impressive, and presumably form part of a settlement. Much of this settlement area was turned into a burial ground during the Bronze Age – Iron Age transition. In the northwest excavation area our magnetometry survey of 2005 showed the apparent outline of a large apsidal building. In 2005 and 2006 we excavated five trial trenches in various areas of this putative building, but were unable to establish whether there is indeed a single large building or a complex of smaller buildings. The dating of these architectural remains is still under study, but it appears that the early part of the LH period is well represented. In the Protogeometric period this area, too, was used as a burial ground. In the following, the LH III C and Protogeometric remains uncovered at Mitrou in 2004– 2006 will be discussed in some detail. However, in order to understand the significance of the LH III C occupation, we must first look briefly at the preceding phases, beginning with the formative period of Mycenaean palatial society. FORMATIVE PERIOD OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE PALATIAL SOCIETY AND BEGINNING OF PALATIAL PERIOD The earliest architectural remains uncovered at Mitrou thus far date to the Middle Helladic/ Late Helladic I transition (ca. 1600 B.C.E.). These show that throughout the formative period and into the beginning of the palatial period (LH III A2 Early pottery phase, early 14th century B.C.E.), Mitrou had a dense urban settlement with orthogonal buildings arranged along 3 m wide orthogonal streets with pebbled surfaces (Fig. 4). The most important structure of this period so far exposed is Building D in the northeast excavation area. Even though it was not very large (13.5 × 8.25 m), Building D can be considered to be monumental because its wall socles average 1 m in thickness – much thicker than those of any other building at the site – and they were constructed with roughly cut limestone blocks that are larger than any others used at the site. Because of the flattish tops of its stone wall socles and the presence of much disintegrated mudbrick inside and outside the building, it is clear that it carried a mudbrick superstructure. For reasons still unknown, Building D and its adjacent buildings were utterly destroyed by fire in LH III A2 Early. PALATIAL PERIOD After this destruction there was a near-total absence of building activity in the northeast excavation area for the remainder of the palatial period, in the LH III A2 Late and LH III B phases (early 14th century – ca. 1200 B.C.E.). Building D was not rebuilt but left as a visible ruin for some 170 years. The pebbled street west of Building D was choked and rendered unusable by numerous dispersed large wall blocks, which to all appearances came from Building D. Evidence for human activity in this period is limited to pottery dumps, some flimsy wall fragments, and a few informal surfaces in the northeast excavation area. Some of these surfaces are located close to Building D and well below the tops of its ruined walls, so that it is clear that the ruins of Building D were visible at that time. Pottery is still plentiful and of high quality, and it includes fine decorated Argive vases. Thus we know that Mitrou was not abandoned, but the use of the northeast excavation area changed in a way as yet not understood. The comparatively small surface exposure – only 1.2% of the site’s surface area had been excavated in 2004– 2006 – makes it difficult to assess the significance of the scarcity and flimsy quality of LH III A2 Late and LH III B architecture.

The LH III C – Protogeometric Transition at Mitrou, East Lokris

361

POST-PALATIAL PERIOD: LATE HELLADIC III C THROUGH LATE PROTOGEOMETRIC PERIODS In an equally dramatic turn of events, after the demise of the Mycenaean palaces (ca. 1200 B.C.E.), and possibly as early as LH III C Early, the excavated settlement area at Mitrou was rebuilt in its Prepalatial form. Building B was constructed on top of Building D, apparently as its successor (Fig. 3, 4). We have parts of Building B’s west wall (wall 3), two crosswalls (walls 4 and 5), and small parts of its northeast corner (walls 36 and 37). To judge from the excavated remains, Building B was rectangular and fairly similar in size to Building D. The very southwest corner of Building B is missing, so we do not know whether its west wall formed an angle with its south wall, stopping about 2 m short of the south wall of Building D, or whether Building B’s west wall continued to form a south porch over the southern extremity of Building D. The rubble wall socles of Building B are 0.70 m to 0.80 m wide. They are much less impressive than those of Building D, but more substantial than the wall socles of any other LH III C building at Mitrou. All of these buildings appear to have had mudbrick superstructures. The size of Building B’s walls and its location on top of Building D allow us to conclude that Building B was an important building in the LH III C settlement, in spite of its rather modest size and simple construction. Nothing specific is known about Building B’s function. In the interior space north of wall 5, we found two superimposed earthen floors (at ca. +5.30 and ca. +5.45), but no floor deposits. The latest pottery fragments from below the lower floor are dated to LH III C. The latest pottery fragments below the upper floor date to LH III C Middle to Late, providing a tentative terminus post quem for the construction of this floor and the demise of the building (cf. RUTTER 2007, 289). The remainder of Building B’s interior is largely unknown due to later disturbances. Wall 41 as well as thin curved wall 60 were built in LH III C or later; they may have been part of Building B, but they also may postdate it. The interior space of Building B south of wall 5 was much disturbed in the Protogeometric period by the construction of apsidal Building A. We have not yet found a single trace of Building B’s floor below the apse of Building A, but have not finished excavating there. A terminus ad or post quem of LH III C Early for the construction of Building B is provided by the LH III C Early date of the latest pottery fragments found below a cobbled surface bordering Building B on the west (RUTTER 2007, 289). The northern part of west wall 3 of Building B had been set against this surface as a terrace wall. Further to the south, the gaps between the large stones on top of the Prepalatial pebbled street were filled some time in the LH III C period, possibly also in the Early subphase, and a rough earthen surface with gravel and cobble patches was laid on top of the large stones, forming a broad straight road about 3 m wide, tapering to the south – a poorer successor to the carefully constructed pebbled Prepalatial street below. Also elsewhere in the settlement, LH III C walls often were built on top of earlier, Prepalatial, walls. The LH III C settlement experienced two or three architectural phases, and thus appears to have been relatively long-lived. It is unfortunate that none of the settlement remains can be dated to a specific subphase of the LH III C period, since they do not have securely datable floor deposits. With its rectilinear buildings, straight road, and dense urban character, the settlement at Mitrou is comparable to other LH III C settlements such as Kynos (Pyrgos Livanaton), Lefkandi, Tiryns, and Koukounaries on Paros (DAKORONIA – KOUNOUKLAS this volume. – POPHAM – EVELY – SACKETT 2006. – SHERRATT 2006. – CRIELAARD 2006, 280–281. – MARAN 2004. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 1991, 21. – SCHILARDI 1984). The resumption of the Prepalatial settlement pattern and its monumental building at Mitrou after a hiatus of about 170 years is remarkable. It is possible that the LH III C inhabitants and their leadership merely made opportunistic use of the visible ruins. However, their

362

Aleydis Van de Moortel

adherence to the locations of the road and the most prominent building of the settlement suggests something more. At least in the excavated area, a memory may have been maintained of property boundaries and settlement organization. Building B may well represent a conscious effort to revive Prepalatial monumental Building D, belonging to a period that had been so flourishing at Mitrou. This effort would be comparable to apparent revivals of the palatial period observed at other LH III C sites, such as Tiryns (Building T, etc.) and Pteleon (reuse of tholoi), and interpreted by modern scholars as attempts by rising post-palatial political elites to legitimize their status (DEGER-JALKOTZY 1995, 376. – CRIELAARD 2006, 281. – MARAN 2006). The widespread reuse of older walls at Mitrou contrasts sharply with findings at Kynos and Lefkandi. At Kynos, LH III C structures had a different orientation from their LH III B2 predecessors (DAKORONIA 2002, 42–43. – For more references, see VAN DE MOORTEL 2007, note 15). At Lefkandi, the LH III C settlement seldom reused the walls of the underlying LH III B occupation (SHERRATT 2006, 304–305. – POPHAM – EVELY – SACKETT 2006, 8). At both sites the break in architectural continuity is not well understood, but could reflect a change in society. In spite of the limited exposure of palatial-period remains at Mitrou, Kynos, and Lefkandi, it seems safe to conclude that all three Euboean-Gulf settlements were much more substantial and flourishing in the LH III C period than in the palatial period. These findings support Deger-Jalkotzy’s conclusion that regions outside the Mycenaean core area, such as East Lokris, Phokis, Attika, many Aegean islands, and Achaia, revived after the fall of the Mycenaean palaces, having been freed from their domination (DEGER-JALKOTZY 1991, 21. – DEGER-JALKOTZY 1995, 375). After Building B went out of use in LH III C Middle or Late, a small rectangular structure, which we call Building C, was constructed over its northwest corner. It measures 2.7 × 2.4 m on the exterior and 2.1 × 1.42 m on the interior. Its rubble walls are about 0.50 m wide and only one course high; they do not have exterior faces. Pottery fragments in the fill below its earth and pebble floor date its construction to LH III C Late. Even though we are not certain about its function, it is clear that Building C was not an ordinary domestic structure but had a special use. Its interior was found filled with multiple layers of a rather homogeneous loose dark brown soil alternating with harder lenses containing occasional fragments of mudbrick, pebbles, and limestone as well as patches of dark greasy sediments. This appears to represent a deliberate fill that occasionally was trampled down; it is quite different from the harder pale disintegrated mudbrick mixed with architectural fragments usually encountered in and around ruined buildings. Careful stratigraphic excavation in 2007 on the west side of Building C suggests that this structure had been covered by a mound of earth and cobble-sized stones (0.065 – 0.25 m), which had been disturbed by later plowing. The floor of Building C (ca. +5.52/5.55) was made of clay packed with pebbles and potsherds. Standing on top of this floor in the southwest corner of the structure was a wheelmade cooking pot (LN784-018-014) covered with the base fragment of a large painted krater as a lid. It held the thighbones of a young pig, three to five months old, placed on top of the neatly stacked thighbones of four foetal piglets (Fig. 5; VAN DE MOORTEL – ZAHOU 2006, 44, fig. 6; identification Thanos Webb). Scattered in the fill and lying on the floor were 22 handmade unburnished miniature vases as well as a large pithos fragment (LO784-048-054) that may have served as a tray (cf. RUTTER 2007, 295–296, figs. 6–9). Some miniature vases are open shapes imitating LH III C Middle shapes (LIS this volume). The following is a preliminary list (Fig. 6): • 1 two-handled kylix (LO784-048-057) • 3 pedestal-footed kalathoi with two horizontal handles (LN784-018-023, LO784-041-013, and LO784-048-044) • 1 deep cup with vertical handle (LO784-048-050)

The LH III C – Protogeometric Transition at Mitrou, East Lokris

363

• 3 shallow bowls with two horizontal handles (LN784-018-016, LN784-018-019, and LO784048-047) • 2 deep one-handled bowls (LO784-048-036, LO784-048-041) • 3 shallow bowls with broken handles (LO784-048-040, LO784-048-042, and LO784-050-015) • 3 deeper bowls with broken handles (LO784-048-043, LO784-048-048, and LO784-048-059) • 4 ring-based bowls with one handle (LO784-041-012, LO784-048-037, LO784-048-055, and LO784-048-056) • 1 small tray (LN784-018-026) • 1 round-bottomed dipper with high-swung handle (LO784-048-011) A small fragment of a miniature handmade deep cup or kylix with vertical loop handle (LO784-013-013) was found to the south of Building C, and two largely preserved deep bowls (LO785-005-014 and LO785-030-014) as well as a small fragment of another bowl (LN786-005013) were found to the north. Because of their similarity to the miniature vases from Building C and their proximity to this structure, they probably came from Building C, and were dragged here by later plowing. In this interpretation, Building C would have held 26 miniature vases. Only one non-pottery artifact was recovered from inside the structure: a bone awl (LO784-041014) found near the east entrance. Its function in this context is unknown. Consisting of drinking and serving vessels, some stacked together, the miniature vases of Building C are likely to have had a special use. Most were found distributed into two groups, each of which contained a pedestaled kalathos and several shallow and deeper bowls (Fig. 7). The northern group in addition contained a deep cup with vertical handle, and the group to the south a kylix as well as a small tray, the pithos fragment, and the wheelmade cooking pot with the piglet bones. This distribution may well be indicative of a group ritual in which the bowls were used by the majority of participants, and the kylix, deep cup, and kalathoi, because of their more prominent shapes and relative rarity, by people who were in some respect more important. Alternatively, these more prominent vessels may have been used for drinking and the bowls for serving food. Other interpretations are conceivable as well. Samples have been taken from all these vases for residue analysis, which we hope will throw more light on their use. Animal bones and shells were found scattered in the fill within Building C as well as in the tumulus fill to the west, but they have not yet been analyzed. The demise and filling in of Building C are dated to an early stage of LH III C Late by the shapes of some of the miniature vases as well as by the latest associated pottery fragments (LIS this volume). Below Building C we found a partial earthen surface (at ca. +5.45) of unknown use, disturbed by foundation trenches for the construction of the north and south walls of Building C. Below this earlier surface was a small pottery deposit sitting on a thin layer of earth (at ca. +5.25) at the foot of a stepped stone structure of unknown use (Fig. 8). This deposit consisted of a handmade handled bowl of regular size (LO784-408-011), a pair of similar bowls – one set as a lid on the other (LO784-408-012 and LO784-408-013), as well as a large fragment of a large cooking pot (LO784-408-014) of non-standard shape. It is remarkable that these vases are similar in style to the vases found on top of Building C’s floor, but they are consistently larger. The significance of this deposit and the size of its vases is not yet understood. Suggestive of a close relationship between the two deposits is the fact that the cooking pot fragment from this lower deposit joins with a fragment (LO784-048-052) found on top of the earthen floor of Building C (at +5.53). A small ceramic handle found in the earth below the level of these four vases (at +5.15/5.25, in LO784-410) likewise joins with one of the miniature bowls (LO784-041-012) found above Building C’s floor (+5.66/5.76), some 40 to 60 cm higher. It is obvious that the bowl and the cooking pot had broken before the earthen surface at ca. +5.45 and the floor of Building C at +5.52/5.55 had been laid. The joins as well as the similar style of the vases below the lower surface and on top of the floor of Building C indicate that the

364

Aleydis Van de Moortel

deposition of the fill and the vases at the foot of the stepped stone structure as well as the laying of the earthen surface and the construction and abandonment of Building C happened in a relatively short time. Several more miniature bowls of the floor deposit were found with broken-off handles. It is possible that the handles had been removed deliberately so that the bowls could be stacked together more easily. The use of Building C and of the stepped stone structure below it is still unknown, but it is possible that they had a funerary function in view of the changes that took place in the vicinity at this time or soon afterwards. To the west, north, and east of Building C, the LH III C settlement went out of use and became a burial ground. This change in spatial use began before the end of the LH III C period. Relatively few of the graves can be dated with precision, however, and thus we do not know yet whether this transformation happened rapidly or was a gradual process continuing in the Early, Middle, and Late Protogeometric phases. At the end of the 2006 excavation season we had excavated 20 cist graves of the LH III C through Late Protogeometric phases, mostly belonging to children; only three graves contained adults (Fig. 3). Grave goods were seldom present and were limited primarily to a few clay vessels and sometimes one or two metal pins, a bronze coil, a bone tool, a polished pebble, and some shells. The earliest cist grave was found in the west scarp of trench LL786, ca. 15 m northwest of Building C, and belonged to an infant (grave 5). It was only partially excavated and is dated by a cup found inside it to LH III C Late (Fig. 9; LIS this volume). No Attic Submycenaean pottery has been found in any of the graves, but a fragment of a painted stirrup jar painted in this style was found in the plow zone over Building A and presumably comes from a grave (RUTTER 2007, 295, fig. 10). Four cist graves can be dated by their pottery to the Middle Protogeometric phase (graves 1, 3, 4, 13), and two to the Late Protogeometric phase (graves 12, 18). Cist grave 11 was found without pottery, but is datable to the Middle Protogeometric phase by the latest pottery fragments found among the wedging stones outside it. Cist grave 26 contained 6 intact vases, but they have not yet been dated. The remaining 11 cist graves cannot be dated more closely than LH III C/Protogeometric. Three of these (graves 2, 6, 17) as well as Middle Protogeometric cist grave 11 intrude upon LH III C walls and must postdate those structures. Unlike the settlement, the area of Building B was not intruded upon by graves. Instead, apsidal Building A was constructed inside the southern room of Building B. Whereas initially we believed that Building A continued to the southwest of our excavation area (VAN DE MOORTEL – ZAHOU 2006, 44–45), we now know that only its apsidal part is preserved, and that the remains to its southwest belong to a later structure, Late Protogeometric Building E. Building A is 6.9 m wide, and its apsidal wall is 0.60 m thick. The apse was closed off with two transverse rows of wooden supports resting on large rectangular stone bases, 0.30 m to 0.60 m long. Two of the bases show pecking marks in a rectangular pattern, indicating that these wooden supports were ca. 0.15 × 0.175 m in section. The construction of Building A is tentatively dated by B. Lis to the Early Protogeometric phase because Early Protogeometric pottery, including mendable vases, were found together with Middle Protogeometric pottery in disturbed sediments below the apse – the reasoning being that this Early Protogeometric pottery must derive from the construction and first phase of Building A. There is evidence for two major architectural phases. In the first phase only one support base (sb 1) was in use, located centrally in the apse over an earlier, rounded stone base of uncertain date. During the second architectural phase, which took place in the Middle Protogeometric phase, the remainder of the rectangular bases were put in place. Building A went out of use either still in the Middle Protogeometric phase or early in the Late Protogeometric phase, leaving a substantial floor deposit on its earthen floor (Rückl: pers. com.). It is possible that there are more apsidal structures located south of Building A. Our 2003 electrical resistivity survey found curved walls here that presumably belong to apsidal buildings (TSOKAS ET AL. forthcoming). Since these remains are located outside our present excavation area, we do not yet know their date for certain. However, from their thick black lines it appears

The LH III C – Protogeometric Transition at Mitrou, East Lokris

365

that they are located close to the surface, and thus they may be Protogeometric in date. Pottery units recovered by our intensive, close-grained surface survey in the southern part of this area consistently include Protogeometric fragments, supporting the hypothetical late date of these structures. Thus we can say that Mitrou underwent a change from dense urban occupation with orthogonal structures in the final stage of the Late Bronze Age to a settlement with at least one apsidal building, and possibly several more, scattered apsidal structures in the Early Iron Age. Comparable transformations have been observed at Lefkandi, Nichoria, Asine, and elsewhere (MAZARAKIS-AINIAN 1997, 396. – LEMOS 2002, 149–150. – CRIELAARD 2006, 285. – POPHAM – SACKETT 1979/80, 23–25. – COULSON 1983. – MCDONALD – COULSON 1983, 322–328). It remains to be seen whether this change at the transition from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age represents the influx of a new population or can be explained by local dynamics. In future analyses we will pay close attention to changes in behavioral patterns related to all aspects of life and death at Mitrou in hopes of answering this question.

Bibliography COULSON, W. D. E. 1983 “The Architecture”, 9–60 in: MCDONALD – COULSON – ROSSER 1983. CRIELAARD, J. P. 2006 “Basileis at Sea”, 271–297 in: DEGER-JALKOTZY – LEMOS 2006. DAKORONIA, F. 2002 “Ανατολική Λοκρίδα: Η ιστορία της μέσα από τα μνημεία και τις αρψηαιολογικές έρεωνες”, 17–112 in: DAKORONIA ET AL. 2002. DAKORONIA, F. – D. KOTOULAS – E. BALTA – V. SYTHIAKAKI – G. TOLIAS 2002 Λοκρίδα. Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός. Athens. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 1991 “Zum Verlauf der Periode SH IIIC in Achaia”, 19–29 in: RIZAKIS 1991. 1995 “Mykenische Herrschaftsformen ohne Paläste und die griechische Polis”, 367–377 in: LAFFINEUR – NIEMEIER 1995. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. – I. S. LEMOS (eds.) 2006 Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3). Edinburgh. EVELY, D. (ed.) 2006 Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (BSA Suppl. 39). London. KRAMER-HAJÓS, M. – K. O’NEILL 2008 “The Bronze Age Site of Mitrou in East Lokris: Finds from the 1988–1989 Surface Survey”, Hesperia 77, 2008, 163–250. LAFFINEUR, R. – W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds.) 1995 Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12). Liège – Austin. LEMOS, I. S. 2002 The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. MACGILLIVRAY, J. A. – R. L. N. BARBER (eds.) 1984 The Prehistoric Cyclades: Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology (University of Edinburgh, Department of Classical Archaeology). Edinburgh.

366

Aleydis Van de Moortel

MARAN, J. 2004 “Architektonische Innovation im spätmykenischen Tiryns – Lokale Bauprogramme und fremde Kultureinflüsse”, 261–288 in: VEREIN ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER AUFARBEITUNG DER HELLENISCHEN GESCHICHTE E.V. 2006 “Coming to Terms with the Past: Ideology and Power in Late Helladic IIIC”, 123–150 in: DEGER-JALKOTZY – LEMOS 2006. MAZARAKIS-AINIAN, A. 1997 From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples. Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 B.C.) (SIMA 121). Jonsered. MCDONALD, W. A. – W. D. E. COULSON 1983 “The Dark Age at Nichoria: A Perspective”, 316–329 in: MCDONALD – COULSON – ROSSER 1983. MCDONALD, W. A. – W. D. E. COULSON – J. ROSSER (eds.) 1983 Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece III. Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation. Minneapolis. MORRIS, S. – R. LAFFINEUR (eds.) 2007 Epos. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th Inter-

national Aegean Conference, Organized by the University of Liège and UCLA, Los Angeles, April 21–23, 2006 (Aegaeum 28). Liège. POPHAM, M. – D. EVELY – H. SACKETT 2006 “The Main Excavation: Stratigraphy and Finds”, 8–87 in: EVELY 2006. POPHAM, M. R. – H. SACKETT 1979/80 “The Geometric and Protogeometric Settlement”, 11–25 in: POPHAM – SACKETT – THEMELIS 1979/80. POPHAM, M. R. – H. SACKETT – P. G. THEMELIS (eds.) 1979/80 Lefkandi I. The Iron Age. The Settlement. The Cemeteries (BSA Suppl. 11). London. RIZAKIS, A. D. (ed.) 1991 Αρχαία Αχαϊα και Ηλεία / Achaia und Elis in der Antike. Akten des 1. Internationalen Symposiums Athen, 19.–21. Mai 1989 (Meletemata 13). Athens. RUTTER, J. B. 2007 “How Different is LH III C Middle at Mitrou? An Initial Comparison with Kalapodi, Kynos, and Lefkandi”, 287–300 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II. SCHILARDI, D. 1984 “The LH IIIC Period at the Koukounaries Acropolis, Paros”, 184–206 in: MACGILLIVRAY – BARBER 1984. SHERRATT, S. 2006 “LH IIIC Lefkandi: an Overview”, 303–309 in: EVELY 2006. TSOKAS, G. N. – P. TSOURLOS – A. STAMPOLIDIS – G. VARGEMEZIS – A. VAN DE MOORTEL – E. ZACHOU Forthc. “Geophysical Investigations on the Islet of Mitrou (Tragana, Central Greece)”, Hesperia. VAN DE MOORTEL, A. 2007 “The Site of Mitrou and East Lokris in ‘Homeric Times’”, 243–254 in: MORRIS – LAFFINEUR 2007. VAN DE MOORTEL, A. – E. ZAHOU 2006 “2004 Excavations at Mitrou, East Lokris”, Aegean Archaeology 7, 2003–2004 [2006], 39–48. VEREIN ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER AUFARBEITUNG DER HELLENISCHEN GESCHICHTE E.V. (ed.) 2004 Althellenische Technologie und Technik von der prähistorischen bis zur hellenistischen Zeit mit Schwerpunkt auf der prähistorischen Epoche, Tagung 21.–23.03.2003 in Ohlstadt/Obb. Weilheim.

The LH III C – Protogeometric Transition at Mitrou, East Lokris

367

368

Aleydis Van de Moortel

The LH III C – Protogeometric Transition at Mitrou, East Lokris

369

370

Aleydis Van de Moortel

The LH III C – Protogeometric Transition at Mitrou, East Lokris

371

372

Aleydis Van de Moortel

BERNHARD WENINGER, REINHARD JUNG

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE END OF THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

INTRODUCTION In recent years the debate about the overall absolute chronology of the later phases of the Aegean Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages has been fuelled by radiocarbon and dendro-dates from two tell sites in central Macedonia, Kastanás and Ássiros. These dates have been taken to prove, or disprove, the traditional archaeological-historical chronology established since many decades (e.g. DESBOROUGH 1952, 294–295; cf. below). In the present paper we re-assess in detail the vertical stratigraphic sequences of both sites, and make proposals for the solution of the chronological problems posed by the radiocarbon and dendro-dates. We arrive at a new absolute phasing of the Late Helladic III C – Protogeometric periods.1 One of the long-standing problems in Aegean Bronze Age chronology is the existence of age differences (in the following: ‘discrepancies’) between the stratified calibrated radiocarbon dates from the site of Kastanás (WILLKOMM 1989), and the historical-archaeological dating at this site (JUNG 2002, 218–229. – IDEM 2003). The entire set of Early Iron Age 14C-ages (from Level 9 onwards) appears systematically too old by several hundreds of years, independent of the dated material (tree charcoal, animal bones; see JUNG – WENINGER 2004, 217; 224–225). Even today, we have no explanation for these 14C-ages. However, in previous studies (JUNG – WENINGER 2002. – IDEM – IDEM 2004), we have been able to explain at least some of the aberrant dates from Levels 16–10 in terms of an ‘old-wood’ effect, that is due to the dating of longlived samples (wood, charcoal). We now take a closer look at the stratigraphic setting, functional use, and architectural positioning of these wood charcoals. It turns out that the dating bias caused by the ‘old-wood’ effect has some entirely systematic (and indeed ‘cyclic’) properties, which are best understood in terms of the site-specific burning events and subsequent rebuilding. However, in order to finally resolve the remaining 14C-discrepancies for Levels 16–10, even this explanation is not sufficient. We conclude that, as part of the problem, in deriving absolute ages from the Kastanás 14C-database we cannot simply use the recommended treering calibration curve INTCAL04 (REIMER ET AL. 2004). Due to statistical over-smoothing, for certain time-windows in the Late Bronze Age, notably for single 14C-ages but also under certain conditions for seriated 14C-data, this calibration can produce major systematic offsets (> 100 yrs). The circumstances under which this occurs will be studied in detail, below. To avoid these offsets, we use the tree-ring calibration raw data as published by the laboratories Belfast and Seattle. Kastanás is not the only site where major divergences between tree-ring calibrated 14C-ages and historical ages are observed. Similar age differences, in the range of 50–150 yrs, are known from other sites in the Eastern Mediterranean (e.g. MANNING 1999. – VAN DER PLICHT – BRUINS 2001). Over the last decades major efforts to resolve these differences have been undertaken (e.g. BRUINS 1989. – BIETAK 2003. – BIETAK – HÖFLMAYER 2007), but remaining

1

We thank Stefanos Gimatzidis for illuminating discussions on Macedonian Early Iron Age pottery.

374

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

dating discrepancies are sometimes generalized and taken as demonstration for the existence of two major disparate chronological systems, which itself causes further problems. Once such systems have been created, whether rightly or not, the discussion is further complicated, since mixing between such systems may lead to erroneous correlations (BRUINS ET AL. 2008). The approach taken in the following paper is to step aside from generalizations, and return to the underlying archaeological and 14C-radiometric data. We begin with a site-to-site approach, in which the dates from Kastanás and Ássiros are re-evaluated, followed by a regionto-region study, which includes a comparison of Greek, Italian and Swiss stratified finds (cf. JUNG 2006). Previous discussions of the Aegean Late Bronze Age 14C-data have already focussed on such necessarily wide interregional synchronisms, but these studies are ultimately all referenced to the Egyptian pharaonic chronology (e.g. MANNING 1999). The Italian-Aegean studies, as presented here, give the discussion a new geographic perspective. The Italian sites can themselves be synchronized, across the Alps, with the Urnfield phases in Switzerland, for which important dendro-dates are available. The present paper is one component of a geographically wider research program, aimed at establishing a precise absolute chronology for the Aegean Bronze Age. However, to begin we must address the long-standing dating discrepancies as observed at the sites of Kastanás and Ássiros, which therefore occupy most of our present attention. Recently for the first time a dendro-date was introduced into the debate, by Kenneth Wardle, Maryanne Newton and Peter Kuniholm (NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007), and used to challenge the traditional absolute chronology of the end of the Aegean Late Bronze and beginning of the Early Iron Age. The newly dated wood samples are from the stratigraphy of Ássiros Toúmba, in the Langadhás Basin north of Salonica. The proposal of the scholars working with the Ássiros material is to date the beginning of the PG period to 1120 BCE,2 rather than to the years around 1050,3 1025,4 or even 1020/1000,5 as in different conventional chronologies. This proposal is based on a network of dendrochronological synchronisms, as well as on the direct dendrochronological 14C wigglematching for construction timbers from the mud-brick houses at the tell settlement of Ássiros. The new dendro-dates from Ássiros, which we consider correct (see below), have been combined with the Aegean relative chronology based on wheel-made painted pottery, but in a manner we do not consider correct (see below). Of course, when selected for dating purposes, whether by dendrochronology or by radiocarbon dating, such long-lived (multi-annual) timber samples require careful scrutiny in terms of potential ‘old wood’ effects e.g. dating of inner growth-rings or secondary domestic or architectural use. Such caution is necessary, due to the high economic value of all forestry products, and most notably for the large wooden beams required for building purposes, especially when these have been adapted to major supporting functions (e.g. roof supports, doors, wall constructions). In the present paper, having first checked and confirmed the 14C-based dendrodating at Ássiros, we demonstrate that the dating is indeed likely to be affected by a secondary ‘old wood’ effect. In this specific case, we propose, the timbers were recycled, following deconstruction of the Phase 4 buildings, reuse in Phase 3, and subsequent recycling in Phase 2 due to their incomplete combustion during the destruction of Phase 3. This multiple recycling is entirely plausible, as will be argued, since the construction beams will have had sufficient mechanical stability, even after partial charring, for reuse in the next settlement phase. That such interpretational problems for the dating of charred wood samples were likely to occur at

2 3 4 5

NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 185. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 495; 497 fig. 7. DESBOROUGH 1964, 241. – IDEM 1972, 79; 134–135. DESBOROUGH 1952, 294–295. MOUNTJOY 1988, 27. – HANKEY 1988. – LEMOS 2002, 26.

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

375

Kastanás, was already anticipated by the excavator, Bernhard Hänsel (HÄNSEL 1989), immediately after publication of the radiocarbon measurements by WILLKOMM (1989). According to HÄNSEL (1989, 8) such repeated reuse (“wiederholte Sekundärverwendung”) of old timbers would have been a natural option for the inhabitants of Kastanás, due to the expected lack of good forests in this region. HÄNSEL (1989, 8) further mentions his hope that future 14C-ages may be measured on short-lived grain samples. Unfortunately, such samples never became available in sufficient amounts for conventional ß-decay dating, nor did larger charred wood samples ever turn up, with sufficient ring growth for dendro-supported wiggle matching as at Ássiros. Similar problems apply to the large majority of archaeological sites, anywhere in the world. At Kastanás, such critical properties of 14C-ages undertaken on wood and charcoal samples have long been recognised as a cause for major discrepancies. At Kastanás, however, there appear to exist other problems of the 14C-ages, that are not simply connected with sample taphonomy. These remaining discrepancies turn up just as much for 14C-measurements on animal bones with clear terrestrial nutrition, as well as for animals with hypothetical mixed terrestrial and marine nutrition (possibly recognisable due to marine-near δ13C-values).6 As will be shown, there are strong indications that the remaining 14C-discrepancies are caused by technical effects (over-smoothing) related to the construction of the tree-ring calibration curve, during the second millenium calBC. If confirmed, this proposal may have consequences beyond the present study. We underline our results, therefore, by demonstrating that similar effects apply to calibrated 14C-ages for other periods. This is shown in a complementary case study towards the chronology of the Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK), that is for ages c. 5500–4900 calBC (cf. below). In both case studies (Kastanás and LBK) some relatively large proportion of the archaeological 14C-ages were measured at the Köln laboratory (Lab code: KN). For systematic reasons, therefore, we begin our studies by analyzing the precision and accuracy of the KN-measurements. It must be emphasised, however, that our argumentation is independent of any specific archaeological data. KÖLN RADIOCARBON LABORATORY. INTERCOMPARISON RESULTS The radiocarbon laboratory at the Köln University (Lab.Code: KN) is actively involved in the inter-calibration and quality control studies of the International Radiocarbon Community (e.g. SCOTT, 2003. – SCOTT 2007). These interlaboratory studies are aimed at supplying individual laboratories with external expertise concerning precision and accuracy of 14C-measurements, as obtained by a large number of participating laboratories. Tabs. 1 and 2 show the 14C-ages achieved by the Köln laboratory for a set of nine intercomparison samples (wood, cellulose, turbidite, barley) in comparison to the results obtained by statistical analysis of a large number (N~92) of independently participating radiocarbon laboratories using different measuring techniques (14C-AMS, liquid scintillation, ß-decay counting). With given highly satisfactory agreement, it suffices to state that the archaeological 14C-radiometric discrepancies under study in the present paper are unlikely to have been caused by imprecise KN-measurements. GAUSSIAN MONTE CARLO WIGGLE MATCHING Our studies require a second brief introductory section, in order to describe the methodology of Gaussian Monte Carlo Wiggle Matching (GMCWM). The basic methodology underlying GMCWM is outlined by WENINGER 1997. Since then the method has been refined, to allow for

6

But see JUNG – WENINGER 2004, 224 for the difficulties in identifying the effects of feeding from a mixed carbon reservoir.

376

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

a wider field of applications. The GMCWM approach is an extension of the Wiggle Matching method developed long ago (PEARSON 1986. – WENINGER 1986), and now widely used in the analysis of sequenced 14C-data (e.g. tree-ring sequences, archaeological data sets). A comparison of Wiggle Matching methods is given by BRONK RAMSEY ET AL. 2001. The idea underlying the GMCWM extension is that it may be useful to estimate, under as realistic as possible conditions, the overall dating error for any given archaeological age-model based on seriated 14Cages. In its present technical realisation, the method is limited to the analysis of linear agemodels. However, assuming this limitation can be accepted (as is the case for tree-ring sequences), the method may be used to some advantage, due to its flexibility in error definitions, to derive numerically highly precise wiggle matching error estimates. Basically, just as in the classical linear wiggle matching approaches, in GMCWM the user is first obliged to formulate a distinct (quantitative) age-model for the 14C-data under study. This kind of age model has the appearance, simply, of a list of 14C-dated samples arranged according to the independently established stratigraphic order. Starting by convention with the youngest 14C-dated sample as reference (distance = 0), for each 14C-age/sample a numeric estimate of the calendric age distance to the next older sample is defined. An example of such a sequence, that is ready to be entered into the GMCWM algorithm, is given in Tabs. 4a, 4b. In a computationally intensive process, the GMCWM-procedure then repeatedly fits the calendrically seriated 14C-age/sample pairs to the calibration curve. The number of runs is chosen (Nmax=10.000) according to the numeric precision required for the overall dating error. During each run the best-fit year, on the calendric-scale, is calculated. This year is stored, along with its probability, and the run is repeated. Prior to each new run, the input data is varied, according to three independently running random number generators. These generators are used to define Gaussian distributions corresponding to (i) simulated repeat measurements of the entered archaeological 14C-ages, (ii) simulated repeat measurements of the entire calibration curve, and (iii) simulated repeat measurements of the listed calendric-scale distances. As a result of the applied generic procedure, finally, a distribution of best-fit yrs on the calendric timescale is obtained. Experiments show that similar results are achieved, when equal weights are applied to each best fit-yr, or when the calculated (variable) dating probability is applied as statistical weight to each run. To conclude, by simulating (Gaussian) dating errors for the archaeological age-model on both time-scales (14C and calendric), as well as by simulated repeat construction of a new calibration curve for each run, the method of Gaussian Monte Carlo Wiggle Matching can be used to derive a precise estimate of the overall dating error for the age model under study. The GMCWM method is integrated in the CalPal software package (www.calpal.de). The method is programmed to supply a numeric precision of 1 year on both timescales (14C and calendric). KASTANÁS RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY The database (Tabs. 4a, 4b)7 contains a total of N=60 14C-ages (overall Kastanás Levels 16 to 6), of which 45 ages were measured on charcoal and 15 ages were measured on animal bone. As discussed in JUNG 2002, using synchronisms of critically selected pottery finds from Kastanás with stratified parallels from sites in southern and central Greece (such as Mycenae, Tiryns, Lefkandí and Peratí), which are in turn linked to the historical chronology of Egypt (by contexts in the Levant and Egypt), for many of the architectural phases at Kastanás it was possible to derive a unique archaeological-historical age with expected dating precision in the range of a few decades. Based on further stratigraphic and taphonomic analysis of individual 14 C-samples, including linear age interpolations on the architectural intraphase (~10–30 yrs)

7

New dates are described in Tab. 3.

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

377

level, this chronological system was then used to derive an archaeological-historical age for each 14C-dated sample. We have arranged these archaeological ages in Tabs. 4a, 4b, along with the corresponding (conventional) 14C-ages, measured stable carbon fractionation (δ13C, permille PDB), reference to the dated material (e.g. charcoal, bone), as well as designation of the architectural phase from which the dated material derives. The expected calendric ages are nominated as “hist. BC” (column 7). In this table, we purposely refrain from giving tree-ring calibrated ages for individual 14C-ages.8 It is further emphasised that, for the purposes of the present paper, we only pay attention to the 14C-ages from Levels 16–10. The reason is that the stratigraphically younger samples (both charcoal and bone) from Kastanás Levels 9–6 (~ 900– 700 hist.BC) have 14C-ages that still today allude all explanations. For completeness these 14Cages are included in Tab. 4a (nos. 1–13), but are excluded from the present analysis. The set of samples (Tabs. 4a, 4b, nos. 14–60) under study in the present paper, have an oldest expected age of 1365 hist.BC (Tab. 4b, no. 60) and a youngest expected age of 910 hist.BC (Tab. 4a, no. 14). KASTANÁS RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY ALTERNATIVE AGE MODELS AND DISCREPANCIES As already stated in the introduction, at Kastanás there is the long-recognised problem that the available large set of 14C-ages (Tabs. 4a, 4b) shows systematic deviations from ages derived by historical reasoning. These deviations amount to an average of ~140 yrs on the calendric agescale (cf. JUNG – WENINGER 2004, 216), with the 14C-ages ranging systematically older than the historical ages. These clearly non-trivial deviations are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. Both graphs show exactly the same stratigraphically sequenced set of 14C-data (we call data package), and both graphs use exactly the same quantitative estimates for the (calendric) time duration of Kastanás phases. Depending on the construction method, there are major differences in these graphs. Fig. 1 shows the statistical age-model, achieved by fitting the data package to the calibration curve by statistical procedures. Fig. 2 shows the historical age-model, achieved by setting the same data package to the calendric time-scale according to historical expectations. To begin, we acknowledge there are seemingly good reasons to give preference to the statistical age model (Fig. 1). In this model, the 14C-data bars show a comparatively small spread around the calibration curve. The spread is furthermore symmetric i.e. the data above the calibration curve are clearly balanced by the data below the curve. This is, of course, a direct consequence of the applied statistical method, which has been engineered to do exactly that: precisely and accurately balance the data around the calibration curve, according to the statistical weights of given measurements. This balancing is organised to be effective, by statistical criteria, over the entire length of the calendric window covered by the archaeological sequence. We will return to this important point, below. In contrast, the same sequence of 14C-ages, when set according to the historical age model, shows a clearly visible systematic offset of some 100–150 14C-yrs against the tree-ring calibration curve. There is some variability in the spread of data, depending on Kastanás phase, but the data invariably show older 14C-ages than expected for contemporaneous dendro-dated treerings. This offset shows up for the majority of 14C-ages from all architectural Levels (16–10).

8

Due to strong atmospheric 14C-variations and associated non-linear shape of the age-calibration curve, such calculations performed for isolated single 14C-ages produce little more than misleading lists of alternative calendric age intervals. It is also to be questioned whether the supposedly variable dating probability, assigned to such intervals by standard 14C-calibration software packages (e.g. OxCal, Calib, Cal25), is really significant. If calibrated ages for single 14C-dates are really deemed necessary, our proposal is to calculate the 95 %-confidence limits for the calendric scale probability distribution, and use the half-length of this interval (“FWHM=Full Width Half Maximum”) to measure the cal-scale 68 %-confidence interval. Such methods are widely applied in nuclear physics for peak-shape analysis e.g. in high-resolution γ-spectroscopy (cf. WENINGER 1993).

378

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

Due to the clearly systematic appearance of this offset, there are seemingly good reasons (as proposed e.g. by TRACHSEL 2004, 166–168 and NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 186) to enrole the existence of a major error in the historical dating at Kastanás. Before perpetuating such wrong conclusions (TRACHSEL 2004, 166–168), however, let us take a closer look at the data. In our opinion, in spreading systematically above the calibration curve in this manner, the majority of 14C-ages from Kastanás are doing exactly what we would expect for ‘old wood’ samples. That is not the problem. However, what we do consider curious is the clearly visible jump of the data from Level 13 (with three values below the calibration curve) up to Level 12 (with a cluster of 14C-values all above the calibration curve, around 1120 calBC). We adress this conspicuous jump of the data below. Before continuing, we conclude, the statistical age model (Fig. 1) has some clear merits due to the apparent symmetry of the dating solution. We nevertheless prefer the historical age model (Fig. 2), mainly because the systematic setting of the data above the calibration curve (towards older readings) corresponds to what we would expect for a major selection of ‘old wood’ samples. The remaining problem, for the historical age model, is the rather extreme ‘old wood’ age of many of the dated samples. A neutral comparison of both age-models shows that the statistical solution places the architectural phases 16–10 at an average ~140 yrs older than expected on archaeological grounds. These dating solutions, and the age differences obtained, are relatively stable against variations in the average phase length. THE STRATIGRAPHY OF KASTANÁS It is necessary to elaborate further on the stratigraphic sequence of the tell site at Kastanás. Above, we have focussed on analysing the large number of 14C-dates on charcoal and animal bones now available as a background to dating the uninterrupted vertical sequence of Levels 16 to 10. Those settlement Levels are all well dated by wheel-made pottery to the time span from LH III A Late to LPG. In their discussion of the published dates from Kastanás, first Martin Trachsel (TRACHSEL 2004, 166–168) and later Wardle, Newton and Kuniholm (NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 185–187) did not adequately take into consideration the stratigraphic evidence underlying these dates, although this was described in much detail, in two earlier papers (JUNG – WENINGER 2002. – IDEM – IDEM 2004).9 In the present paper we take a fresh view of the stratigraphy and its chronology, which we can now base on a new set of radiocarbon dates, measured to the highest possible analytical precision as achievable at the Köln radiocarbon laboratory. Although this admittedly necessitated lumping of different animal bones, for four of the total six new dates, in order to obtain the large amount of carbon required for the applied method of conventional 14C-beta-decay measurements, we are confident that the stratigraphic location of these samples is correct, as given in Tab. 3. We have already made reference above to the archaeological age-model developed for Kastanás (Tabs. 4a, 4b). This is a combination of stratigraphic positioning of each sample inside its architectural Level, the stratigraphical evidence for the relative duration of each building Level, and the historical-archaeological dating of these Levels. Subsequent to its construction, this age-model was independently tested by comparison of the 14C-sequence with the highprecision radiocarbon calibration curve INTCAL04 (Fig. 4). Altogether, we found the best agreement between the archaeological and radiocarbon age-models for an average shift of the dates obtained on charcoal in the sample sequence of 15 yrs older than the initial archaeolo9

Apart from that, there are other problems with Trachsel’s proposal. He does not take into consideration regional stylistic variations of Aegean-type pottery and their dating range, he does not discuss the stratigraphical contexts of the pottery, which are dated by historical sources, and does not use the correct phase terminology for the LBA Aegean (cf. TRACHSEL 2004, 196 fig. 109).

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

379

gical proposal. Such a shift can easily be explained as the minimum amount of carbon (at Köln: c. 3 grams) necessary to process a conventional radiocarbon date at high precision. This amount will automatically, indeed unavoidably, comprise material from quite a large number of tree rings (> 10–20). In consequence, the carbon sampling itself introduces a shift of the date backwards in time, away from the cutting event. The bone dates do not appear age-shifted in this manner, at least not on the scale (~15 yrs) of the wood charcoal dates, since most of the animals were regularly slaughtered well before reaching 10 years of age.10 We observe, further, that actually only very few dates from Levels 16, 15, 14b and 14a fit well with the archaeological-historical age expectations. This is because most of the charcoal samples from these Levels have a significant ‘old wood’ effect, in strong contrast to the shortlived bone dates from the middle and later part of Level 16, which can be attributed to the wiggle at 1330/1325 calBC. The overall picture, here, is that the charcoal and bone samples from the same architectural levels show large differences in age. Interestingly, this picture changes in the later Levels. A striking example is provided by the dates for Level 13, nearly all of which immediately agree quasi-perfectly with the historicalarchaeological chronology. In fact, this applies also to the two bone dates (KN-5238 and KN5239). But they should also have been set around 1170 hist.BC, because stratigraphically they belong to the beginning or at least the first half of the use period of Level 13. For stratigraphical reasons they are, in fact, only shortly younger than the charcoal samples, which date from the construction period of the houses. Note here, we have spread the 5 dates of Level 13 slightly, to increase their graphic visibility. In fact, four (KI-1788, KN5239, KN-5238, KI-1789) out of five dates from Level 13 can be ascribed to the region of the downward wiggle around 1180 calBC (Fig. 6), the existence of which is confirmed by analysing the raw data from which the INTCAL04 calibration has been constructed (Fig. 3; zoom in Fig. 5). A similar exact agreement with the historical age expectations is found in six dates on charcoal from Level 12, which come from very different parts of the settlement and can mainly be ascribed to construction timbers (cf. already JUNG – WENINGER 2002, 290. – IDEM – IDEM 2004, 217).11 They centre around the upward wiggle around 1130 calBC (Figs. 4 and 6). In Level 11 two dates on charcoal may show the expected ‘old wood’ effect, while a third one from the outer tree rings of a wall post in the Central House (KN-5024: 2839 ± 34 BP) is in very good agreement with the archaeological age-model (see also JUNG – WENINGER 2002, 289–290). The two bone dates (KN-5234 and KN-5235) give 14C-ages older than expected by the archaeological age-model. Since both samples show enriched δ13C values, hinting at some dietal effects, this appears to have influenced the 14C ages obtained on the collagen (JUNG – WENINGER 2004, 223–224).12 Similar enriched values are found in most of the bones of the younger Iron Age Levels 9–6, which show marked deviations from the archaeological age expectations13 (Tabs. 4a, 4b).

10

11 12

13

For the species represented in the 14C-bone samples see Tab. 3 and in addition JUNG – WENINGER 2004, 222 tab. 3. These are red deer, fallow deer, cattle, pig. – See BECKER 1986, 31 tab. 5; 32; 64–65 tab. 23; 119 tab. 48; 129 tab. 55. The dates KN-2584 and KI-1982 are not discussed here because of their high standard deviations. The pronounced divergence of the bone date KN-5235 from the archaeological-historical age expectation may theoretically be due to stratigraphical disturbance. The sample comes from an area in the Central House of Level 11, which is partially disturbed by a pit from Level 10 (cf. HÄNSEL 1989, plan 16, squares Z–AB 55–57). Apart from that, the stratigraphic separation of that building from its predecessor in Level 12 was difficult due to the partial disturbance of that area and to the end of the excavation, which prevented further investigations of the Level 12 building (cf. HÄNSEL 1989, 199–203). The other bone sample of Level 11 (KN-5234) also comes from the area of the former Central House, but not from any disturbed context. The dates of these Levels will be discussed in relation to the archaeological-historical age expectations, once the relative chronology of the later Iron Age Levels has been finally established by Stefanos Gimatzidis, who is studying the wheel-made pottery of Levels 9–1.

380

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

For Level 10 all three animal bones and one charcoal date with low standard deviation (KN-5063) confirm the archaeological chronology. A good and we think at any rate immediately plausible explanation for the altogether quite complicated pattern of agreements and non-agreements between the 14C data, and the historical-archaeological chronology, becomes apparent, when we look at the different house construction techniques in use from Levels 16 to 10. From Level 18 onwards houses on the toúmba of Kastanás were built basically with mud-bricks, in combination with some wooden posts set close to or directly into the walls (HÄNSEL 1989, 70–146 plans 8–13.) This changed with Level 13, a phase in which wooden houses prevailed and mud-brick walls were an exception (HÄNSEL 1989, 147–171 plan 14). People now had to cut fresh trees in large quantities. The availability of reusable wooden posts would have been minimal because of the small number of houses in use during the preceding Level (HÄNSEL 1989, 135–146 plan 13). Thus, we can expect that the charcoal dates for Level 13 are directly related to the construction of the houses. When Level 13 was destroyed by fire, nearly no construction elements of the light wooden buildings would have survived the catastrophe. Therefore, again, newly cut trees would have been necessary to erect the mud-brick houses of Level 12 (for these buildings see HÄNSEL 1989, 171–190 plan 15). This explains the very short time interval (between 2950 and 3000 BP) covered by the dates on charcoal from Level 12. The destruction of Level 12 was not a total one. The excavator Bernhard Hänsel stressed that in the following Level 11 one can observe the existence of partially preserved buildings, that were reconstructed and reused. A new overall town planning could not be observed (IBIDEM, 190–208; esp. 193 fig. 77 plan 16). The two ‘old wood’ dates of Level 11 can be explained in this way. Level 10 was again predominantly characterized by light wooden dwellings (IBIDEM, 208–222 plan 10). One of its charcoal dates (KI-1785) clearly shows an ‘old wood’ effect, probably resulting from a reused construction timber. Another date on charcoal (KN-5063) is a young-wood date that clusters along with the bone dates in the second half of the 10th century calBC. It may belong to repair work at the end of the phase. This re-assessment of the Kastanás sequence now offers a clear explanation for the seemingly confusing mixture of ‘old wood’ effects and partial agreements of radiocarbon and historical-archaeological chronology. Interpreted in this way, the sequence of radiocarbon dates from Kastanás now supports some new and we think highly significant conclusions concerning the absolute chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age. The dates from Levels 13 and 12 are especially important in this context, first, because they fit neatly on the downward wiggle around 1180 and the upward wiggle around 1130 calBC and second because the relative phase duration of Level 13 restricts any major shifting of the dates for Level 12.14 In terms of relative chronology, the houses of Level 13 were built at the beginning of LH III C Developed or in a developed stage of LH III C Early, while those of Level 12 were erected during LH III C Advanced. This suggests a start of LH III C Early one or two decades before 1200 and a start of LH III C Advanced around 1150/40 BC. For the start of MPG a date on the splint of a post from Level 11 (KN-5024) gives a hint at the years around 1000 calBC. The cluster of Level 10 dates anchor LPG well into the 10th century calBC.

14

Contrary to what NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 186 state: “In any case this mean determination for the set from Schicht 12 can equally well be placed on any of the three peaks in the calibration curve between 1200 and 1100 BC and there seems to be no good reason for preferring any of these matches above the others without independent evidence.”

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

381

CALIBRATION CURVE CONSTRUCTION SAMPLE-WIDTH DEPENDENT 14C-CALIBRATION As already recognisable in Fig. 2, and showing up more clearly in context with the calibration raw data (Fig. 6), there is a conspicuous jump in 14C-ages from Kastanás Level 13 to Level 12. This jump could simply be the chance product of biased archaeological sampling, or of natural fluctuations in the 14C-measurements. However, beyond its being highly reproducible in the archaeological 14C-sequence, there are further reasons to adress this jump in more detail. Clearly, if this jump in the archaeological data is real, and corresponds to a similar jump in the calibration curve, the historical dating of Kastanás Levels 14b–12 underlying the samples at stake would thereby achieve an independent (tree-ring based) confirmation, on a hitherto unachieved level of confidence. Before submitting to this conclusion, it appears wise to study the properties of the underlying 14C-calibration data in more detail. The same need for cautious argumentation also applies to the Kastanás data in the region of c. 1330 calBC (Fig. 7, right), where there is a another conspicuous wiggle (or another group of misplaced calibration raw data: Fig. 7, left). Such data structures are difficult to analyse, since they have extremely low signal-noise ratios and may therefore be (suggestively) produced by artificial effects e.g. chance variations in measuring precision or data density. Most larger archaeological data sets contain a sample admixture that includes both shortlived samples with annual growth period (e.g. grain), intermediate-life samples with carbon accumulation over some few years (e.g. animal bones), as well as long-lived samples with multidecadel growth period (e.g. wood or wood-charcoal). Depending on the amount of time covered by the sample, in theory there exists – for each sample-type a different (sample-width specific) 14C-age calibration curve (MOOK 1983). Due to limitations in technical resources, beginning with the earliest consensus calibration (KLEIN ET AL. 1982), in lack of annual measurements, the curves have always been built using decadel and bidecadel tree-ring blocks. Although not widely acknowledged in the user community, this general limitation of all recommended calibration curves has always been clearly stated in relevant publications (e.g. INTCAL86, INTCAL98), including the most recently ratified calibration INTCAL04 (REIMER ET 14 AL. 2004). In search of a cause for the age-differences between C-radiometric and historical chronologies for the Aegean Late Bronze Age it is, therefore, quite natural to include a detailed analysis of the technical specifications of INTCAL04 in these studies. There may be other properties of the calibration, we should also adress (e.g. regional offsets, carbon reservoirs, seasonal growth differences). However, for reasons that will soon become apparent, it is sufficient to address one main technical parameter of the calibration curve, that is its shape (smoothness) in relation to the underlying raw data. CALIBRATION CURVE CONSTRUCTION (INTCAL98, INTCAL04) The overall time-window under study in the present paper is 1600–800 calBC (3550–2759 calBP). However, since our focus is on understanding the archaeological 14C-ages from Kastanás phases 14b–12, it suffices to zoom into this time-window at two different positions, (i) 1260–1100 calBC and (ii) 1420–1280 calBC. The rawdata underlying construction of the calibration INTCAL04 in these time-windows is assembled in Tab. 5 and Tab. 6, along with complementary high-precision measurements of the Heidelberg laboratory. Participating laboratories are Belfast (Lab Code: UB) and Seattle (Lab Code: QL), with tree-ring measurements based on Irish Oak (UB) and southern German Oak (QL). Upper limit interlaboratory offsets between Belfast and Seattle, for these data sets, are estimated to be – 6 ± 1 14C-BP, with Belfast producing the (insignificantly) younger values (REIMER ET AL. 2004, 1035: tab. 1). In the construction of INTCAL04, no corrections were undertaken to allow for these differences (REIMER ET AL. 2004, 1035). The data shown in Tab. 5 (1250–1100

382

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

calBC) and Tab. 6 (1450–1260 calBC) includes further high-precision 14C-measurements performed at the Heidelberg laboratory (Lab Code: Hd), but which are not included in the calibration INTCAL04 since they were derived from a floating component of the Anatolian tree-ring chronology, as published by KROMER ET AL. 2001, with updates by MANNING ET AL. 2003. Estimates by REIMER ET AL. (2004, 1035) of the interlaboratory differences between Heidelberg and Seattle give values in the range of 15 ± 3 14C-BP, with Heidelberg giving slightly older values, although differences are again hardly discernable. BAYESIAN PROCESS MODELLING Whereas previous radiocarbon age-calibrations (INTCAL86, INTCAL93, INTCAL98) were based on relatively simple data averaging procedures (e.g. WARD – WILSON 1978), with the inception of INTCAL04 (REIMER ET AL. 2004), statistically more advanced methods of calibration curve construction based on Bayesian process modelling have been implemented (BUCK – BLACKWELL 2004). Perhaps most important is, as stated by BUCK – BLACKWELL 2004, that the new INTCAL04 calibration (i) accounts for calendric time scale uncertainties (which were previously ignored) and (ii), that the new Bayesian construction method allows for errors due to correlated measurements. This type of error (covariance) is typical e.g. for calendric agemodels based on direct counting of consecutive events (i.e. tree-ring dates, wiggle matching, varve-counting), in which case errors may accumulate. Such errors will typically also occur in archaeological studies (e.g. during interregional transfer of pottery synchronisms), and quite generally in the synchronisation of age-models (e.g. correlation of climate proxies, ice-core synchronisation). The implementation of this second error component, to allow for covariant errors, in the new INTCAL construction methods is clearly tailored not so much towards the Holocene treering section of the calibration, but rather to its extension into the Glacial periods. In the Glacial periods beyond 26 ka 14C-BP the INTCAL-community has identified (VAN DER PLICHT ET AL. 2000) a number of still now officially unresolved discrepancies (VAN DER PLICHT ET AL. 2004. – BRONK RAMSEY ET AL. 2006) between potential calibration datasets. These datasets can be derived from so many different sources (e.g. U/Th-ages on pristine corals, marine data, icecore synchronisms, stalagmites), that the occurrence of such age differences is not unexpected. As proposed by JÖRIS – WENINGER 1998, one of the major causes of these differences is to be sought in the age-models underlying the Greenland ice-models (GISP2 & GRIP). For an upto-date account of glacial 14C-age calibration cf. WENINGER – JÖRIS 2008. As goes for the Holocene, under study here, it is indeed important that such correlated uncertainties are included in the 14C-age calibration (BUCK – BLACKWELL 2004). Let us therefore have a closer look at the procedures by which this error analysis is established in the INTCAL04 calibration. RANDOM WALK MODEL As applies to the overall Holocene section, and hence also covering the time window (1600–800 calBC) under study in the present paper, all previous calibrations (INTCAL93, INTCAL93, INTCAL98) were constructed by calculating a weighted average of all 14C-data within a 10-yr calendric window and assigning this value to the window mid-point (REIMER ET AL. 2004, 1036). Bidecadel tree-ring samples were treated as two independent decadel blocks. Subsampled decades were binned as if they were decadel (REIMER ET AL. 2004, 1036). This procedure was used, due to lack of 14C-data for annual samples. Major exceptions are for the periods 1510–1954 calAD (STUIVER ET AL. 1998a), 3903–3192 calBC (N=90, Groningen), and 2294– 1934 calBC (N=45, Pretoria). In consequence, most sections of the Holocene calibration are constructed from overlapping decadel and bidecadel ring blocks. Both effects, the finite block width as well as block overlapping, cause an in-built smoothing of the atmospheric

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

383

14

C-variations. As emphasised by the authors, it was an explicit goal of the new statistical modelling procedures implemented in INTCAL04-construction to allow for calendric interval overlapping, as well as for co-correlations of neighbouring values. This is formalized in an approach based on a Gaussian Random Walk (GRW) smoothing model, in which the changes in atmospheric 14C from one year to the next are described using a Gaussian distribution with mean (or ‘drift’) ß and variance (per year) r2. Actual values used in the construction of INTCAL04 are ß=1 and r2 = 64 (i.e. r=8) (BUCK – BLACKWELL 2004, 1099). Use of the value ß=1 is due to the expected change of the calibration curve by approximately 1 14C-calibrated year for each consecutive solar year (BUCK – BLACKWELL 2004, 1099). The a priori less clear choice of the annual variance r2 of this change was based on numeric simulations using the single-year data supplied by STUIVER AT AL. 1998b. These simulations, as well as later construction of the INTCAL04 curve, were based on data blocks with length 100 yrs (BUCK – BLACKWELL 2004, 1099. – REIMER ET AL. 2004, 1036). SMOOTHING EFFECTS For all practical purposes this means that, in the construction of INTCAL04, a smoothing algorithm has been applied to the calibrated rawdata. The procedure is based on a randomizing Gaussian distribution with width r=8 yrs on the calendric scale (BUCK – BLACKWELL 2004, 1099). The underlying statistical model corresponds to the geophysical assumption that there is equal probability for a rise or fall in atmospheric 14C-levels, in consecutive years. According to REIMER ET AL. (2004, 1036), the validity of the RWM has been tested by comparing the distribution of shifts in consecutive decadel bins, of derived 14C-values to be used in calibration curve construction, as obtained by the two methods (i) the ‘classical’ binning method (used in INTCAL98), and (ii) the RWM (as used in INTCAL04). According to REIMER ET AL. (2004, 1037 fig. 2) the two methods give very similar distributions. REIMER ET AL. (2004, 1037) conclude that, due to this successful testing of the RWM approach, the underlying basic assumptions of symmetric atmospheric 14C-production and oceanic 14C-absorption are indeed supported by the data, on average for the entire Holocene. The question remains, of course, whether this generally valid assumption also holds for each individual 100-yr subinterval of the calendric time scale, and notably whether it holds for the strong wiggles (e.g. at ~1180 and ~1330 calBC) identified as important in understanding the Kastanás agediscrepancies. To this question, the authors of INTCAL04 are careful in pointing out that INTCAL04 is “somewhat smoother” than INTCAL98 (REIMER ET AL. 2004, 1037). They emphasise further that wiggle matching of tree-ring sequences are “sometimes pushed to the limits” (IBIDEM), such that, when wiggle matching methods are applied, the new INTCAL04 calibration “may require some adjustment in methods”.15 These words of caution apply, in particular, to shorter series (REIMER ET AL. 2004, 1037).

15

Our conclusion – that the INTCAL04 calibration is too smooth for many archaeological applications, and especially for short-lived samples – is independently confirmed by BRUINS ET AL. 2005. In their study of an Iron Age 14 C-series from Rehov (Israel) they state: “Most Groningen radiocarbon dates from Tel Rehov are based on seeds. Therefore, a calibration curve based on single year dendrochronological measurements would have been preferable, as stated by Mook and Waterbolk (1985: 22): ‘the 14C sample and the calibration data should have the same time-width (growth-period)’. Such a curve is not available for the approximate time-period 1200–600 BCE of the Levantine Iron Age. Since the 1998 calibration curve (Stuiver et al. 1998; Stuiver and van der Plicht [eds.] 1998) is more detailed than the smoothed 2004 version (Reimer et al. 2004), the former has been used rather than the latter. The more detailed IntCal98 calibration curve was used, though some comparisons were made with the smoothed IntCal04 curve.” In our opinion, however, the INTCAL98 curve is itself in many places too smooth for calibration of short-lived samples. This is shown in our LBK example.

384

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

CALIBRATION CURVE CONSTRUCTION CASE STUDY FOR RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS: LBK CHRONOLOGY According to the results achieved at Kastanás and Ássiros, there are two main effects leading to systematic deviations between 14C-ages and archaeological dating, that is (i) potential misreadings due to selection of ‘old wood’ charcoal samples, and (ii) potential misreadings due to construction procedures of recommended tree-ring based calibration curves. Since neither of these effects has a site-specific component, they can both be expected to apply, quite generally, to all kinds of archaeological 14C-data in the Holocene. These effects therefore require further attention. In the following chapter we adress the effects of calibration ‘smoothing’ in further detail, based on a case study towards the 14C-chronology of the central European Linearbandkeramik culture. We also give procedures to identify corresponding age-deviations. Both, independently, and in combination, the ‘old wood’ and ‘calcurve smoothing’ effects produce some rather strong distortions (range ~100 yrs) of archaeological radiocarbon chronologies. Perhaps contrary to what might be expected, curve-shape related distortions of 14Cages are quite commonplace in archaeology. Even if typically more attention is given to the ‘old wood’ effect, the curve-shape distortion of archaeological data is so conspicuous, that we have included a variable (trackbar-function) calibration curve smoothing facility in all CalPalprograms. Nevertheless, to be able to visualize the smoothing effect, from case to case, still requires a fair amount of graphic processing. This requires, for example, a reference database that contains the different calibration curves, as well as the calibration raw data. These methods and databases are available in the CalPal-software (www.calpal.de. – WENINGER, 1986. – WENINGER – JÖRIS 2008). As shown in Fig. 8, we have applied this procedure to a database containing N=44 wellknown (LÜNING 2005. – STÄUBLE 2005) archaeological 14C-ages assigned to the Central European Early Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture. In Fig. 8, the data are sequenced according to the detailed discussion of LÜNING 2005. This analytical sequence is based on a large number of individual site 14C-analyses, on a variety of settlement models (e.g. STEHLI 1994), and on a long tradition of pottery seriation by Correspondence Analysis (e.g. STEHLI 1994. – STRIEHN 2000). The results are, briefly stated (i) the LBK begins c. 5500 calBC and ends c. 4950 calBC (ii) due to selective dating of ‘old wood’ (archaeological charcoal), the majority of 14C-ages on samples for LBK-Phases 1–15 (5200–4950 calBC) have positions ‘above’ the INTCAL98 calibration curve (thin line connecting 68%-error bars), and (iii) due to prevailing large standard deviations it is difficult to extract further information from the data. But there is light in the dark: let us focus our attention on the position, relative to the INTCAL98-curve, of two AMS 14C-ages measured by VERA-laboratory on human bone (VERA-1417: 6075 ± 35 BP; VERA-1516: 6115 ± 35 BP). These 14C-ages are from burials in the cemetery of Flomborn, corresponding to ~ Stehli phase 4 of the LBK-sequence (LÜNING 2005). As shown in the inlay-graph, for this interval (5200–5160 calBC), there exist two groups of calibration raw-data. The first has 14Cvalues ~ 6100 BP; the second has values ~ 6200–6280 BP. This wide spread of calibration curve raw data is not entirely satisfactory and leads to some conspicuous over-smoothing in the INTCAL04 calibration. The archaeological data at stake derive from the vicinity of what we call the ‘LBK-Flomborn-wiggle’, at ~ 5200 calBC (Fig. 8). Here, as in other subintervals of the LBK-window (5500–4900 calBC), the INTCAL04 calibration is constructed to run well beyond the majority of rawdata, and both curves (INTCAL98, INTCAL04) have clearly too small error envelopes. All these effects together, in the time-window 5500–4900 calBC, the calibration INTCAL04 is inadequate for wiggle-matching studies and can therefore not be recommended for use with single 14C-ages.

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

385

THE STRATIGRAPHY OF ÁSSIROS TOÚMBA Let us now turn out attention again to the stratigraphy of Ássiros Toúmba, where charred construction timbers from the excavations of Kenneth Wardle have provided the first direct nearabsolute dates for the start of the Early Iron Age in Macedonia and by extension for the Protogeometric period in southern Greece. Before adressing these issues in further detail, below, the first thing we must do is to provide an independent check on the validity of the proposed dates. The data and methods at stake are described by NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, with results that can be abbreviated as follows. Following construction of a 104-year sequence of tree rings based on four seperate building timbers, a preliminary match with the Anatolian master chronology gives a probable cutting date of 1080 +4/-7 BC for trees associated with Phase 3 buildings and a date of 1070 +4/-7 for trees associated with Phase 2 buildings (NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 173). By radiocarbon wiggle matching (using INTCAL98), a date for the last preserved ring of the whole series of timbers and posts of Phases 2 and 3 of 1090 ± 22 calBC is obtained (NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 173).16 Taking into account possible missing rings the authors propose a cutting date around 1070 BC for the post and the fallen timber of Phase 2, while c. 1080 BC is proposed for the two fallen timbers of the earlier phase 3.17 The authors state that the finds of Phase 3 would thus fall into an interval between c. 1080 BC and 1070 BC.18 We cannot check on the dendro-dates, but thanks to the radiocarbon data given by MANNING – KROMER – KUNIHOLM – NEWTON 2003 and additional dendro-data provided by NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM (2005, 183 fig. 8), it is possible to run an independent test of the 14Cbased results. As shown in Fig. 9, by application of the method of Gaussian Monte Carlo Wiggle Matching, we do not immediately confirm the cutting date of 1090 ± 22 calBC for the last trees in the sequence of wooden timbers and posts found in Phases 3 and 2, as proposed by NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005. As shown in Fig. 9, the Ássiros 14C-sequence actually shows three alternative dates, that is (allowing 5 rings younger for given decadel sample width) ~ 1165 ± 10 calBC, ~ 1113 ± 10 calBC, and ~ 1083 ± 10 calBC (Fig. 9). We can nevertheless accept the proposed dendro-based cutting dates of 1080 BC +4/–7 denBC (Phase 3) resp. 1070 +4/–7 denBC (Phase 2). The argument is that the Ássiros 14C-sequence fits nicely to a strong wiggle at ~ 1130 calBC, that shows up in the INTCAL04 calibration rawdata (Fig. 3). We have above already identified this wiggle in the Kastanás data (Fig. 6). The existence of this wiggle is convincingly demonstrated by the Heidelberg 14C-data from Ássiros, notably due to one measurement (ASR 16: 3008 ± 22 BP, Lab Code not given: NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 183 fig. 8). To conclude, although a definitive dendro-date is not available, we can confirm – using the published 14C-ages – the near-absolute dates as proposed for Ássiros by NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005. However, this does not mean that we automatically accept Wardle’s stratigraphic arguments, nor do we accept his conclusions as to the archaeological application of this date. Rather, we think it is most likely that the beams do not originally stem from the architectural phases in which they were found stratified and excavated. It is important to note that Phase 4, immediately preceding Phase 3, did not end in a conflagration, but was followed rather “peacefully” by the new buildings of Phase 3.19 This means, it is theoretically possible and indeed very probable that construction timbers of abandoned and dismantled houses of

16 17 18 19

NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 180; 183. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 493. NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 180–181. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 489–491. NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 181; 184. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 491. WARDLE 1989, 454–455. – IDEM 1997, 447 tab.; 450. – NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 174–176. – WARDLE – WARDLE 2007, 455 tab. 1; 471–472.

386

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

Phase 4, were re-used in constructing new houses of Phase 3. So far, neither a settlement plan nor single house plans of Phase 4 have been published, but apparently both phases had the same lay-out of buildings with the majority of walls being reused in the following Phase 3 (WARDLE 1989, 454–455). Newton, Wardle and Kuniholm state that even if all the timbers were reused from Phase 4, “the start of the Iron Age in Macedonia would still be set before 1070 BC”.20 In our view, this conclusion is hardly warranted. In the case of such wood reuse from Phase 4 for Phase 3 and 2 buildings, the correctly established cutting date of 1070 BC only gives a terminus post quem for the erection of the Phase 4 buildings, not for their destruction or for the building events of the subsequent Phases 3 and 2. Phase 4 is altogether of uncertain duration.21 The PG amphora is said to provide the relative chronology of Phase 3. However, regarding the introduction of the PG style into local Macedonian pottery production, a cutting date of 1070 BC only supplies a terminus post quem with an unknown number of years following. Even if the amphora had been produced during a rather developed stage of PG (see below), it would not be possible to conclude that PG had started before that terminus post quem. All these observations put together, an ‘old-wood’ effect (in terms of wood recycling) for the beams found in Phase 3 is entirely possible.22 Even for the following phase 2 one cannot exclude such a possibility, as the wooden posts were often mantled by the mud plaster of the walls.23 Such a post inside a wall would not necessarily burn away in a fiery destruction, but might have been reusable. This is confirmed by historical sources and ethnographic studies on the fire combustion processes of timber-framed mud-brick houses.24 If beams of Phases 4 and 3 were reused for Phase 2, such timber reuse also readily explains why the dendro-dates for Phases 3 and 2 are only 10 years apart.25 In this context, it is especially interesting, that Wardle writes in a preliminary report: “The destruction of these buildings [i.e. of Phase 3] by yet another fire was only a temporary set-back to recovery, since the rooms were rebuilt with new timber supports set into parts of the walls which still stood … ”.26

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 184 n. 20; repeated word by word in: WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 494 n. 67. That duration may not have been very short. Deposits of phases 4 and 3 together reach a depth of more than 1 m in some places (WARDLE – WARDLE 2007, 471). It is very interesting that the scholars working at Ássiros did regard the reuse of timbers as a convincing explanation for a discrepancy between historical-archaeological and dendrochronological/14C-dates. However, they did so only with regard to LBA Phases 7 and 6. They use an argument very similar to the one outlined in the present article for Phases 4–2. In Phase 6 the building layout largely followed that of Phase 7, which was not destroyed by fire. So, timbers were available for re-use and the scholars conclude: “it is quite likely that these timbers are part of the construction of Phase 7 and had remained in position or were reused in the rebuilding of Phase 6” (WARDLE – WARDLE 2007, 467). It is not clear, why they decide in a totally different way, when it comes to the later Phases 4–2. In the case of Phase 6 they hesitate from raising the date for the beginning of LH III C to the first half of the 13th century BC, as suggested by dendrochronological wiggle matching for three timbers from that building phase (1277 ± 25 BC, see IBIDEM). Their diverging chronological tables show that they remain undecided concerning the traditional date of c. 1200 for the start of LH III C (WARDLE – WARDLE 2007, 455 tab. 1. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 497 fig. 7). Indeed, the historical-archaeological chronology offers quite good arguments for leaving the start of LH III C Early around 1200 and connecting LH III B Middle with the first half of the 13th century BC (see below). As becomes apparent for Phases 2 and 3 (WARDLE 1980, 254–255 fig. 15. – IDEM 1988, 377 fig. 1; 379 fig. 2. – NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 175 fig. 1. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 488 fig. 4), but also for the preceding LBA phases (WARDLE 1980, 241 fig. 7; 243 fig. 8. – WARDLE – WARDLE, 460 fig. 2). HRUBY 2006, 29–31. On fire destruction of stone and mudbrick houses with flat mud covered roofs and wooden roof posts see GORDON 1953. This small difference might then either be explained by burnt away rings or by partial reconstruction of buildings during the habitation period of Phase 4 or Phase 3. WARDLE 1997, 452. – For the reuse of standing walls from Phase 3 into Phase 2 see also WARDLE 1989, 452.

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

387

It is further important to note that the PG amphora used to produce a relative chronological date for Phase 3,27 cannot be closely dated in terms of the overall PG pottery chronology of the Aegean.28 The vessel belongs to a central-north Aegean stylistic family, but no exact parallels are available from Macedonia, Troy or central Greece (especially regarding the single straight line placed between the circle systems, see JUNG 2002, 179). The Ássiros amphora might be Early PG, but could just as well belong to Middle PG, and maybe even to Late PG. Apart from the stylistic/typological classification of that vessel, it does not seem unproblematic to us that some sherds of that (anyway far from complete) amphora come from Phase 2 contexts.29 It is not-at-all safe to assume that the complex formation processes of a multilayered tell site only lead to upward re-deposition. All we can safely state is that there are sherds from the same vessel, found both in Phase 3 and in Phase 2 contexts. If the amphora was ascribed to Phase 2 rather than to Phase 3, a terminus post quem of 1070 BC for that Phase 2 would support a rather traditional absolute chronology, as we shall see in the following discussion. Unfortunately, at Ássiros there is no other wheel-made PG pottery to offer additional contextual data. Painted Mycenaean pottery from Phase 5 is said to date to LH III C, while the small linear-decorated fragments from Phase 4 are worn and taken to be residual.30 None of the pottery of Phases 5 and 4 has yet been illustrated. For Phase 4 channeled hand-made pottery and wheel-made Grey Ware are classified as new Iron Age types of pottery.31 However, a comparison with the large quantities of material from the vertical stratigraphies of the tell sites at Kastanás and Thessaloníki Toúmba shows that both classes were first introduced during the later LH III C phases to the repertory of the Central Macedonian pottery workshops.32 For instance, channelled hand-made pottery is securely attested in Level 13 at Kastanás, i.e. LH III C Developed–Advanced.33 At Ássiros the only wheel-made pot, which is ascribed to Phase 3, is the amphora we are discussing. From Phase 2 wheel-made pottery is said to be totally absent – apart from so-called “Mycenaean survivals”34. Eight handmade pots are published from Phase 3.35 One is a fully preserved amphora with facetted vertical handles.36 While its incised decoration can be easily attributed to the LBA tradition with parallels in Level 14b (LH III C Early) at Kastanás (HOCHSTETTER 1984, pls. 40:1; 51:13), the facetted handles are characteristic for the later Levels of the EIA, but they are first found in Level 13 at Kastanás (LH III C Developed–

27

28

29 30 31

32

33

34 35 36

WARDLE 1997, 448; 455 fig. 3:2. – NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 176; 177 fig. 2; 184–185; 190 pl. 2. – WARDLE – WARDLE 2007, 454–455 tab. 1; 472–473. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 489; 492 pl. 2; 493 fig. 6; 494–497 fig. 7. Probably in order not to present an even more unexpected absolute date the authors chose to opt for an Early PG date for the amphora – raising the absolute date for the start of PG to c. 1100 BC. But – as they themselves admit (NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 185. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 495) – 1120 BC might be also possible, if the amphora is MPG rather than EPG. One might go even further, if everything depends on only that one vessel. NEWTON – WARDLE – KUNIHOLM 2005, 184 n. 21. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 494 n. 68. WARDLE 1997, 448. – WARDLE –WARDLE 2007, 469; 472. WARDLE – WARDLE 2007, 471–472. In earlier reports Grey Ware was mentioned for Phase 1 (WARDLE 1980, 260 with fig. 19:54. – IDEM 1997, 449). For the stratigraphic evidence concerning wheel-made Grey Ware see JUNG 2007. The sequence of Thessaloníki Toúmba is especially relevant for this class, see ANDREOU in the present volume. HOCHSTETTER 1984, 188–194 pls. 62:7; 64:5,10; 71:2; 73:10. Therefore, it is incomprehensible that WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM (2007, 489) state: “The stratigraphy [of Kastanás] does not permit us to associate the channelled ware specifically with either Mycenaean or Protogeometric pottery and a Mycenaean date for its introduction at this site is hard to support”. On the contrary, the stratigraphy shows clearly that the production of this class started during the middle phases of LH III C and was intensified in the following Levels 12, 11 etc. WARDLE 1980, 260. – IDEM 1997, 448. WARDLE 1997, 451 fig. 1:2–7; 453 fig. 2:5; 455 fig. 3:5. – WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 486 fig. 3:1,2. WARDLE 1989, 454 pl. 68e. – IDEM 1997, 455 fig. 3:5. – WARDLE – WARDLE 2007, 472 pl. 18.

388

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

Advanced).37 Another four pots illustrated from Phase 3 are steep-sided bowls with wishbone handles. In one case the flattened handle terminal shows a marked carination (WARDLE 1997, 451 fig. 1:2). Parallels for such bowls with vertically placed wishbone handles can be found at Thessaloníki Toúmba from LBA Phase 4 onwards.38 Carinated wishbone handles were thought to be exclusive to the Early Iron Age (starting at Kastanás, Level 10),39 but they are found in Phase 4 at Thessaloníki Toúmba40 and at Áyios Mámas (Prehistoric Olynthus) throughout the Late Bronze Age.41 The sixth illustrated vessel from Phase 3, a cut-away-neck jug with a steplike rim and neck shape (WARDLE 1997, 453 fig. 2:5), could be more decisive in chronological respect, as this type is not securely attested earlier than Level 11 (MPG) at Kastanás (HOCHSTETTER 1984, 53 fig. 12 [types 1b–1d]; 55–56). However, a fragment preserving shoulder and facetted handle of a closed vessel from a mixed context of Levels 13 and 14a at Kastanás can very probably be reconstructed as a cut-away-neck jug of that type.42 The final two published handmade sherds from Ássiros Phase 3 show channelled decoration (WARDLE – NEWTON – KUNIHOLM 2007, 486 fig. 3:1,2). One is a carinated bowl with channelling at the carination. The other one is a closed vessel with fine channelling on the belly. They find parallels at Kastanás from Level 13 onwards (HOCHSTETTER 1984, 188–194 pls. 64:5,10; 82:5,7; 110:8; 112:3; 117:6,9,10). Thus, the handmade pottery of Phase 3 does show characteristics which, in central Macedonia, are especially common during the early Iron Age. However, as comparisons with other Central Macedonian tell stratigraphies at Kastanás, Thessaloníki Toúmba and Áyios Mámas (Prehistoric Olynthus) reveal, none of the few published vessels must necessarily be dated to the PG period (the cut-away-neck jug being the only possible exception). An iron double axe was found in a large pit, which could not be securely assigned to either Phase 3 or 2, although an assignation to Phase 3 was preferred on the background of the settlement plan as a whole.43 That heavy iron implement should probably rather be dated to PG than to Submycenaean or LH III C.44 To sum up the evidence from Ássiros, the redating of the start of the Greek Early Iron Age at this site is based on one single, partially preserved PG vessel scattered through two consecutive settlement phases, which are dated by four timbers that could have been reused from earlier buildings. This does not, however, imply that the dendro-dates from Ássiros are not useful. If the dated timbers were reused construction material from Phase 4 and the PG amphora is EPG in date, from these results it follows that the end of Submycenaean must be sought sometime during the 11th century BC – clearly much later than assumed by Kenneth Wardle.

37

38

39 40

41 42

43 44

HOCHSTETTER 1984, pls. 73:10 (even from a mixed context of Level 13 and the earlier Level 14a); 75:4 (from Level 12, LH III C Advanced – EPG, stylistically quite similar to the Ássiros piece, also with regard to the incised band below the rim); 112:2; 117:13 (also similar to the Ássiros amphora); 140:2; 141:5; 156:11. PSARAKI 2004, pls. 6.45:KA 969; 6.47:KA 870/874. – ANDREOU – PSARAKI 2007, 409 fig. 11:KA 969,KA 870/874. The handles of these bowls are not carinated. Level 10 dates to LPG (HOCHSTETTER 1984, 94 fig. 24:11b; 98; 100 pl. 115:1,2; 147:1,2). PSARAKI 2004, pl. 6.45:KA 421; 6.46:KA 1624. However, these handles are less massive than the one from Ássiros. – Phase 4 of Thessaloníki Toúmba covers the first half of the period LH III C, but can now be divided into several stratigraphic sub-phases (see ANDREOU this volume). Phase 2 can be very well paralleled with the end of Level 12 of Kastanás and similarily includes the EPG phase (see JUNG – ANDREOU – WENINGER this volume). HOREJS 2007, 103 fig. 48; 104 fig. 49; 332 pl. 41:5613,5619; 58:5608; 84:5599. HOCHSTETTER 1984, pl. 73:10. – Alternatively, it could belong to an amphora like the one from Ássiros (see n. 36). The orientation of the sherd has to be changed in either case. WARDLE 1987, 320 pl. 51b. – WARDLE – WARDLE 2007, 473. Iron trunnion axes are known from LPG tombs at Athens and Lefkandí, while an iron double axe was found in a SPG tomb, again at Lefkandí (LEMOS 2002, 122).

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

389

THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE SUBMYCENAEAN PHASE Pottery of Submycenaean type is present at Kastanás, Level 12, e.g. monochrome deep bowls, with straight and carinated profile, decorated with a reserved outer zone carrying a single or double horizontal zigzag (Fig. 10:1,4,7), for which parallels can be found mainly in Submycenaean (Fig. 10:2,3,5,8) and partly also in EPG contexts in central and southern Greece (JUNG 2002, 103–104, 226 pls. 23:259; 24:272,274 with bibliography).45 However, we unfortunately have no absolute dates for that phase from the site. But we can derive such dates from the West, making use of the tight relative chronological connections between the Aegean and Italy (JUNG 2006). The destruction horizon of the settlement of Rocavecchia at the Adriatic coast of Apulia contained hundreds of broken pots lying in situ on house floors. The indigenous hand-made pottery can be dated to an advanced stage of Final Bronze Age 2 (FBA 2), while a number of wheel-made pots of Aegean style, especially monochrome deep bowls with zigzag motifs in the reserved outer zone (Fig. 10:6,9), provide a synchronism with the Submycenaean phase of the Greek mainland (GUGLIELMINO 2005, 643 pl. 167:a,1.2. – JUNG 2006, 153–165 pl. 12:1–7).46 Some of the monochrome deep bowls show the same straight profile and reserved outer zone with single or double zigzag as the aforementioned vessels from Kastanás (IBIDEM, pl. 12:2,3). Apart from the pottery scattered on house floors, there are two rich bronze hoard finds (MAGGIULLI in press), which help to fix the Rocavecchia destruction towards the end of FBA 2 and connect it with closed find complexes from central and northern Italy. Among the chronologically important types there are e.g. twisted symmetrical bow fibulae (Fig. 11:2) from hoard 2 (IBIDEM, fig. 1:15b–35,77). This type is not known earlier than Submycenaean in the Aegean (Fig. 11:1; see JUNG 2006, 190 pls. 16:6; 18:5–6,8; 19:5,6. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 21847, pls. 30:Gr. 136/10; 33:Gr. 143/3. – DEGER-JALKOTZY this volume), while in Italy it first appeared in FBA 2 contexts (Fig. 11:3; see JUNG 2006, 191 pl. 14:1,2), e.g. in the urnfield cemeteries of the Veneto (COLONNA 2006, 90–92: types 20–22bis; 255 pl. 31:5–9; 256–258 pl. 32–34). The production of those fibulae seems to have started during a later stage of FBA 2 and continued into FBA 3 (IBIDEM, 182, 187 fig. 3; 193, 199; fig. 1). Another interesting type of hoard 2 of Rocavecchia is the symmetrical bow fibula with two knots, which are shaped as groups of thin rings (MAGGIULLI in: SETTIS – PARRA 2005, 312–313 cat. no. II.208. – EADEM in press, fig.). This shape of bow knots is not found on LH III C bow fibulae in Greece, it first appears at two fibulae from Submycenaean tombs in the Kerameikos (MÜLLER-KARPE 1962, 86 fig. 4:7; 88 fig. 6:7. – RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 218: type 2b). In Italy it is attested in a burial context at Campo del Fico in Latium (DELPINO 1987, 17 figs. 6–7; 27, 30 fig. 16:5; 35 no. 5), dated to FBA 2 (PACCIARELLI 2000, 212–213 fig. 120). In the Aegean symmetrical bow fibulae with semicircular bow and two knots do not appear in closed contexts of LH III C date.48 In Italy this type of bow fibulae seems to have been in use since FBA 2 or 3 (JUNG 2006, 156 n. 1096).

45

46

47

48

Note that it is often not easy to differentiate between tight wavy line and true zigzag. Even on one and the same vessel the motif may change from a more wavy to a more jagged ondulation. One 14C-date is published from that settlement phase: LTL 1872A (on beans): 2876 ± 60 BP (CALCAGNILE – D’ELIA – QUARTA in: PAGLIARA ET AL. 2007, 357 fig. 21). Unfortunately, the only date from the preceding settlement phase is a clear outlier in contradiction to its stratigraphical position in the whole sequence (IBIDEM, 356). Thus, this single date from the FBA 2 destruction cannot be used in the present argument. The stratified LH III C examples quoted by RUPPENSTEIN (2007, 219–220) either have a different bow shape (rectangular instead of semicircular at Peratí, chamber tomb 74, cf. JUNG 2006, 190–192 pl. 19:3) or are secondarily distorted (Árgos, tumulus on the Kantzávelos plot, inv. no. 10105 – personal examination thanks to the kind permission of Chrístos Piterós). LH III C bow fibulae with knots are asymmetrical with the bow raising vertically from the catch plate and being slightly bent at the point, where its semicircular part begins, see JUNG 2006, 192–194. For symmetrical bow fibulae with knots see IBIDEM, 156, n. 1096.

390

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

By means of bronze objects the Italian Final Bronze Age can be synchronized across the Alps with the Urnfield phases in Switzerland and southern Germany. At the beginning of Ha B1 (Ha B1 early) a new series of lake-side settlements was founded on the shores of the Swiss and southern German lakes.49 Those lake-side sites can be exactly dated by dendrochronology. The wooden posts of the houses provide termini post quem for the first phase of these settlements with dendrodates between 1071 and 1034/35. The rich finds from Level 3 at Hauterive-Champréveyres at Lake Neuchâtel with dendro-dates from cutting phases between 1054 and 1037 denBC may serve as an example.50 The relevant bronze repertory which belongs to that phase has parallels in FBA 2 in Italy. It includes winged axes with wings placed close to the neck (Fig. 12:3; see RYCHNER-FARAGGI 1993, 36, 38, pls. 24:2–6; 25:3) and tanged knives with bulging back and a loop at the tang end (Fig. 12:5,6; see IBIDEM, 40 pl. 30:5–10). The same type of tanged knife is found in the hoard of Poggio Berni (Fig. 12:4) in Emilia Romagna, north-eastern Italy (MORICO 1984, 23–25 fig. 4:15. – BIANCO PERONI 1976, 58 no. 257 pl. 31:257). The winged axes find close parallels in the central Italian hoard of Monte Primo (Fig. 12:1,2), Marche region (PERONI 1963, I.7.8-[3] nos. 9 and 10;51 8-[4] no. 16; 8-[8] nos. 42 and 43). While the first hoard is dated only roughly to FBA 1/2 (containing types of both phases) by Gian Luigi Carancini and Renato Peroni, the second one is dated to FBA 2 in their seriation of hoard finds from continental Italy (CARANCINI – PERONI 1999, 18–19 pl. 29). The winged axes of Monte Primo are eponymous for a whole type, which, as a result of that hoard find seriation, can be taken as characteristic for FBA 2 (IBIDEM, 62 no. 9 pls. 30:9; 32:9). Another knife shape present at Level 3 of Hauterive-Champréveyres has a bulging back and a tang without loop (form 2: RYCHNER-FARAGGI 1993, 41 fig. 36). Some of the specimen can be closely compared to two fragmentary knives from the 4th hoard found at Frattesina (cf. IBIDEM, pls. 31:8; 32:4 with SALZANI 1987, 219 nos. 9 and 10; 226 fig. 1:9,10), which based on the rest of the material can again be dated to FBA 2. Amber beads of Allumiere type were also found at Hauterive-Champréveyres (Fig. 11:9). Again they are confined to Level 3 (RYCHNER-FARAGGI 1993, 66, pl. 124:6,7), which makes them relevant for the synchronisation with the Italian relative chronological sequence. In northern Italy amber beads of Allumiere type are present at Bismantova tomb XXXI, which according to the overall seriation of north Italian cemeteries by Cecilia Colonna is dated to Phases I/II, that is FBA 2 (COLONNA 2006, 129, 177, 191 fig. 5; 193, 199, 201; fig. 1). Several examples of that type were also found in the Campo del Fico burial of FBA 2 date (Fig. 11:7,8), which yielded the bow fibula mentioned above (DELPINO 1987, 18 fig. 9; 27, 32 fig. 18:7–12; 35– 36 nos. 7–12). The significance of certain bronze types in the tombs of the Narde cemetery belonging to the settlement of Frattesina for the comparative Italian–Swiss chronology has already been highlighted by Christopher Pare (PARE 1998, 314–315 fig. 8).52 An incised pin with globular head and two globules below from tomb 227 (Fig. 11:4; see SALZANI 1989, 16, 38 fig. 16:10) belongs to the most important finds in this respect. It has no parallels in other north Italian tombs (COLONNA 2006, 82–83, 249 pl. 25:2), but is attested with several examples in Level 3 of

49

50

51 52

This phase is characterised by a mixture of types conventionally thought to be characteristic for Ha A2 and others representing the succeeding phase Ha B1 in the traditional relative sequence. Therefore, it was suggested to classify the repertory of this phase as a transitional Ha A2/B1 style or as early B1 (RYCHNER 1995, 457, 460, 483). The last suggestion prevailed (DAVID-ELBIALI – DUNNING 2005, 151–156. – TRACHSEL 2004, 37–39). See also dendrochronologically dated bronzes from the settlements at Greifensee-Böschen (with dates between 1048 and 1042 denBC), Zug-Sumpf (with dates between 1056 and 994 denBC) and Zürich-Großer Hafner, Level 3 (1055 denBC): DAVID-ELBIALI – DUNNING 2005, 145–146; 152–156 fig. 3; 180–181 pls. 2–3. This one is slightly different from the Italian examples in having a more trapezoid blade. PARE 2008 came to broadly similar conclusions when comparing Italian finds to the Swiss assemblages.

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

391

Hauterive-Champréveyres (Fig. 11:5,6; see RYCHNER-FARAGGI 1993, 47–49 fig. 43, pl. 55:1– 6).53 In Colonna’s seriation Narde tomb 227 belongs to her Phase II and thus to a late stage of FBA 2 (COLONNA 2006, 173, 189–192 fig. 5; 199–201 fig. 1), which means it should be contemporary with the destruction of Rocavecchia and the Submycenaean phase in the Aegean. Another interesting pin type is attested in tombs 142 and 168 of the Narde cemetery (SALZANI 1989, 14, 34 fig. 12. – IDEM 1990–91, 137, 185 fig. 38:6). Those pins have a double-conical head with the upper conus being higher than the lower one. They bear no decoration. According to Colonna and like the preceding type these pins are typical for her phase II, i.e. a late stage of FBA 2 (COLONNA 2006, 75, 172, 187 fig. 3; 244 pl. 20:1,4; fig. 1: SP 16A). At HauteriveChampréveyres they are characteristic for Level 3 (RYCHNER-FARAGGI 1993, 48 fig. 45, pl. 63:8,10,14). From the above discussion it follows that Level 3 of Hauterive-Champréveyres can be synchronised with Italian FBA 2, and most probably only with its later part. Clear types of FBA 3 only appear in the following phase of the Swiss settlements with dendro-dates after 1000 denBC (PERONI – VANZETTI 2005, 61, 80 pl. 13. – PACCIARELLI 2005, 83–84). As best examples pins with heads “à céphalaire” from Level 03 at Hauterive-Champréveyres are named (RYCHNER-FARAGGI 1993, 47–48 fig. 44, pls. 57:1,8,10; 58:2–5,7,9,11,14; 59:6,9,12,14), because they find a good parallel at the necropolis of Morano sul Po, tomb 1/95 (VENTURINO GAMBARI – LUZZI 1999, 113–114 fig. 96:6. – COLONNA 2006, 83, 249 pl. 25:11). This tomb is dated by Colonna to her phase III, i.e. FBA 3 (COLONNA 2006, 175, 199, 211; fig. 1). Thus, we get a date around 1040 for the end of the Italian FBA 2 and Greek Submycenaean. Additional data come from Italy itself, from Tuscany, from a pile dwelling settlement at Livorno-Stagno. This Final Bronze Age settlement was situated in a brackish lagoon environment, which helped to preserve parts of wooden house constructions. The Bronze artefacts of the settlement can be dated to FBA 2, while the pottery belongs to FBA 2 and the beginning of FBA 3.54 Seven vertical posts of elm wood were sampled for dendrochronological analysis on a local sequence comprising 70 tree-rings. Two cutting phases, 25 years apart from each other, could be determined due to the presence of a “Waldkante” in two samples. Four radiocarbon dates measured at Heidelberg allow a dendrochronological wiggle match of that sequence.55 The application of Gaussian Wiggle Matching to the floating Livorno 14C-age sequence (Fig. 13) places the youngest dated decadel tree-ring block at 1092 ± 25 calBC (68%) or 1127– 1025 calBC (95%). This results in a 5 yr younger cutting date, that is 1097 ± 25 calBC (68%) or 1122–1020 calBC (95%). This age-fitting for the Livorno tree is not as stable as we would like. As shown in Fig. 13, the distribution of best-fitting calendric ages (achieved for N=10000 iterations; with assumed cutting error σ ±3 rings and assumed Gaussian interlaboratory offset σ ± 10 yrs 14C-BP) is not entirely Gaussian. Next to the major age value with highest probability (~1092 ± 25 calBC), there exist other regions (~ 1020–1060 calBC, ~ 1100–1130 calBC, even ~ 1180 calBC) that must also be seriously taken into consideration. Due to their extremely seldom occurrence in the Monte Carlo simulation, we may decide that the few high readings ~ 1180 calBC are unrealistic. What then remains, is that 1130 calBC can be taken as clear terminus post quem for the beginning of FBA 3. In particular, the younger dating of the Livorno sequence ~ 1060–1020 calBC (clearly visible in Fig. 13 as an extended and therefore highly reproducible peak in dating probability, perhaps only scaled by chance to somewhat lower probability values) agrees very well with a large number of archaeological synchronisms, 53

54

55

More examples were found in other Swiss lake settlements with analogous dendro-dates, which allows the conclusion that the type went out of use during the second half of the 11th century BC (TRACHSEL 2004, 33–34 fig. 15: type 3). ZANINI 1997a. – ZANINI – MARTINELLI 2005, 148–149. – For the relative chronological date see also PACCIARELLI 2000, 44–45 fig. 23:C. – IDEM 2005, 83. ZANINI – MARTINELLI 2005, 147, 149, 151 tab. 2; 152 fig. 5.

392

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

absolutely dated by an extended set of dendro-dates for exactly this window (~ 1055–1035 calBC) from four Swiss sites (Hauterive-Champréveyres, Level 3; Greifensee-Böschen, ZugSumpf and Zürich-Großer Hafner, Level 3 ). Due to the greater quantities of archaeological finds and dendro-dated samples the Swiss dates should be given greater weight than the central Italian ones. By combining Swiss and Italian dates, the end of FBA 2 may now be narrowed down to the time between c. 1070 and 1040 BC. The Rocavecchia synchronism of the end of FBA 2 and Submycenaean allows us to transfer these dates to the Aegean, where we propose an end of Subymycenaean and a beginning of PG around 1070/40 BC, at the maximum 10 to 20 years earlier than Desborough’s traditional date of 1050 BC. This is in near-perfect agreement with the traditional historicalarchaeological data of the LH III C phases according to the 14C sequence of Kastanás. As a result we would like to make a new proposal for the absolute chronology of the end of the Greek Late Bronze and the beginning of the Early Iron Age (Fig. 14). The left column gives an impression of the relative phase length of Late Mycenaean pottery phases, by the number of settlement horizons corresponding to each ceramic phase at Tiryns, Lower Citadel (according to PODZUWEIT 2007).56 Columns 2 to 4 summarize our anchors for the absolute chronolgy of the 12th to 10th centuries BCE. The proposal in column 5 is the result of combining the evidence of columns 1 to 4. The only historical-archaeological date, which can be securely linked to the Aegean pottery chronology is the destruction of the Syrian coastal sites of Ugarit and Tell Kazel. Both sites show clear signs of violent destructions, and both destruction levels contain Mycenaean-type pottery, of which the typologically latest vessels cannot be dated earlier than LH III B Final. Most probably the latest Mycenaean-type pottery from both sites dates to the beginning of LH III C Early (MONCHAMBERT 2004, 269–300, 321–322. – MOUNTJOY 2004. – JUNG 2008, 191–196). The destructions of those two Syrian cities are best explained as resulting from attacks by enemies coming from the sea and referred to in texts found at Ugarit (KLENGEL 1992, 149–151) and, most important, in a dated inscription from Egypt. That is the famous inscription from pharaoh Ramesses’ III temple at Medinet Habu, which is dated to his regnal year 8. It mentions a coalition of enemies coming from some Mediterranean islands (most probably in the Aegean), who try to attack Egypt. These people, referred to in the scholarly literature as Sea Peoples, are said to have destroyed various countries including Carchemish, i.e. the region of northern Syria, where Ugarit is situated. The same inscription mentions that the aggressors set up a camp in Amurru before moving on, towards Egypt. The largest Late Bronze Age tell in the region of Amurru and therefore probably its capital is Tell Kazel in Syria. The year 8 inscription states that Amurru was destroyed by that peoples coalition, and a total destruction is also reported in another inscription from Medinet Habu dated to year 5 of Ramesses.57 Thus, the Medinet Habu inscriptions set a number of termini ante quem for the destructions of Ugarit and Amurru. Today there seems to be considerable agreement among the Egyptologists as to the regnal period of pharaoh Ramesses III. According to the different reconstructions of the pharaonic chronology his year 8 is calculated to be 1180 (KRAUSS 2007, 187), 1177 (KITCHEN 2000, 49) or 1176/75 (VON BECKERATH 1997, 106, 190) BCE, while his 5th year would be 1183, 1180, 1179/78 BCE. These are the lowest possible termini ante quem for the start of LH III C Early. But the dating range can be further narrowed down at Ugarit with the help of an Egyptian letter found in the House of Urtenu.

56

57

Note that there are differences in labelling some of the horizons between Klaus Kilian’s proposal and the one by Christian Podzuweit. Here, Podzuweit’s proposal is used, as this forms the basis for the pottery chronology of the site. However, it is debated amongst egyptologists, whether the year 5 inscription reflects a real historical event or is rather an anachronistic anticipation of the processes described under the heading “year 8” (CIFOLA 1988, 291).

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

393

That letter (written in Akkadian) was sent by Bay (FREU 1988), pharaoh Siptah’s chancellor. A recently discovered new document from Egypt states that Bay was executed as a traitor in Siptah’s regnal year 5 (GRANDET 2000). According to current calculations Siptah reigned from 1197 (KRAUSS 2007, 187) or 1194/93 (VON BECKERATH 1997, 105, 190. – KITCHEN 2000, 49). This means that Bay’s execution occurred in 1193 or 1190/89. This date sets a terminus post quem non for the posting of the letter from the House of Urtenu. Thus, LH III C Early must have begun before the time period between 1197 and 1175, the extreme dates offered by the discussed written sources. Another kind of terminus ante quem is offered by the 14C-dates of Kastanás, Level 13, which, as discussed above, centre around the downward wiggle ~ 1180 calBC (Figs. 4 and 6) The buildings of this Level were erected during LH III C Early or Developed.58 The dating uncertainty of its beginning is due to the very fragmented material from the Level itself and to the scarcity of datable sherds from the preceding Level 14a. Level 14b can be assigned a more secure date to LH III C Early and most probably to an early stage of that phase (JUNG 2002, 222–224). Therefore, the three 14C-dates with readings around 1180 calBC give a terminus ante quem for a somewhat developed stage of LH III C Early or for IIIC Developed. The real building event cannot have happened much later than 1180, say between 1180 and 1170 BCE, because two of the three dates are on shortlived animal bones. It has to be taken into consideration that LH III C Early cannot have been a very short phase, because it is represented by two building horizons inside the Lower Citadel of Tiryns (PODZUWEIT 2007, 324–325) and in the northwestern and northeastern quarters of the town (MARAN – PAPADIMITRIOU ET AL. 2006). On that basis, the 14C-dates from Kastanás can be combined with the Near Eastern historical dates in an entirely satisfactory manner. If the destruction of Ugarit and Amurru occurred towards the beginning of the time window 1197–78 BCE, the Kastanás dates do not force us to push back the start of LH III C Early much into the 13th century. In this way, one can confirm a very conventional date for the end of the Mycenaean palace system of c. 1210/1200 BCE.59 The Kastanás terminus ad quem of ~1130 calBC for a certain moment during the course of LH III C Advanced (as extracted from the Level 12 dates), is furthermore in good agreement with the calculated end date of 1070/40 BCE for the Submycenaean phase, because (i) LH III C Advanced was a lengthy settlement phase at Tiryns (cf. PODZUWEIT 2007, 325– 326) and (ii) Submycenaean does not seem to have been a very short phase judging by the Kerameikos tomb evidence (RUPPENSTEIN 2007, 269).60 Therefore, on balance we have assigned a longer time period to Submycenaean than to LH III C Late. CONCLUSIONS Most important, we conclude there exists near-perfect agreement (with remaining errors on the scale of a few decades) between the traditional historical-archaeological dating of the Aegean Late Bronze Age – for all phases between LH III B Early and Submycenaean – and the tree-ring calibrated 14C-data as obtained from Kastanás. As a result of chronological finetuning of finds from the sites of Kastanás, Ássiros, Tiryns, Tell Kazel and Ugarit, and by transfer of dendro-dates from Switzerland via Italy to the Aegean, we make a new proposal for the absolute chronology of the end of the Greek Late Bronze and the beginning of the Early Iron Age (Fig. 14). 58 59

60

They were destroyed during LH III C Advanced. This date is also consistent with the 14C-dates of the earlier Levels of Kastanás, which we do not discuss in detail in the present paper (but cf. JUNG – WENINGER 2004, 216–217, 224). However, the 100 year duration discussed by RUPPENSTEIN (2007, 269) for the Submycenaean phase cannot be confirmed by our present study, even if his stage IV (Submycenaean/Protogeometric Transitional Style) is incorporated into the EPG phase.

394

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

We further conclude that the long-standing dating-discrepancies at Kastanás can be explained by a combination (stacking) of different effects, mainly: (i) measurements performed on ‘old-wood’ samples, (ii) major distortion of calibrated ages for short-lived (~ 1–4 yr old animal bone) samples by application of an inadequate (10–20 yr) tree-ring calibration curve, and (iii) inadequate (over-smoothed) construction of tree-ring calibration curves (both INTCAL98 and all the more INTCAL04), based on an inadequately low tree-ring sample density. This explanation is demonstrated by pairwise comparisons of the archaeological data with the INTCAL04 curve, the archaeological data with INTCAL04 raw data, as well as the INTCAL04 curve with INTCAL04 raw data. The inescapable corollary of this work is that the Radiocarbon Community must seriously consider undertaking a major research program, directed at establishing a Holocene 14C-age calibration based on a continuous sequence of annual samples. This annual 14C-age calibration would supply to archaeologists, on a world-wide scale, the widely requested chronological control over cultural events and processes, including the Aegean Late Bronze Age under study in the present paper, with achievable decadel dating precision.

Bibliography ANDREOU, ST. 2003 “Η μυκηναϊκή κεραμική και οι κοινωνίες της κεντρικής Μακεδονίας κατά την Ύστερη εποχή του Χαλκού”, 191–210 in: KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA – PAPAKONSTANTINOU 2003. ANDREOU, ST. – Κ. KOTSAKIS 1997 “Η προϊστορική τούμπα της Θεσσαλονίκης. Παλιά και νέα ερωτήματα”, AEMTH 10, 1996 [1997], 369–387. ANDREOU, ST. – K. PSARAKI 2007 “Tradition and Innovation in the Bronze Age Pottery of the Thessaloniki Toumba. Food and Drink Consumption and ‘Tableware’ Ceramics”, 397–420 in: TODOROVA – STEFANOVICH – IVANOV 2007. ANDRIKOU, E. 2006 “The Late Helladic III Pottery”, 11–179 in: ANDRIKOU – ARAVANTINOS – GODART – SACCONI – VROOM 2006. ANDRIKOU, E. – V. L. ARAVANTINOS – L. GODART – A. SACCONI – J. VROOM 2006 Thèbes. Fouilles de la Cadmée II.2. Les tablettes en linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou. Le contexte archéologique. La céramique de la Odos Pelopidou et la chronologie du linéaire B. Rome. BARTOLONI, G. – F. DELPINO (eds.) 2005 Oriente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro in Italia. Atti dell’incontro di studi, Roma, 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Mediterranea 1). Pisa – Rome. BECKER, C. 1986 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Tierknochenfunde (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 5). Berlin. VON BECKERATH, J.

1997

Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten. Die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr. (Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 46). Mainz.

BIANCO PERONI, V. 1976 Die Messer in Italien / I coltelli nell’Italia continentale (Prähistorische Bronzefunde VII 2). Munich. BIERMANN, E. (ed.) 1997 Großgartach und Oberlauterbach. Interregionale Beziehungen im süddeutschen Mittelneolithikum (Archäologische Berichte 8). Bonn.

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

395

BIETAK, M. (ed.) 2000 The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceed-

ings of an International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf, 15 th – 17 st of November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11 th – 12 th of May 1998 (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 1. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften / Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 19). Vienna. 2003a The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf, 2 nd of May – 7 th of May 2001 (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften / Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 29). Vienna. BIETAK, M. 2003b “Science Versus Archaeology: Problems and Consequences of High Aegean Chronology”, 23–33 in BIETAK 2003a. BIETAK, M. – E. CZERNY (eds.) 2007 The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28 th of May – 1 st of June 2003 (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften / Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 37). Vienna. BIETAK, M. – F. HÖFLMAYER 2007 “Introduction: High and Low Chronology”, 13–23 in BIETAK – CZERNY 2007. BORGNA, E. – P. CÀSSOLA GUIDA (eds.) in press Dall’Egeo all’Adriatico: organizzazioni sociali, modi di scambio e interazione in età post-palaziale (XII–XI

sec. a. C.). From the Aegean to the Adriatic: Social Organizations, Modes of Exchange and Interaction in the Post-palatial Period (12 th–11 th c. BC). Seminario internazionale, 1–2 Dicembre 2006 / International Workshop, December 1 st–2 nd 2006, CISM Udine (Studi e ricerche di protostoria mediterranea). Rome. BRANDHERM, D. – M. TRACHSEL (eds.) 2008 A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology / L’âge obscur se fait-il jour de nouveau? Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l’âge du fer en Méditerranée. Proceedings of the XV UISPP World Congress (Lisbon, 4–9 September 2006) / Actes du XV Congrés Mondial de la UISPP (Lisbonne, 4–9 septembre 2006). Session C53. (BAR-IS 1871). Oxford. BRONK RAMSEY, C. – C. E. BUCK – S. W. MANNING – P. REIMER – J. VAN DER PLICHT 2006 “Developments in Radiocarbon Calibration for Archaeology”, Antiquity 80, 783–798. BRONK RAMSEY, C. – J. VAN DER PLICHT – B. WENINGER 2001 “‘Wiggle Matching’ Radiocarbon Dates”, Radiocarbon 43 (1), 381–390. BUCK, C. E. – P. G. BLACKWELL 2004 “Formal Statistical Models for Estimating Radiocarbon Calibration Curves”, Radiocarbon 46, no. 3, 1093–1102. BRUINS, H. J. – W. G. MOOK 1989 “The Need for a Calibrated Radiocarbon ‘Chronology of Near Eastern Archaeology”, Radiocarbon 31 (3), 1019–1029. BRUINS, H. J. – J. VAN DER PLICHT – A. MAZAR – C. B. RAMSEY – S. W. MANNING 2005 “The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov. OxCal Bayesian Computations for the Iron IB–IIA Boundary and Iron IIA Destruction Events”, 271–293 in: LEVY – HIGHAM 2005. BRUINS, H. J. – J. A. MACGILLIVRAY – C. E. SYNOLAKIS – CH. BENJAMINI – J. KELLER – H. KISCH – A. KLÜGEL – J. VAN DER PLICHT 2008 “Geoarchaeological Tsunami Deposits at Palaikastro (Crete) and the Late Minoan IA Eruption of Santorini”, JAS 35, 191–212. CARANCINI, G. L. – R. PERONI 1999 L’età del bronzo in Italia: per una cronologia della produzione metallurgica (Quaderni di Protostoria 2) 1999. CIFOLA, B. 1988 “Ramses III and the Sea Peoples: A Structural Analysis of the Medinet Habu Inscriptions”, Orientalia (Rome) 57, 275–306.

396

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

COLONNA, C. 2006 Necropoli dell’ultima età del bronzo nell’area padana. Per una loro cronologia relativa (Accademia Lucchese di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, Studi e Testi LXXX; Fonti Archeologiche per la Protostoria Italiana 1). Lucca. DAVID-ELBIALI, M. – C. DUNNING 2005 “Le cadre chronologique relatif et absolu au nord-ouest des Alpes entre 1060 et 600 av. J.-C.”, 145–195 in: BARTOLONI – DELPINO 2005. DELPINO, F. 1987 “Etruria e Lazio prima dei Tarquini – le fasi protostoriche”, 9–36 in: Etruria e Lazio arcaico. Atti dell’Incontro di studio (10–11 novembre 1986) (Quaderni del Centro di Studio per l’Archeologia EtruscoItalica 15). Rome. DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1952 Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. 1964 The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors. An Archaeological Survey c. 1200 – c. 1000 B.C. Oxford. 1972 The Greek Dark Ages. London. FREU, J. 1988 “La tablette RS 86.2230 et la phase finale du royaume d’Ugarit”, Syria 65, 395–398. GORDON, D. H. 1953 “Fire and the Sword: the Technique of Destruction”, Antiquity 27, 149–152. GRANDET, P. 2000 “L’exécution du chancelier Bay. O.IFAO 1864”, BIFAO 100, 339–345. GUGLIELMINO, R. 2005 “Rocavecchia: nuove testimonianze di relazioni con l’Egeo e il Mediterraneo orientale nell’età del Bronzo”, 637–651 in: LAFFINEUR – GRECO 2005. HANKEY, V. 1988 “Note on the Chronology of LH IIIC Late and Submycenaean”, JdI 103, 33–37. HÄNSEL, B. 1989 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Grabung und der Baubefund (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 7). Kiel. HIGHAM, T. – CH. BRONK RAMSEY – C. OWEN (eds.) 2004 Radiocarbon and Archaeology. Proceedings of the 4 th Symposium, Oxford 2002 (Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 62). Oxford. HOCHSTETTER, A. 1984 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die handgemachte Keramik. Schichten 19 bis 1 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 3). Berlin. HOREJS, B. 2007 Das Prähistorische Olynth. Ausgrabungen in der Toumba Agios Mamas 1994–1996. Die spätbronzezeitliche handgemachte Keramik der Schichten 13 bis 1 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 21). Rahden. HRUBY, J. 2006 Feasting and Ceramics: A View from the Palace of Nestor at Pylos. Cincinnati. . JÖRIS, O. – B. WENINGER 1998 “Extension of the 14C Calibration Curve to ca. 40,000 calBC by Synchronizing Greenland 18O/16O Ice Core Records and North Atlantic Foraminifera Profiles: A Comparison with U/Th Coral Data”, Radiocarbon 40 (1), 495–504. JUNG, R. 2002 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Schichten 19 bis 11 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 18). Kiel. 2003 “Late Helladic IIIC at the Toúmbes of Kastanás and Ólynthos – and the Problems of Macedonian Mycenaean Pottery”, 131–144 in: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms.

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

397

2006

Χρονολογία comparata. Vergleichende Chronologie von Südgriechenland und Süditalien von ca. 1700/1600 bis 1000 v. u. Z. (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 26. DenkschrWien 348). Vienna.

2007

“On the Origin of the Wheel-made Grey Ware found in Central Macedonia”, (June, 10th 2007). “Die mykenische Keramik von Tell Kazel (Syrien)”, Damaszener Mitteilungen 15, 2006 [2008], 147–218.

2008

JUNG, R. – B. WENINGER 2002 “Appendix: Zur Realität der Diskrepanzen zwischen kalibrierten 14C-Daten und der historischarchäologischen Datierung in Kastanas”, 281–298 in: JUNG 2002. 2004 “Kastanás and the Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze and Early Iron Age”, 209–228 in: HIGHAM – BRONK RAMSEY – OWEN 2004. KITCHEN, K. A. 2000 “Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I). The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment”, 39–52 in: BIETAK 2000. KLEIN, J. – J. C. LERMAN – P. E. DAMON – E. K. RALPH 1982 “Calibration of Radiocarbon Dates-tables based on the Consesus Data of the Workshop on Calibrating the Radiocarbon Time Scale”, Radiocarbon 24 (1), 103–150. KLENGEL, H. 1992 Syria 3000 to 300 B.C. A Handbook of Political History. Berlin. KRAUSS, R. 2007 “An Egyptian Chronology for Dynasties XIII to XXV”, 173–189 in: BIETAK – CZERNY 2007. KROMER, B. – S. W. MANNING – P. I. KUNIHOLM – M. NEWTON – M. SPURK – I. LEVIN 2001 “Regional 14CO2 Offsets in the Troposphere: Magnitude, Mechanisms, ands Consequences”, Science 294, 2529–2532. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. – M. PAPAKONSTANTINOU (eds.) 2003 Η Περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού Κόσμου. Β’ Διεθνές Διεπιστημονικό Συμπόσιο, 26–30 Σεπτεμβρίου, Λαμια

1999. Πρακτικά. / 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium ‘The Periphery of the Mycenaean World’, 26–30 September, Lamia 1999. Proceedings. Athens. LAFFINEUR, R. – GRECO, E. (eds.) 2005 Emporia. Aegeans in Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean

Conference / 10 e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25). Liège. LEMOS, I. S. 2002 The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Oxford. LEVY, T. E. – T. HIGHAM (eds.) 2005 The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science. Equinox – London – Oakville. LÜNING, J. 2005 “Bandkeramische Hofplätze und absolute Chronologie der Bandkeramik”, 49–74 in: LÜNING – FRIRDICH – ZIMMERMANN 2005. LÜNING, J. – CH. FRIRDICH – A. ZIMMERMANN (eds.) 2005 Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Köln vom 16.9–19.9.2002 (Internationale Archäologie 7). Rahden/Westf. LÜNING, J. – P. STEHLI (eds.) 1994 Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte (Beiträge zur Neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte V. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 36). Köln. MAGGIULLI, G. in press “I ripostigli di Roca Vecchia (Lecce): analisi dei materiali e problematiche archeologiche”, in: BORGNA – CÀSSOLA GUIDA in press. MANNING, S. 1999 A Test of Time. The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid Second Millenium BC. Oxford.

398

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

MANNING, ST. W. – B. KROMER – P. I. KUNIHOLM – M. W. NEWTON 2001 “Anatolian Tree-Rings and a New Chronology for the East Mediterranean Bronze Ages”, Science 294, 2532–2535. 2003 “Confirmation of Near-absolute Dating of east Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Dendrochronology”, Antiquity 77 (March 2003). MARAN, J. – A. PAPADIMITRIOU, with contributions by R. PASTERNAK, PH. STOCKHAMMER, CH. HÜBNER and ST. GIESE 2006 “Forschungen im Stadtgebiet von Tiryns 1999–2002”, AA, 97–169. MILLER, R. – M. OTTE (eds.) 2005 Actes du XIVème Congrès de l’UISPP, Université de Liège, Belgique, 2–8 septembre 2001. Section 11. L’âge du bronze en Europe et en Méditerranée (BAR-IS 1337). Oxford. MONCHAMBERT, J.-Y. 2004 La céramique d’Ougarit. Campagnes de fouilles 1975 et 1976 (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 15). Paris. MOOK, W. G. 1983 “14C Calibration Curves Depending on Sample Time-width”, 517–525 in: MOOK – WATERBOLK 1983. MOOK, W. G. – H. T. WATERBOLK (eds.) 1983 Proceedings of the First International Symposium 14C and Archaeology, Groningen 1981 (PACT Publ. 8). Strasbourg. MOOK, W. G. – H. T. WATERBOLK 1985 Handbook for Archaeologists III. Radiocarbon Dating. Strasbourg. MORICO, G. (ed.) 1984 Il ripostiglio di Poggio Berni. Rimini. MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1988 “LH IIIC Late Versus Submycenaean. The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed”, JdI 103, 1–33. 2004 “Miletos: a Note”, BSA 99, 189–200. MÜLLER-KARPE, H. 1962 “Die Metallbeigaben der früheisenzeitlichen Kerameikos-Gräber”, JdI 77, 59–129. NEWTON, M. – K. A. WARDLE – P. I. KUNIHOLM 2005 “Dendrochronology and Radiocarbon Determinations from Assiros and the Beginning of the Greek Iron Age”, AEMTH 17, 2003 [2005], 173–190. PACCIARELLI, M. 2000 Dal villaggio alla città. La svolta protourbana del 1000 a. C. nell’Italia tirrenica (Grandi contesti e problemi della Protostoria italiana 4). Florence. 2005 “14C e correlazioni con le dendrodate nordalpine: elementi per una cronologia assoluta del Bronzo finale 3 e del primo Ferro dell’Italia peninsulare”, 81–90 in: BARTOLONI – DELPINO 2005. PAGLIARA, C. – G. MAGGIULLI – T. SCARANO – C. PINO – R. GUGLIELMINO – J. DE GROSSI MAZZORIN – M. RUGGE – G. FIORENTINO – M. PRIMAVERA – L. CALCAGNILE – M. D’ELIA – G. QUARTA 2007 “La sequenza cronostratigrafica delle fasi di occupazione dell’insediamento protostorico di Roca (Melendugno, Lecce). Relazione preliminare della campagna di scavo 2005 – Saggio X”, Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 57, 311–362. PAPADIMITRIOU, A. 1988 “Bericht zur Früheisenzeitlichen Keramik aus der Unterburg von Tiryns. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83”, AA, 227–243. PARE, CH. 1998 “Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa Teil I. Grundzüge der Chronologie im östlichen Mitteleuropa (11.–8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.)”, JRGZM 45, 293–433. 2008 “Italian Metalwork of the 11th–9th Centuries BC and the Absolute Chronology of the Dark Age Mediterranean”, in: BRANDHERM – TRACHSEL 2008. PEARSON, G. W. 1986 “Precise Calendrical Dating of Known Growth-period Samples Using a ‘Curve-fitting’ Technique”, Radiocarbon 28 (2A), 292–299.

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

399

PERONI, R. 1963 “Monte Primo”, in: Inventaria Archeologica. Italien Fasz. 3, I.7. Without place. PERONI, R. – A. VANZETTI 2005 “Intorno alla cronologia della prima età del Ferro italiana, da H. Müller-Karpe a Chr. Pare”, 53–80 in: BARTOLONI – DELPINO 2005. PODZUWEIT, CH. 2007(†) Studien zur spätmykenischen Keramik (Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 14). Wiesbaden. POPHAM, M. R. – L. H. SACKETT – P. G. THEMELIS (eds.) 1979/80 Lefkandi I. The Iron Age. The Settlement. The Cemeteries (BSA Suppl. 11). London. PSARAKI, K. 2004 Υλική και κοινωνική διάσταση του στιλ της κεραμικής. Η χειροποίητη κεραμική της Εποχής Χαλκού από την Τούμπα Θεσσαλονίκης (PhD dissertation, Aristoteles University Salonica). Thessaloniki. and

REIMER, P. J. – M. G. L. BAILLIE – E. BARD – A. BAYLISS – J. W. BECK – C. J. H. BERTRAND – P. G. BLACKWELL – C. E. BUCK – G. S. BURR – K. B. CUTLER – P. E. DAMON – R. L. EDWARDS – R. G. FAIRBANKS – M. FRIEDRICH – T. P. GUILDERSON – A. G. HOGG – K. A. HUGHEN – B. KROMER – F. G. MCCORMAC – S. W. MANNING – C. B. RAMSEY – R. W. REIMER – S. REMMELE – J. R. SOUTHON – M. STUIVER – S TALAMO – F. W. TAYLOR – J. VAN DER PLICHT – C. E. WEYHENMEYER 2004 “IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26–0 ka BP”, Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058. RUPPENSTEIN, F. 2007 Die submykenische Nekropole. Neufunde und Neubewertung (Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 18). Munich. RYCHNER, V. (in cooperation with A. BILLAMBOZ – A. BOCQUET – P. GASSMANN – L. GEBUS – TH. KLAG – A. MARGUET – G. SCHÖBEL) 1995 “Stand und Aufgaben dendrochronologischer Forschung zur Urnenfelderzeit”, 455–487 in: Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Monographien 35). Bonn. RYCHNER-FARAGGI, A.-M. 1993 Métal et parure au Bronze final. Hauterive-Champréveyres 9 (Archéologie neuchâteloise 17). Neuchâtel. SALZANI, L. 1987 “Un nuovo ripostiglio di bronzi da Frattesina”, Padusa 23, 219–231. 1989 “Necropoli dell’Età del Bronzo Finale alle Narde di Fratta Polesine. Prima nota”, Padusa 25, 5–42. 1990–91 “Necropoli dell’Età del Bronzo Finale alle Narde di Fratta Polesine. Seconda nota”, Padusa 26–27, 125–206. SETTIS, S. – M. C. PARRA (eds.) 2005 Magna Grecia. Archeologia di un sapere. Exhibition Catalogue Catanzaro. Milano. SCOTT, E. M. 2003 “International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI) and the Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI), 1990–2002: Results, Analyses, and Conclusions”, Radiocarbon 45, 135–408. SCOTT, E. M. – G. T. GORDON – G. T. NAYSMITH – P. BRYANT – D. O’DONNELL 2007 “A Report on Phase 1 of the 5th International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI)”, Radiocarbon 49, 409–426. STÄUBLE, 2005 Häuser und absolute Datierung der ältesten Bandkeramik (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 117). Bonn. STEHLI, P. 1994 “Chronologie der Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal”, 79–191 in: LÜNING – STEHLI 1994. STRIEHN, H. C. 2000 Untersuchungen zur Bandkeramik in Württemberg (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 69). Bonn.

400

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

STUIVER, M. – P. J. REIMER – TH. F. BRAZUNIAS 1998a “High-Precision Radiocarbon Age Calibration for Terrestrial and Marine Samples”, Radiocarbon 40 (3), 1127–1151. STUIVER, M. – P. J. REIMER – E. BARD – J. W. BECK – G. S. BURR – K. A. HUGHEN – B. KROMER – G. MCCORMAC – J. VAN DER PLICHT – M. SPURK (eds.) 1998b “INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000–0 calBP”, Radiocarbon 40 (3), 1041–1083. TODOROVA, H. – M. STEFANOVICH – G. IVANOV (eds.) 2007 The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon

Praehistoricus, Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres–Amphipolis (Greece), 27.09–01.10.2004 (In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul 2). Sofia. TRACHSEL, M. 2004 Untersuchungen zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der Hallstattzeit (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 104). Bonn. VAN DER PLICHT, J. (ed.) 2000 “The 2000 Radiocarbon varve/comparison issue.” Radiocarbon 42, 313–482. VAN DER PLICHT, J. – H. J. BRUINS 2001 “Radiocarbondating in Near-Eastern Contexts: Confusion and Quality Control”, Radiocarbon 43 (3), 1155–1166. VAN DER PLICHT, J. – J. W. BECK – E. BARD – M. G. L. BAILLIE – P. G. BLACKWELL – C. E. BUCK – M. FRIEDRICH – T. P. GUILDERSON – K. A. HUGHEN – B. KROMER – F. G. MCCORMACK – C. BRONK RAMSEY – P. J. REIMER – R. W. REIMER – S. REMMELE – D. A. RICHARDS – J. R. SOUTHON – M. STUIVER – C. E. WEYHENMEYER 2004 “NotCal04. Comparison/calibration 14C records 26–50 cal kyr BP”, Radiocarbon 46, 1225–1238. VENTURINO GAMBARI, M. (ed.) 1999 In riva al fiume Eridano. Una necropoli dell’età del Bronzo finale a Morano sul Po. Alessandria. VENTURINO GAMBARI, M. – M. LUZZI 1999 “Catalogo”, 103–141 in: VENTURINO GAMBARI 1999. WARD, G. K. – S. R. WILSON 1978 “Procedures for Comparing and Combining Radiocarbon Age Determinations: a Critique”, Archaeometry 20 (1), 19–31. WARDLE, K. A. 1980 “Excavations at Assiros, 1975–79”, BSA 75, 229–267. 1987 “Excavations at Assiros Toumba 1986. A Preliminary Report”, BSA 82, 313–329. 1988 “Excavations at Assiros Toumba 1987. A Preliminary Report”, BSA 83, 375–387. 1989 “Excavations at Assiros Toumba 1988. A Preliminary Report”, BSA 84, 447–463. 1997 “Change or Continuity: Assiros Toumba at the Transition from Bronze to Iron Age”, AEMTH 10A, 1996 [1997], 443–460. WARDLE, K. A. – M. NEWTON – P. I. KUNIHOLM 2007 “Troy VIIb2 Revisited. The Date of the Transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Northern Aegean”, 481–497 in: TODOROVA – STEFANOVICH – IVANOV 2007. WARDLE, K. A. – D. WARDLE 2007 “Assiros Toumba. A Brief History of the Settlement”, 451–479 in: TODOROVA – STEFANOVICH – IVANOV 2007. WENINGER, B. 1986 “High-precision Calibration of Archaeological Radiocarbon Dates”, in: Acta Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica IV. Nitra, 11–53. WENINGER, B. 1997 “Monte Carlo Wiggle Matching. Zur statistischen Auswertung der mittelneolithischen Hasselsweiler 2, Inden 3, und Inden 1”, 91–113 in: BIERMANN 1997.

14

C-Daten von

WENINGER, B. – O. JÖRIS 2008 “A 14C-Age Calibration Curve for the last 60 ka: The Greenland-Hulu U/Th Time-scale and its Impact on Understanding the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Western Eurasia”, Journal of Human Evolution 55, 772–781.

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

401

WILLKOMM, H. 1989 “Radiokohlenstoffdatierungen des Siedlungshügels Kastanas”, 395–411 in: HÄNSEL 1989. ZANINI, A. 1997a “A.21 Stagno (Collesalvetti – LI)”, 103–115 in: ZANINI 1997b. ZANINI, A. (ed.) 1997b Dal Bronzo al Ferro. Il II millennio a.C. nella Toscana centro occidentale. Pisa. ZANINI, A. – N. MARTINELLI 2005 “New Data on the Absolute Chronology of the Late Bronze Age in Central Italy”, 147–155 in: MILLER – OTTE 2005.

402

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

403

404

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

405

406

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

407

408

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

409

410

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

411

412

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

413

414

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age

415

416

Bernhard Weninger, Reinhard Jung

REPORT ON THE FINAL GENERAL DISCUSSION

The final discussion at the end of the workshop was chaired by Prof. Irene Lemos to whom our sincere thanks are due. The discussion took a considerably longer time than the final discussions of the previous workshops. This was partly due to the manifold questions brought up and discussed with great animation. Much time, moreover, was dedicated to deliberations on technical topics such as changes in the quality of pottery, defining a certain “Submycenaean” treatment of clays (colour, consistency, firing), or on problems connected with radiocarbon dating. The following questionnaire compiled by Professor Lemos gives an appropriate insight into the wide range of subjects: 1. Are there any regional differences between Mycenae and Tiryns? 2. Is there a gap in Laconia after the recently results of both surveys and excavations? 3. Is there a SM phase between LH III C and PG? 4. Is there a region where there is a clear distinction between LH III C Middle and Late, as well as between LH III C Late and SM? 5. What does the decline of the Mycenaean life style really imply? (Take into consideration: changes in ritual, politics, iconography, burial rites). 6. Which are the most diagnostic features which define LH III C Late and SM into different stages? 7. Pictorial pottery: why is there so little material of EIA and how can we explain its revival in the eighth century? 8. How can we explain the relationship between Athens and Cyprus in the EIA? 9. Is it still helpful to keep the term of the local Horizons / Strata / Levels? 10. How can we link the classification of our material culture to the cultural system(s) which produced it? As at the previous workshops the participants at the final discussion were invited to reformulate their earlier statements or to elaborate further on these subjects in written versions. Some authors, indeed, responded to our invitation. Their statements are presented in the following. Most other authors incorporated their considerations into the final version of their paper. ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE TOBIAS MÜHLENBRUCH

On Point 1 Tiryns, especially the Lower Citadel, offers the advantage of an excellent preservation of the postpalatial Mycenaean settlement because later on there was no major building activity on top of it. Thanks to Klaus Kilian, the settlement was excavated homogeneously. It was characterized by a new structure with important reminiscences of the palatial period. In addition we

418

Report on the Final General Discussion

have got the settlement in the Lower Town. In contrast, as far as we know the settlement of LH III C at Mycenae, there were less building activities without major changes of the settlement structure.

On Point 3 From an architectural point of view (see also my answer to Question 9), Klaus Kilian excavated Room 102a in the Lower Citadel of Tiryns. It was a kind of “Grubenhaus”, built into a grey layer which marked the end of the Mycenaean settlement. So he dated Room 102a to the Submycenaean period. The Submycenaean horizon is also characterized by an orientation which differs from orientation of Mycenaean and Geometric houses (KILIAN 1981, 151, 153, 193, 150 fig. 1).

On Point 4 Again judging only from the stratigraphy of the settlements (see also my answer to Question 9), in the Argolid we have got the so-called “destruction of the granary” at the end of the architectural phase LH III C Advanced in Mycenae and in Tiryns.1 The end of the Mycenaean settlement in the Lower Citadel of Tiryns is marked by a grey layer (KILIAN 1981, 151, 153)2 which divides according to Klaus Kilian the Mycenaean and the Submycenaean/Early Iron Age structures. The destruction horizon of both settlements at the end of LH III C Advanced and the grey layer in the Lower Citadel of Tiryns are important stratigraphical markers for the dividing and the definition of architectural phases.

On Point 5 This question calls for a question in reply to a question: When does the Mycenaean life style decline? Within or at the end of LH III C, or within or at the end of the Submycenaean phase, if the Submycenaean phase was a chronological one? Definitely not at the end of the palatial period, although we know about massive destruction horizons at that time. In my opinion, the Submycenaean phase was a chronological one, and the Mycenaean life style (e.g. settlement structure, tombs, pottery, bronzes, figurines) declined at the end of LH III C. It is difficult to give one’s opinion on this topic as we have not got a lot of Submycenaean sites, and we have to bear in mind that there were of course Mycenaean traditions in the Submycenaean period (MOUNTJOY 1993, 28–30, 114–118). But I do not recognize the survival of the “Mycenaean package” in the Submycenaean period. So there must have been a change in the material culture which, generally spoken, indicates also a change of the “ideology” – following Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy simply as “teaching of ideas”. The question arises: The “Mycenaean package” declined, but what happened to the meanings attached to the “Mycenaean package”? Did the meanings survive, did the people attach (all) the previous meanings to other objects? Consider e.g. the certainly altered function of the Upper Citadel of Tiryns (MARAN 2006). Arguments by analogy are always a little bit dangerous, but there were happenings in the last century that archaeologically would maybe produce comparable findings regarding to the end of specific material culture, symbols, values and life style – e.g. the end of the German

1

2

For the synchronisation of the destruction horizons at Mycenae and Tiryns: KILIAN 1980, 184 fig. 7. – For the dating to the end of LH III C Advanced see Kilian’s synopsis of the stratigraphy of the Lower Citadel in MÜHLENBRUCH 2004. See also MÜHLENBRUCH 2004.

Report on the Final General Discussion

419

Democratic Republic and their symbols. There are too many differences between this event and the decline of the Mycenaean life style to compare them too seriously. There also was a decline of the population at the end of the Greek Bronze Age, and we know about migrations (e.g. the “Dorians”) in early Greek history. That is why I think we should include the possibility of an altered and/or altering structure of population at the end of the LH III C as one aspect in our approaches to understand the processes involved.

On Point 9 In my point of view it is very important to keep and use the terms of local horizons. In Mycenaean archaeology, we often create confusion by mixing chronological phases, architectural phases and pottery phases because we use the same terms for these different aspects. But it is not proven and even not very likely that the history of the settlements and the styles of the pottery developed simultaneously.3 So methodologically it is better to use the system of local horizons for the settlements and specific terms for the architectural and for the pottery phases and synchronize them later, although such tables are often a little bit difficult to read. An example for this subject is the synopsis of the stratigraphy of the Lower Citadel of Tiryns: Klaus Kilian and Christian Podzuweit used the local system of horizons. Both defined sub-phases, based on the architecture (Kilian) and on the pottery (Podzuweit). It is not surprising that Kilian’s subphases do not always correspond to Podzuweit’s. The problem is that they used, as it is usual, the same terms for their sub-phases with different definitions and meanings. Here it would have been better to use different terms for the architecture and the pottery.4

Bibliography DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. – I. S. LEMOS (eds.) 2006 Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3). Edinburgh. DESTUTT DE TRACY, A. L. C. 1977 Elements d’idéologie (Faksimileneudruck der Ausgabe Paris 1801–1815). Stuttgart – Bad Cannstatt. KILIAN, K. 1980 “Zum Ende der mykenischen Epoche in der Argolis”, JRGZM 27, 166–195. 1981 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1978. 1979. Bericht zu den Grabungen”, AA, 149–194. MARAN, J. 2006 “Coming to Terms with the Past – Ideology and Power in Late Helladic IIIC”, 123–150 in: DEGERJALKOTZY – LEMOS 2006. MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1993 Mycenaean Pottery. An Introduction (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 36). Oxford. MÜHLENBRUCH, T. 2004 Ein dunkles Zeitalter? – Untersuchungen zur Siedlungsstruktur der Unterburg von Tiryns in der mykenischen Nachpalastzeit (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Heidelberg.

3 4

E.g. MÜHLENBRUCH 2004. See MÜHLENBRUCH 2004.

420

Report on the Final General Discussion

PHILIPP STOCKHAMMER

On Point 1 Although lying close to each other, Tiryns and Mycenae show different preferences for certain ceramic vessel shapes and decoration in the palatial as well as in the post-palatial period. In LH III C, these micro-regional preferences increase, as the inhabitants of Tiryns demonstrate a special interest in certain pottery forms which either do not appear at all in Mycenae or only in very small numbers. Whereas e.g. the painted conical kylix FS 274 is documented in Tiryns in huge numbers from the beginning of the post-palatial period in LH III C Early onwards (STOCKHAMMER 2008), this shape is completely missing in Mycenae in LH III C Early and appears with only two vessels in LH III C Middle 2. The comparatively high number of monochrome carinated cups FS 240 in Tiryns in LH III C Early 2 and their rareness in contemporaneous contexts in Mycenae is another indicator of regional preferences. However, the finding together of Handmade Burnished Ware and monochrome carinated cups FS 240 in the NorthEastern Lower Town of Tiryns indicates that a connection might have existed between certain types of wares or forms and certain identity groups within the settlement. In the case of the Handmade Burnished Ware and the monochrome carinated cups one might think of an ethnic group of immigrants differentiated from the rest of the local inhabitants (STOCKHAMMER 2008). In some cases, therefore, regional and intra-site preferences may be interpreted as the realization of different social identities in material culture. With the existence of regional preferences between Mycenae and Tiryns since the palatial period in mind, it is not surprising that wavy band craters are documented on the Lower Citadel in Tiryns in significant LH III C Middle 2 contexts, whereas they do not seem to appear in Mycenae before LH III C Late after the destruction of the Granary. This chronological difference, however, has to be taken into consideration, when wavy band craters from unstratified contexts are dated with regard to their settlement stratification in the Argolid.

On Point 3 The stratigraphy and the pottery sequence of the Lower Citadel of Tiryns clearly show that there is a settlement phase stratigraphically superimposed over layers which can be attributed to LH III C Late in ceramic terminology terms. On the other hand, the diagnostic features of the Protogeometric phase are still missing in the pottery of this settlement phase. Therefore, the term Submycenaean seems to be an adequate expression of this finding situation, at least for the development of pottery in the Southern Argolid.

On Points 4 and 6 Although the excavations in the Lower Citadel and the Lower Town of Tiryns have revealed an outstanding settlement stratigraphy and a huge amount of ceramic material for LH III C, it is still surprisingly difficult to differentiate LH III C Middle 2 and LH III C Late on the basis of the pottery development. This may be due to the short duration of LH III C Late, which may have left inadequate time for the creation of a greater number of discrete vessel shapes and patterns. However, a few diagnostic features can be isolated for this phase (STOCKHAMMER this volume. – STOCKHAMMER 2008): monochrome deep bowls with a narrow reserved zone with undulating wavy line, disintegrated fine line groups and broad monochrome and reserved banding on closed vessels. In contrast to the differentiation of the pottery between LH III C Middle 2 and LH III C Late, the division between LH III C Late and Submycenaean in Tiryns is easily undertaken based on the diagnostic feature of the monochrome deep bowl which shows either a tight

Report on the Final General Discussion

421

wiggly wavy line or zigzag in the narrow reserved zone and which is documented in huge numbers in the settlement.

On Point 5 From the point of view of the pottery, it seems of great interest that the few innovations of LH III C Late apparently concentrate on small or very small vessels which are often found in the context of small cist graves (e.g. Lefkandi: POPHAM – SCHOFIELD – SHERRATT 2006, 23, 71, 144 fig. 2.4:5; 204 fig. 2.31:10,11. – Mycenae: Prehistoric Cemetery Grave XXXIX: DESBOROUGH 1954, 258) or in the context of larnakes (e.g. Tiryns: see STOCKHAMMER this volume. – STOCKHAMMER 2008. – Mycenae: WACE 1921–23, 33 fig. 9b; 36. – MDP, 192 fig. 254:4). The correlation of innovation with certain contexts of deposition requires an explanation which is still difficult to give (cf. STOCKHAMMER 2008).

Bibliography DESBOROUGH, V. R. D’A. 1954 “Mycenae 1939–1953 Part V. Four Tombs”, BSA 49, 231–298. EVELY, D. (ed.) 2006 Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (BSA Suppl. 39). London. PODZUWEIT, C. 1983 “Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1981. Bericht zur spätmykenischen Keramik”, AA, 359–402. 2007(†) Studien zur spätmykenischen Keramik (Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 14). Wiesbaden. POPHAM, M. R. – E. V. SCHOFIELD – E. S. SHERRATT 2006 “The Pottery”, 137–231 in: EVELY 2006. STOCKHAMMER, P. W. 2008 Kontinuität und Wandel – Die Keramik der Nachpalastzeit aus der Unterstadt von Tiryns. Heidelberg.

WACE, A. J. B. 1921–23 “Excavations at Mycenae § VII. – The Lion Gate and Grave Circle Area”, BSA 25, 9–126.