The Historical Greek Village 0876613083, 9780876613085

Citation preview

LERNA VOLUME VIII

THE HISTORIC AL GREEK VILLAGE

LERNA RESULTS OF EXC AVATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE AMERIC AN SCHOOL OF CLASSIC AL STUDIES AT ATHENS I Nils-Gustaf Gejvall, The Fauna (1969) II J. Lawrence Angel, The People (1971) III Jeremy B. Rutter, The Pottery of Lerna IV (1995) IV Martha Heath Wiencke, The Architecture, Stratification, and Pottery of Lerna III (2000) V Karen D. Vitelli, The Neolithic Pottery from Lerna (2007) VI Elizabeth Courtney Banks, The Settlement and Architecture of Lerna IV (2013) VII Elizabeth Courtney Banks, The Neolithic Settlement (2015)

LERNA A PRECLASSICAL SITE IN THE ARGOLID RESULTS OF EXC AVATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE AMERIC AN SCHOOL OF CL ASSIC AL STUDIES AT ATHENS

VOLUME VIII

THE HISTORIC AL GREEK VILLAGE BY

BRICE L. ERICKSON

A M E R IC A N S C HO OL OF C L A S S IC A L S T U DI E S AT AT H E N S PR I NC ET ON, N E W J E R S E Y 2 018

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens gratefully acknowledges the support of James H. Ottaway Jr., Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Trustees, in the production of this volume.

Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the von Bothmer Publication Fund of the Archaeological Institute of America

© American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2018 Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data (Revised for vol. 8) American School of Classical Studies at Athens.   Lerna, a preclassical site in the Argolid.   Includes bibliographical references and index.   Contents: v. 1. The fauna / N. G. Gejvall—v. 2. The people / J. L. Angel—v. 3. The pottery of Lerna IV / Jeremy B. Rutter—v. 4. The architecture, stratification, and pottery of Lerna III / Martha Heath Wiencke—v. 5. The neolithic pottery from Lerna / Karen D. Vitelli—v. 6. The settlement and architecture of Lerna IV / Elizabeth Courtney Banks—v. 7. The neolithic settlement / Elizabeth Courtney Banks—v. 8. The historical Greek village / Brice L. Erickson. 1. Lerna, Greece. I. Title. GN778.22.G8A43 1969 938.8 75-324986 ISBN-13: 978-0-87661-308-5 (v. 8) printed in the united states of america by thomson-­shore, incorporated, dexter, michigan

This book is dedicated to the memory of my father, Thomas Berg

PREFACE

T

his book has been long in the making. It began with an invitation from Jeremy Rutter and Martha Wiencke while I was teaching at Dartmouth in 2001 to publish the historical Greek remains from Lerna. This launched a project that has taken over a decade to complete, with research visits almost every summer to the Argos Museum, where the material from Lerna is stored. In 2011, the final stages of fieldwork culminated with the selection of samples for a program of petrographic and chemical analysis. This long period of gestation was partly imposed by circumstances; I was busy with other projects, including a book on Archaic and Classical Cretan pottery styles and an excavation on Crete. But, while the delays and interruptions in the Lerna study have often been frustrating, they have worked to the advantage of the final publication. This book documents and places into its archaeological and historical context a diverse range of material. It is a comprehensive examination of everything now preserved from Lerna over the period ca. 970– 175 b.c., including human remains, animal bones and shells, architecture, coins, inscriptions, bronzes, stone objects, and ceramic finds.1 Pottery formed the bulk of the ceramic category, but this class also included figurines, spools, stoppers, and loomweights. Many of these artifacts lack established typologies and chronologies that would have permitted easy identifications. My work on Crete provided valuable experience for this project, but it took time to develop skills in other areas and acquire familiarity with material from so many different periods. Site publications typically divide up such diverse material by assigning to individual researchers artifacts of a particular class and period. The more expansive treatment here carries the risk of mistakes, since few have expertise in so many areas. But by not dividing up the material into discrete periods for different specialists, I have hopefully had the advantage of telling a single, more coherent story of Lerna through time. The Lerna project, as with most archaeological research in the Argolid, has focused on the Bronze Age. Heinrich Schliemann’s excavations at Mycenae and Tiryns in the 1870s and 1880s set the tone for later work in this region, where with few exceptions the Bronze Age has been the engine driving archaeological research. Projects with a prehistoric focus did not always sweep away material from later periods, but documentation has generally been much poorer, reflecting the lower priority.2 On the whole, study of the historical periods has occupied a marginal position in the archaeology of the Argive Plain. The principal exception, though, is the attention to Early Iron Age artifacts in research on the rise of the Argive state. Tomb groups from Argos and other sites in the Argolid have enabled researchers to establish detailed typologies and chronologies for fine-ware pottery in the Geometric peri1. All dates are b.c. unless otherwise indicated. The only exceptions appear in my account of modern research agendas from the 18th century to the present.

2. Klein (1997, pp. 247–264) stressed this point in her attempt to reconstruct an Archaic temple on the Mycenae citadel based on partial excavation records of the 1920s and later.

viii

PREFACE

od, and this data set has helped in tracing archaeological manifestations of the polis and in understanding its economic, demographic, and symbolic underpinnings.3 While Lerna can make an important contribution to a rural perspective on Argive expansion in the Early Iron Age, much of the Lerna material dates outside this time frame to later periods for which we have little published archaeological information. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to make sense of local artifacts (objects made somewhere in the Argolid) in the absence of established typologies and chronological sequences. Since Lerna has produced substantial settlement debris from secure archaeological contexts dating to the 5th and 3rd centuries, we have here an opportunity to establish fuller chronological sequences for Argive pottery by closing the gaps in the current fine-ware series and broadening the perspective to include cooking and coarse wares not usually represented in sanctuary and cemetery publications.4 This will enable Lerna to serve as a type site and reference point for ceramic development in the Argolid. Undoubtedly, it would have been more sensible to begin work on the regional sequence with material at Argos, the most thoroughly excavated historical site in the Argolid, and to extrapolate from the center to peripheral settlements such as Lerna. But this did not prove feasible, since the Argos material has been assigned to different researchers in larger projects awaiting publication.5 At least the Lerna material can make a significant contribution toward a comprehensive artifact sequence, with the proviso that the results from Argos may eventually require modification of conclusions offered here. Field archaeologists are not the only ones with a stake in refined artifact sequences. Pottery and other small finds, if properly identified and dated, can play a major role in historical reconstruction by providing a view of social practices from the ground up. Such an approach has the potential to enhance and modify the current historical understanding that is based on a small and almost certainly unrepresentative selection of ancient texts pertaining to Classical Argos and the Argolid, documents supplemented in a limited way by high-profile archaeological discoveries, namely, monumental buildings and inscriptions. The Lerna project is part of a broader effort to reconstruct regional histories of ancient Greece and thereby provide a much-needed corrective to the Athenocentric bias to Classical archaeology. Poor understanding of ceramic development in the Argolid has impeded progress on questions of economy, society, and trade in this important region. 3. Thanks to efforts begun with Courbin’s (1966) and Coldstream’s (1968) studies of Geometric decorated pottery, fine wares at sanctuaries and other sites in the Argolid have a basis for precise dating, and Argive wares can be isolated from other regional traditions. Although both scholars were cognizant of the historical potential of this material, a more rigorous historical focus began with Snodgrass’s (1977, pp. 15–16; 1980, pp. 23–32) argument for demographic change in the 8th century. Tandy (1997, pp. 2, 19, 23, 46–50) generally agreed with Snodgrass that the sharp increase in the number of burials at Argos signaled a demographic explosion. 4. The Argive series enters a Subgeometric phase in the first half of the 7th century with a poorly understood style. Problems in identifying ceramics of this date have had broader repercussions for the archaeology of the region. Attentive observers, including Kelly (1976, pp. 57, 77–84), Morgan and Whitelaw (1991, pp. 93–94), Vink (1996–1997, pp. 6–16), and van der Vliet (1996–1997, pp. 25–27), have regarded the 7th century as an archaeological desert in the Argolid, a notorious lacuna in the artifact sequences whose causes are still not fully understood. Although it has not generated as much attention, the record in the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods is not

much better. For these periods we must rely largely on Cook’s (1953) publication of a sanctuary at Mycenae, identified as the Agamemnoneion, with a selection of fine-ware shapes from the 8th to early 5th century, and the publication of select tomb groups from Argos, mostly of Hellenistic date (Bruneau 1970). In addition, Rudolph’s (1978) publication of Early Hellenistic fine wares from Mycenae offers an important supplement to developments inferred from tomb groups at Argos. For more recent references to published Classical and Hellenistic tomb groups at Argos, see Dimakis 2009, p. 33. Survey projects in the Berbati and Nemea Valleys have also provided useful information (p. 18, n. 87, below). 5. These researchers include Alkestis Papadimitriou (Protogeometric material), Camila Diogo de Souza (Geometric tomb groups), Francis Croissant and Hélène Aurigny (Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic terracottas from the Aphrodite sanctuary), Anne Pariente (Classical material from the Agora), Marcel Piérart (Hellenistic and Roman material from the Agora), Marie-Francoise Billot (architectural terracottas from Argos), Clarisse Prêtre (inscriptions from Argos), and Catherine Grandjean (coins from Argos).



PREFACE

ix

The evidence from Lerna comes in two principal forms: burials from a Geometric cemetery on Mt. Pontinos, and Late Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic wells from the settlement mound. A paramount aim of this project is archaeological documentation. This book contains a long middle section consisting of five chapters that present the material from different periods, complete with catalogues, plans, photographs, and profile drawings.6 Presenting the material simplifies the complex act of creating order from the mass of material and chaos of the storeroom shelves. The seemingly objective style of these chapters should not be allowed to mask the difficult decisions and evaluations of importance that went into identifying objects, grouping material, establishing new types, dating individual artifacts, and, by extension, reconstructing social contexts of consumption. Archaeological interpretation was involved at every turn, and this is unapologetically the heart of the book, even if its intended immediate audience is a small coterie of field archaeologists working in Greece. The epistemological basis of this branch of archaeology has come into question in recent years, chiefly among those who object to the positivist associations of a discipline claiming to add to the body of knowledge while remaining free of its own theories.7 Working on material from an older excavation has made me more sympathetic to these criticisms and increased my sensitivity to the cultural filters through which the archaeological record has passed, from unconscious decisions in antiquity concerning the consumption and disposal of material to the procedures and predilections of the excavators in the 1950s, choices that introduced significant distortions to what was already a malleable record of activity. Archaeological reconstruction at Lerna has proceeded from archival work as much as from firsthand study of material. What might be taken for granted on a modern excavation—state plans, elevations, and standard recording procedures—is not retrievable for historical Lerna. As a result, something with the surface simplicity of the Geometric cemetery plan shown in Figure 25 was the product of a long archival detective story integrating photographic views from various angles (all without scales), notebook drawings of individual tombs and features, and allusive verbal descriptions of physical relationships. In short, almost everything entailed reconstruction, and this sharpened my awareness of the epistemological issues inherent in the whole endeavor of archaeological investigation. The arrangement of this book has been designed with different readers in mind. Chapter 1 frames the archaeological study in the broader historical context of rural life in ancient Greece and should be of interest to historians of the ancient economy and countryside. The study of state formation has been a principal agendum of Classical archaeology for the past three decades, but researchers have usually taken the perspective of the urban center, neglecting the rural territory and the lower-order settlements that were often politically inseparable from the town and provided its economic base. Although Classical archaeologists have rarely selected a village settlement for excavation anywhere in Greece, the records and object inventories kept during the excavations at Lerna allow us to reconstruct a vivid picture of rural life during the Geometric through Middle Hellenistic periods, when Lerna recovered from the instability at the end of the Bronze Age and served as a stopping point for shipping and overland traffic. The key questions raised in this chapter are the economic and political relationship between towns and villages, the degree of village autonomy, and the social construction of village identity. This discussion integrates ancient literary sources, archaeological evidence from excavation and survey, and anthropological models of identity construction in an attempt to place Lerna in the context of Argive territorial expansion. 6. Unless otherwise indicated, all drawings and photographs in this book are by the author.

7. Whitley (2001, pp. 32–41) has been one of the most outspoken critics.

x

PREFACE

Next come the “long middle” chapters focusing primarily on archaeological documentation. Chapter 2 presents material from a small cemetery on the slopes of Mt. Pontinos and isolated tombs on the Lerna mound in the 9th and 8th centuries. This is recognized as a crucial period of state formation in the Argolid, and the Lerna evidence enhances our understanding of the territorial dynamics of this process. From the burial grounds come tombs with pottery, jewelry, and many well-preserved skeletons, constituting one of the few rural populations available from Early Iron Age Greece. Chapter 2 integrates these various strands of information to create a coherent picture of the burial grounds and the spatial nexus of death ritual. It also incorporates the results of J. Lawrence Angel’s original study of the skeletons in the 1950s as the basis for a new program of scientific analysis—the results of which were not yet available when this book went to press—with implications for ancient diet, illness, population structure, and family relationships. Chapter 2 ends with historical conclusions of particular relevance to the Geometric cemetery. The next four chapters present the archaeological evidence from the settlement mound. The contents of 10 wells appear in chronological order based on the closure of the wells, with the assemblages from the Late Archaic well BA:1 and the Early Classical well BD:1 forming the nucleus of Chapter 3. Next comes the material from five Classical wells in Chapter 4 (A:1, D:1, GK:1, BE, and BB) and, in Chapter 5, the latest assemblages from two Early Hellenistic wells (BC and BD:2) and one Middle Hellenistic well (D:2). Chapter 5 also documents the contents of an Early Hellenistic pit (DB:1). All told, there are 11 significant settlement contexts spanning the period ca. 500–175. This presentation of material from the mound concludes in Chapter 6 with miscellaneous finds from the surface and other unidentifiable archaeological contexts, in violation of the strict chronological ordering of material governing Chapters 2–5. Of primary importance are the numerous material links between wells sealed at roughly the same time, particularly good examples being the four Classical wells conceivably filled as a result of a single event. All the documentary chapters (Chaps. 2–6) follow a set pattern, beginning with discussion of imported fine wares; local (Argolid) fine wares in the order of kraters, cups, bowls, and jugs; coarse wares (local and imports) including lekanai, mortaria, louteria, pithoi, and transport amphoras; cooking wares; figurines; loomweights and spools; and roof tiles. These chapters also integrate the results of David Reese’s study of the faunal remains, anticipating the more thorough presentation of this material in Appendix III. The animal bones and shells, however, are listed separately by Reese in the appendix. In addition, David Scahill discusses in Appendix IV a Doric stone column capital from the latest well (D:2, ca. 200–175). Two other appendices examine production and consumption aspects of the ceramic assemblages. The petrographic study of select fine, coarse, and cooking wares presented by Heather Graybehl in Appendix I is the first of its kind for post–Bronze Age material in the Argolid. In addition, Mark Lawall’s discussion of transport amphoras in Appendix II is the basis for the brief summaries of the amphora evidence in the main chapters. These short studies and the portions of the main chapters focusing on ceramics have the goal of clarifying production and consumption relationships and providing a foundation for placing the Lerna population within regional social and economic networks. Ceramic artifacts are the best sources for tracing these interactions, as long as the source of the pottery can be established. Scientific techniques for determining source are particularly valuable in a rural context, where much of the material is plain and functional, making these objects poor candidates for stylistic analysis. The book concludes in Chapter 7 with a historical portrait of village society and economy based on the Lerna evidence. The broader historical questions examined here include the extent and nature of ancient commercial relations, the process of stylistic diffusion, gender and class distinctions in domestic activities and burial rites, and the factors leading to great-



PREFACE

xi

er political complexity. This evidence calls into question the traditional view of ancient villages as backwaters of social conservatism and economic self-sufficiency. Lerna seems to have maintained a complex set of relations for obtaining goods from distant sources, and this implies a more sophisticated rural economy and a greater role for commercial exchange than previously thought. For example, the drinking pottery sets at Lerna are similar to the equipment of sophisticated urban households, and these villagers imported their wine from the major producers in the Greek world, from sources as distant as the Black Sea. Moreover, a large collection of loomweights and spools points to a small textile industry, not just households processing wool only for their own use. Access to foreign markets gave the people of Lerna an incentive to supplement their income from staple farming by exchanging local products for imported wine and fancy wine vessels. Furthermore, Lerna helps answer important questions about the political dimensions of rural life. How did the production and consumption of decorated pottery contribute to a sense of Argive identity outside the urban center? When was Lerna integrated into a regional political structure, and did its subordinate political status prevent it from maintaining local traditions in burial customs, artifact styles, and household economies? Without archaeological documentation of the countryside, Classical historians have had to fall back on traditional written accounts and inscriptions that leave rural sites like Lerna almost completely in the dark. This archaeological study has provided a necessary context for incorporating other types of evidence to create a richer picture of village life and territorial structures. One example is the role of religion in the social construction of territories. For Lerna, a dense web of mythological genealogies and cult locations imparted a strong sense of place and history—creating, in short, a distinct village identity. This religious landscape operated on a local level but also linked Lerna to the foundation stories of the state center, suggesting a process of assimilation. The rich textural tradition of Classical archaeology, when combined with these scientific approaches to production materials and human remains, may suggest new possibilities for those investigating the social and economic foundations of state formation in other parts of the world. It is a pleasure to thank the numerous officials, colleagues, and friends who have assisted me in this project. I should thank first and foremost Martha Weinke and Jeremy Rutter for inviting me to publish the historical Greek remains from Lerna. They also read drafts and helped in matters large and small from the beginning stages of the project to the end over a decade later. I also wish to express my gratitude to the ephor and staff of the Greek Antiquities Service for the Argolid and Corinthia. In addition, successive directors of the American School of Classical Studies, Jack Davis and Jim Wright, took an active interest in my project and provided encouragement. The collaborators in this volume also deserve thanks for discussions and contributions extending far beyond the limits of each appendix. Heather Graybehl in particular spent countless hours in the Lerna storerooms examining material with me and raising questions regarding it based on her familiarity with the ceramic repertoires of the Nemea region and other Peloponnesian sites. I am also grateful to Guy Sanders and Sarah James for their help at Corinth in my search for parallels for the Lerna material. My stays at Corinth would not have been nearly as memorable without the hospitality of Ioulia Tzonou-Herbst and James Herbst. James will appreciate the annual hike up Acrocorinth as a kind of pilgrimage associated with my Lerna research summers. At Nafplio, where I was based when working in the Lerna storerooms, a number of friends were subjected to more than their fair share of Lerna-related discussions. These include David Scahill, Chris Pfaff, John Fischer, and Curtis Runnels. My thanks also go to the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript submitted to ASCSA Publications. In closing, I am pleased to acknowledge financial assistance from UCSB Academic Senate Faculty Research Grants and a Loeb Classical Library Foundation Fellowship.

CONTENTS

   LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS    LIST OF TABLES

xv xxiii

  ABBREVIATIONS xxiv   PROLEGOMENA TO THE CATALOGUE   1  HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL NARRATIVES   2  GEOMETRIC CEMETERY

xxv 1 33

  3  LATE ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL WELLS

111

  4  CLASSICAL WELLS

169

  5  EARLY AND MIDDLE HELLENISTIC WELLS AND EARLY HELLENISTIC PIT

259

  6  MISCELLANEOUS POTTERY, FIGURINES, LOOMWEIGHTS, AND COINS

311

  7  VILLAGE SOCIET Y AND ECONOMY

359

  APPENDIXES     I. P  ETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF TABLE, COARSE, AND COOKING WARES, by Heather Graybehl397     II. A  RCHAIC THROUGH HELLENISTIC TRANSPORT AMPHORAS, by Mark L. Lawall421    III. FAUNAL REMAINS, by David S. Reese437     IV. STONE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, by David Scahill443   REFERENCES

449

  INDEX

487

ILLUSTRATIONS

  1.  Map of the Argive Plain2   2.  Panoramic sketch of Myloi and the Argive Plain 3   3.  Panoramic view of Myloi and the Argive Plain 3   4.  Bronze coins from surface levels at Lerna, dating from a.d. 1833–1838 4   5.  Silver coin of Isabelle de Villehardouin, dated to a.d. 1297–1301 5   6.  Frankish pottery from surface levels at Lerna, dated to the late 13th or early 14th century a.d.5   7.  Tobacco-pipe bowls from surface levels at Lerna, dated to the 18th and 19th centuries a.d.5   8.  Map of the Boiotia survey area, showing Askra and Thespiai 7   9.  Suggested city-state territories of the southern Argolid survey 11 10. A cohesive landscape: the Valley of the Muses 14 17 11. The Heraion sanctuary and the eastern edge of the Argive Plain 12. Circuit wall at Mycenae, showing cyclopean masonry of the Mycenaean period and Hellenistic repairs 22 13. Map of the southwestern Argolid and Kiveri Plain, showing hypothetical Lerna territory 23 14. Map of the southern Argive Plain, showing prehistoric coastline and former expanse of Lake Lerna 24 15. The fertile Kiveri Plain 25 16. The Lerna mound before excavation 26 17. Plan of the Lerna mound, showing excavated portion and total area of the mound 27 18. Late Roman kiln embedded into the Early Helladic fortification wall at Lerna 28 19. Column base of Attic type on square plinth from unknown context on site, stylistically dated to the Early Hellenistic period 29 20. Early Hellenistic relief sculpture from Myloi depicting Herakles and the Hydra 31 21. Attic red-figure krater, dated to ca. 475–450, depicting Poseidon pursuing Amymone 32 22. Mt. Pontinos, showing the Lerna settlement site 34 23. Mt. Pontinos, showing trenches PA 34 24. Satellite image showing the Lerna settlement site, the modern village of Myloi, and the southeastern slopes of Mt. Pontinos 35 25. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trenches PA and PB 37 26. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trench PA3 38 27.  Geometric cist tomb PA3:5 39 28. Geometric cist tombs PA3:5 and PA3:6 39 29. MG I or MG II cist tombs PA3:1, PA3:2, and PA3:3 39 30. MG I or MG II cist tombs PA3:1, PA3:2, and PA3:3 40 44 31. Geometric kraters and stand from PA3: lot 17 32. MG cups and skyphoi from PA3: lot 17 46 33. MG cups and skyphoi from PA3: lot 17 48 34. MG amphora, oinochoe, pyxis, aryballoi, and plate from PA3: lot 17 50 35. MG chytra, cooking pot, kalathos, and jugs from PA3: lot 17 52 52 36. Geometric cist tomb PA3:4 37. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trench PA4 54

xvi

ILLUSTRATIONS

38.  MG II pithos tomb PA4:1 39. MG II pithos tomb PA4:1, showing skeleton revealed after removal of pithos fragments 40. Notebook drawings of MG II pithos tomb PA4:1, showing pithos and rocks from initial excavation and skeleton from later phase of excavation 41. Geometric kraters, ring handle, and stand from PA4: lot 16 42. MG cups and skyphoi from PA4: lot 11 43. Geometric oinochoai and possible amphoras from PA4: lot 11 44. Geometric cooking pots, chytrai, and large coarse vessels from PA4: lot 11 45. Pithos container 72 from MG II tomb PA4:1 46. Pithos container 72 from MG II tomb PA4:1, showing repair holes 47. Pithos container 72 from MG II tomb PA4:1, showing lift holes 48. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trench PA5 49. Geometric cist tomb PA5:1, showing cover slabs in place 50. Geometric cist tomb PA5:1, showing cover slabs removed to reveal skeleton 51. Notebook drawings of Geometric cist tomb PA5:1, showing cover slabs in place and cover slabs removed to reveal skeleton  52. Skull of older female occupant from Geometric cist tomb PA5:1 53. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trench PA6 54. LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1, showing workman standing near trench scarp 55. LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1, showing trench scarp 56. LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1 57. LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1 58. Notebook drawing of LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1 59. Bronze fibula, rings, hoop, and iron pins or spits from LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1 60. Detail of bronze fibula 73 from LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1, showing engraved catch plate 61. Krater, kantharos, cup, oinochoe, and cooking pot from LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1 62. Pithos container 84 from LG I–II tomb PA6:1 63. Mt. Pontinos, showing trenches PB 64. Trench PB1, showing Geometric pit grave PB:1, the southern wall, and the northern extension 65. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trench PB1 66. Protogeometric cups and skyphoi from PB1: lots 1, 6, and 7 67. Protogeometric oinochoe or amphora and closed vessel from PB1: lot 6 68. Geometric krater and cup or skyphos from PB1: lots 1 and 7 69. Geometric amphoras, oinochoai, and closed vessel from PB1: lots 1, 7, 19, and 20 70. Geometric large coarse vessel, cooking pot, and kalathos from PB1: lots 1 and 6 71. Geometric pit grave PB1:1 72. Geometric pithos tomb PB1:2 73. Geometric pithos tomb PB1:2 74. Median wall and Geometric pot tomb PB1:3 75. Median wall and Geometric pot tomb PB1:3 76. Median wall and EG II pithos tomb PB1:4 77. Median wall and EG II pithos tomb PB1:4 78. EG cups and skyphoi from PB1: lots 13 and 15 79. EG amphoras and possible oinochoai from PB1: lots 13 and 15 80. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trench PB2 81. EG II or MG cist tomb PB2:1 82. EG II or MG cist tomb PB2:1 83. Geometric krater, amphoras, and large coarse vessel from PB2: lot 3 84. Geometric cist tomb PB2:2 85. Plan of Lerna settlement area, showing Geometric pithos tombs in areas BE and D  86. Geometric pithos tomb BE:1, showing pithos fragments in place 87. Geometric pithos tomb BE:1, showing skeletal material 88. MG I pithos tomb D:1, showing outline of pithos just below topsoil

54 54 54 57 59 61 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 66 66 68 68 68 68 69 69 70 70 72 73 74 75 76 79 80 81 82 83 83 84 84 85 85 85 85 87 89 91 91 91 92 93 94 95 95 96



ILLUSTRATIONS

  89. MG I pithos tomb D:1   90. MG I pithos tomb D:1   91. Bronze pin, ring, and shell from MG I pithos tomb D:1   92. Cups, aryballos, and oinochoe from MG I pithos tomb D:1   93. Protogeometric skyphoi, bowl, and oinochoe from unknown context   94. Plan of the Lerna settlement area, showing Late Archaic through Middle Hellenistic wells   95. Plan of the Lerna settlement area, showing Classical well BB and Early Hellenistic well BC in relation to the prehistoric House of the Tiles   96. Plan of the Lerna settlement area, showing Classical well A:1 in relation to the Middle Helladic apsidal house M   97. Plan of the northwest corner of trench BA, showing Late Archaic well BA:1   98. Cross section of Late Archaic well BA:1   99. Late Archaic well BA:1 100. Late Archaic well BA:1 101. Late Archaic well BA:1, showing winch system in use 102. Archaic kraters from the Agamemnoneion at Mycenae 103. Archaic skyphos from the Agamemnoneion at Mycenae 104. Spindle whorls of possible Classical or Hellenistic date from mixed contexts (uncatalogued) 105. Geometric kraters and pyxis from well BA:1 106. Late Archaic Corinthian kotylai, pyxis lid, and exaleiptron from well BA:1 107. Late Archaic Laconian kraters from well BA:1 108. Late Archaic Attic black-figure skyphos 158 from well BA:1 109. Late Archaic Attic skyphoi, cup-skyphoi, cups, kantharos, pyxis lid, and Argive Atticizing cup from well BA:1 110. Late Archaic kraters from well BA:1 111. Late Archaic krater bases from well BA:1 112. Late Archaic skyphoi from well BA:1 113. Late Archaic one-handled cups from well BA:1 114. Late Archaic skyphos and cup bases from well BA:1 115. Late Archaic bowl, kalathoi, and pyxis lid from well BA:1 116. Late Archaic jugs from well BA:1 117. Late Archaic lekanai from well BA:1 118. Late Archaic mortarium 217 from well BA:1 119. Late Archaic mortarium 217 from well BA:1, showing gritted interior surface 120. Late Archaic pithoi from well BA:1 121. Late Archaic transport amphora 222 from well BA:1 122. Late Archaic chytra and cooking pot from well BA:1 123. Late Archaic seated goddess figurine 225 from well BA:1 124. Late Archaic loomweights and spools from well BA:1 125.  Late Archaic loomweights and spools from well BA:1, showing impressed designs 126. Late Archaic roof tiles from well BA:1 127. Stone weight or tool 265 from well BA:1 128. Plan of northern edge of trench BD, showing Early Classical well BD:1 and Early Hellenistic well BD:2 129. Early Classical well BD:1 and Early Hellenistic well BD:2 130. Late Archaic or Early Classical Corinthian kotyle, jug, bowl, lamp, and exaleiptron from well BD:1 131.  Late Archaic or Early Classical Laconian kraters from well BD:1 132. Late Archaic Attic krater, skyphoi, and saltcellar from well BD:1 133. Early Classical krater 277 from well BD:1 134. Early Classical skyphoi from well BD:1 135. Early Classical skyphos and cup bases from well BD:1 136. Early Classical bowls from well BD:1 137. Early Classical table amphora 290 from well BD:1 138. Early Classical oinochoe and jug from well BD:1

xvii 96 97 98 99 101 113 114 115 117 118 119 119 119 123 124 128 131 132 134 135 136 138 139 140 141 142 143 145 146 147 147 148 148 149 149 150 151 154 156 157 157 160 161 162 163 163 164 165 166 166

xviii

ILLUSTRATIONS

139. Late Archaic Corinthian transport amphoras from well BD:1 140. Early Classical chytrai and lopas lid from well BD:1 141. Early Classical spool and stopper from well BD:1 142. Area A, showing German gun emplacement, Middle Helladic apsidal house M, and shaft of Classical well A:1 cutting through apse with winch assembly in use 143. Middle Helladic apsidal house M, showing shaft of Classical well A:1 cutting through apse 144. Cross section of Classical well A:1 145. Composite reconstruction of Classical krater 146. Classical stoppers from well A:1 (uncatalogued) 147. Corinthian pyxis lid, plate, and jug or lekythos, dated to the 5th century, from well A:1 148. Late Archaic or Classical Laconian krater 303 from well A:1 149. Attic red-figure bell krater 304, dated to ca. 440–430, from well A:1 150. Late Archaic and Classical Attic skyphoi, lebes gamikos, and mug from well A:1 151. Classical kraters from well A:1 152. Classical skyphoi and cups from well A:1 153. Classical one-handled cups from well A:1 154. Classical bowls and saltcellars from well A:1 155. Classical table amphora, jugs, oinochoe, and aryballos from well A:1 156. Classical lekanai from well A:1 157. Classical mortaria from well A:1 158. Classical pithoi from well A:1 159. Classical transport amphoras from well A:1 160. Classical chytra 362 from well A:1 161. Archaic and Classical figurines from well A:1 162. Classical loomweights and spools from well A:1 163. Classical spool 376, showing impressed gem design 164. Classical roof tiles from well A:1 165. Classical well D:1 166. Classical well D:1 167. Classical well D:1 168. Corinthian pyxis and lamp, dated to the 5th century, from well D:1 169. Attic red-figure krater 392, dated to the second half of the 5th century, from well D:1 170. Classical Attic bolsal, skyphoi, and Argive Atticizing cup from well D:1 171. Classical Attic bolsal 393 from well D:1, showing stamped design 172. Classical kraters from well D:1 173. Classical skyphoi and one-handled cup from well D:1 174. Classical jugs and aryballos from well D:1 175. Classical Corinthian louterion and Argive copy from well D:1 176. Classical mortaria from well D:1 177. Classical pithoi from well D:1 178. Late Archaic or Classical transport amphoras from well D:1 179. Classical basin 415 from well D:1 180. Classical lopas and lopas lid from well D:1 181. Classical loomweight 418 from well D:1 182. Classical loomweight 418 from well D:1, showing inscribed base 183. Classical roof tiles from well D:1 184. Classical roof tile 432 from well D:1, showing graffito inscription on concave side 185. Classical stone saddle quern and weight from well D:1 186. Plan of northwest corner of trench GK, showing Classical well GK:1 187. Trench GK, showing Classical well GK:1 188. Classical pithoi from unknown context on site 189. Corinthian miniature hydria 435, dated to the second half of the 5th century, from well GK:1

167 168 168 170 170 171 173 177 179 179 180 181 183 184 185 186 188 189 190 191 192 192 193 194 195 196 198 198 199 202 202 203 203 204 205 205 206 207 207 208 208 209 209 209 210 212 212 214 215 217 218



ILLUSTRATIONS

190. Archaic or Classical Laconian krater 436 from well GK:1 191. Attic red-figure bell krater 437, dated to ca. 430–420, from well GK:1 192. Classical Attic skyphoi and red-figure cup from well GK:1 193. Classical skyphoi and cup from well GK:1 194. Classical bowls from well GK:1 195. Classical jugs and aryballoi from well GK:1 196. Classical incense burner 457 from well GK:1 197. Classical Corinthian louterion 458 from well GK:1 198. Classical lekanai from well GK:1 199. Classical basin 461 from well GK:1 200. Classical pithoi from well GK:1 201. Classical pithoi from well GK:1 202. Classical transport amphoras from well GK:1 203. Classical cooking pot and chytrai from well GK:1 204. Classical loomweights and spool from well GK:1 205. Classical loomweight and spool from well GK:1, showing impressed designs 206. Classical roof tiles from well GK:1 207. House of the Tiles, showing shaft of Classical well BB cutting through south wall 208. Classical Corinthian kotyle 485 from well BB 209. Classical red-figure cup 486 from well BB 210. Classical Attic skyphos and jug from well BB 211. Classical skyphos, cup, and one-handled cup from well BB 212. Classical bowls and pyxis from well BB 213. Classical jugs from well BB 214. Classical lekanai from well BB 215. Classical loomweights, spools, and stopper from well BB 216. Classical loomweight 503 from well BB, showing impressed design 217. Classical roof tiles from well BB 218. Plan of northwest corner of trench B8, showing Classical well BE 219. Notebook drawing of Classical roof tile edge profiles from well BE 220. Protogeometric cup or skyphos, Geometric krater, and Geometric Corinthian closed vessel from well BE 221. Classical Corinthian closed vessel, pyxis, and jug from well BE 222. Late Archaic Attic black-figure cup and Classical red-figure askos from well BE 223. Classical Attic skyphoi and bolsal from well BE 224. Classical kraters from well BE 225. Classical skyphoi and one-handled cups from well BE 226. Classical bowls from well BE 227. Classical jugs from well BE 228. Classical Corinthian louterion 551 from well BE 229. Classical lekanai from well BE 230. Classical mortaria from well BE 231. Classical pithoi from well BE 232. Classical transport amphoras from well BE 233. Classical lopas and chytra from well BE 234. Late Archaic seated goddess figurine 568 from well BE 235. Classical loomweights from well BE 236. Classical loomweight 570 from well BE, showing impressed design 237.  Classical roof tiles from well BE 238. Graffiti inscriptions on Classical roof tile 573 from well BE, showing concave and flat sides 239. Iron spear-butt and bone object from well BE 240. Plan of area B, showing Early Hellenistic well BC

xix 218 219 219 221 222 223 223 224 224 224 225 227 228 229 230 230 230 232 234 234 234 234 235 236 237 237 237 238 240 244 244 245 245 246 247 248 249 251 252 252 253 254 254 255 256 256 256 257 257 257 260

xx

ILLUSTRATIONS

241. Area B, showing Early Hellenistic well BC 242. Early Hellenistic well BC 243. Attic or Attic-type skyphoi, dated to ca. 320–275, from well BC 244. Early Hellenistic krater and dinos from well BC 245. Early Hellenistic cups from well BC 246. Early Hellenistic bowls from well BC 247. Early Hellenistic jug or amphora 591 from well BC 248. Early Hellenistic lekanai from well BC 249. Early Hellenistic lekanai from well BC 250. Early Hellenistic lekanai from well BC 251. Early Hellenistic lekane 601 from well BC, showing streaky red gloss interior 252. Early Hellenistic pithoi from well BC 253. Early Hellenistic pithos 608 from well BC, showing graffito inscription on top 254. Early Hellenistic transport amphoras from well BC 255. Late Archaic seated goddess figurine and Early Hellenistic sandal from well BC 256. Early Hellenistic loomweights and spool from well BC 257. Early Hellenistic roof tile 619 from well BC 258. Early Hellenistic cup, bowls, and jug from well BD:2 259. Early Hellenistic lekanai from well BD:2 260. Argive silver obol 626, dated to ca. 343–275, from pit DB:1 261. Attic or Attic-type skyphoi, dated to ca. 320–275, from pit DB:1 262. Early Hellenistic kantharos, one-handled cup, bowls, and saltcellar from pit DB:1 263. Early Hellenistic bowl, table amphora, aryballos, and jug from pit DB:1 264. Early Hellenistic lekanai from pit DB:1 265. Early Hellenistic lekane 641 from pit DB:1, showing streaky red gloss interior 266. Early Hellenistic louterion and pithoi from pit DB:1 267. Early Hellenistic transport amphoras from pit DB:1 268. Early Hellenistic lopas 651 from pit DB:1 269. Early Hellenistic figurine 652 from pit DB:1 270. Early Hellenistic roof tile 653 from pit DB:1 271. Plan of trench D, showing Middle Hellenistic well D:2 272. Cross section of Middle Hellenistic well D:2 273. Cross section of area D, showing Middle Hellenistic well D:2 274. Area D, showing Middle Hellenistic well D:2 275. Middle Hellenistic well D:2 276. Geometric krater 654 with file of birds from well D:2 277. Classical and Early Hellenistic Attic mug, skyphoi, and bolsal from well D:2 278. Classical Attic bolsal 661 from well D:2, showing stamped design 279. Classical krater 666 from well D:2 280. Middle Hellenistic skyphoi, one-handled cups, and kantharoi from well D:2 281. Middle Hellenistic bowls and pyxis lid from well D:2 282. Moldmade bowl 684, dated to ca. 225–200, from well D:2 283. Middle Hellenistic aryballos and jugs from well D:2 284. Middle Hellenistic louterion and lekanai from well D:2 285. Middle Hellenistic lekane 693 from well D:2, showing streaky red gloss interior 286. Middle Hellenistic mortaria from well D:2 287. Middle Hellenistic pithoi from well D:2 288. Late Archaic and Middle Hellenistic transport amphoras from well D:2 289. Late Archaic and Middle Hellenistic transport amphoras from well D:2, showing stamped designs 290. Middle Hellenistic chytra and lopades from well D:2 291. Middle Hellenistic loomweights and spool from well D:2 292. Middle Hellenistic roof tiles from well D:2

261 261 265 265 266 266 267 268 269 270 270 271 271 272 272 273 273 276 277 281 281 282 283 284 284 285 286 286 287 287 288 289 290 291 291 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 303 304 305 305 306 307 307 309



ILLUSTRATIONS

xxi

293. Protogeometric cups or skyphoi from various contexts 312 294. Archaic bronze pin 736 from trench D: lot 234 314 295. Geometric kraters from various contexts 315 296. Geometric cups and Archaic pyxis from various contexts 317 297. Geometric closed-vessel fragments and oinochoe from various contexts 318 298. Archaic lekane or louterion 756 from surface context 319 299. Archaic figurines from various contexts 319 300. Kleonaian silver obol, dated to ca. 471–421, and Chalkian bronze coin, dated to ca. 369–313, from various contexts 323 301. Classical Corinthian pyxis 761 from trench C: lots 1–4 323 302. Classical Corinthian pyxis lid and miniature exaleiptron from unknown and surface contexts 323 303. Classical Attic cup, bolsal, skyphos, bowl, and askos from various contexts 324 304. Classical Attic bolsal 765 from trench D: lot 236, showing stamped design 325 305. Classical Attic lebes gamikos 769 from trench BD: lot 384 326 306. Late Archaic Attic skyphos and Classical Attic kraters and cup from various contexts 326 307. Archaic and Classical kraters from various contexts 328 308. Classical skyphoi from various contexts 328 309. Classical saltcellar 782 from trench D: lot 272 329 310. Classical mortaria from various contexts 329 330 311. Classical transport amphoras from various contexts 312. Classical loomweights and spools from various contexts 332 313. Classical loomweights and spools from various contexts, showing incised and impressed gem designs 332 314. Conical loomweight types from Corinth  339 315. Early Hellenistic bronze coins from various contexts 341 316. Early Hellenistic Corinthian bowl 806 from trench BD: lot 384 341 317. Early Hellenistic Attic skyphos and saltcellar from various contexts 342 318. Early Hellenistic kraters and dinos from various contexts 343 319. Hellenistic skyphoi, kantharoi, and cup from various contexts 344 320. Hellenistic bowls from various contexts 345 321. Hellenistic bowls from various contexts 346 322. Hellenistic bowls from various contexts 347 323. Moldmade bowl 832, dated to ca. 225–175, from unknown context 347 324. Hellenistic saltcellars and bowls or cups from various contexts 348 325. Hellenistic saltcellar and bowls or cups from various contexts, showing stamped designs 348 326. Hellenistic jugs, aryballoi, and unguentarium from various contexts 349 327. Hellenistic pyxis and pyxis lid from various contexts 350 328. Hellenistic lamps from various contexts 350 329. Hellenistic lekanai and louterion from various contexts 351 330. Hellenistic lekane 850 from trench BC: lot 73, showing streaky red gloss interior 351 331. Hellenistic mortaria from various contexts 352 332. Hellenistic mortaria from various contexts, showing gritted interior surfaces 353 333. Hellenistic lopas and chytrai from various contexts 353 334. Hellenistic figurines from various contexts 354 335. Hellenistic loomweights with gem stamps from various contexts 355 336. Hellenistic loomweights from various contexts, showing impressed gem designs 355 357 337. Hellenistic loomweights from various contexts 338. Painter of the Sparring Horses: Late Geometric krater MN231 from Tiryns and Late Geometric krater C.242 from Argos 364 339. MG I cups, showing examples from Lerna tomb group PA4:1 and from Argos 364 340. Protoargive krater depicting the blinding of Polyphemus 365 341. Plan of Late Classical or Early Hellenistic domestic quarters at Halieis 368 342. Plan of Lerna mound, showing hypothetical house outlines of 225 m2369

xxii

ILLUSTRATIONS

343.  Kopron from Late Classical or Early Hellenistic House D at Halieis 370 344. Late Archaic house and well J 2:4 from the Athenian Agora 376 345. Classical black-figure krater from Mycenae 384 346. Classical mortaria, showing examples from Lerna and Kythera 388 347. Pottery from Lerna with graffito tridents and possible dedication to Poseidon 392 348. Map of the eastern Mediterranean 394  I.1.  Fabric samples, plane polarized light and crossed polars light: Fabrics 1–5402  I.2.  Fabric samples, plane polarized light and crossed polars light: Fabrics 5A–9403 IV.1. Doric capital fragment 882, showing vertical socket 444 IV.2. Doric capital fragment 882, restored profile with theoretical bedding on top 444 IV.3. Doric capital fragment 883 (LA.2) 445 IV.4. Profiles of Doric capital fragment 883 (LA.2) 445 IV.5. Comparison of Doric capital fragment 883 from Lerna with capital from the South Stoa at Corinth 446 IV.6. Column restored based on proportions of the Doric capital fragment 883 as compared to contemporary columnar proportions 447

TABLES

  1.  Geometric Tomb Types and Chronological Distribution at Lerna   2. Number of Geometric Tombs and Tomb Types at Argos   3. Geometric Cist Tomb Constructions at Lerna   4. Estimated Height of Male and Female Adult Occupants of Geometric Tombs at Lerna   5. Late Archaic through Middle Hellenistic Wells and Well Fill Deposits   6. Prehistoric Ceramic Composition of the Well Fill Deposits   7. Ceramic Composition of Late Archaic Well BA:1 by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric)   8. Ceramic Composition of Early Classical Well BD:1 by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric)   9. Ceramic Composition of Classical Well A:1 by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric) 10. Ceramic Composition of Classical Well D:1 by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric) 11. Ceramic Composition of Classical Well GK:1 by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric) 12. Ceramic Composition of Classical Well BB by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric) 13. Ceramic Composition of Classical Well BE by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric) 14. Ceramic Composition of Early Hellenistic Well BC by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric) 15. Ceramic Composition of Early Hellenistic Well BD:2 by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric) 16. Ceramic Composition of Early Hellenistic Pit DB:1 by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric) 17. Ceramic Composition of Middle Hellenistic Well D:2 by Ware Groups (Excluding Prehistoric) 18. Number of Tombs at Sites in the Argolid from the Submycenaean (SM) to Late Geometric (LG) Periods 19. Pottery Assemblages (Minimum Number of Vessels) from the Latest Occupation Levels of Early Hellenistic Houses at Halieis 20. Vessel Types in Late Archaic through Middle Hellenistic Well Fills and Early Hellenistic Pit DB:1 at Lerna 21. Pottery Assemblage (Minimum Number of Vessels) from Late Archaic Well J 2:4 in the Athenian Agora 22. Dimensions and Weights of Loomweights from Late Archaic through Middle Hellenistic Wells and Miscellaneous Settlement Debris at Lerna 23. Dimensions and Weights of Spools from Late Archaic through Middle Hellenistic Wells and Miscellaneous Settlement Debris at Lerna I.1. Concordance of Samples and Catalogue Numbers I.2. Breakdown of Shapes in Fabric Groups I.3. Fabric Groups and Date Ranges (by Sample Number) I.4. Fabric 1: Quartz and Micrite I.5. Fabric 2: Mudstone and Quartz I.6. Fabric 3: Metamorphic Rocks I.7. Fabric 4: Intermediate Igneous Rocks I.8. Fabric 5: Mudstone and Clay Pellets I.9. Fabric 6: Chert and Quartz

103 105 106 109 112 116 120 156 171 198 213 232 240 260 274 277 288 361 371 372 375 389 390 398–399 400 400 401 404 405 405 406 407

ABBREVIATIONS

cm centimeter

L.xxxx

Lerna Inventory Number

D. depth

LG

Late Geometric

Diam. diameter

LPG

Late Protogeometric

dim. dimension

m meter

EG

Early Geometric

max. maximum

EPC

Early Protocorinthian

MG

EPG

Early Protogeometric

min. minimum

FNB

Field Notebook

MPG

g gram

Middle Protogeometric

p. preserved

H. height ha

Middle Geometric

PG Protogeometric

hectare (10,000 m ) 2

Th. thickness

kg kilogram

W. width

km kilometer

Wt. weight

L. length

PROLEGOMENA TO THE C ATALOGUE

C

atalogue entries are interspersed with the text and figures. The catalogue entries consist of the following sequence of elements: (1) the type of artifact and what is preserved; (2) the findspot or provenience; (3) dimensions and macroscopic descriptions of fabric and decorative characteristics; (4) references to similar objects or types; (5) the publication record, if any; (6) the date of the object or its context.1 Beyond this general framework, some particulars of the recording and reporting process require explanation. Preservation of an object is expressed in two ways: the number of joining and nonjoining fragments (a single fragment unless otherwise stated) and the estimated degree of completeness for the object overall or part of the object, such as the base or rim. For the estimated degree of completeness, the following scale is used: fragmentary (less than 10% preserved), partial (roughly 10%–40%), substantial (40%–70%), almost intact (70%–90%), intact (90%–100%, with perhaps a few missing fragments). Therefore, the statement “fragmentary rim” would mean less than 10% of the rim is preserved. The Munsell color in fabric descriptions refers to the fracture, not the surface of a pot, with no mention of the core and surface colors unless they vary significantly from the fracture color. Catalogue entries record the surface treatment of all plain pottery (untreated, polished, burnished, and/or slipped). For decorated pottery, paint and gloss colors are described in general terms but not given Munsell values.2 Finally, the catalogues give a context date only for objects that should be dated by this criterion. Thus, older material in sealed deposits, artifacts capable of more precise dating than the range for the context closure, and objects dated independently of the context receive a simple date without mention of the chronological limits of the deposit. My presentation of material is highly selective for the following reasons. As was standard practice on many excavations in Greece in the middle of the last century, much of the plainer pottery, and indeed some of the finer wares, were discarded without recording the ware composition of the assemblages when excavated. This winnowing process began with the excavators in the field, who occasionally recorded discard rates as high as 90% for some artifact types. The excavators were most explicit about the discard rates for tiles, but their occasional statements do not provide sufficient grounds for reconstructing the original ce1. Only objects illustrated with a drawing or photograph received a catalogue number. The catalogues comprise 881 entries, not including the 3 spindle whorls illustrated in Chapter 3, the 36 stoppers illustrated in Chapter 4, the 225 animal bones and 25 shells discussed by Reese in Appendix III, and the 2 architectural elements discussed by Scahill in Appendix IV. 2. These entries are explicit about the presence of paint or gloss; absence of decoration can be inferred by silence. Thus, a vessel described as having “black gloss exterior” with

no further qualification should be understood as having no detectable gloss inside. Decorated fine wares generally do not receive a description of surface treatment (polishing, slips, etc.) unless significant portions of the pot lack paint or gloss, in which case the surface acquires unusual prominence. An example would be the recorded slip on the underside of bases of otherwise fully coated black cups. The reader should also assume no observable vessel wear or secondary burning unless noted.

xxvi

PROLEGOMENA TO THE C ATALOGUE

ramic counts and weights of the deposits. Similarly inconsistent and often unreported discard rates for various artifact types have affected to a greater and lesser degree the study of other periods at Lerna. For example, Karen Vitelli estimated that only 10% of the Neolithic pottery was saved, in contrast to perhaps 25% of the Early Helladic II pottery.3 Supervisors of individual trenches seem to have devised their own standards for recording historical Greek contexts, but overall these periods received less rigorous attention, with perhaps an even higher total discard rate for Late Archaic through Middle Hellenistic material than for the Neolithic pottery. Since this essentially precludes meaningful quantification studies, I have generally chosen to include in the catalogues only rim, base, handle, and other body fragments with potentially diagnostic information regarding shape, decoration, and date while almost entirely excluding the more numerous body sherds that could only be attributed to ware groups (fine, medium coarse, coarse, and cooking).4 Cooking and coarse wares were the easiest to distinguish based on fabric. The distinction between fine and medium-coarse wares was more problematic. Fine wares were generally characterized as having fine fabrics with few or no visible inclusions and all black or banded decoration. Medium-coarse wares had a coarser fabric with denser and larger inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001–0.003 m) and generally lacked paint or gloss. Yet there were exceptions, including some sherds classified as medium coarse because of their fabric but with banded decoration (and even some forms, such as mortaria and louteria, with finely polished surfaces and banded decoration that were nevertheless listed as coarse wares based on fabric). Fabric almost always trumped decoration as the standard for assigning fragmentary pots to ware groups.5 As a way of compensating for what I suspect was a general practice of discarding tiles from historical Greek contexts, I have catalogued almost every saved tile edge from closed contexts. In addition, the rarity of cooking wares in these collections has encouraged me to publish almost every form, no matter how fragmentary, from a reliable context. For the fine, medium-coarse, and coarse wares, my intention was to document all variations in the base and rim forms, even if these variations were exceedingly subtle and perhaps typologically and chronologically irrelevant. Another aim was to include all characteristic fabric types from each deposit, so occasionally the catalogues list two or more objects indistinguishable in form but of different fabrics, as with the apparent redundancy of documented pithos rims from well GK:1 (see Figs. 200, 201). In addition, stone objects almost never made it into the present collections, although the notebooks occasionally refer to the discovery (and discard) of millstones in wells. This book includes everything of stone that was saved. In conclusion, the ceramic counts and weights for the various deposits given in Table 5 and later figures refer to saved material in the Lerna storeroom. If these figures cannot be used to reconstruct ancient patterns of use and disposal, they at least give an impression of my selection process as I winnowed the still sizable collection of saved material into the more manageable form of this book’s catalogue. Residual material earlier in date than the closure of these deposits was included when it contributed to an understanding of historical Greek forms and fabrics present at Lerna. I did not, however, see it as within my mandate to publish prehistoric material found in these later contexts. 3. Lerna V, pp. 3–5. For the Early Helladic II phases, we also have more specific records of what was discarded and saved; see Lerna IV, pp. 315–316. For a general description of recording procedures at Lerna, see Lerna III, pp. 1–3. 4. Tiles were generally listed separately. They typically have a distinctive tile fabric with roughly the same or slightly fewer inclusions than the medium-coarse wares but with the dis­tinc­

tion of sporadic larger inclusions and moderate to dense voids suggesting temper that did not withstand the firing. Moreover, the tile fabrics do not seem to have been as well levigated as those of the fine and medium-coarse wares. 5. Corinthian blisterwares were the principal exception: they have medium-coarse fabrics but were counted as fine wares, being small closed shapes (aryballoi) with gloss decoration.

1

 HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

W

hen, on his tours of Greece in the early 19th century, Sir William Gell reached the village of Myloi (Mills) in the southwest corner of the Argolid, the mythical echoes of this land of the Lernaian Hydra with its abundant springs made an immediate impression. Gell also appreciated the strategic importance of this place where the rich Argolid plain contracts to a narrow strip of land framed by mountain and sea. It is a bottleneck on a major communication route linking Argos with the inner Peloponnese and the ancient city-­states of Arkadia and Laconia (Figs. 1, 13).1 For Gell, it was the perfect location for measuring lines of sight through the Argolid, and he got to work producing a panoramic sketch showing all the major topographical features, ancient sites, and modern towns of the plain. His panorama captures the whole Argolid by looking in at a distance from the margin (Fig. 2).2 It also emphasizes the natural advantages of a site with fresh water, arable land, and proximity to the sea. A plot of land among the scattered buildings of Myloi in the left foreground of this sketch would in the next century be excavated and identified as the site of ancient Lerna. A contemporary photographic view of the Lerna district appears in Figure 3.3 As Gell’s choice of location for his drawing suggests, Lerna played a role in history as a connection node for the Argolid and even on occasion served as a gateway community for overseas connections. This 19th-­century sketch is valuable not only for antiquarian interest in the rediscovery of Lerna, but also as a way to introduce themes that will be central to this study. The first is connections between Lerna and the Argive state. The great acropolis of Argos, the Larissa, looms on the horizon, a mere 11 km away from Lerna and the sea. Politically, militarily, and economically, Lerna must have been under the shadow of Argos in the Archaic and Classical 1. As important as this route must have been in antiquity, it was probably not the principal artery from the Argolid to Arkadia. The main road from Argos to Mantinea probably received more traffic and exited the Argolid far north of Lerna (Tomlinson 1972, pp. 34–35). In addition, Pritchett (1980, pp. 56– 57, fig. 5) argued that the main road south from Argos to Tegea verged inland in the direction of Hysiai before reaching Lerna. It was another southern route, according to Pritchett (1980, pp. 139–142, fig. 7), that passed Lerna and later forked, with one branch leading to Sparta. See also Hutton 2005, pp. 115–116. 2. Gell 1810, pp. 160–161, pl. 20. Stoneman (1987, pp. 147– 151), Eisner (1991, pp. 102–103), and Gaschke (2006, pp. 53– 90) connected Gell with a new scientific approach to travel writing, a desire to measure and describe land routes with the precision of nautical charts and provide accurate visual documentation through use of a camera obscura. Despite this appearance of scientific objectivity, Gell had his own agenda in structuring his travel narratives, and this agenda can distort his verbal descriptions of landscapes (Bennet, Davis, and

Zarinebaf-­Shahr 2000, p. 370). Moreover, according to Leask (2002, p. 71) and Colbert (2005, p. 169), the camera obscura restructures reality and implies different ways of seeing. See also Camp 2013, pp. 15–17; Sloan 2013, pp. 38–40. 3. Subtle discrepancies between Gell’s sketch and this photomontage taken by the author in 2010 reveal differences in the two approaches to landscape. Gell’s drawing could only have been made from the lower spur of the hill shown in the middle foreground of Figure 15, the only spot with sufficient height and unobstructed views of the Larissa (latitude 22°42′53.59′′ E; longitude 37°32′19.30′′ N; elevation 37 m). Compared to the photograph taken from this location, Gell’s drawing has contracted the horizontal expanse and accentuated Nafplio by enlarging its acropolis rock and minimizing the mountains framing it. In addition, the drawing moves the Larissa acropolis, which should be partly obscured by Pontinos, across the gulf to provide a more expansive view of the smaller valley and mountain spurs between Myloi and Argos, a northwestern stretch of territory that was invisible from Gell’s observation point. Gell has thus created a montage corresponding to no single reality.

2

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Figure 1. Map of the Argive Plain. K. Hatch and G. Sloggy



HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

3

Figure 2. Panoramic sketch of Myloi and the Argive Plain, from southwest. Gell 1810, pl. 20

Figure 3. Panoramic view of Myloi and the Argive Plain, from southwest

periods, and one aim of this study is to assess connections between the center and periphery of the Argive state. The primacy of Argos also affects this study in more subtle ways. The rich textual tradition of Classical archaeology is a product mainly of urban culture and reflects the interests of city dwellers. Lower-­order settlements such as Lerna generally fell outside this narrative, although Argive political and military history helps establish a framework for assessing developments in the countryside and occasionally sheds oblique light on Lerna. Gell’s visit to Myloi in the early 19th century points to another theme of this book, the intersection between written history and archaeological sources. Excavations at Lerna in the 1950s brought to light 17 coins, almost all from surface levels. Five of these date within a narrow range from 1833 to 1838; they are small-denomination coins from the decade after the Greek War of Independence (Fig. 4).4 This collection makes it clear that the people of Lerna were not constantly losing change, for the next earliest coin at the site is a silver issue of Isabelle de Villehardouin, princess of the Morea, and dates to 1297–1301 (Fig. 5).5 In addition to this Frankish coin, pottery from surface levels included bowls, plates, and a jug datable to end of the 13th or beginning of the 14th century (Fig. 6).6 Since the first half of the 14th century is the probable construction date of a fort on the summit of Mt. Pontinos 4. LN.4, LN.14, LN.15, LN.17, LN.18. Also from the 19th century are a one lepton coin with a date of 1878 (LN.16) and a five lepta coin with a date of 1869 (LN.5). 5. LN.3 (Diam. 0.018 m; Th. 0.0005 m; Wt. 0.8 g). 6. These are all from BE: lot 14. The bowl shown at top right has parallels at Sparta and Corinth (Sanders 1993, p. 263,

nos. 12, 13, fig. 3, pl. 24; 2003, p. 389, no. 23, fig. 23:2). The two plates to the left are Frankish glaze painted ware and similar to a plate in MacKay 2003, p. 413, fig. 24:7. Bottom right is a pitcher of similar shape to an example at Corinth, although the Lerna pot is not metallic ware (Sanders 1987, p. 177, no. 16, fig. 5, pl. 24).

4

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Figure 4. Bronze coins from surface levels at Lerna, dating from a.d. 1833–1838. Scale 1:1

above Myloi, the spotty surface finds at Lerna correspond in a small way to the major political and military events of the Argolid.7 The fit between history and archaeology, however, is not as exact in the case of Gell’s recorded habitation at Myloi and the 19th-­century coins at Lerna, for his drawing, published in 1810, was based on visits to Greece in 1801–1806, more than 25 years before the earliest coin. Thus, none of the coins found at Lerna could have come from Gell’s or a contemporary’s purse. Excavators also recovered clay tobacco-pipe bowls from surface levels at Lerna, but with one possible exception these cannot be dated more precisely than the late 18th or 19th century (Fig. 7).8 A direct relationship notwithstanding, Gell’s visit, the pipes, and the 19th-­century coins from Lerna can be placed in a broader context of interaction. By the end of the 18th century, Western Europeans began taking a keen interest in Greece as a cultural destination, and trade intensified during the next two decades as Greek shippers established connections with European markets that would play no small role in the struggle for independence.9 The creation of the Greek state in 1830 accelerated this process and led to an economic boom as port towns channeled goods into state-­supported markets, and local economies changed orientation in response to commercial opportunities.10 The Peloponnese took part in this recovery, and Myloi presumably benefited from this economic intensification and focus on the sea. 7. McLeod (1962, p. 386) arrived at this date for the fort based on elements of its plan and the style of wall construction. This small fortification may be part of a broader program of castle building in the Peloponnese at the turn of the 14th century (Lock 1995, p. 78). The purpose of this fort was to guard one of the main southern entrances to the Argolid. 8. Robinson (1985, pp. 155, 161–167) presented dating criteria for these pipe bowls. The faceted shank, wreath pattern, and scalloped edge of the example shown on the left correspond to her (p. 164, nos. C33–C78, A13–A17, pls. 50–54, 61, 62) series from Corinth and the Athenian Agora, dated to the late 18th and first half of the 19th century. The example shown at the right, however, is a different type with a disk-­shaped bowl that should be dated later in the 19th century (pp. 165– 166). Ward and Baram (2006, pp. 144–145, 152), however, used shipwreck evidence to cast doubt on such precise chronological typologies. See also Vroom 2007, pp. 84–86. 9. Greece became a regular part of the Grand Tour in the

middle of the 18th century, with English travelers beginning to arrive in greater number in the early 1800s (Stoneman 1987, pp. 136–164; Eisner 1991, pp. 63–123; Dyson 2006, pp. 65–72). For the privileged position of Greek traders in the Ottoman Empire, especially after the Napoleonic Wars, see Lampe and Jackson 1982, pp. 40–41; Jelavich 1983, p. 181. 10. According to Topping (2000, pp. 37–40), two consequences of this economic boom in the Argolid were a demographic explosion and intensification of farming. See also Petronoti (2000, pp. 71–77) for the role of the Greek merchant marine fleet and the shipbuilding islands of Hydra and Spetses in integrating local markets. Wright et al. (1990, pp. 597–599) related changes in settlement patterns in the Nemea Valley to the new commercial opportunities created by Greek independence. Blitzer (1990, pp. 705–707) examined the economy of the Peloponnese in the postrevolutionary period through a study of pitharia and the olive oil trade.



HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Figure 5. Silver coin of Isabelle de Villehardouin,

dated to a.d. 1297–1301. Scale 2:1

Figure 6. Frankish pottery from surface levels at Lerna, dated to the late 13th

or early 14th century a.d. Scale 1:2

Figure 7. Tobacco-pipe bowls from surface levels at Lerna, dated to the 18th and 19th centuries a.d. Scale 1:1

5

6

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Establishing an economic and political context for Lerna in the 14th and 19th centuries a.d. helps make sense of otherwise incomprehensible archaeological fragments. For earlier periods, we have less literary documentation but a much richer basis in archaeology. In this chapter I wish to situate my study of village life at Lerna from the Geometric to Hellenistic period (ca. 970–175) in the context of Classical studies more generally. Greek archaeologists have long focused on cities and urban monuments at the expense of the rural hinterland. When they ventured into the countryside, it was usually to excavate monumental sanctuaries, where the trappings of urban culture were seen in isolation and therefore did not foster a more inclusive approach to rural settlement. Ancient literature also provides an overwhelmingly urban perspective on the Greek polis. This is unfortunate. Rural settlements such as Lerna were the economic backbone of the city-­state and played an important role in its political and religious life. Since the 1980s, however, survey archaeology has begun to redress this neglect of the countryside and provide a perspective on changing settlement patterns. As a complement to this longue durée approach to history, excavation of farmsteads and villages will be necessary to create a fine-­grained picture of rural life.

VILLAGE HISTORIES A major exception to this neglect of villages and other rural sites by ancient Greek writers is Hesiod’s portrait of Askra in Works and Days, a poem that evokes a world of traditional values and an economic base of subsistence farming. Wealth in this context comes primarily from cereal farming and viticulture, with a seasonal cycle of tasks (plowing, pruning, harvesting, etc.) providing an organizational structure for the poem.11 The narrator values above all frugality and a self-­sufficient oikos, as when he advises the farmer to make his own simple clothing from household resources (lines 536–546).12 Historians have attempted to situate the society depicted in the poem on a scale from a primitive subsistence economy to a more sophisticated political economy with connections outside the village. The maximalist position draws on passages implying that the village was capable of supporting specialist carpenters and potters (lines 25–26) and imported foreign wine (line 589).13 Although Works and Days is primarily concerned with household economies, lending and borrowing are said to create reciprocal relationships between neighbors in which a bumper crop can translate into social capital beyond the oikos.14 Unfortunately for archaeologists, the poem provides few details about the physical appearance of the village. Askra (or is it the nearby town?) possesses a blacksmith shop and a lesche hall, buildings that seem to function as gathering places, but this is meager evidence for spatial organization.15 11. For the structure of the poem and literary antecedents, see West 1978, pp. 3–25, 43–59; Nelson 1998, pp. 48–58; Marsilio 2000, pp. 15–29; Jones 2004, pp. 164–166. Animal husbandry plays a surprisingly minor role in Hesiod’s account, perhaps because it did not suit the literary theme of cereal agriculture symbolizing the human condition (Edwards 2004, pp. 147–149). 12. As Jones (2004, pp. 169–173) observed, rustic clothing is a major trope of Athenian writers intent on discriminating between rural simplicity and urban sophistication. 13. Edwards 2004, pp. 49, 53, 85. For the wine and its possible origin, see West 1978, p. 306; Dalby 1996, pp. 95, 97; Osborne 2007, p. 297. For economic interactions between Askra and Boiotian ports and towns, see also Tandy 1997, pp. 211– 215. 14. Hesiod (Op. 342–355) includes in his discussion of shar-

ing and reciprocity a specific reference to inviting neighbors to feasts, but these small-­scale feasts appear to be intended to foster personal ties rather than bind the community as a whole and cultivate a village identity (Tandy 1997, pp. 208–227; Edwards 2004, pp. 94–95, 165). The basic theme of personal patronage and reciprocity may have greater relevance for understanding village societies in ancient Greece (Whitehead 1986, pp. 241–252; Jones 2004, pp. 55–85). 15. Hes. Op. 493. For the lesche in Hesiod as a village gathering place, see Tandy 1997, pp. 198–199. A lesche is also attested epigraphically for the Attic deme Aixone (Jones 2004, p. 87). Cults or sanctuary buildings that might have helped articulate space and solidify a village identity are notably absent from Hesiod’s account apart from the narrator’s claim (Op. 651–652) to have dedicated a tripod in the sanctuary of the Muses on Mt. Helikon (Edwards 2004, p. 76).



VILLAGE HISTORIES

Haliartos

7

Onchestos

Askra

Thebes

Kabirion

Thespiai Eutresis Leuctra

Plataea Kreusis

Siphai

Figure 8. Map of the Boiotia survey area, showing Askra and Thespiai. Edwards 2004, p. 74, map 1; courtesy Regents of the University of California

His description of Askra, however selective and rooted in literary conventions, has influenced modern studies of the political economy of early Greek villages. A central question is the relationship between village and polis, in this case Askra and Thespiai (Fig. 8). Some see the farmers of Askra as freeholders practicing intensive agriculture in previously marginal land, a community engaged in a power struggle with an entrenched urban aristocracy based at Thespiai. Others posit a sharper distinction and greater inequality between village and polis, a framework in which Askra represents a subject community of farmers reduced by debt or rent to a kind of peasant status with limited political rights.16 The ancient tradition that Thespiai destroyed Askra underscores this competitive framework and the ultimately irreconcilable interests.17 Is this an extreme case? Unfortunately, we know very little about the role of villages in the territorial organization of other Greek states. One region where we do know something is Laconia. Sparta bound surrounding villages (perioikic communities) into a subordinate political position somewhere between Spartan citizens and the helots of conquered terri16. Edwards (2004, pp. 1–29) framed his study of rural s­ ociety as depicted in Works and Days around these two opposing positions. An influential proponent of the first view, Hanson (1995, pp. 16–45, 91–126) characterized Askrans as “middling” farmers. 17. Aristotle, FHG 115c; Plut. Mor. fr. 82. Edwards (2004, pp. 170–173) examined the ancient tradition for a destruction

of Askra between the time of Hesiod and Aristotle. The literary tradition preserves the memory of another Boiotian village, Hippotai, destroyed as a result of a power struggle between two poleis, Coroneia and Thisbe (Fossey 1990, p. 207; Schachter 1996, pp. 104–105; Edwards 2004, p. 173; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007, p. 149).

8

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

tory. This asymmetrical pattern of incorporation, however, is known only in bare outline and leaves many questions unresolved. Paul Cartledge believed that the perioikic communities preserved a measure of economic and political autonomy, yielding to Spartan authority mainly in foreign policy.18 Others have inferred a more subservient role for the perioikoi and greater tensions with Sparta. Complicating matters, the distinction between urban core and secondary villages is not entirely accurate for Laconia. Archaic Sparta was hardly an urban center—it famously had no walls and resembled a collection of villages until the Hellenistic period—nor can all perioikic communities be properly classified as villages, for Classical writers refer to some as poleis.19 Athens had a fundamentally different political configuration of territory. Early traditions refer to tensions between Athens and other communities as it expanded and confronted them in what would eventually become its territory, a prime example being the war between Athens and Eleusis.20 But these hints of tension gave way to a mature Late Archaic and Classical pattern involving demes that were fully integrated into the political structure of the Athenian state.21 As so often in Greek history, Athens and Sparta present extreme pictures. Elsewhere in Greece, independent villages appear in the sources as late as the 5th century. For example, the synoikism that created the state of Elis in the 470s involved a power shift from villages to urban center, but this did not completely deprive the original villages of their autonomy or identity.22 Another line of inquiry is the nature of village society, and here too historians have framed villages in antithesis to the cosmopolitan urban centers. In its most extreme form, a premise of village conservatism has stressed traditional social values of honor and shame, economic primitivism, self-­sufficiency, and isolation from markets.23 These assumptions pervade modern ethnographic and historiographic traditions in the Mediterranean, where villages have often been seen as bastions of conservative culture, frozen in time, with geographic isolation retarding the influence of new ideas from the cities.24 Moreover, this attitude can be traced back to antiquity. Aristotle’s developmental scheme for social organization from household to polis level treated villages as evolutionary dead ends, backwaters irrelevant to the main currents of Greek history.25 His testimony implies that villages are places where more primitive structures might endure, an attitude that should be questioned. 18. Cartledge 2002, pp. 153–168. In Cartledge’s account, the perioikic communities play a major role in Laconian craft production, activities viewed by Spartans with disdain. 19. For the Sparta settlement pattern and comparison to perioikic communities, see Catling 2002, pp. 244–247. Hansen (1995, p. 55) identified other complications for the polis/kome dichotomy posed by Sparta. 20. For these probably mythical conflicts, see Osborne 1987, p. 55; Hornblower 1991, pp. 259–264; Parker 1996, pp. 13, 25. For the particular relationship between Athens and Eleusis, see Mylonas 1961, p. 63; Richardson 1974, pp. 6–11. 21. Osborne 1985, p. 41. 22. Osborne 1987, pp. 124–127; Edwards 2004, p. 167. However, as Hansen (1995, pp. 47 [n. 15], 58–60) remarked, the situation is more complicated than others have assumed, since Xenophon (Hell. 3.2.23, 30; 6.5.2; 7.1.26; 7.4.14) consistently refers to these villages as poleis. In contrast to Elis, Boiotian poleis by the Classical period had incorporated villages into a subordinate position as perioikoi (Buck 1979, p. 100; Bintliff 1982; Edwards 2004, pp. 167–170). 23. Jones (2004, pp. 186–191) offered a valuable discussion of conservatism with respect to ancient Greek village life. This theme of conservatism also appears in Donlan and Thomas’s (1993, p. 64) archaeological study of prehistoric and Early Iron Age villages in Greece. In addition, Morris (2007, p. 233)

related the theme of self-­sufficiency as expressed in Hesiod’s account of Askra to the realities of Early Iron Age households. Ault (2005, p. 78), however, reacted against the assumption of economic self-­sufficiency in a discussion of household activities at Classical and Hellenistic Halieis, a small polis. 24. Such an assumption underlies du Boulay’s (1974, pp. 4–7) choice of a Greek mountain village as the subject of a now-classic ethnographic study. Natural barriers and poor road communications convinced her that the fast-­disappearing old ways of Greece might survive a little longer in the countryside. Some contemporary reviews of this book, such as Gilse­ nan’s (1975), were critical of du Boulay’s assumption of village isolation. Horden and Purcell (2000, pp. 466–474) later plumbed the ethnographic literature for the idea of Mediterranean villages representing rural isolation. Wright et al. (1990, p. 594) also questioned the assumption that modern villages “are carriers of an unbroken agricultural tradition.” 25. Arist. Pol. 1252b17. See Osborne 1985, p. 15; 1987, p. 55; Hansen 1995, pp. 52–53; Jones 2004, pp. 18–19, 51. Edwards’s (2004, p. 29) evolutionary model for social complexity, while rejecting a simple linear progression from the world of Homer to that of Solon, still casts village society as “becoming a thing of the past” with the rise of the polis. Morris (2009, p. 117) also subtly invoked a longue durée progression from village to town settlements.



VILLAGE ARCHAEOLOGIES

9

VILLAGE ARCHAEOLOGIES One might have expected archaeology to make a fundamental contribution to our understanding of the ancient Greek countryside, since it seems to offer a way to overcome the obvious ideological biases and genre constraints of ancient writers and build a more nuanced picture of rural life. Yet villages and other lower-­order settlements have long remained an abstraction, with few extensively excavated villages in mainland Greece belonging to the Archaic and Classical periods.26 Anthony Snodgrass likened the perspective of modern scholars on the ancient countryside to a kind of tunnel vision, a limited perspective centered on towns, the roads connecting towns, and the trappings of urban culture in the countryside, such as the major rural sanctuaries, with little concern for landscape or small rural settlements.27 He mostly singled out Classical archaeologists for their neglect of the countryside in the era of the polis. So long as villages were perceived to be the most complex social organizations of their time, they occupied an important place in the archaeological story, as in settlement histories of Bronze and Early Iron Age Greece.28 But even when Snodgrass wrote, Archaic and Classical villages had been identified, excavated, and published. Since then, the number of excavation projects in Greece with a Classical village orientation has grown.29 One of these early exceptions is Eutresis in Boiotia, a settlement attested as a kome, or village, in Archaic and Classical sources; it was not only a focus of a large excavation project but also benefited from an exemplary publication in a 1931 monograph.30 In addition, partial remains of many more villages have been discovered accidentally in what have been essentially rescue operations.31 But, if excavators have not completely bypassed villages in the Archaic and Classical periods, such digs have been sporadic, and Classical archaeologists have made no concerted attempt to excavate a range of rural sites in any one territory.32 The one major exception to this neglect is the countryside of Athens. Here archaeologists have paid considerable attention to and dug a variety of rural sites, from isolated farmsteads such as those at Vari and the Dema Wall to larger village deme centers. As a result, we can say far more about rural settlements in Attica than in any other region of Greece, and our story is rich in the demographic, spatial, and religious dimensions of village life. For example, bouleteric quotas enable relatively precise estimates for each deme population, and the resulting figure of 130–1,500 citizens provides a starting point for determining the numbers resident at the deme centers.33 Some of these must have been small villages, while others would have almost qualified in population as towns. One deme, Classical Thorikos, was essentially a polis 26. See Snodgrass 1990, p. 113. Frederiksen (2011, p. 14) more recently has referred to “a general lack of interest in the Greek countryside,” although he acknowledged that survey projects have led to a changing focus in recent years. In addition, Jones (2004, pp. 10–11) presented a more detailed review of recent works focusing on the ancient Greek countryside. 27. Snodgrass (1987, p. 84) attributed the original tunnel vision to authors such as Pausanias and their “relentless linearity” in making sense of the countryside. For a more nuanced assessment of Pausanias’s techniques of landscape description, see Hutton 2005, pp. 118–122; Pretzler 2007, pp. 59–72. 28. Dickinson (1994, pp. 56–60, 68–71, 77–80) briefly examined this focus on the countryside in Bronze Age archaeology. After the collapse of Bronze Age palatial society, villages became unquestionably the largest settlements until the rise of the polis, and, not surprisingly, these Early Iron Age villages are also well represented in the excavation record of Greece (Dickinson 2006, pp. 104–113). 29. One of the most recent projects has targeted a Laconian perioikic community. A Dutch team working at Geraki

(ancient Geronthrai) since the late 1990s has revealed Hellenistic phases of occupation inside a walled area almost 4 ha in extent (Crouwel, Prent, and Shipley 2009; MacVeagh Thorne and Prent 2009). 30. Goldman 1931. Eutresis was one of three komai in the territory of Thespiai. Although Bronze Age remains are mainly what drew the American excavators to Eutresis, Goldman (1927, p. 3) affirmed that the Archaic and Classical village was no less a priority. 31. To take just one example, the Late Archaic burial ground at Kastello Varypetrou on Crete, excavated in response to chance finds (Tzedakis 1970, p. 468), has been identified as ancient Lachania, a kome of Kydonia (Perlman 1996, p. 243). 32. Metaponto in southern Italy is a rare case where a large-­ scale project of excavations and surface surveys has for more than 30 years focused on the chora of a Greek state and rural settlement types (Carter 2006, pp. 133–149). 33. For the citizen population in each deme, see Hansen 1985, pp. 51–56, 64; 1999, pp. 93–94; Osborne 1985, pp. 43– 46; Moreno 2007, pp. 59–60.

10

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

in miniature, with fortification walls, a theatre, stoas, small shrines and at least one monumental temple, and an acropolis hill.34 Another excavated deme center, Halai Aixonides, consisted of not one but two focal points for habitation separated by 400 m of open ground.35 At the other extreme, some demes seemed to have lacked a center altogether, with a scattered population living in isolated farmsteads.36 But we cannot adopt a blanket Athenocentric model for the rest of Greece, if for no other reason than the suspicion that few village communities were as politically integrated into the state as the Attic demes.37 Elsewhere most of our evidence for rural settlements in the Archaic and Classical periods has come from regional survey projects.38 Three projects in mainland Greece (southern Argolid, Boiotia, and Laconia) have particular relevance here for what they reveal about village settlements in the polis landscape. For the southern Argolid, Michael Jameson and his team concluded from the absence of almost any sites in the survey zone until around 900 that “most of the land that had been cultivated in the Mycenaean period was abandoned.”39 When settlers began to fill in the landscape again in the 9th century, the first sites chosen were in good farmland, with a preference for interior over coastal locations.40 By the 7th century, a hierarchical settlement pattern had emerged in the southern Argolid consisting of a single dominant settlement, which often but not necessarily developed into a polis, and secondary settlements characterized as villages or hamlets within a putative territory (Fig. 9). Tjeerd van Andel and Curtis Runnels further suggested that these villages functioned as secondary nodes in agricultural redistribution markets, sites connected to overseas routes.41 For Jameson and his colleagues, an evolutionary framework set the initial dominant settlements on a path to become autonomous city-­states as the villages inevitably lost importance over time. These villages functioned as bases for intensive agricultural exploitation and could compete with towns in the early phases when “the larger centers had as yet rather limited social and economic attractions.”42 In this view, the villages were becoming irrelevant in the era of the polis, and the surveyors of the southern Argolid point to a major transition in settlement patterns around 350–250, when occupation ceases at many villages, and isolated farmsteads become part of a new pattern of dispersed residence in the countryside.43 34. For the remains at Thorikos, see Osborne 1987, pp. 128, 159; Travlos 1988, pp. 430–445. About the only thing it lacks that is expected of a polis is a clearly defined agora space, although inscriptions indicate that other demes had one (Whitehead 1986, pp. 86–87). 35. Oikonomakou (1991) compiled a preliminary report of the excavations at Halai. For a summary, see Jones 2004, pp. 111–116; Parker 2005, pp. 63, 69. Unusually for a deme, Halai controlled a temple of Apollo Zoster, an “extra-­urban” sanctuary several kilometers south of the villages constituting the deme center. 36. What Lohmann (1993, pp. 129–134) suggested based on survey for the deme Atene, Steinhauer (2001, pp. 97, 128– 129) suggested for the Mesogaia: that the population lived in scattered farmsteads. These farmsteads in the Mesogaia often clustered around roads and a public well. Osborne (1987, pp. 63, 128) characterized the most diffuse settlements as “tiny hamlets” with “nothing more than a collection of dwellings.” Jones (2004, pp. 22–44) maintained, contrary to Osborne’s (1985, pp. 22–38) focus on nucleated rural settlements, that scattered residences were the norm in the Classical Attic countryside. See also Bresson 2016, pp. 155–156. 37. Perhaps this explains the particular Athenian attachment to village life, a commitment strong enough to impress ancient observers such as Thucydides (2.16.2), who comments on the singular hardship imposed on demesmen in the evacua-

tion of Attica at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War (Whitehead 1986, p. 177; Hornblower 1991, p. 269; Jones 2004, pp. 7–8; Parker 2005, p. 62; Moreno 2007, p. 37). 38. Alcock (1994, p. 175–180) reviewed the evidence for Hellenistic settlement patterns from surveys in mainland Greece, Magna Graecia, and Crete. More recently, Corvisier (2008, pp. 32–53) has summed up the experience of survey archaeologists working in the Peloponnese and the Greek islands. 39. Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994, p. 373. In addition, Gill and Foxhall (1997, pp. 59–60) presented a summary of Early Iron Age settlement patterns for the southern Argolid, Methana, and the Argive Plain. 40. Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994, pp. 373–374. 41. Van Andel and Runnels 1987, p. 107. 42. Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994, p. 375. They (p. 377) spoke of a “transition from a village conveniently situated for the exploitation of an outlying district to a first-­order settlement.” See also van Andel and Runnels 1987, pp. 104– 107. 43. Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel (1994, pp. 383–394) calculated from the spacing between these small sites identified as isolated farmsteads that landholdings ranged 5.5– 22.5 ha in size (with an average of 13.5 ha). In addition, Van Andel and Runnels (1987, p. 110) connected this decline in village settlement to a real economic decline of the region in the Early Hellenistic period.



VILLAGE ARCHAEOLOGIES

11

Figure 9. Suggested city-­state territories of the southern Argolid survey. Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994, p. 374, fig. 6.15; courtesy Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University

In Boiotia, the southern territory of Thespiai appears to have undergone a similar if somewhat later revival in the Archaic or Classical period, as scattered residences in the chora permitted more intensive rural exploitation. John Bintliff and his colleagues there defined a mature Classical pattern of three zones of rural settlement in greater distance from the urban core: a first band of suburban settlement and burial, a second band of hamlets and villages, and a third most distant band of scattered family farmsteads.44 The villages in this system serve as connection points between their own satellite farms and the urban center, especially in areas too remote for feasible commutes from the city to outlying farms. In accord with this relatively late settling of the Boiotian countryside, the Laconia survey has identified almost no movement from the core area of Sparta and Amyklai into the countryside until the 6th century.45 Only then is a new pattern established in the chora, with small sites identified as farmsteads and larger ones identified as villages. This must have resulted in the conversion of large parts of a pristine countryside to cultivation.46 R. M. V. Catling postulated a three-­tier settlement hierarchy in the Archaic and Classical periods, with a middle rung of villages and perioikic towns having organizational and administrative functions.47 These second-­order sites almost always occupied land suitable for arable farming, had access to natural water sources, and controlled principal routes of communication 44. Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007, pp. 132–143, 173. In contrast, only a few sites have produced occupation debris dating to the 8th and 7th century. As Snodgrass (1990, pp. 130– 131) noted, these early sites include Thespiai and Askra. 45. Excavations at Geraki, however, have revealed slight traces of 7th-­century activity at this perioikic community (Crou­

wel, Prent, and Shipley 2009). 46. Catling 2002, pp. 157–174. He (pp. 233–234) proposed historical explanations for the mid-­6th-­century takeoff in rural settlement. 47. Catling 2002, p. 163.

12

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

within the Eurotas Valley. The 5th century shows signs of a more nucleated rural settlement pattern, with hamlets and villages increasing in number and size at the expense of isolated farmsteads.48 Catling was more explicit than most about economic relationships in the territory. In his view, the perioikic towns had large enough populations to support craft specialists, but most nonagricultural products were probably acquired at Sparta. The larger hamlets and villages may have geared surplus production toward exchange in market systems, where good communications contributed to economic prosperity, as well as furnishing resources for local patronage and display.49 Despite what these surveys suggest, villages are not a ubiquitous presence in the Classical Greek countryside. Robin Osborne observed that villages failed to take root on Thasos and some other Greek islands, a pattern he attributed in part to geography, with the mountainous terrain of these islands resulting in poor communications and creating a strong disincentive for alternative power bases to develop outside the main town. Ultimately, these settlement patterns on the islands led to greater inequalities in the political and economic balance between town and chora.50 This resulted in a different form of rural settlement than on the mainland, with scattered towers rather than village focal points.51 Moreover, one of the best-­documented countrysides in the Greek world, the chora of Metaponto, has yielded extensive evidence for scattered farmsteads, but little sign of villages that could serve as intermediaries between household farmers and the urban market and administrative core.52 Even in territories with villages, survey is usually too blunt an instrument to clarify the political and economic histories of villages, leaving much of the territorial reconstruction at the level of an abstract model. In addition, these grand narratives of landscape history mask substantial problems of interpretation posed by the small sites encountered on survey. With many surveys revealing a hierarchical settlement pattern in the Archaic period, the central sites—usually the settlements that later became the urban polis centers—seem to offer a standard by which to define the second-­order settlements in their putative territories. In other words, villages are villages because they are not the known poleis. But this is a fairly subjective criterion and dependent on polis identifications in the later literary and epigraphic record. What if we did not know, for example, that Askra was politically subordinate to Thespiai in the Archaic period? It might then have been identified as a polis based on its size (15–20 ha), the other major standard archaeologists have used to identify settlement types. For example, the southern Argolid survey established a minimum threshold of 5 ha for town identifications.53 Anything under this was classified as a village or farmstead. Moreover, settlement size is 48. Catling 2002, pp. 175–187. 49. Catling 2002, pp. 196–200, 213–218. Hinting at a partial explanation for the evidence of Laconian products in overseas exchange networks, Catling (pp. 226–227) focused on animal husbandry as a currently underappreciated aspect of the rural economy. 50. Osborne 1987, pp. 67–70, 123–124. Catling (2002, p. 157) included Melos and Thera as other islands with a highly dispersed pattern of rural settlement. 51. Morris and Papadopoulos (2005, pp. 184–188, 200– 204) linked such towers with slave labor in rural contexts. 52. One site identified by Carter (2006, pp. 55–83) as a village in the chora of Metaponto, Incoronata “greca,” is a special case of an indigenous settlement that was eventually converted into a rural sanctuary by the Achaean colonists. See also Osborne 1996, pp. 237–238. More typically, the few sites

that might be considered Metapontine villages consist of six or more farmhouses separated by 300–400 m (Carter 2011, pp. 714–719). 53. Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994, p. 249. But other survey projects have provided wildly different size ranges for settlement types. For example, Alcock et al. (2005, p. 166) regarded a settlement as large as 27 ha (and implying an estimated population as large as 6,750) as compatible with a village identification. For Laconia, Catling (2002, pp. 163, 193, 246) interpreted settlements 0.5–1.5 ha in extent as hamlets or small villages and one site of 3 ha as a perioikic town, while acknowledging a more common size for towns of 10–20 ha. In Boiotia, Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass (2007, p. 134) characterized smaller rural sites of 1.2–1.8 ha as hamlets rather than villages.



VILLAGE ARCHAEOLOGIES

13

thought to correlate directly with population in a standard calculation of 150–250 people per ha.54 This means that for the southern Argolid, a town is defined as a settlement with a minimum population of 750–1,250. But to what extent do the surface scatters correlate with the actual sizes of the settlements? A complication is suggested by the interpretation of extensive spreads of material around what are thought to be small farmsteads as “haloes” generated by fertilizing methods involving the movement of rubbish, including potsherds, from the farm buildings. Did larger rural settlements also produce such haloes, and if so, how much smaller were the actual settlements in relation to the surface scatters?55 Another complication is that the reported size of survey sites is usually based on the spread of material from all periods; phases of expansion and contraction in the settlement’s history are exceedingly difficult to document from surface scatters.56 Survey archaeologists have long been aware that site identifications should delve into the character of the finds and subjective ideas of site function.57 One of the most illuminating attempts to do so is Snodgrass’s identification of a site on the Boiotian survey as Askra based on general topographical considerations, the specific character of the finds, and expectations of what a village should look like. Snodgrass characterized this site as a sizable rural settlement, with evidence of basic craft production in the form of pottery kiln wasters and signs of a communal ethos in what may be traces of an Archaic fortification wall.58 Local cults may have also enhanced village identity, as suggested by the discovery of a temenos outside the putative fortification walls, a structure plausibly identified as an extramural sanctuary. Furthermore, if the ancient epithet “Askra rich in vines” alludes to a village territory of sorts, the people of Askra may have farmed a spatially coherent landscape, an attractive interpretation given the presence of the settlement in the midst of vineyards in the Valley of the Muses, a fertile basin hemmed in by mountains (Figs. 8, 10).59 Finally, Snodgrass’s identification of Pyrgaki hill as the acropolis of Askra gives another impression that this village was spatially a polis in miniature. Thus, in our most detailed picture of a rural settlement from survey, village life seems to have a strong religious dimension and spatial definition. This is perhaps the closest survey has come to a phenomenological approach to village life, in which a village is defined as a bound community with a “sense of territoriality” and norms of behavior and solidarity among its members.60 54. There is virtually no evidence for these population estimates independent of site size. The formula for urban population density makes certain assumptions about house size, the presence of second stories, building densities, and other factors. Hansen (2006, pp. 51, 60) revised the figure of 250 persons per ha offered by the southern Argolid survey down to 180–200 per ha. More recent surveyors have generally accepted this lower estimate, although Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass (2007, p. 114) took a middle position of 225 per ha in urban settings and 50–125 for rural populations. 55. Snodgrass (1990, pp. 122–124) developed the idea of fertilization haloes to explain the spread of material around isolated Classical farmsteads in Boiotia. Moreover, Osborne (1987, p. 70) suggested that larger rural settlements also produced such haloes from intensive farming. See also Alcock et al. 2005, pp. 141–157, 160; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007, pp. 9–10, 23–37. The survey scatters could easily be 5–10 times larger than the actual inhabited parts of the site. 56. For Askra, Snodgrass (1990, pp. 132–133) attempted to make such a distinction, suggesting from concentrations of

surface material dating to the 8th and 7th centuries that the village was then roughly 10%–15% its maximum size of 15– 20 ha and consequently had a smaller population. 57. For ceramic and other artifact assemblages as a point of distinction between settlement categories, see Catling 2002, pp. 187–196. Moreover, signs of prosperity and luxury (i.e., sympotic equipment and storage vessels) figure prominently among Catling’s archaeological indices for higher-­order settlements. 58. Snodgrass 1987, p. 125; 1990, pp. 132–135. Askra is often cited as the best example of an Archaic walled kome (see p. 15, below). 59. Snodgrass 1987, p. 127. In addition, Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass (2007, pp. 136, 150) relied on catchment theory and distances from Thespiai to suggest that the Valley of the Muses was Askra’s “natural exploitation territory.” They (p. 148) estimated a cultivable territory of 12 km2 and a carrying capacity of 1,630 people. 60. Edwards (2004, pp. 169–170, 175) stressed these aspects of village identity perhaps even more strongly than Snodgrass.

14

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Figure 10. A cohesive landscape: the Valley of the Muses

VILLAGE DEFINITIONS More often than not, however, survey archaeologists have little more than the size of a site on which to base conclusions. To make sense of the limited archaeological data, they have turned to literary sources and ancient terminology for classifying settlements. Pausanias is one of the most informative authors with respect to settlement types, and the rare exception who explicitly confronts the gray area between his categories.61 From Pausanias, William Hutton has constructed a flexible hierarchy of settlement types: πόλις, equivalent to city; πόλισμα, used for a town too small to qualify as a polis; and κώμη, defined in opposition to a town as a smaller and politically subordinate settlement.62 Moreover, on one occasion, at Ledon in Phokis, Pausanias (10.33.1) implies a distinction between a κώμη and something lower on the settlement scale, a mere collection of “dwellings” (οἰκήσεις) with 70 people. We might call this a hamlet.63 These efforts reveal how problematic “village” is as a concept, even when applied to Lerna, for which no ancient authority provides an explicit description of the settlement category.64 The fuller list of ancient Greek settlement categories compiled by Mogens Hansen avoids some of the risk of anachronism from relying on late authors such as Pausanias, and adds ἄστυ and other πόλις-­cognates for the first-­order urban settlements and several more specialized terms for other lower-­order settlements (τεῖχος, ἐμπόριον, λιμήν, ἱερόν).65 Hansen concluded that κώμη covered a broad range in meaning, describing 61. Panopeos is the marginal case where Pausanias (10.4.1) makes explicit his minimum standards for a polis (Hutton 2005, pp. 129–132; Pretzler 2007, pp. 91–93). 62. Hutton 2005, pp. 127–132. Pausanias expresses some flexibility with this system, and at times uses other words to describe settlements, such as δῆμος, employed as a rough equivalent of town, and χωρίον, which technically should mean “place,” inhabited or not, but occasionally is applied to small settlements. 63. Hutton (2005, p. 131) cited this example. Carter (2011, p. 714), however, concluded that the ancient Greeks had no real word for “hamlet.” In Medieval contexts, villages have also come to mean a particular form of settlement in a compact group of houses, not the scattered pattern of hamlets and farmsteads (Razi 1981, p. 4; Yates 1982, p. 205).

64. Caskey (1954, p. 7) framed the question of settlement type delicately for Lerna, giving the impression that it was a village in the Classical period, while leaving open the possibility of some “other sort of establishment.” Foley (1988, p. 65), however, regarded Lerna as a much ­smaller settlement, at least in the Geometric period, consisting of “only a few farmsteads rather than a community as such.” I challenge this assumption of a small and spatially indeterminate Geometric settlement in Chapter 2. 65. Hansen (1995, pp. 47, 80–81) observed that Archaic and Classical authors employ more consistent standards for polis and kome than the more flexible definitions of Strabo, Pausanias, and other later writers. See also Lévy 1986; Whitehead 1994, pp. 121–123.



VILLAGE DEFINITIONS

15

“anything from a cluster of houses to a small conurbation inhabited by families whose principal occupation was to cultivate the surrounding fields.”66 For Hansen, the difference between πόλις and κώμη was fundamentally one of political status, and not a direct function of size. Other supposed points of distinction between these settlement types, such as the presence or absence of fortification walls, offer no certain criteria for distinguishing poleis from villages.67 In short, a κώμη was a second-­order settlement within the territory of a polis, and, in a few attested cases, a basic geographic constituent and political subdivision of the polis, as with the demes of Attica.68 If villages cannot always be distinguished from cities and other settlement types in absolute terms such as size, and ancient terminological distinctions hint at perceptual differences in settlement categories that hinge on political status and other criteria often hidden to archaeologists, how would we define the special character of village life? To what extent are villages a mental construct? A phenomenological approach to villages has a long tradition in anthropological studies and literature more generally, even if this specific term has not always been applied to the more general approach. Carlo Levi, for example, in a classic memoir of the poverty-­stricken region of Basilicata in southern Italy before World War II, posed the question of village definition this way: At first sight the village did not seem to be a village at all, but merely a group of scattered white houses, slightly pretentious in their poverty. It was not on the summit of a hill, like the others, but perched on a sort of jagged saddle rising among picturesque ravines.69

Levi had certain expectations about the spatial definition of villages, expectations that Gagliano, his new home, did not initially satisfy. These expectations were born from experiences with other villages in the area, settlements with a denser concentration of houses on hilltops that were usually crowned by a church and contained a main square, fountains, shops, and hotels that imparted a stronger sense of public space.70 Levi’s intuitive sense of the village as a cultural construct has been developed and expanded by researchers working in different parts of Europe and the Mediterranean. Chris Wickham’s survey of European settlement patterns in the early Middle Ages stresses the different forms villages might take. For example, in the Lucchesia region of northern Italy, it is difficult even to define a village, since houses were often scattered across the landscape, and the territory of one “village” blended into another with no clear demarcation. Moreover, this settlement pattern and agricultural environment discouraged structured cooperation and limited social interactions.71 This pattern contrasts with villages in the Rhineland. Although these villages were small by modern standards (an average of 10 households), they had greater spatial coherence than rural settlements in Lucchesia. Wickham concluded that here “village territories structured the landscape” and fostered stronger social obligations and activities.72 Most anthropological studies of rural life posit a sharp divide between the interests of the city, with its ruling elites, professional bureaucrats, and specialist craftsmen, and the inter-

66. Hansen 1995, p. 61. In addition, Edwards (2004, pp. 166–167) defined komai in similar terms of political subordination and small size. See also Jones 2004, pp. 17–18. 67. There is some uncertainty as to whether poleis had walls and komai were generally unwalled. For Hansen (1995, pp. 61– 62), there was no distinction: either settlement type might have walls. Frederiksen’s (2011, pp. 11–12) more thorough examination of walled settlements, however, reveals little evidence before the Classical period for walled komai. He (p. 6) was more willing than Hansen to accept walls as a distinctive feature of Archaic poleis.

68. Another probable example of this politically integrated model of village organization was Megara, where citizens identified themselves by name, patronym, and kome (Hansen 1995, p. 72). 69. Levi 1947, p. 7. 70. Levi (1947, p. 11) described Gagliano’s main square as “no more than the widening of the single street at the level stretch.” 71. Wickham 2005, p. 390. 72. Wickham 2005, p. 396.

16

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

ests of villages, the agrarian back on which elite privileges and urbanization rest.73 Identity construction may be a key for understanding the power balance between urban center and village periphery, with peasant societies seen as less likely to develop where independent identities flourish in the countryside.74 Historians and archaeologists of ancient Greece have also viewed village communities as a way of preserving local identities in the face of growing urban centers. The most extreme cases involve different ethnic identities. For example, archaeological survey of Messenia, the heartland of the helots in the western Peloponnese, has identified a settlement pattern of a few large villages and almost no isolated farmsteads.75 According to Nino Luraghi, the implications of village communities for helot social organization are enormous, since they provided a means of resistance to Spartan pressure and enhanced the Messenians’ “ability to develop and transmit a collective memory and traditions of their own.”76 This concept of memories and traditions forging a strong village identity may also have relevance for more ethnically homogeneous populations in other parts of Greece and will be considered later in this chapter as a factor in Lernaian identity. Sparta must have been an unusual case, since this polis was trying to maintain control over a distant territory defined as a separate entity from the Spartan chora. For Archaic Crete, Michael Gagarin offered a more cooperative model of the emerging polis integrating ethnically diverse populations residing in separate villages.77 With so many possibilities for rural economies and territorial relationships, researchers in each area need to examine the particular conditions and local histories that have shaped the course of rural settlement. It is to these local circumstances that we now turn in our discussion of Lerna and the political and religious landscape of the Argive Plain.

CENTER AND PERIPHER Y OF THE ARGIVE STATE The Argolid has long been at the forefront of efforts to elucidate the process of state formation and territorial consolidation in Early Iron Age Greece. According to François de Polignac’s structuralist model of a religious landscape with two poles consisting of a central urban cult space and a principal rural sanctuary at the edge of territory, Argos established the Heraion in the 8th century as an expression of political dominance throughout the Argolid, choosing a location on the opposite side of the plain near its rivals Mycenae and Tiryns (Figs. 1, 11).78 But Richard Tomlinson and others saw the early Heraion instead as a regional shrine for Argive communities, neutral ground that did not become exclusively Argive until the 6th century or later, after the crucial phase of polis forma73. Falconer (1995, p. 400) summarized anthropological models. For the ancient world, Finley (1973, pp. 125–129) elegantly described the dialectics of the town-­country relationship as a spectrum of possibilities ranging from parasitism to symbiosis. 74. Magagna (1991, p. 2), however, challenged the commonly held view that peasant societies “lack class consciousness and cohesion” and exist in a state of “passivity and reaction.” Moreover, historians of ancient Greece have been less receptive than historians of Medieval Europe to the idea of rural peasantries (Edwards 2004, pp. 1–19). 75. Alcock et al. (2005, p. 159) noted that the “rather small” Archaic settlements observed by earlier surveys in the Nichoria area of Messenia were approximately 3 ha in size, more compatible with an identification as sizable villages than small hamlets or isolated farmsteads. The Pylos survey in west-

ern Messenia located larger Archaic and Classical rural sites, one (Romanou) estimated at 14–27 ha in size (Alcock et al. 2005, p. 166). 76. Luraghi (2008, p. 138) elaborated comments made by Alcock et al. (2005, p. 170) in response to the survey evidence. Catling (2002, p. 244) drew similar conclusions for perioikic communities in Spartan territory that lacked a village center, with the absence supposedly impeding the development of a communal ethos and local identity. 77. Gagarin (2008, pp. 79, 86) suggested that the public display of laws in the 7th century was partly intended to establish common ground for villages with different customs that had come under the influence of polis centers. 78. Polignac 1995, pp. 33–53. Kelly (1976, pp. 54–69) and Wright (1982, pp. 199–200) anticipated Polignac’s arguments for Argive control of the Heraion in the 8th century.



CENTER AND PERIPHER Y OF THE ARGIVE STATE

17

Figure 11. The Heraion sanctuary and the eastern edge of the Argive Plain, from east

tion.79 Jonathan Hall has exposed the thin evidentiary basis for Argive domination of the eastern plain before the 460s. The principal manifestation of Argive claims, the grand annual procession of armed youths and maidens from the town to the Heraion, appears in no source earlier than Herodotos (1.31), embedded in the story of Kleobis and Biton.80 Hall rightly concluded that the earliest testimony unequivocally linking Argos with the Heraion is Pindar, Nemean 10 (line 24), dated to 464.81 Indeed, Argive aggression in the eastern Argolid is well attested at this time, for attacks on Mycenae and Tiryns resulted in the elimination of both rivals in the 460s.82 Thus, Hall would link direct Argive control over the Heraion to a major campaign of territorial consolidation in the eastern Argolid in the 460s, some two centuries later than the date required by Polignac’s model for the rise of the polis. 79. Tomlinson 1972, pp. 200–204. Other advocates of a late date for Argive control of the Heraion include Strom (1988, pp. 197–200), Hall (1995, pp. 611–613), and Penttinen (2005, p. 102). In contrast, Morgan and Whitelaw (1991, p. 85) regarded the Heraion as an example of aggressive Argive diplomacy in the 8th century, only slightly modifying Polignac’s proposals. Antonaccio (1992, pp. 103–105) was also receptive to the idea of Argive control of the Heraion and the eastern plain in the Archaic period. 80. Hall (1995, pp. 594–595) and Asheri, Lloyd, and Corcella (2007, pp. 101–102) discussed the literary and historical aspects of this passage. The Kleobis and Biton story has usually been set in the 6th century based in part on the identification of a pair of Archaic kouroi at Delphi as the twins. But this has now been called into question (Vatin 1982; Faure 1985, pp. 60–63; Morgan 2007, pp. 250–251).

81. Hall 1995, pp. 596, 612. For the ode in the context of the Argive religious system, see also Morgan 2007, pp. 251– 257. Moreover, by the 5th century, Argives reckoned calendar years in relation to priestesses of Hera, revealing the political importance of the Heraion (Thuc. 2.2.1; Wright 1982, p. 199; Morgan and Whitelaw 1991, p. 84). 82. Mycenae: Diod. Sic. 11.65.1–5 (dated to 468/7); Strabo 8.6.19; Paus. 7.25.5–6. Tiryns: Hdt. 7.137; Ephorus, FGrHist 70.56; Strabo 8.6.11; Paus. 2.17.5, 2.25.8, 8.46.3. For archaeological confirmation, see Tomlinson 1972, p. 31; Morgan and Whitelaw 1991, pp. 82, 88–89; Hall 1995, pp. 589, 601, 608; Penttinen 2005, pp. 108–110. Moreover, the literary tradition mentions the destruction of one other settlement, Midea, and suggests that Nauplia was an Argive possession by the 5th century (Kelly 1976, pp. 88–89; Hall 1995, pp. 583–585).

18

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Arguments for territorial expansion before the 460s, and by implication a projection of power in other parts of the plain, including the southwestern district near Lerna, rest on more circumstantial evidence. The Heraion is once again at the center of the debate, with archaeologists disagreeing on what constitutes control of a sanctuary. While community investment is evident in the construction of a monumental stone terrace wall and temple in the 8th or 7th century, architectural and epigraphic evidence provides no clues to the sponsors of this project.83 Ceramic dedications are potentially more revealing. Catherine Morgan and Todd Whitelaw advanced compelling arguments for regarding decorative pottery styles in the 8th century as a coded language and active expression of social status and community relations in the Argolid.84 More controversially, however, they identified as “Argive,” in the strict sense of being made at Argos, the majority of the ceramic dedications at the Heraion, with the implication that not only the pots but also the visitors came from Argos.85 This identification of the pots is based on macroscopic investigation of fabric bolstered by the claim that fine-­ware fabrics, and particularly fabric color, vary consistently between sites in the Argolid.86 Their rather tidy production and consumption model insists on the local origin of most pots at each site, with the exception of the Heraion, and is convenient for their main argument, since it enables them to interpret stylistic variations between sites as an active process of signaling proximity and distance, not a result of messy distribution patterns involving widely circulating pots. Anne Foley also assumed local production of fine wares at individual sites in her production model for the Argolid, but her descriptions of local fabric colors often do not agree with Morgan and Whitelaw’s.87 Others, however, including most recently Susan Langdon, have stressed the fluid nature of ceramic distribution in the plain and the difficulty of determining the exact source of individual pieces from macroscopic evaluation of fabric.88 A possible test of these assumptions comes in the form of a special class of pots thought to have been decorated by the same painters and therefore made in the same workshops. They have wide distribution patterns in the Argolid, suggesting considerable movement of material around the plain and complicated systems of procurement and exchange.89 Confusing matters further, it would 83. For the early temple and its problematic dating, see Kelly 1976, p. 54; Wright 1982, p. 191; Foley 1988, p. 136; Strom 1988, pp. 176–191; Morgan and Whitelaw 1991, p. 85; Antonaccio 1992, pp. 91–98; Hall 1995, p. 592. 84. Morgan and Whitelaw 1991, pp. 93–95. 85. Morgan and Whitelaw 1991, p. 84. Wright (1982, p. 199) also postulated an origin at Argos, citing the fabric descriptions of Waldstein (1905, pp. 101–118), Blegen (1939, pp. 410–413), and Caskey and Amandry (1952, pp. 173, 193–194, 197, 203). Foley (1988, p. 65), however, reached the opposite conclusion from fabric, that worshippers brought pots to the Heraion from macroscopically distinct sources across the Argolid. But even if Morgan and Whitelaw are right, it does not necessarily follow that worshippers bringing Argive pots were from Argos. As Langdon (2008, p. 325, n. 173) remarked, people from Mycenae and Tiryns may have regarded Argive as a prestige ware for certain religious occasions. 86. Morgan and Whitelaw (1991, p. 91) characterized the differences as “most striking” and “particularly distinctive,” as exemplified by the ease with which one can distinguish the “blonde Tirynthian fabric from more orange Argive” and Asine’s “pale yellow or bright red fabrics.” Asine is something of an exception, since differences in shape and decoration, including clear Atticizing trends, clearly distinguish this site ceramically from others in the Argive Plain (Kelly 1976, p. 64; Foley 1988, p. 59).

87. As the most complete macroscopic description of fabrics at sites in the Argolid, Foley’s observations pertaining to Argos and Lerna deserve to be quoted in full. Argos: “light buff colour, the so-­called oatmeal or cornflour colour. The core is often darker, varying from a darker buff to orange or red. On the surface greenish or pinkish tinges may sometimes be observed” (Foley 1988, p. 56). Lerna: “quite similar to that at Argos; in general it is light buff, often with greenish tinges” (Foley 1988, p. 65). Langdon (1995, p. 68) seemed to accept Foley’s distinction by fabric of local production centers at Tiryns and Asine. In addition, Kelly (1976, p. 60) held that local variations permit distinctions between Tiryns, Asine, and possibly Midea, mainly on the basis of “inferior and provincial products” with respect to Argos. See also Ekroth’s (1996, p. 216) description of Geometric and Archaic fabrics from ­survey sites in the Berbati Valley, for which local production is suggested. 88. Langdon 2008, pp. 78–79. She (p. 78) also seemed to contradict Morgan and Whitelaw’s assessment of local fabric colors in characterizing a clay mask found at Tiryns with a “reddish” fabric and polished surface as compatible with production at Argos. Penttinen (2005, p. 110) was another who stressed the difficulty of distinguishing pottery made at Argos from other producers in the Argolid. 89. Foley (1988, p. 59) and Langdon (2008, p. 79, n. 94) made much of this evidence provided by connoisseurship



CENTER AND PERIPHER Y OF THE ARGIVE STATE

19

not be surprising if each site produced pottery with a range of fabric colors. This is a case where petrographic, chemical, and other scientific means of characterizing fabrics and attributing them to their sources could lead to substantial progress on issues of production and consumption and thereby contribute to broader historical models of state formation.90 The art-­historical background to ceramic research in the Argolid gives the impression of a firmer foundation for addressing these questions than is warranted. In fact, until the Lerna project, not a single Geometric pot from the Argive Plain had ever undergone any form of scientific analysis.91 Although Morgan and Whitelaw’s argument for Argos establishing some degree of control over the Heraion by the end of the 8th century rests on unsubstantiated production and consumption models for the fine wares, it has a general ring of historical plausibility and should be considered along with other evidence for Argos asserting itself in the eastern plain. For example, roads linking an urban center to a sanctuary might imply control, and a sanctuary at Kourtaki in the middle of the plain with 7th-­century activity has been interpreted as a sort of archaeological footprint of one stage of a processional route from Argos to the Heraion (Fig. 1).92 This is not a foolproof argument: the sanctuary is not on a direct path from the town to the Heraion, implying a rather roundabout processional journey, and interpreting Kourtaki as a satellite of Argos depends largely on identifying the “Argive” pottery at the sanctuary as having been made at Argos, something impossible to establish by macroscopic means. Nevertheless, this sanctuary location is suggestive evidence for a processional route. But, as Tomlinson stressed, the identification of Kourtaki as a stopping point on a 7th-­century procession from Argos does not mean an exclusion of other communities from the Heraion, for traces of an Archaic road and bridge linking the Heraion to Mycenae demonstrate that at least one other polis had access to the sanctuary.93 The last major piece of evidence for a territorial expansion of Argos in the 8th century is the ancient tradition related by Pausanias (2.36.4–5, 3.7.4, 4.14.3) that Argos destroyed Asine, forced its population to relocate, and maintained a sanctuary of Apollo Pythaios at the deserted site as a symbol of its victory, an event conventionally dated to around 710 (Fig. 1). Archaeological evidence provides remarkable support for the idea of an assault on Asine in the Late Geometric (LG) IIb phase (ca. 720–710), with destroyed buildings, burned debris, and a hiatus in occupation across the site until the Hellenistic period.94 A projection studies. Morgan and Whitelaw (1991, p. 92), however, suggested that consumption patterns for these attributed figural pots are unrepresentative of fine wares as a whole, and were keen to point out that a few itinerant artists traveling around the plain could explain the anomalous pattern. See also Kelly 1976, pp. 57–58. 90. As Morgan and Whitelaw (1991, p. 91, n. 59) emphasized, further analysis through ceramic petrography is urgently required. I would add that a more systematic macroscopic investigation of ceramics in the Argolid, employing Munsell readings and other more objective descriptive criteria, is also needed. 91. The focus of research projects in the Argolid employing ceramic petrography and chemical analysis has been on Bronze Age fine wares and pictorial pottery (Jones 1986, p. 591; Steel 1998, pp. 289–294; Knapp 2008, pp. 252–258). Petrographic and chemical analysis of pottery from the Berbati Valley, just outside the Argive Plain, however, included Geometric, Archaic, and Classical samples. This survey project can therefore be considered an exception to the prehistoric focus in the greater Argolid region (Whitbread, Ponting, and Wells 2007, pp. 184–185, 191).

92. This sanctuary has produced dedications similar to those from the Heraion (Papachristodoulou 1967, pp. 178– 179, pl. 129:a; 1968, pls. 76, 77; Protonotariou-­Deilaki 1970, pls. 120:c, 121; Morgan and White­law 1991, p. 84; Hägg 1992, p. 13). In addition, Hall (1995, pp. 601–603) suggested a complication to the bipolar sacred landscape of town-Heraion by interpreting roadside terrace shrines near the Heraion as doublets of the great sanctuary. Hall (1995, p. 603; 1999, p. 57) also regarded the “Agamemnoneion” at Mycenae as a sanctuary of Hera, another doublet of the Heraion. 93. Tomlinson 1972, pp. 200–204. For the Mycenae– Heraion road and Mycenaean participation in the rites, see also Kelly 1976, pp. 55, 67. 94. Kelly (1967; 1976, p. 67), Tomlinson (1972, pp. 42–43, 75), Morgan and Whitelaw (1991, pp. 82–83), and Hall (1995, pp. 581–582) each discussed the ancient tradition and the archaeological evidence for an abandonment of Asine. Wells (2002, pp. 122–133), however, proposed greater settlement continuity from the 8th to the 3rd century, but her proposal is based largely on sanctuary evidence that need not indicate continued settlement.

20

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

of power outside the Argive Plain might imply a consolidated territorial base, with Argos dominating the eastern plain by the late 8th century.95 But once again, other evidence belies such an easy assumption. A series of Archaic inscriptions from Tiryns offers direct evidence for a sovereign popular assembly there in the late 7th or early 6th century, while the tradition of Mycenae sending 80 men to fight at Thermopylae and other soldiers to Plataea as part of a contingent of 400 men makes sense only if Mycenae was an autonomous polis capable of making decisions independent of Argos in the first quarter of the 5th century.96 The reduction of Asine in the late 8th century, we must surely conclude, did not entail mastery of Tiryns and Mycenae and the incorporation of their territories into a greater Argive polis. Argive hegemony in the western Argolid in the area of Lerna may have followed a different trajectory.97 Historical events and strategic necessity make Argive domination of the southwestern edge of the plain by the middle of the 6th century a distinct possibility, and control by the early 5th century even more likely. The tensions between Sparta and Argos that culminated in a Spartan defeat of the Argives in 546 and the Kynouria district south of the Argolid falling into Spartan hands imply a strategic importance for Lerna, the bottleneck into the plain on a direct path from Laconia.98 While engaged in hostilities with Sparta, Argos could probably not have afforded to leave this vulnerable entry point unprotected. As a later event would show, a successful Spartan incursion might have catastrophic consequences for Argos: Lerna would have been one of two possible gateways on the invasion route of the Spartan army that in 494 inflicted a catastrophic Argive defeat at Sepeia near Tiryns.99 Thus, even a minimalist policy of defending the Argive Plain would have necessitated control over Lerna and the other southwestern entry point near the Erasinos. Argive aggression against Mycenae and Tiryns in the 460s has been viewed as a recovery following Sepeia and its devastating aftermath, which left Argos too weak to participate in the Persian Wars. Among Argive motives for attacking Mycenae, Diodorus Siculus (11.65) includes Mycenae’s refusal to bend to Argive will and the disputed claims over the Heraion.100 95. When “Argive” pottery is equated with the political interests of Argos, it is difficult to explain the occurrence of Argive Geometric pottery outside the plain in the area covered by the southern Argolid survey. The Argives were almost certainly not so aggressive this early, although Jameson, Runnels, and Van Andel (1994, p. 71) believed that conflicts between Sparta and Argos in the early 6th century involved at least one polis in the southern Argolid, Halieis. But Langdon (1995, pp. 72–73) offered a historical model for the distribution of Argive pottery in the southern Argolid that did not depend on the unreliable assumption that Argive pots equal settlers from Argos or Argive control. For the implications of Argive fine wares in Methana, see Gill and Foxhall 1997, p. 57. 96. Thermopylae: Hdt. 7.202. Plataea: Hdt. 9.28. For the Archaic inscriptions from Tiryns, see Kelly 1976, p. 84; Hall 1995, p. 587. Jameson, Runnels, and Van Andel (1994, p. 70) described Argos as having the upper hand in a modus vivendi with Tiryns and Mycenae. Moreover, Jeffery (1990, p. 171) saw the relationship as shifting with “the waxing and waning of Argive power” from the 8th to the 5th century, with Argive influence in the eastern plain significantly weakened following Sepeia. Also relevant for Mycenae is Kelly’s (1976, p. 67) interpretation of the Agamemnoneion as a hero cult expressing local identity in opposition to Argive pressure. Hall (1999, pp. 55–57), however, did not regard Agamemnon as an emblem of local identity at Mycenae. 97. Hall (1995, p. 590) saw the river Inachos as a dividing line for separate histories for the western and eastern halves of

the plain. It may have also been a formal territorial boundary between Argos and Tiryns in the Archaic period. 98. Kelly (1976, pp. 50, 73–93) found reason to dismiss the ancient tradition claiming hostilities between Argos and Sparta as far back as the 7th or even 8th century. But the 6th century is not in question. Morgan and Whitelaw (1991, pp. 80, 83) accepted the Battle of Champions in 546 as historical and characterized the Kynouria district as a borderland. See also Hall (1995, pp. 585–586), whose doubts about Spartan hostilities translating into Argive territorial consolidation pertain to the eastern Argolid, not the district around Lerna. 99. Hdt. 6.76–83. Scott’s (2005, pp. 294–308, 571–588) detailed commentary on Herodotos Book 6 is fundamental for understanding the Spartan incursion and Battle of Sepeia. This battle almost certainly took place in the mid-­490s, but not necessarily in 494 (Robinson 2011, pp. 8–9). See also How and Wells 1912, p. 94; Jones 1967, p. 53; Huxley 1983, p. 10, n. 66. 100. The religious dimensions of the dispute and the centrality of the Heraion are also highlighted in an episode concerning the destruction of Tiryns, in which, according to Pausanias (2.17.5), the Argives transferred a captured statue of Hera to the Heraion (Forrest 1960, p. 230; Alroth 1989, p. 34). Hall (1995, p. 608) also took seriously another reported pretext for the conflict, that Mycenae believed it was the rightful administrator of the Nemean Games. See also Kelly 1974, p. 85, n. 18; Morgan 2007, p. 259. Morris (2009, p. 165), however, emphasized the wider political scene and saw Argive con-



CENTER AND PERIPHER Y OF THE ARGIVE STATE

21

Consciously or not, the disputants in the Argolid probably also let economic factors influence their decisions. Mycenae and Tiryns must have had territories on the plain with tremendous agricultural resources, making them inviting prizes for conquest. Uprooting the defeated populations and resettling these territories as Argive possessions, the sources tell us, were consequences of the Argive victories.101 Besides these military exploits, other evidence hints at a resurgent Argos in the 460s. Although grand architectural programs need not in general signal economic prosperity, building activity documented in the agora of Argos (the construction of a large hypostyle hall and a monumental stoa) as well as architectural embellishments to the Heraion, all dated to the 460s or 450s, fit within a context of a newly assertive state.102 Moreover, we have epigraphic evidence at this time that Argos restructured its territory, for around 460–450 come the first inscriptions attesting to a system of citizen rolls organized by phratry, a subdivision that later sources make clear was occasionally based on residence.103 Unfortunately, we do not know Lerna’s position within these fluid territorial dynamics of the 5th century or at any later period. No version of its name appears among the phratries attested as early as the 5th century, nor does any record exist for Lerna having kome status from 338 to 195, when Argive documents append this piece of information to the phratry designation.104 These later documents make the Argive countryside one of the best-­attested political landscapes in the Greek world and reveal a polis-­phratry-­kome hierarchy, with the Argive komai incorporated into the citizen body.105 But we should be cautious about projecting attested kome status in the 3rd century back to the 460s. Indeed, Mycenae is one of the attested komai, and we can be fairly certain that it was deserted for much of the 5th and 4th centuries. Argives apparently reoccupied Mycenae in the late 4th or early 3rd century and incorporated it into their political landscape, with the reoccupation leaving, among other tangible signs, Hellenistic repairs to the Mycenaean circuit wall (Fig. 12).106 But the sources solidation of territory in the 460s as a response to a power alignment between Sparta and Athens in the 470s. 101. Pausanias (2.25.5) suggests another fate for defeated adversaries of Argos, with the Argives uprooting the town of Orneai in 416 (Thuc. 6.7.2) and enrolling the defeated population as Argive citizens (Hall 1995, p. 592). For the Argive pattern of incorporating territory and offering citizenship grants, see also Tomlinson 1972, p. 32; Piérart 1997, pp. 334, 340. Penttinen (2001, pp. 94–99; 2005, pp. 108–110) offered an archaeological argument for Argive resettlement in the Berbati Valley following the defeat of Mycenae. 102. Pariente, Piérart, and Thalmann (1998, pp. 213–218) examined the 5th-­century monuments in the agora of Argos. For the Heraion, Amandry (1952, pp. 256, 272; 1980, pp. 236– 240) and des Courtils (1992, pp. 244–249) dated the South Stoa to the middle of the 5th century, a date followed by Hall (1995, p. 611). Christopher Pfaff (pers. comm.) informs me that another structure in the sanctuary, the East Building, may also date to the middle of the 5th century. Moreover, the earliest inscribed prizes for the games of Hera Argeia date around 470–460 and suggest a reorganization of the festival then (Jeffery 1990, p. 154, no. 26, pl. 29; Hall 1995, p. 612; Morgan 2007, pp. 255–257). Kelly (1974, pp. 85, 87, 89) and Hornblower (2011, p. 87) set Argive material prosperity in the context of advantageous neutrality in foreign policy. For a general discussion of the “Argive renaissance” in the middle of the 5th century, see Morgan 2007, pp. 251–255; Luraghi 2008, pp. 59– 60. 103. For the phratries and other territorial subdivisions, see

Wörrle 1964, pp. 27–28; Kelly 1976, pp. 69–70; Piérart 1983; 1997, pp. 330–333; 2000, pp. 297–301; Charneux 1984; Jones 1987, pp. 114–115; Kritzas 1992, pp. 234–237; Hansen 1995, p. 72; Penttinen 2005, p. 111; Hornblower 2011, p. 85. As Hall (1995, pp. 589–590) observed, some of the later phratry names derive from specific locations, including the Heraion (the Heraieis phratry) and Nauplia (the Naupliadai phratry). 104. The komai are discussed by the same scholars who examine phratries; see the previous note. See also Hall (1995, p. 592) on the Argive kome Orneai. 105. This system may have also left room for allied and perioikic cities, if Piérart (1997, pp. 334–336) is correct about the status of Orneai, Lyrkeia, Hsyiai, and Tiryns. All except Tiryns lie outside the Argive Plain proper. Orneai is attested as a polis by a late source (Diod. Sic. 16.34.3, 39.4). Pausanias (8.27.1), however, describes it as a polisma, while Strabo (8.6.17) calls it a kome. As Hornblower (2008, p. 310) observed, Thucydides (7.1) implies that Orneai was still independent in the 410s, since he lists the Orneatai with the men of Kleonai as allies of the Argives. 106. For the archaeological case for abandonment, see above (n. 82). Tomlinson (1972, p. 32) placed the Hellenistic recovery both in a general historical context and in the specific circumstance of Mycenae receiving help from the Spartan king Nabis. For the archaeological evidence of a recovery in the late 4th or early 3rd century, see Dengate 1974, p. 95, n. 3; Rudolph 1978, pp. 232–233. But Mycenae suffered another abandonment, one from which it did not recover, in the second half of the 2nd century (Dengate 1974, p. 97).

22

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Figure 12. Circuit wall at Mycenae, showing cyclopean masonry of the Mycenaean

period (right) and Hellenistic repairs (left)

also suggest rural communities with a different status than komai, if the tradition of Argive domination over perioikoi has any basis in fact.107

LERNAIAN LANDSC APES The silence of these literary and epigraphic sources leaves any reconstruction of Lerna in the Classical Argive territorial system to archaeology and general arguments of probability. We have already had reason to stress the strategic importance of Lerna as a gateway into the Argive Plain. In addition, its agricultural potential must have figured in rural settlement patterns and shaped the relationship between Lerna and Argos. Lerna stands at a geographic dividing line between the southwestern Argolid and the smaller Kiveri Plain to the south.108 This smaller plain forms a “natural exploitation territory” for Lerna, a separate geographic entity that catchment theory would predict was exploited by a central settlement within a few hours’ walk (Figs. 1, 13).109 In this respect, Lerna resembles Askra, interposed between Thespiai and the Valley of the Muses, with geography creating a coherent territory for the village. Enhancing the sense of separation between Lerna and Argos, the southwestern sec107. These perioikoi have a shadowy existence in the sources. They come to the fore only in Herodotos’s (6.83) and Aristotle’s (Pol. 1303a6) accounts of political revolution in the aftermath of Sepeia, when Argos supposedly enfranchised perioikoi (Willetts 1959; Forrest 1960, pp. 221–229; Kiechle 1960; Tomlinson 1972, pp. 97–100; Kelly 1976, p. 141; Andrewes 1990, pp. 171, 174–177); Robinson 1997, pp. 84–88. 108. For the geographic setting of Lerna, see Tomlinson 1972, p. 13. 109. The term comes from Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass’s (2007, pp. 136, 150) description of Askra and its village territory. Vita-­Finzi and Higgs (1970) and Bintliff (1999) pre-

dicted a settlement base having an exploitable territory with a radius of 5 km, equivalent to a one-­hour walk from home to fields. Longer commutes create more pressure to settle in a scattered pattern on farms or coalesce in another settlement closer to the fields. A three-­hour walk from settlement to farmland should be regarded as a maximum. A “village territory” is something of an abstraction. We know from the confiscated property of those accused of profaning the Eleusinian mysteries in Athens in 415/4 and from a host of other sources that ancient Greek landowners had fragmented landholdings (Pritchett 1956, pp. 275–276; Osborne 1985, p. 51; Gallant 1991, pp. 41–45).



LERNAIAN LANDSC APES

23

Figure 13. Map of the southwestern Argolid and Kiveri plain, showing hypothetical

Lerna territory. K. Hatch and G. Sloggy

tion of the Argolid may have functioned as a weak natural barrier, for geoarchaeological work has revealed that Lake Lerna (Alcyonian Lake) at its maximum extent in the Early Bronze Age was a large feature, leaving a later imprint of marshy and less fertile soil after erosion largely filled in the basin (Fig. 14).110 If Lerna was the chief settlement exploiting the Kiveri Plain, it would have commanded considerable agricultural resources.111 Today, and probably in antiquity as well, this fertile valley is ideal for cultivating cash crops such as olives, with approximately 11.8 km2 of prime agricultural land below the 50 m contours of the 110. Zangger 1991, pp. 7–13. Hall (1995, p. 591) commented on the implications of the prehistoric lake for later soil fertility. 111. Archaeology has revealed no other settlement in the Kiveri Plain. Pausanias’s (2.38.5–6) itinerary mentions nothing on the southern route past Lerna until reaching the site of the Battle of Champions in the Thyreatis district, at which point come three villages: Athene, Neris, and Eua (Hutton 2005, p. 116). Other late sources (e.g., Apollod. 2.5.2), how-

ever, mention a settlement called Elaious, identified by Frazer (1898, vol. 3, p. 305) with ancient buildings in a narrow valley branching off the Kiveri Plain to the south. The name Elaious, “place of olives,” finds a correlate in the Kiveri Plain, which Frazer (p. 305) described more than a century ago as being “well adapted to the cultivation of olives.” Pausanias (2.38.4) also comments on the exceptional fertility in olives of a nameless tract near the shore south of Lerna.

24

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Figure 14. Map of the southern Argive Plain, showing prehistoric coastline and former

expanse of Lake Lerna. Zangger 1991, p. 7, fig. 5; courtesy Journal of Field Archaeology

surrounding mountain spurs (Fig. 15). This much land (1,180 ha) translates into a carrying capacity of around 1,590 people, assuming subsistence farming and not a more productive focus on cash crops and exchange that could have supported a larger population.112 By this calculation, Lerna must have been a sizable community. At first glance, however, the Lerna excavations seem to imply a much smaller settlement. The Lerna mound is an irregular oval roughly 110 × 115 m, for a total area of 0.80 ha (Figs. 16, 17).113 If we assume that the whole mound was inhabited in the Classical period, 112. Lehmann’s (1927) estimated carrying capacity of 585 people per km2 for the Argive Plain, cited by Kelly (1976, p. 149, n. 10) and Hall (1995, p. 591), is widely off the mark. The reality was probably at least three times lower. Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass (2007, p. 148) provided a more realistic estimate of 135 people per km2 for Boiotia. My estimate for the Kiveri Plain uses this figure and excludes any land Lerna may have utilized in the steep foothills above the 50 m contour lines. Archaeologists assume that slopes greater than 10%– 12% would have required terracing, with Price and Nixon (2005, pp. 671–672, 676, 679, table 1) documenting what are believed to be ancient terrace walls on relatively gentle slopes (8%) up to the steepest slopes of 15%–18%. In many parts of

the Kiveri Plain, one encounters 20% slopes where the flatter lower ground meets the steep foothills of the plain at elevations of 40–60 m. Another way to estimate carrying capacity proceeds from the assumption that a typical family farm ranged 2–6 ha in size and supported five people (Gallant 1991, pp. 8–92; Cahill 2002a, pp. 226–227). An exploitable territory of 1,180 ha for Lerna would mean 197 family farms at 4 ha each and a total population of 1,475. 113. The gently sloping terrain makes a precise determination of the mound boundaries somewhat arbitrary. I have taken the line of the Early Helladic II fortification walls as a boundary between the defensible mound proper and the broad sloping ground around it.



LERNAIAN LANDSC APES

25

Figure 15. The fertile Kiveri Plain, from north

and densely settled in the manner of a small town, standard population estimates of 150–250 people per ha would suggest 120–200 people. Using a lower population density figure of 50–125 people per ha, a more appropriate number for less densely settled rural places, yields a population of 40–100 people. Another way of calculating the population on the mound is to extrapolate from the six wells dating to the 5th century (see Fig. 342). If each well belonged to a house, and a house had five occupants, then the excavated portion of the mound should have had a population of 30. Since the excavated portion is only one-­quarter the total, the mound must have numbered some 120 inhabitants.114 These calculations involve much guesswork, but at least two independent lines of reasoning tentatively point to a population on the mound of 100–150. Thus, if the Kiveri Plain was exploited principally by the Lerna settlement, it could have supported a rural population at least 10 times larger than the concentration on the mound.115 But these abstract scientific methods do not take us very far inside the Lerna settlement to reveal local identities, territorial structures, or connections with Argos and other sites. For these relationships, we must rely on different kinds of evidence. Our clearest literary picture of Lerna comes near the end of Pausanias’s Periegesis Book 2. As the only narrative description of Lerna from antiquity, this passage deserves to be quoted more or less in its entirety, 114. The excavated portion is 0.20 ha or 25% of the total mound as defined here. This would imply a fairly high but not unprecedented population density of 160 people per ha. The assumption that each well belonged to a house is examined below (pp. 366–377). A household of five is a generally accepted convention, but see Cahill (2002b, pp. 182–183) for problems in applying this model to a large assemblage from a 6th-­century house at Sardis. 115. The location of the Geometric cemetery on the slopes

of Pontinos roughly 230 m west of the mound might suggest a more extensive settlement (pp. 107–109, below). But we also cannot exclude the possibility that a significant portion of the rural population lived in farmsteads scattered across the Kiveri Plain. By analogy with the urban/rural population ratio for Boiotia and other investigated countrysides (Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007, pp. 143–151), perhaps three-­quarters of the rural population in the Lerna district resided in the village center.

26

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Figure 16. The Lerna mound before excavation, from southeast. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

even though it dates some three and half centuries after the latest archaeological material discussed in this book: There is a sacred grove beginning on the mountain they call Pontinus. Now Mount Pontinus does not let the rain-­water flow away, but absorbs it into itself. From it flows a river, also called Pontinus. Upon the top of the mountain is a sanctuary of Athena Saïtis, now merely a ruin; there are also the foundations of a house of Hippomedon, who went to Thebes to redress the wrongs of Polyneices, son of Oedipus. At this mountain begins the grove, which consists chiefly of plane trees, and reaches down to the sea. Its boundaries are, on the one side the river Pontinus, on the other side another river, called Amymone, after the daughter of Danaus. Within the grove are images of Demeter Prosymne and of Dionysus. Of Demeter there is a seated image of no great size. Both are of stone, but in another temple is a seated wooden image of Dionysus Saotes (Saviour), while by the sea is a stone image of Aphrodite. They say that the daughters of Danaus dedicated it, while Danaus himself made the sanctuary of Athena by the Pontinus. The mysteries of the Lernaeans were established, they say, by Philammon. . . . At the source of the Amymone grows a plane tree, beneath which, they say, the hydra (water-­snake) grew. . . . I saw also what is called the Spring of Amphiaraus and the Alcyonian Lake, through which the Argives say Dionysus went down to Hell to bring up Semele, adding that the descent here was shown him by Polymnus. There is no limit to the depth of the Alcyonian Lake, and I know of nobody who by any contrivance has been able to reach the bottom of it; since not even Nero, who had ropes made several stades long and fastened them together, tying lead to them, and omitting nothing that might help his experiment, was able to discover its depth. . . . The circumference of the lake is not great, being about one-­third of a stade. Upon its banks grow grass and rushes. The nocturnal rites performed every year in honour of Dionysus I must not divulge to the world at large. . . . From Lerna there is also another road, which skirts the sea and leads to a place called Genesium [Genesion]. By the sea is a small sanctuary of Poseidon Genesius. Next to this is another place, called



LERNAIAN LANDSC APES

27

Figure 17. Plan of the Lerna mound, showing excavated portion and total area of the mound. After Lerna III, plan 1

Apobathmi (Steps). The story is that this is the first place in Argolis where Danaus landed with his daughters.116

In Pausanias’s evocative portrait of Lerna, sanctuaries, cults, and historical memory create what is almost a religious theme park. This passage could stand as a demonstration piece of current approaches to Pausanias that emphasize local identity construction, a theme intersecting with the anthropological focus on village identities discussed earlier in this chapter.117 But perhaps just as significant is what Pausanias fails to mention; there is no reference 116. Paus. 2.36.8–38.4; trans. W. H. S. Jones, London 1978. 117. Ethnic and local identity construction in Roman Greece are themes in recent studies of Pausanias (Elsner 1992,

p. 8; 1995, p. 130; Hutton 2005, pp. 7–8, 233, 294–295; Pretzler 2007, pp. 27–31; Goldhill 2010, pp. 50–51, 56–68; Whitmarsh 2010, pp. 14–15).

28

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Figure 18. Late Roman kiln embedded into the Early Helladic fortification

wall at Lerna, from southeast. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

to a village or settlement of any kind.118 While it is dangerous to infer from this omission that no settlement existed at Lerna at the time of his visit in the 160s or 170s a.d., the absence of any archaeological trace of activity between around 175 b.c. and the Late Roman kiln complex (Fig. 18), apart from a single Roman coin from the reign of Commodus (a.d. 180–192), constitutes a strong argument from silence.119 This presumption of a transformed landscape makes it all the more hazardous to use Pausanias as a source for the Archaic, Classical, or even Hellenistic settlement. Even aspects of the natural landscape where one might expect continuities—such as the presumably ancient grove of plane trees and natural water features such as rivers and springs—might be part of a historically contingent landscape, as the geoarchaeological survey of the Argolid has shown for the Alcyonian Lake. What Pausanias describes as the small lake of this name, one approximately 60 m in circumference, is evidently the Roman Imperial survivor of the much-­larger prehistoric Lake Lerna (Fig. 14). But, while Pausanias creates a portrait of Lerna encapsulated in a particular moment in time, clues within his narrative suggest a religious landscape of much greater time depth, and archaeological and other sources can be brought to bear, pushing the picture back into more remote periods. A good example is the sacred grove and sanctuaries of Demeter and Dionysos, for the Greek Archaeological Service has recovered an inscribed Hellenistic or Roman statue base for two other deities that may have been set up in this grove or in one or 118. Pausanias is capable of being explicit about abandoned towns and villages. In the Argolid, he unequivocally states that Tiryns (2.25.7), Midea (2.25.8), and Nauplia (2.38.2) were deserted (Tomlinson 1972, p. 28). For the general topos of abandoned rural landscapes in Roman Greece, see Alcock 1993, pp. 1–32; Pritchett 1999, pp. 195–222. 119. For the dates of Pausanias, see Frazer 1898, vol. 1, pp. xv–xviii; Habicht 1985, pp. 9–12, 176–180; Hutton 2005, p. 9; Pretzler 2007, pp. 23–25. The Roman kiln, mentioned in a preliminary report (Caskey 1955, p. 42), is one of the few post–Bronze Age features still visible at the site. Also in the fenced area of the site are some unpublished stone architec-

tural elements that may be Roman. The coin from the reign of Commodus is a bronze issue of Pagai (LN.13). Roman pottery and other material are not plentiful. In addition to the kiln assemblage, which appears to date to the 5th or 6th century a.d., and two “Roman” burials on the mound discussed by Angel (Lerna II, pp. 67–68, nos. 149, 149a, pl. 1), there are fewer than a dozen complete or nearly complete Late Roman lamps and plates. The Greek Archaeological Service has discovered another more substantial Late Roman structure approximately 200 m northwest of the mound (Barakari-­Gleni 1980, pp. 120–122, fig. 11; Catling 1988–1989, p. 29).



LERNAIAN LANDSC APES

29

Figure 19. Column base of Attic type on square plinth from unknown

context on site, stylistically dated to the Early Hellenistic period

the other sanctuary, since it was found in the area where Pausanias suggests such dedications should be found, the narrow strip of land from Pontinos to the sea.120 In addition, a long stretch of an isodomic wall found nearby might have been part of a Classical sanctuary, a supposition based partly on the discovery of pottery in this sector, but unfortunately not from a closed context, dating to the end of the 5th century.121 This is not enough, of course, to bring the sacred grove all the way back to the days of Danaus’s daughters, as suggested by Pausanias’s testimony. Indeed, at almost every turn in Pausanias, the visitor seems to be following in the footsteps of the mythical Danaus, with his supposed foundations including sanctuaries of Athena Saïtis and Poseidon Genesios.122 Unfortunately, the Frankish fort constructed on the summit of Pontinos obliterated all traces of the Athena sanctuary, but Tomlinson has been able to infer from the general context of such syncretic Egyptianizing cults elsewhere that the Saïtis sanctuary was probably a foundation of the Hellenistic period.123 By then if not earlier, Pontinos may have functioned as an acropolis in the sense of a religious and spatial pole for the Lernaian community.124 Moreover, architectural elements from the settlement suggest a monumentalization of public or sacred space in the Early Hellenistic period (Fig. 19).125 For the Poseidon sanctuary and the nearby landing point of Danaus and his daughters, Pausanias does not provide clear enough topographic indications to establish their exact 120. Barakari-­Gleni (1980, p. 122) and Catling (1988–1989, p. 29) provided a text of this dedication to Zeus and Hera. 121. This supposition is also based on decorated antefixes, presumably of Classical date and belonging to a substantial public building (Barakari-­Gleni 1980, p. 122). 122. Pausanias and other later writers treat Danaus almost as an Argive Lycurgus, a proxy for ancestral customs and institutions (Tomlinson 1972, p. 10; Kelly 1976, p. 85; Auffarth 1999, p. 47). Vollgraff (1958, p. 567) considered the Egyptian elements a result of considerable refashioning and perhaps even pure invention in the 3rd century under Ptolemaic influence. 123. Tomlinson 1972, p. 208. For the Frankish fort and absence of earlier remains, see McLeod 1962, p. 382. 124. Caskey (1953, p. 25) characterized Pontinos as a “defensible citadel” for Lerna, implying the functions of an acrop-

olis. Yet the steep eastern slope makes the summit (179 m) almost inaccessible from this side. Pontinos is probably too removed from the mound to be an ideal acropolis. Although Vollgraff (1958, p. 567) saw a religious significance for Pon­ tinos by the 5th century in an allusion in Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound to the Lerna hill (akren at line 677) as a place visited by Io, Griffith (1983, p. 209) saw the logic in substituting krenen (spring) for akren in an apparently corrupt text. 125. This uncatalogued column base is one of several kept within the fenced area of the site that consist of an Attic type on a square plinth. Penttinen (1996, p. 263, fig. 28), who illustrated a similar column base at Nekrotapheion in the Berbati Valley, described this as a common type in the Argolid in the Early Hellenistic period. In addition, in Appendix IV, Scahill discusses a Doric capital from a small temple or fountain house.

30

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

location, but they must have been “by the sea” in the vicinity of Lerna.126 Archaeological confirmation of a cult to Poseidon near and probably on the seaward side of the Lerna mound has come to light in the form of a series of pots incised with trident marks, discussed in Chapter 7, the earliest of which dates to the middle of the 5th and the latest to the 3rd century.127 If their source is not the very sanctuary of Poseidon Genesios mentioned by Pausanias, it must have been a local doublet that resonated with the same liminal associations of the place where Danaus first entered Argive territory. And these inscribed pots bring us a step closer to a sacred landscape of the 5th century. Other Lernaian sanctuaries mentioned by Pausanias must have been very old at the time of his visit and cast even wider ripples in the Argive territorial system, with a few even rising to Panhellenic significance in connection with the Herakles and Hydra myth.128 Yet almost all references to the Lernaian Hydra are etic descriptions, outsiders’ views of mythological significance, and tell us little about the way Lerna viewed itself or manipulated the myth to configure its relationships with other communities on the Argive Plain.129 The only possible exception of an emic description of the Lernaian Hydra is a Hellenistic marble relief, stylistically dated to the 3rd century, found at Myloi in 1926 (Fig. 20).130 It is a thoroughly canonical representation and gives no hint of a particularly Argive or Lernaian twist to the story.131 A different kind of relationship between polis and subordinate community is implied by the more seamless web of religious connections expressed by the Danaids myth and the rape of Amymone. As Ken Dowden and others have emphasized, Danaus was a central figure in Argive identity as the eponymous tribal hero of the Danaoi, whose tomb stood in the middle of the agora of Argos.132 Reaching the Argolid from Egypt after a stop on Rhodes, Danaus instructed his 50 daughters to kill their husbands on their wedding night, with all but one, Hypermestra, carrying out the plan. The decapitated heads of their spouses, according to Apollodorus (2.21–22), were buried at Lerna, while the bodies resided in a tomb at Argos.133 Since Claude Calame, the prevailing interpretation of this myth stresses the initiatory aspects of a chorus-­sized group of maidens on the verge of marriage, with moist and lush sites 126. Frazer (1898, vol. 3, p. 305) suggested a location for the sanctuary in a narrow valley branching off the southern Kiveri Plain more than an hour-­and-­a-­half walk from Lerna. His grounds for this identification are weak: Plutarch (Pyrrh. 32) calls the place where Danaus first landed Pyramia in the Thyreatis district. Dowden (1989, p. 153) also implied some distance from the settlement. Pausanias (2.38.4), however, calls the spot where Danaus landed Genesion and lists it first on leaving Lerna along the sea road. 127. In light of these incised trident marks, it is worth mentioning a reference in fragments from Euripides’ lost play Amy­ mone to the “trident of Lerna” and the “Poseidonian Amymonian waters” (Dowden 1989, p. 151). 128. A few sanctuaries at Lerna point in unexpected directions, as in the case of the cult of Demeter Prosymne, a name that suggests a link with the community Prosymna on the eastern side of the plain (Dowden 1989, p. 152). In addition, the union between Amymone and Poseidon at Lerna resulted in Nauplius, the eponymous hero of Nauplia (Hall 1997, p. 88). Revealing another unexpected connection, Pausanias (2.25.4) states that Lerna was involved in a new fire ritual with an origin outside the Argolid, the flame being conveyed from a sanctuary of Artemis on Mt. Krathis in northern Arkadia (Dowden 1989, p. 162). 129. Gantz (1993, pp. 384–386) surveyed the literary and iconographic sources for the Hydra labor in early Greece, with

the earliest written source being the Theogony (lines 313–318) and the earliest depictions in art being engraved LG II fibulae. The inclusion of this deed in the canonical 12 labors represented on the metopes of the temple of Zeus at Olympia must have raised Lerna’s profile. For Cohen (1994, pp. 705–713), the sculptural program was an effort to reclaim Herakles as a distinctively Peloponnesian hero and to counter growing Athenian propaganda involving Theseus. See also Holloway 1967, pp. 98–101; Barringer 2005, pp. 236–239. 130. This sculpture was either part of a votive relief or a metope from a small building. It is in the collection of the National Archaeological Museum at Athens (Karouzou 1968, p. 95, NM 3617, pl. 35; Kaltsas 2002, p. 278, no. 581). 131. We seem to have no basis for the kind of argument Nielsen (2005, pp. 66–67) made for Elis incorporating one of its dependencies, Lepreon, into the Augeian stable labor as part of a more general process of grafting secondary communities onto mythical complexes involving Elis. 132. Dowden 1989, pp. 147–149; 1992, pp. 64, 75–77. For a traditional but thorough examination of the sources for the Danaid myth, see Bonner 1902, pp. 129–148. 133. Pausanias (2.24.3, 2.37.2, 2.38.4) reverses this and has the bodies buried at Lerna and the heads at Argos. Dowden (1989, p. 159) interpreted the account with the heads at Lerna as the primal version and an echo of a ritual procession from Argos to Lerna, making Lerna “a supremely marginal site.”



LERNAIAN LANDSC APES

31

Figure 20. Early Hellenistic relief sculpture from Myloi depicting Herak-

les and the Hydra (NM 3617). Photo courtesy National Archaeological Museum, Athens; © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

such as Lerna creating a prominent setting for female fertility rituals.134 The Amymone myth is a telling example of Lerna’s integration into the cultic geography of the Argive Plain by the Archaic or Classical period.135 She was involved in an archetypal divine contest myth, with Poseidon withholding water in retaliation for Phoroneus deciding in favor of Hera as the chief deity worshipped on the plain.136 Faced with this drought, Danaus sent his daughters, including Amymone, in search of water. While engaged in this task, she drew the attention of a satyr who gave chase, but Poseidon rescued the maiden only to end up copulating with her himself. The god then revealed the perennial springs of Lerna as a reward for Amymone’s compliance. An Attic red-­figure krater in the Hermitage Museum, dated to around 475–450, includes all the essential elements of the Amymone story: Poseidon with raised trident pursues Amymone, who carries a hydria in double reference to her father’s 134. Calame 1977, pp. 55–62; Bremmer 1982, p. 138; Zeitlin 1986, pp. 137–143; Dowden 1989, pp. 157–161; Auffarth 1999, pp. 42–44. Earlier interpretations of the myth, discussed by Garvie (1969, pp. 171–176), focused on etymological aspects and nature symbolism as explanatory keys. Langdon (2008, pp. 164–165, 206–208) identified maiden dancers in Argive Geometric vase paintings as representations of the Danaids and suggested that they were originally water nymphs. See also Jameson 1990, pp. 220–221; Gantz 1993, pp. 203–207; Larson 2001, pp. 114–115, 149–151.

135. For the elements of the story known from fragments of Aeschylus’s lost satyr play Amymone and other early testimony, see Garvie 1969, pp. 163–180; Lembke 1975, p. 8; Burian 1991, p. xxii. 136. Paus. 2.15.4, 2.20.5, 2.22.5. Elsewhere, Pausanias (2.19.5) equates Phoroneus with Prometheus and states that the Argives credit him with the discovery of fire. For Poseidon’s role in other divine contest myths, see Bremmer 1987, pp. 38–39.

32

HISTORIC AL AND POLITIC AL NARRATIVES

Figure 21. Attic red-­figure krater, dated to ca. 475–450,

depicting Poseidon pursuing Amymone (Hermitage, St. Petersburg GR-2021 [B.191]). Photo P. Demidov; courtesy The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg

instructions to obtain water and the divinely generated spring about to flow and end the drought in the Argolid (Fig. 21).137 The Amymone spring at Lerna has a correlate in the sanctuary of Poseidon of the Surf at Argos, where Poseidon’s other means of retaliation in the contest by flooding the Argive Plain found expression in a drainage cavity marking the final recession of the waters.138 The prominence of Lerna in these Argive mythical complexes provides a fitting end to this chapter. More than any physical remains, these myths reveal Lerna’s cultural connections to the plain. Paradoxically, Lerna is both integral to Argive identity and alternate as a mythical space, a connection point between past and present and an interface between Argive and foreign lands. Here, through chronological distancing, raw elemental nature continues to threaten civilization. The historical, political, and mythical landscapes outlined in this chapter provide a general framework for interpreting the archaeological remains from Lerna, the task to which we now turn with the presentation of material from the Geometric cemetery, as the community emerged in the 9th century from the chaos of the Mycenaean collapse. 137. For the possible debt of the Attic pictorial tradition to Aeschylus, see Dowden 1989, p. 151; Simon 2014, p. 46. As Gantz (1993, pp. 207–208) noted, a figure that is almost certainly Amymone begins to appear in the Attic repertoire around 470, and by 460 she is definitely attested by labels in some scenes. For the sudden appearance of amorous pursuits more generally at this time in Attic vase painting, see Zeitlin 1986, pp. 128–131. 138. Paus. 2.22.5. Another correlate is the figure of Hypermestra, who landed with her father near Lerna and, as one of

the Danaids, dedicated a statue to Aphrodite at Lerna. She also had a cultic association with the acropolis of Argos, where she lit a beacon communicating her safe passage to her husband, Lynkeus (Paus. 2.25.4)—a story constituting a charter myth for a religious observance on the Larissa (Hall 1995, p. 592). Lerna has a connection with these fire rituals through the Lernaia festival (Paus. 8.15.9). According to Auffarth (1999, p. 45), this “feast of lights represents the city’s claim to domination of the plain.”

2

 GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

A

Geometric cemetery on the southeastern slopes of Mt. Pontinos constitutes much of the evidence for the Early Iron Age occupation at Lerna. This area is approximately 230 m west of the main excavation site and came to the attention of John L. Caskey and his team through unusual circumstances. German occupying forces in World War II accidentally uncovered and probably unwittingly destroyed ancient graves while digging at least one broad, deep ditch on the lower slopes of Pontinos.1 Although this part of Myloi had not been built over by houses as of 2015, the German ditch is no longer visible on the ground. Its approximate location can be inferred from topographical clues provided by photographs, but since Caskey and his team did not prepare a state plan, the exact course of the ditch and the location of ancient tombs within it cannot be determined (Figs. 22, 23). A satellite image shows a dark, diagonal feature in about the right location to be considered this German ditch, designated as trenches PA by the American archaeologists (Fig. 24).2 This enigmatic feature has also been placed on the large-­scale map of the Lerna district shown in Figure 13. But the German occupation has left far more tangible traces at Lerna in the circular foundations of three concrete gun emplacements in the fenced area of the site. Working within the established parameters of this German ditch, C. W. J. Eliot supervised a limited excavation with four crew members for a five-­day period during the 1955 season. He cleared and recorded 15 graves, most of which lay near the surface and were partially exposed by the German ditch diggers. There were nine cist graves lined with rubble walls or stone slabs, four pithos burials, one pot burial, and one pit tomb. Few grave goods or other material could be associated by Eliot with these tombs. In every case where datable material was present, the grave dated to the Geometric period, although residual pottery in one trench (PB1) suggested a small Protogeometric (PG) component perhaps reflecting one or more disturbed tombs. In addition to these burials on the slopes of Pontinos, Caskey’s team also uncovered two Geometric pithos burials in trenches BE and D in the northern section of the excavated settlement. The settlement area may also have been the source of four intact pots, discussed below, from another undocumented burial of PG date. More recently, the Greek Archaeological Service has revealed an Early Geometric (EG) pithos tomb several hundred meters southwest of the main site.3 Only two burials from Caskey’s excavations 1. FNB XVIII:100–143. Caskey (1956, pp. 171–172) provided a general description of the Pontinos cemetery in his preliminary report for the 1955 season. 2. It is also roughly the same size (6–10 × 115 m) as the PA trenches (5 × 120 m). Yet, whatever this dark feature is, it does not exactly line up with the German ditch as described by the American excavators, whose notebook plans reveal a trench angled precisely 45% north–south. This feature is oriented at a roughly 50%–55% angle. However, since no other obvious candidate appears in the photograph anywhere near the described location of the ditch, I am inclined to accept this as

evidence of the PA trenches. 3. This tomb contained five pots and the skeletons of two children (Kritzas 1973–1974, p. 246). In addition, Christos Piteros (pers. comm.) mentions the discovery of a Geometric well west of the main road some distance south of the Lerna settlement area. This must be the well that Barakari-­Gleni (1980, pp. 122–123) and Catling (1988–1989, p. 29) stated was found approximately 400 m southwest of the Lerna mound, a well (Diam. 0.70 m) associated with a pit that contained much Geometric pottery.

34

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 22. Mt. Pontinos, from east, showing the Lerna settlement site

in the foreground. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 23. Mt. Pontinos, from east, showing trenches PA. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

were published or described in any detail in the preliminary reports. The best-­documented was a Late Geometric (LG) I–II pithos burial whose grave goods included five pots and a bronze fibula with incised decoration. This was the subject of a 1974 article by Keith DeVries that focused on the fibula and its Boiotian parallels but also included a detailed catalogue



GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

35

Figure 24. Satellite image showing the Lerna settlement site, the modern village of Myloi, and the southeastern

slopes of Mt. Pontinos. Photo K. Brook

of the ceramic contents.4 The other partially documented tomb was a Middle Geometric (MG) I pithos burial from the settlement area in trench D.5 This chapter provides a fuller description of the Geometric burial grounds of Lerna and adopts a more integrated approach to the funerary evidence than previously possible based on preliminary publications. This integrated approach considers artifacts in relation to other aspects of the burial record, including tomb construction, spatial relationships within and between tombs, and the skeletal evidence as first examined by J. Lawrence Angel in the 1950s and recently reassessed as part of a planned bioarchaeological project. Angel’s study has paved the way for more refined approaches to the human population, and his observations are extensively cited in this chapter. A major caveat, however, is that modern bioarchaeologists no longer have the confidence of Angel in giving precise estimates for adult ages. They prefer population models with 5-­or 10-­year age brackets.6 Other more traditional lines of archaeological inquiry have also been employed to greater effect since the original study seasons of the Lerna project in the 1950s. For example, much progress has been made in attributing pottery lots to disturbed tombs. These associations have not only yielded new 4. Caskey 1956, pp. 171–172, pl. 48; DeVries 1974. 5. Caskey (1954, p. 7, pl. 2:c) published a brief description of pithos D:1 with an incomplete inventory of associated pottery. 6. As Henneberg and Henneberg (1998, pp. 504–505, 509– 512) observed in their discussion of age and sex estimates of a rural population in the chora of Metaponto, the emphasis should be on age ranges, not year of death, for adults and even for some groups of children. As an example of the inherent

uncertainty of these estimates, they (p. 505) noted that different investigators have assigned some individuals to different 10-­year ranges. Morris (1992, p. 73; 2007, pp. 220–224) also spelled out the difficulties of assigning precise ages to adult skeletons, although he distinguished these problems with the adult population from the precision possible in age estimates for individuals under 25. For a more general discussion of the difficulties in aging and sexing skeletal remains, see Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994, pp. 15–38.

36

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

insight into funerary rituals but have also provided a far more refined chronology for the cemetery. But the most serious challenge to this inclusive approach is the limited documentation. In the absence of a state plan of the Pontinos excavations, spatial relationships had to be reconstructed by scrutinizing small-­scale notebook drawings, descriptions in the field, and photographs (almost all lacking directional arrows and scales). What would be an easy task on a modern excavation—establishing a two-­dimensional grid for burials and objects—has been extremely difficult at Lerna. Much contextual information was lost through incomplete documentation. For example, the relationship between burials and various walls in trench PB1 remains unclear after a thorough examination of notebooks and other records. Moreover, nothing could have compensated for the damage to archaeological context caused by the German ditch works. This was essentially a rescue excavation undertaken a decade after most graves had been exposed and damaged. Despite these limitations, a fuller picture of the Geometric cemetery can be assembled from various strands of evidence, and the plans presented in Figure 25 and the subsequent figures for individual trenches give a two-­dimensional view of grave locations and orientations that is probably accurate to within half a meter. Graves within clusters are plotted with even more accuracy in relation to each other, since the excavators made drawings of larger scale for each tomb cluster. However, because this self-­contained grid cannot be related to any fixed point on Pontinos, relative spatial relationships are fairly secure, but absolute coordinates are unobtainable. Caskey’s team first recovered nine tombs in a massive rectangular ditch measuring 5 × 120 m with the long sides oriented northeast–southwest (Fig. 25). This ditch was divided into sections measuring 5 × 20 m, labeled from northeast to southwest PA1–PA6, with the last section terminating on its short side at an oblique angle.7 Farther up the slopes of Pontinos was another rectangular ditch oriented to the points of the compass, with the long sides on the north and south (Fig. 25). This second ditch was presumably another German installation, although the excavation records do not explicitly describe it as such. The excavators divided this ditch into rectangles measuring 5 × 20 m or longer, labeled from east to west PB1–PB3. According to the notebook drawings, the southeastern corner of trench PB1 lies 10 m due west of the northwestern corner of trench PA3. Six tombs were discovered in this second ditch oriented east–west. In both ditches, tombs were often discovered in the scarp, prompting the excavators to extend the sections, usually in the form of smaller rectangles, to recover the burials and associated deposits. The north side of trench PB1 has a massive polygonal extension to incorporate a wall and several burials located some distance outside the ditch. After describing each burial in each trench, I will conclude with some general considerations about the burial ground and chronology, funerary ritual, and the Early Iron Age population at Lerna.8

TRENCH PA3 Trench PA3 contained six tombs, five of which were found in two distinct clusters in the northeastern half of the trench, the sixth being a solitary tomb found partially outside the 7. It is unclear why this excavation trench, following the German ditch, ended at an oblique angle. Was it respecting a property boundary or road? Unfortunately, neither the satellite image nor the photographs of the Pontinos excavations

provide any clues (Figs. 22–24). 8. Trenches PA1, PA2, and PB3 are exceptions receiving no discussion, since they did not contain burials and lack excavation records.



TRENCH PA3

37

Figure 25. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trenches PA and PB

trench to the northwest (Fig. 26). Tomb PA3:5, a slab-­lined cist grave oriented roughly northeast–southwest, contained no pottery and was described as partially destroyed by the Germans (Figs. 27, 28). It measures approximately 0.55 × 1.25 m and 0.35 m deep. A skeleton was preserved on a pebble floor with its head on the northeast side of the tomb and perhaps facing southwest. The notebook drawing suggests that the body was laid in a slightly

38

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 26. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trench PA3 9. According to Angel (Lerna II, p. 66, no. 228), these jaw fragments reveal medium tooth wear. The age determination, based on the closure of the sagittal suture, would on current thinking require a minimum age of 35 and a range of at least a decade after that (Meindl and Lovejoy 1985).

contracted position, bent at the knees. Angel concluded that the body was that of a 34-­year-­old male. The preserved bones include jaw fragments, the left clavicle, a humerus shaft, the first left metacarpal, and a femur midshaft.9 Tomb PA3:6, another slab-­lined cist grave, incorporates some of the stone lining of the southwestern corner of tomb PA3:5 and therefore is later in date and perhaps responsible for the partial destruction of tomb PA3:5 (Fig. 28). Tomb PA3:6 is even more fragmentary, with the preserved southwestern and southeastern corners revealing a rectangular cist at a different orientation (more to the north) than tomb PA3:5. It measures approximately 0.55 × 1.25 m. The major axis of these and most other graves in the PA trenches seems to be roughly parallel to the contour lines of the slope of Pontinos. Pottery from around both graves (PA3:5, PA3:6), but not from the tombs themselves, was saved as PA3: lot 18, a small collection consisting of a cooking-­ware rim, a jug handle, a mortarium base with gritted interior, and two miniature cups. This lot of uncatalogued pottery appears to be mixed in date, with the miniature cups and the jug handle not precisely datable (but possibly Geometric) and the chytra and mortarium base dating to the 5th century.10 The second cluster consists of three cist graves oriented in a pinwheel fashion, with each grave meeting at one of their short ends (Fig. 29). Tomb PA3:1, on the northeastern side, measures approximately 0.60 × 1.10 m and 0.40 m deep. This grave is roughly in line with the trench boundary (northeast–southwest) and is a slab-­ lined cist with two to three slabs on each long side and one across the short side (the latter only preserved at the northeast). The skeleton is positioned with the head to the southwest and facing southeast, with knees contracted. Unlike the other graves in this cluster, no 10. The body shape, decorative characteristics, and fabric of Classical mortaria are discussed below in the presentation of material from the 5th-­century wells from the settlement area. The mortarium base from trench PA3: lot 18 is banded and identical to 355 from well A:1.



TRENCH PA3

39

Figure 27. Geometric cist tomb PA3:5, from

Figure 28. Geometric cist tombs PA3:5 and PA3:6,

northeast. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

from southwest. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 29. MG I or MG II cist tombs PA3:1, PA3:2, and PA3:3,

from northwest. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

40

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 30. MG I or MG II cist tombs PA3:1, PA3:2, and PA3:3,

from south. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

cover slab was preserved, suggesting to the American excavators that German diggers removed it. No pottery was found in this grave, and oddly, the skeleton mentioned in the notebooks and visible in the photographs does not appear in Angel’s study. Tomb PA3:2 lies to the west of tomb PA3:1. It is a more fragmentary grave, since the slabs forming the lining appear to have fallen down the slope of the German ditch. Slab liners on the north side of the tomb and the cover slabs were found in situ. The stratigraphic relationship between tombs PA3:1 and PA3:2 is unclear, although the photographs make it seem that these tombs were abutting at roughly the same level, which would make them more or less contemporaries. The skeletal remains revealed three adults in this tomb. One of the occupants of tomb PA3:2 was a male with an estimated height of 1.68 m, and a preserved tibia, ankle bones, and metatarsals. Another was a female about 30 years old, with preserved neck bones, a femur head, ankle bones, and lumbars, the last of which provided evidence of arthritis. There were also skeletal fragments (a flat oval femur shaft, a bowed tibia, and a small talus) of a female around 25 years old, who was smaller than the other female.11 Tomb PA3:3 forms the southern prong of this three-­pronged pinwheel (Fig. 30). This cist measured on the inside of the slab liners 0.40–0.50 × 1.55 m and 0.28 m deep. The head of the preserved skeleton lies on the south-­southwestern side and faces northwest, with knees slightly contracted. A large cover slab on the opposite side of the tomb near the feet appears to rest on a slab liner belonging to tomb PA3:1. If, as the photographs suggest, tomb PA3:3 incorporated architectural elements of tomb PA3:1, it must have been a later construction. Cist tomb PA3:3 was excavated in two phases. In the first, excavators removed the cover slabs; in the second, they removed hard-­packed sterile soil within the grave to reveal the skeleton on the floor. Angel concluded that this skeleton belonged to a woman about 25 years old and 1.47 m tall, with slight tooth wear and average skull muscularity.12 The pottery found above these three graves (no pottery was documented inside them) was inventoried as PA3: lot 17. This is a large collection that includes numerous solidly coated and linearly decorated fragments (1–39). With few exceptions, these and other Geo11. Lerna II, pp. 66–67, nos. 226 (adult male), 226a (larger adult female), 226b (smaller adult female). 12. Angel (Lerna II, p. 67, no. 227) determined the age on the basis of the iliac crest that had recently fused. Bass (1987,

pp. 148–153), however, has since revised the age of complete fusion of the iliac crest for females, giving a younger range of 18–24 years.



TRENCH PA3

41

metric fine wares at Lerna conform in shape and decoration to the standard Argive repertoire.13 Moreover, their fabrics strongly suggest manufacture in the Argolid, with an origin perhaps at Argos itself. Inclusions are occasionally visible under 10× magnification, and these include round and subangular white, red, gray, and black particles too small to identify macroscopically (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Sparse fine sparkling inclusions are common and suggest a low mica count, but no examples have a truly micaceous fabric.14 Given the few and small inclusions in these generally well-­levigated fabrics, color is a better visual guide for establishing ware groups. Color generally ranges from light brown to orangish brown (7.5YR 6/4–7/4) to pale brown (10YR 6/4–7/4).15 Rarely does it range outside this spectrum, as with a cup or skyphos (58) with a pale yellow tint (2.5Y 7/4) and an oinochoe (61) with a more reddish brown hue (5YR 7/6).16 Pots with fabrics in the 7.5YR range occasionally have a yellowish pale brown slip (10YR 8/4). This slip and the color range for fabric are not, in my opinion, narrow or distinct enough to posit a specific production source within the Argolid. Indeed, it is even difficult at times to distinguish the pale brown or pale yellow end of the Argive spectrum from Corinthian products.17 In addition, the paint is generally red to dark brown and occasionally dull black, but almost never the lustrous black typifying the best products of Archaic and Classical Argive potters.18 The largest open shapes from trench PA3: lot 17 are three krater fragments, one with a banded rim and hatched meander on the shoulder, another with a band and row of dots along the rim, and the third with a simple banded rim and shoulder (1–3). Another body fragment of a large open vessel, possibly a krater, is decorated with a hatched zigzag, a motif introduced to the Argolid in MG II (5).19 Also from this lot came an unusual fenestrated stand fragment decorated with bands, diagonals, and a cross-­hatched lozenge chain (6) that matches a fragment from trench PA4: lot 11, one of the assemblages associated with tomb PA4:1 (48). These two fragments must have come from the same stand, datable by decorative style to EG II or MG I (ca. 875–800), and will be discussed below. This collection from trench PA3 also includes the upper body portions of 11 cups or skyphoi, 4 skyphoi, and 13. Specific decorative parallels with pots found at Argos are discussed below (n. 130). 14. Caskey and Amandry (1952, p. 173), Courbin (1966, pp. 182–183), and Coldstream (1968, p. 112) all commented on the near absence of mica from Argive fine wares. 15. See also Pfaff (1999, p. 82, nos. 34, 35, fig. 11), who identified two Geometric kraters from the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth as Argive imports based on the style of decoration and a distinctive “tan” fabric (7.5YR 7/4) with a “purplish” core (2.5YR 6/4 and 5YR 6/4). This seems to be within the range observed for the Lerna material. Pfaff (p. 82) also noted “minute sparkling inclusions” in the Argive imports that may correspond to the traces of mica typical of the Geometric fine wares at Lerna. 16. Foley’s (1988, p. 64) characterization of the Lerna fabric as a light buff similar to pottery from Argos is generally correct, but her comment about frequent “greenish tinges” seems to be based on the limited material accessible in publications. Pots with a greenish tint are in fact rare at Lerna. The PG material from trench PB1 and from another unrecorded context, but presumably a tomb from the settlement area, for which see below (p. 100), shows a greater range in fabric color, with more frequent outliers such as skyphos 94 with a light reddish brown fabric. 17. A case in point is an aryballos (132) with a pale yellow fabric (2.5Y 7/4), for which either an Argive or Corinthian source is possible. For macroscopic descriptions of Corinthian

fine-­ware fabrics in the Geometric period, see Pfaff (1988, p. 27; 1999, pp. 58–59), who observed a color range between 7.5YR 7/4, 7.5YR 8/4, and 2.5Y 8/2. 18. Black gloss might be considered anachronistic in this context, since the coating of Argive Geometric pots, and indeed of most Archaic pots, is almost never as lustrous as “gloss” might suggest. I follow others in characterizing this coating as paint to convey its less lustrous quality in comparison with Classical black gloss (Morgan 1999a, pp. 26–27; Papadopoulos 2005, p. 426; Kotsonas 2008, p. 57). It is even questionable whether the dull coating of many Late Archaic pots presented in Chapter 3 should be termed “paint” and not “gloss.” Yet I have retained the traditional term “gloss” for material of this and later date. The term “glaze” should never be used for even the most lustrous Classical products. Although silica (an element of glaze) is naturally present in the coating of this period, it sintered in the firing, since temperatures never reached the point for the mixture to fuse and create a glassy surface, the essence of glaze (Noble 1988, p. 84). In this volume, the term “glaze” only appears in modified form in the conventional phrase “glazing characteristics,” where the term “paint” or “gloss” is technically correct. 19. For the introduction of the gear pattern and hatched zigzag in the Argive repertoire, see Coldstream 1968, p. 123. There is also an uncatalogued base and lower body fragment of another pyxis similar to 31.

42

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

1 cup, of which 12 are plain black and 4 are decorated, the schemes consisting of multiple zigzags on 2 examples, a hatched meander on 1, and vertical chevrons on another (7–22).20 Many of these drinking vessels are relatively well preserved and would make sense as grave goods. The cup or skyphos with vertical chevrons (14) can be dated to MG II (ca. 800–750), while the others are probably slightly earlier, datable to MG I (ca. 830–800).21 The plain black cups or skyphoi are more difficult to date, but the shapes are compatible with MG I developments. In addition to the upper body portions, six bases are preserved and allow a distinction between cups with a simple base form, either a flattened or slightly raised and hollowed profile (25, 27), and skyphoi with ring feet (23, 24, 26) or a raised and hollowed base (28).22 Moreover, one noteworthy cup base is decorated underneath with a 16-­pointed star (27). Other decorated fine wares in the assemblage include an amphora neck with bands and a gear pattern, a motif introduced in the Argive repertoire in MG II (29); an oinochoe neck with only the framing bands of the window panel preserved (30); nonjoining upper and lower body fragments of a banded pyxis (31); neck and body fragments of an aryballos decorated on the shoulder with cross-­hatched triangles (32); and a rim of a small plate (34), the only example of this Geometric shape at Lerna. There is also a neck and shoulder fragment of an Argive monochrome aryballos (33). Much of this material requires a MG I or MG II date, but there is at least one large open vessel (a possible krater) in an unidentified imported fabric with what seems to be LG linear decoration (4). Another possible outlier in date is a cooking-­ware rim form perhaps datable to the 7th or even the 6th century (35). Apart from these sherds, trench PA3: lot 17 is a surprisingly homogeneous assemblage in terms of date, especially considering the fact that it came not from a single tomb but the disturbed fill around three tombs and residual material perhaps from the adjacent trench PA4. If we assume that this assemblage is primarily from the proximate disturbed tombs, the cists PA3:1–3 should all be dated to the second half of the 9th or first half of the 8th century (MG I or MG II, ca. 830–750). There are also architectural grounds, as we have seen, for considering this cluster of tombs a nearly contemporaneous unit, with the lining wall of one tomb incorporating the still-­exposed wall of its neighbor. Regarding the possible gender associations of these shapes, the preponderance of kraters and drinking cups in the spread of material from these tombs would be compatible with the male occupant attested by the skeletal remains in tomb PA3:2, while the pyxis and perhaps also the two aryballoi might have had feminine associations in funerary ritual and belonged to the attested female occupants in tombs PA3:2 and PA3:3.23 It should be cautioned, however, that ceramic grave goods are generally not thought to be reliable signifiers of age and sex in Argive Geometric tomb contexts, particularly for adult women, in contrast to Athens 20. I have been perhaps unduly reluctant to distinguish between cups and skyphoi in the case of rim and upper body fragments without clear evidence of the handle configuration. Many or most of the drinking vessels I have identified as cups or skyphoi might well be cups, as, for example, 8, which could only be a skyphos if a handle were attached to the one missing fragment on the preserved side. 21. Absolute dates for the Argive Geometric sequence are based on Coldstream 1968, p. 333 (with nothing in the supplement of the 2008 edition requiring revision). Cups or skyphoi decorated with vertical chevrons, such as 14, are not well attested in the Argolid but are popular at Corinth. This might be a Corinthian import, although the fabric is within the range for local Argive. 22. The cups and skyphoi published by Courbin (1966) and Coldstream (1968) generally support this proposed distinction between cups with flat bases and skyphoi with ring

feet. The only exception in the material from Lerna is 129, a cup with a ring foot. 23. The kraters are particularly suggestive of masculine identity, as they rarely appear in female burials in the Argolid but often occur in male cists as part of “warrior burial” assemblages; see Langdon 2001, pp. 587–588, 591, and more generally for “warrior burials” in Early Iron Age Greece, Whitley 1996, pp. 214, 216–218; 2002, pp. 223–226. One of the exceptional female burials with a krater was Argos T.23, in which the krater served as a stopper for the burial container, a giant pyxis, and perhaps reflected the gender ambiguity of an elderly woman (Langdon 2001, p. 591). Langdon (2008, pp. 130–143) included kalathoi and pointed pyxides among objects with strong feminine associations and constituents of what she called “maiden kits” in Geometric Greece. See also her (2001, p. 589) general comments about the pyxis as a feminine signifier in literature and funerary ritual.



TRENCH PA3

43

and Attica, where objects associated with female burials have been identified for certain periods.24 We should proceed cautiously with any reconstructions of gender symbolism in the fragmentary Lerna burial record, since it mostly lacks clear contextual relationships necessary to test assumptions about gender patterning and the claim of muted feminine identity in the Argive funerary record. Since the standard publications of Argive Geometric pottery prioritize decorated fine wares over coarse and cooking pots, we have fewer and less direct parallels for these utilitarian wares when they appear in tomb groups at Lerna.25 Trench PA3: lot 17 includes several cooking-­ware rim fragments, including one pot with an everted rim (35) and another with a slightly flaring rim (36). The cooking pot with the everted rim (35) is identifiable as an Aiginetan chytra on the basis of form and fabric, making it the earliest Aiginetan import to Lerna in the Early Iron Age.26 There is also a small bowl or kalathos (37) in a cooking-­ware fabric with general parallels for shape in Geometric tombs at Argos. If this kalathos was a grave good, it may have signaled feminine identity.27 From trench PA3: lot 17 also came a rim and neck fragment from a small jug in Argive monochrome fabric (38). In addition, a medium-­coarse jug or amphora fragment with a rope handle should probably not be dated earlier than MG II, for only then, according to Nicholas Coldstream, do rope handles appear in the Argive repertoire of decorated pottery (39).28 Finally, the excavators collected tiny bone fragments of pig and cow as well as a murex shell. FINE OPEN SHAPES 1  Krater; rim and upper body Fig. 31 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.02 m; Diam. of rim ca. 0.38 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. Sparse fine sparkling and moderate small round and subangular gray and black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Dull black interior. Exterior has fugitive bands on rim. Reserved zone at shoulder decorated with fugitive hatched meander. Meander has proficient hatching blocked at angles. Pale brown slip 10YR 7/4–8/4 exte-

rior. Slightly everted thickened rim. Decoration: Cour­ bin 1966, no. C.878, pl. 38. MG. Ca. 830–750.

24. Whitley (1996, pp. 217–218) distinguished between what he saw as clear constructions of elite masculine identity in the context of Argive funerals and no obvious effort to signal feminine identity through burial. In this view, women received gender-­“neutral” burials. Langdon (2005, p. 5), however, was more skeptical of the claim that the burials of Argive women always appear neutral. These studies problematize gender construction and emphasize local variations in practice. Drinking and pouring vessels probably have the weakest gender associations here and elsewhere. At best they might convey, as Whitley (1991, p. 190) suggested, a loose association with masculine identity in particular contexts such as the Argive “warrior burials,” where skyphoi appear with kraters and neck-­handled amphoras. For Early Iron Age Athens, Whitley (p. 158) emphasized the temporal dimensions for gender-­ specific grave goods, with some periods, such as PG, having “universal and unambiguous sexual symbolism” with respect to urn types, and other periods having less marked differences (but with kraters still having a masculine association). Strömberg’s (1993) shape-­by-­shape study of Attic funerary pottery is fundamental for assessing proposed gender associations in Athens. 25. This bias in favor of decorated pottery is not simply a

result of the art-­historical interests of previous investigators. Most intact vessels useful for establishing typologies and ceramic chronologies have come from tombs, and only a limited range of cooking and coarse pottery appears in funerary contexts. But this is not an absolute rule. The cooking pot (83) from tomb PA6:1 is a good example of such a vessel with funerary associations. Pithoi have also received more attention than other coarse wares by virtue of their use as tomb containers. 26. I am grateful to Gudrun Klebinder-­Gauss for examining much of the Geometric through Hellenistic cooking pots from Lerna and identifying macroscopically possible Aiginetan imports. Chytra 35 was unfortunately not included in the sample selected for petrographic analysis, but it was one of the clearest cases she noted of an Aiginetan fabric type. 27. For the gender associations of kalathoi in Attic tombs and at Lefkandi, see Langdon 2005, p. 12; 2008, p. 138. This link with feminine identity has not been observed at Argos. The Attic kalathoi and the standard Argive version of this shape, however, differ enough from the Lerna examples that a different function for the Lerna “kalathoi” might be suspected, thereby weakening any possible gender associations. 28. Coldstream 1968, p. 121.

2  Krater; rim and upper body Fig. 31 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.016 m; Diam. of rim ca. 0.33 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and sparse fine dark gray to black subangular inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m).

44

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

1

2

3

5

4

6

Figure 31. Geometric kraters and stand from PA3: lot 17. Scale 1:3

Dull brown interior and exterior. Exterior rim has bands and row of dots. Everted thickened triangular collar rim with flat top 0.017 m wide decorated with wide zigzag. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.878, C.289, C.423, pls. 38, 39. MG II. Ca. 800–750. 3  Krater; rim and upper body Fig. 31 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.017 m; Diam. of rim ca. 0.29 m.

Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4–7/6. Sparse fine sparkling, moderate fine round dark gray to black, and sparse medium to large dark red inclusions (max. Diam. 0.004 m). Streaky dull red to black interior and exterior. Exterior has reserved band on rim and reserved bands on shoulder. Everted slightly thickened rim with flat top 0.008 m wide decorated with vertical bars. Shape and decoration: Langdon 1995, p. 208, no. 1040, figs. 53, 130. Context ca. 830–750.



TRENCH PA3

4  Krater(?); body Fig. 31 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary body. Max. p.dim. 0.162 m; Th. of body 0.010 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4, with reddish brown core 5YR 7/6. Sparse fine sparkling, sparse fine round black, moderate medium round grayish yellow, and moderate medium irregular light gray to white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.004 m). Dull black interior. Exterior has black zone, bands, row of dots, and sets of three vertical bars in reserved zone or panel (bottom is not preserved). Possible import (fabric). LG. Ca. 750–690. 5  Krater(?); body Fig. 31 Trench PA3: lot 17. Two joining fragments. Fragmentary body. Max. p.dim. 0.062 m; Th. of body 0.006 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Sparse fine subangular black and sparse small round light red inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Dull black interior. Exterior has bands and hatched zigag. Decoration: Courbin 1966, no. C.30, pl. 4 (neck-­ handled amphora). Similar decoration to 45. MG II. Ca. 800–750. 6  Large vessel, fenestrated stand Fig. 31 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary stand. Max. p.dim. 0.098 m; Th. of stand 0.009–0.011 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Moderate small round black and medium dark reddish black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Finished surfaces on front, back, bottom edge, and left concave edge (right edge and top broken). Dull black on left edge. Front surface decorated with fugitive bands, zone of diagonals, bands, cross-­hatched lozenge chain, bands, and zone of diagonals. Bows slightly, with a slightly convex front. Decoration: Courbin 1966, no. C.2473, pl. 3 (neck-­ handled amphora). Identical shape and decoration to 48 (and probably from the same vessel). EG II or MG I. Ca. 875–800. 7  Cup or skyphos; rim to lower body Fig. 32 Trench PA3: lot 17. Two joining fragments. Substantial vessel. H. of rim 0.007 m; Diam. 0.108 m, of rim 0.094 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/6. Sparse fine sparkling and round white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Dull brown to black interior and exterior. Interior rim has reserved band at top. Slightly incurving rim and squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, C.35, pls. 56, 71; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 8  Cup or skyphos; rim to lower body Fig. 32 Trench PA3: lot 17. Three joining fragments. Substantial vessel. H. of rim 0.008 m; Diam. 0.093 m, of rim 0.080 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 6/4. Sparse fine round black and sparse medium white subangular inclusions (max. Diam. 0.003 m).

45

Dull streaky reddish brown to black interior and exterior. Interior rim has reserved band at top. Upright rim and squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, C.35, pls. 56, 71; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 9  Cup or skyphos; rim to lower body Fig. 32 Trench PA3: lot 17. Partial vessel. H. of rim 0.007 m; Diam. 0.115 m, of rim 0.110 m. Light brown to orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4– 7/4. Moderate fine voids and sparse small round white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Dull brown to black interior and reddish brown ex­ terior. Slightly everted rim and squat hemispherical body with rounded shoulder. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, C.35, pls. 56, 71; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. Fig. 32 10  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Trench PA3: lot 17. Partial rim. H. of rim 0.007 m; Diam. 0.097 m, of rim 0.086 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and small round light gray inclusions. Dark brown interior and fugitive brown exterior. Inset slightly everted rim and ovoid upper body. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, C.35, pls. 56, 71; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 11  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Fig. 32 Trench PA3: lot 17. Partial rim. H. of rim 0.012 m; Diam. 0.131 m, of rim 0.130 m. Orangish brown to pale brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4 to 10YR 7/4. Sparse fine round and subangular dark gray to black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Dull black interior and exterior. Interior and exterior rim has reserved band at top. Inset everted rim and ovoid upper body. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, C.35, pls. 56, 71; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 12  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Fig. 32 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.015 m; Diam. of rim 0.194 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/3. No visible inclusions. Streaky fugitive dull dark brown to black interior and exterior. Interior rim has reserved band at top decorated with vertical bars (three bars preserved). Exterior rim has reserved band at top. Inset everted rim. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, C.35, pls. 56, 71; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 13  Cup; rim and upper body Fig. 32 Trench PA3: lot 17. Substantial rim. H. of rim 0.005 m; Diam. 0.093 m, of rim 0.085 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 6/4. Sparse fine voids but no visible inclusions.

46

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

7

13

8

14

9

15

10 16

11

17

12 Figure 32. MG cups and skyphoi from PA3: lot 17. Scale 1:3

18



TRENCH PA3

Dull black interior. Interior rim has reserved band at top decorated with vertical bars (seven bars preserved). Exterior rim has bands. Shoulder panel decorated with three stacked zigags alternating with vertical bars. Eighteen bars around handle zone between zigzags. Three preserved bands below zigzags and bars. Low everted rim and ovoid upper body. Broken attachment for vertical handle at rim. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.836 (kantharos), C.4682, pls. 60, 114; 1974, p. 49, no. C.836, T.90/2, pl. 33 (kantharos); p. 95, nos. C.2477, C.2478, T.191, pl. 54. Similar decoration to 18. MG I. Ca. 830–800. 14  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Fig. 32 Trench PA3: lot 17. Two joining fragments. Frag­ mentary rim. H. of rim 0.011 m; Diam. 0.136 m, of rim 0.134 m. Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. Sparse fine sparkling and sparse small round light gray inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull dark brown to black interior. Interior rim has reserved band at top. Exterior rim has bands. Shoulder window panel decorated with row of vertical chevrons. Three preserved bands below chevrons. Black outside panel. Slightly everted rim and ovoid upper body. Decoration: Coldstream 1968, pl. 18:d (Corinthian skyphos). Possible Corinthian import (fabric). MG II. Ca. 800–750. 15  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Fig. 32 Trench PA3: lot 17. Partial vessel. H. of rim 0.009 m; Diam. 0.110 m, of rim 0.097 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 6/4–7/4. Moderate fine voids but no visible inclusions. Dull brownish gray interior and exterior. Interior and exterior rim has reserved band near top. Inset upright rim and squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, C.35, pls. 56, 71; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 16  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Fig. 32 Trench PA3: lot 17. Two joining fragments. Partial vessel. H. of rim 0.010 m; Diam. 0.105 m, of rim 0.085 m. Light brown to orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4– 7/4. Sparse fine voids and single small round yellowish light gray inclusion (Diam. 0.002 m). Semilustrous black interior and exterior. Interior and exterior rim has reserved band at top. Inset slightly everted rim and ovoid upper body. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, C.35, pls. 56, 71; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 17  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Fig. 32 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.011 m; Diam. 0.122 m, of rim 0.111 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 6/4–7/4. Sparse fine angular voids but no visible inclusions.

47

Dull black interior. Interior rim has reserved band at top decorated with vertical bars. Exterior rim has bands. Reserved zone at shoulder decorated with hatched meander. Meander attached to upper framing band. Inset slightly everted rim and rounded shoulder. Decoration: Courbin 1966, no. C.889, pl. 53; 1974, p. 49, no. C.835, T.90/2, pl. 33 (kantharos). MG I. Ca. 830–800. Fig. 32 18  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.014 m; Diam. of rim 0.106 m. Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. Sparse fine sparkling and sparse small round light gray inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull reddish brown interior. Interior rim has reserved band at top decorated with vertical bars (two bars preserved). Exterior rim has bands. Reserved zone at shoulder decorated with three preserved closely stacked zigzags. Yellowish pale brown slip 10YR 8/4 exterior. Inset slightly everted rim. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.836 (kantharos), C.4682, pls. 60, 114; 1974, p. 49, no. C.836, T.90/2, pl. 33 (kantharos), p. 95, nos. C.2477, C.2478, T.191, pl. 54; Langdon 1995, p. 209, no. 1049, figs. 53, 130. Similar decoration to 13. MG I. Ca. 830–800. 19  Skyphos; rim, handle fragment, and Fig. 33 upper body Trench PA3: lot 17. Partial rim. H. of rim 0.011 m; Diam. 0.124 m, of rim 0.115 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Moderate fine voids and sparse fine sparkling inclusions. Dull black interior and exterior, with zone between handle roots reserved. Interior rim has reserved band at top decorated with vertical bars (six bars preserved). Slightly everted rim and squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder. Horizontal handle root, ovoid in section, with black on outer face. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, pl. 56; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 20  Skyphos; rim, handle fragment, and Fig. 33 upper body Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.015 m; Diam. 0.202 m, of rim 0.196 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling, sparse fine light red, sparse fine light gray, and sparse small to medium round white and gray speckled inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Dull reddish brown interior and exterior, with zone between handle roots reserved. Interior rim has reserved band near top decorated with vertical bars (eight bars preserved). Exterior rim has reserved band. Brownish pink slip 7.5YR 8/4 exterior. Inset everted rim and rounded shoulder. Horizontal handle root, rounded in section, with reddish brown on outer face. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, pl. 56; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750.

19

20

21

22

23

26

24

27

25

28 Figure 33. MG cups and skyphoi from PA3: lot 17. Scale 1:3



TRENCH PA3

21  Skyphos; rim, handle fragment, and Fig. 33 upper to lower body Trench PA3: lot 17. Three joining fragments and two other joining fragments. Substantial vessel. H. of rim 0.008 m; Diam. 0.150 m, of rim 0.140 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/6. Sparse fine sparkling and sparse small round white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Streaky dull red to reddish brown interior and exterior, with zone between handle roots reserved. Interior rim has reserved band at top. Exterior rim has band. Everted rim and squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder. Upswung horizontal handle, rounded in section, with reddish brown on outer face. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, pl. 56; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 22  Skyphos; rim, handle, and upper Fig. 33 to lower body Trench PA3: lot 17. Six joining fragments and two other joining fragments. Substantial vessel. H. of rim 0.008 m; Diam. 0.134 m, of rim 0.124 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/6. Sparse fine round white, subangular black, and round reddish brown inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Semilustrous black interior and exterior, with zone between handle roots reserved. Interior rim has reserved band near top. Exterior rim has band. Slightly everted rim and squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder. Upswung horizontal handle, rounded in section, with black on outer face. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, pl. 56; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 23  Skyphos; base and lower body Fig. 33 Trench PA3: lot 17. Two joining fragments. Partial base. Diam. 0.132 m (max. p.), of base 0.070 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and single medium round light gray inclusion (Diam. 0.003 m). Streaky dull dark brown to black interior and exterior. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved. Squat ovoid lower body and low ring foot. Context ca. 830–750. Fig. 33 24  Skyphos; base and lower body Trench PA3: lot 17. Two joining fragments. Substantial base. Diam. 0.127 m (max. p.), of base 0.070 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine voids but no visible inclusions.

49

Streaky dull black interior and exterior. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved. Squat ovoid lower body and low ring foot. Context ca. 830–750. 25  Cup; base and lower body Fig. 33 Trench PA3: lot 17. Substantial base. Diam. 0.098 m (max. p.), of base 0.050 m. Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. No visible inclusions. Semilustrous black interior and exterior. Resting surface and underside of base reserved. Plump ovoid lower body and hollowed base with concave profile underneath. Context ca. 830–750. 26  Skyphos; base Fig. 33 Trench PA3: lot 17. Substantial base. Diam. of base 0.082 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine voids and sparse fine sparkling inclusions. Dull brown to black interior and exterior. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved. Low ring foot. Context ca. 830–750. 27  Cup; base and lower body Fig. 33 Trench PA3: lot 17. Substantial base. Diam. 0.102 m (max. p.), of base 0.048 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Sparse fine voids but no visible inclusions. Dull dark brown to black interior, with reserved dot at bottom interior. Brown to black exterior. Reserved zone on lower body decorated with two bands, black zone, and reserved zone continuing up to top of preserved section decorated with three preserved bands. Underside of base reserved and decorated with a 16-­pointed star. Squat ovoid lower body and hollowed base with slightly concave profile underneath. Decoration: Courbin 1966, no. C.4666, pl. 76. MG. Ca. 830–750. 28  Skyphos; base Fig. 33 Trench PA3: lot 17. Intact base. Diam. of base 0.059 m. Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. Medium round white and gray speckled inclusions (max. Diam. 0.003 m). Dull dark brown to black interior and exterior. Resting surface and underside of base reserved. Pale brown slip 10YR 7/4 on underside of base. Raised and hollowed base with sloping outer face and concave profile underneath. Context ca. 830–750.

FINE CLOSED SHAPES 29  Amphora; neck Fig. 34 Trench PA3: lot 17. Substantial neck. Diam. 0.196 m (max. p.), of neck at junction with shoulder 0.171 m. Light brown to orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4–7/4. Sparse fine sparkling, moderate fine round black, moderate medium subangular reddish brown, moderate me-

dium subangular white, and sparse medium round yellowish gray inclusions (max. Diam. 0.003 m). Dull dark brown to black exterior with bands and gear pattern. Pale brown slip 10YR 7/4 exterior. Tapering neck. Decoration: Courbin 1966, pl. 149 (pyxis). MG II. Ca. 800–750.

50

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

29

30

31

33

32

34

Figure 34. MG amphora, oinochoe, pyxis, aryballoi, and plate from PA3: lot 17. Scale 1:3

30  Oinochoe; neck and upper body Fig. 34 Trench PA3: lot 17. Three joining fragments. Substantial neck. Diam. 0.109 m (max. p.), of neck at junction with shoulder 0.082 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/6. Sparse fine voids and sparse fine round dark gray inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m).

Dull reddish brown to black exterior. Lower right corner of neck window panel. Two preserved bands frame panel below. Tapering neck. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.52, C.829, C.53, C.2435, C.458, pls. 17, 18, 20; Coldstream 1968, pl. 23:a. EG II or MG I. Ca. 875–800.



TRENCH PA3

51

31  Globular pyxis; rim, upper body, Fig. 34 lower body, and base Trench PA3: lot 17. Three joining fragments and one other fragment. Partial vessel. Diam. of rim 0.140 m, of base 0.124 m. Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. Sparse fine sparkling, sparse small round light gray, and moderate small black subangular inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Dull dark reddish brown exterior. Reserved zone at shoulder decorated with two bands and reserved zone at lower body decorated with four preserved bands. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved. Yellowish pale brown slip 10YR 8/4 exterior. Inset everted thickened triangular collar rim with interior flange for lid, globular body, and low ring foot. Shape: Courbin 1966, no. C.2434, pl. 79; 1974, p. 56, no. C.895, T.106/1, pl. 36. Decoration: Gercke, Gercke, and Hiesel 1975, p. 27, no. 63, pl. 33:1b. MG. Ca. 830–750.

Exterior has dull black on neck. Reserved zone at shoulder decorated with cross-­hatched triangles each framed by three stacked triangles at apex. Four bands below shoulder zone and fugitive black on lower body. Cylindrical neck and ovoid body. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.832, C.2483, pl. 23; 1974, p. 48, no. C.832, T.90/2, pl. 33, pp. 61–62, no. C.925, T.129, pl. 39, p. 97, no. C.2483, T.193, pl. 55. MG. Ca. 830–750.

32  Aryballos; neck and upper to lower body Fig. 34 Trench PA3: lot 17. Two joining fragments and two other joining fragments. Partial vessel. Diam. 0.091 m, of neck 0.016 m (max. p.). Orangish brown to pale brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4 to 10YR 6/3–7/3. Sparse fine sparkling, moderate fine round dark gray to black, sparse small round yellowish light gray (max. Diam. 0.001 m), and single large round light gray inclusions (Diam. 0.005 m).

34  Plate; rim and upper body Fig. 34 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary rim. Diam. of rim 0.150 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. No visible inclusions. Reddish brown interior and banded exterior. Projecting flaring rim has flat top 0.010 m wide decorated with vertical bars. Shape and decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.1966, C.843, pl. 68. Context ca. 830–750.

33  Aryballos; neck and upper body Fig. 34 Trench PA3: lot 17. Partial vessel. Diam. 0.069 m (max. p.), of neck at junction with shoulder 0.024 m. Orangish brown to yellowish pale brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4 to 10YR 8/4. No visible inclusions. Argive monochrome fabric. Vertical burnishing lines on neck. Handmade. Tapering neck. Context ca. 830–750.

COARSE AND COOK ING SHAPES 35  Aiginetan chytra; rim Fig. 35 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary rim. Diam. of rim 0.170 m. Dark brown fabric 10YR 4/3. Sparse fine gold mica and moderate fine round and small subangular shiny black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Cooking-­ware fabric. Polished light brown surface 7.5YR 6/4. Everted rim with slightly convex profile. Shape: Kerameikos V.1, p. 256, grave 68, no. 355, pl. 155; Brann 1961, p. 340, no. F52, pl. 83; Agora VIII, p. 55, no. 210, pl. 11. 7th or 6th century. 36  Cooking pot; rim Fig. 35 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary rim. Diam. of rim 0.146 m. Gray fabric 2.5Y 5/1. Sparse fine sparkling and moderate small round white and small round gray inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Cooking-­ware fabric. Polished surface. Light brownish gray slip 2.5Y 6/2. Slightly flaring rim. Context ca. 830–750. Fig. 35 37  Kalathos; rim and upper body Trench PA3: lot 17. Two joining fragments. Substantial vessel. Diam. of rim 0.072 m. Reddish brown fabric 5YR 6/6. Dense fine sparkling, moderate small round white, small dark gray, and small

black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Cooking-­ware fabric. Polished surface. Thickened rectangular collar rim with flat top 0.008 m wide and groove on outer face near top. Concave almost conical body. Similar shape to 108. Context ca. 830–750. 38  Trefoil jug; rim and neck Fig. 35 Trench PA3: lot 17. Partial rim. Diam. of rim 0.076 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Sparse small round white and subangular red inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Argive monochrome fabric. Polished surface. Handmade. Flaring rim and slightly tapering neck. Context ca. 830–750. 39  Jug or amphora; rope handle Fig. 35 Trench PA3: lot 17. Fragmentary handle. Max. p. dim. 0.069 m; Th. of body 0.005 m. Pale yellow fabric 2.5Y 7/4. Dense small subangular dark gray and black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Medium-­coarse fabric. Polished surface. Pale yellow slip 2.5Y 8/4. Vertical strap handle, generally ovoid in section, with rounded rope strands. Shape: Courbin 1966, no. C.815, pl. 94. MG II. Ca. 800–750.

52

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

35

38

36

37

39

Figure 35. MG chytra, cooking pot, kalathos, and jugs from PA3: lot 17. Scale 1:3

Figure 36. Geometric cist tomb PA3:4, from

southeast. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

The last tomb encountered in trench PA3 was located some distance away from the two clusters (see Fig. 26). It is a cist construction protruding into the northern scarp, requiring a roughly 0.50 × 0.75 m rectangular extension of the trench to recover it. Tomb PA3:4 is poorly documented (Fig. 36). The preserved tomb structure consisted of a header slab, two side slabs, and a cover slab, with the excavators recording the thickness of the lining slabs (0.05–0.07 m) and the overall dimensions of the grave (0.45 × 1.37 m and 0.35 m deep). They found no pottery or bones and gave no indication of date.



TRENCH PA4

53

TRENCH PA4 In contrast, the pithos burial in the adjacent trench PA4 is one of the best-­documented and informative tombs from the Pontinos cemetery (Figs. 37–40). Tomb PA4:1, the only burial found in this trench, is roughly on the same line as tomb PA3:5 and has a similar orientation, probably respecting the slope of Pontinos. This pithos measures 0.85 × 1.30 m and was positioned with the mouth of the prone jar on the northeast side. Two notebook drawings exist for this tomb, the first showing the broken side of the pithos before removing fragments to reach the skeleton, the second showing the skeleton and the lower half of the pithos on which it rested (Fig. 40). Stones covered the mouth of the pithos. From the distribution of the bones, the excavators assumed that the head did not quite fit within the jar. Broken pottery was collected from within the grave (PA4: lot 16) and immediately outside it (PA4: lot 11). There is some justification for considering these two pottery lots part of the same funerary assemblage. Although there were no joins between them, the two lots contained fragments from the same ring handle (47) and the same krater with quatrefoil metopes (40).29 On the other hand, trench PA4: lot 11 contained a stand fragment (48) identical to one in the adjacent trench PA3 (6), indicating a substantial mixing of material once the burials had been disturbed. This fenestrated stand must have belonged to an extraordinarily elaborate and large vessel, raising the possibility that it functioned as a tomb marker.30 The well-­preserved skeleton from a single inhumation in tomb PA4:1 was laid straight from head to knee and contracted below the knees. Angel had much to say about this burial. The occupant was male, about 33 years old and 1.76 m tall. He was “massive and robust in build, with sharp pubic pectin, and considerable lumbar curve, but without arthritis. Knee tilt and flexion facets (ankle) occur, but shafts of long bones are not flattened. The mouth region shows no dental lesions, average tooth wear, and suppression of the lower third molars. The jaw is broad, with deep and strongly projecting chin.”31 The pottery from inside the tomb is a small lot consisting of five catalogued fragments (47, 56–59). Two plain black cups or skyphoi and a plain black skyphos are the best-­preserved pots from this lot (56–58). An additional cup base might have belonged to one of these upper body portions identified as cups or skyphoi (59). An extraordinary piece is 47, a ring handle from what must have been a ceramic tripod or cauldron imitating a metallic form, suggesting an attempt to evoke the status of the more precious material.32 From inside the tomb there is also an uncatalogued cooking-­pot rim and a large body fragment from a separate cooking vessel, also uncatalogued. The other lot from outside the pithos is much larger and includes a decorated MG II krater with collar rim (40); a krater pedestal with ribs (46); 29. The ring-handle fragment from trench PA4: lot 11 is not catalogued. In addition, trench PA4: lot 16 contained two uncatalogued fragments from krater 40, one rim and one body fragment with a quatrefoil metope. 30. This large openwork stand from Lerna does not appear to be a standard product in the Argive line. Consequently, there are few published parallels. A decorated stand from the Argive Heraion is generally similar to ours, but it dates much later in LG II (Caskey and Amandry 1952, pp. 174–175, no. 67, pl. 50). Other vague parallels are the strap supports of monumental vessels such as pyxis C.209; of these, the closest to ours in shape is a fragmentary strap support with concave sides (Courbin 1966, no. C.3811, pl. 105). 31. Angel (Lerna II, p. 67, no. 229) determined the age by the pubic symphysis. According to McKern and Stewart (1957), however, this method tends to overestimate the age by two or three years. More recent studies, including Katz and Suchey

(1986), point to a greater range of 22–43 years for this phase. 32. It is a pity that so little of this vessel has survived. The ring handles of Attic LG II and later ceramic kraters imitating North Syrian or Urartian metal cauldrons, such as the example illustrated by Coldstream (1977, p. 119, pl. 37:b), provide a general parallel for 47, but clay or metal comparanda of any kind are lacking from the Argolid, even from sites having numerous metal vessel fragments and rich ceramic offerings, such as the Heraion sanctuary. Also vaguely similar are the ring handles of PG ceramic tripods, for examples of which see Desborough 1952, p. 118, no. 554, pl. 14; Lemos 2002, pp. 80– 81, pl. 7:5, 7. While there is no consistent relationship between handle and vessel size, these tripods typically range between three to four times larger (max. Diam.) than their ring handles, which would make the vessel to which 47 belonged larger (max. Diam. 0.33–0.44 m) than any other Geometric fine ware at Lerna with the possible exception of kraters 1 and 138.

54

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 38. MG II pithos tomb PA4:1, from northwest. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 39. MG II pithos tomb PA4:1, from southeast, showing skeleton revealed after removal of pithos fragments. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 37. Plan of Pontinos cemetery

trench PA4 Figure 40. Notebook drawings of MG II pithos tomb PA4:1,

showing pithos and rocks from initial excavation (left) and skeleton from later phase of excavation (right)



TRENCH PA4

55

and seven drinking vessels, including a skyphos (49), five cups (50, 51, 53–55), and one cup or skyphos (52), of which five are well preserved. One of these (49) is a giant skyphos almost the size of a krater, while three other drinking vessels bear decoration in typical Argive MG I style (50–52).33 The decorated krater 40 calls for further comment. Its system of decoration with metopal divisions and a hatched meander framed by quatrefoil leaves has close parallels in the Argive MG II repertoire, extending even to minute details of painting, such as the diagonal midrib of the leaves and the four stars in the field of the quatrefoil metopes. This krater could have been made in the same workshop that produced one of the finest large MG pyxides from Argos (no. C.43).34 Trench PA4: lot 11 also yielded pouring vessels, including the neck of an oinochoe with a window panel decorated with multiple zigzags (60) and the banded body of a squat oinochoe (61). At least one of the catalogued handle fragments that preserves a section of a trefoil rim must have come from an oinochoe as well (62).35 Two other decorated handles, one of which has holes from an ancient repair, belonged either to oinochoai or amphoras (63, 64).36 In addition, decorated body fragments, probably all from kraters, include an example with a hatched meander and zigzags (42), almost certainly from the same decorated krater discussed above (40); a fragment with a hatched zigzag, a motif introduced in the Argive repertoire in MG II (45); an example (44) with a quatrefoil metope similar to 40 but without the stars in the field; and a body fragment with horizontal strap handles (43). Also from trench PA4: lot 11 came a substantial collection of cooking pots (65–71). Two rim and handle fragments belong to large cooking vessels (65, 66), with the shoulder profile of 66 suggesting an ovoid or globular body. There are also two standard chytrai (67, 68), one of which has a ledge-­shaped rim and a sloping shoulder (68). Another smaller chytra with a complete upper-­body profile has a high flaring neck and a surface that displays ample evidence of burning (69). Two of seven Geometric cooking pots (65, 69) were selected for petrographic analysis, revealing a surprisingly homogeneous group characterized by igneous and metamorphic rocks, a fabric composition that suggests a common source outside the Argolid. Heather Graybehl has concluded that these cooking pots were all imports from Athens, a remarkable finding, since there are so few Attic decorated fine-­ware imports at Lerna in the Geometric period, and trade in utilitarian Attic cooking pots at this time is so poorly documented at other sites.37 The last ceramic item from trench PA4: lot 11 is what appears to be a pedestal foot from a large undecorated vessel in an anomalous gray fabric (70).38 As with the decorated stand fragments (6, 48), this pedestal raises the possibility of large vessels serving as tomb markers.39 Lastly, faunal remains from the two lots associated with tomb PA4:1 include bone fragments of sheep or goat, goat, pig, and cow, as well as oyster shells. Unfortunately, these remains are too fragmentary to provide any direct evidence for meat consumption at the tomb. 33. DeVries (1974, p. 90) followed Courbin (1966, p. 210) in setting the distinction between skyphos and krater at a rim Diam. of 0.23 m. By this criterion, our large skyphos with a rim Diam. of 0.206 m barely fails to qualify as a krater. But decoration is just as important as rim size in distinguishing these shapes: 49 is almost fully coated, as is typical for skyphoi, whereas another vessel of uncertain identification (79) has panel decoration more suitable for a krater, with specific decorative parallels in the Argive krater line. 34. Courbin 1966, no. C.43, pl. 79; Coldstream 1968, pp. 122–124, pl. 25:b. This group also includes kraters from Argos (Courbin 1966, nos. C.289, C.423, pl. 39). 35. There is another, almost intact, uncatalogued oinochoe handle from this lot that is almost identical to 62. These two handles establish a minimum count of two oinochoai for the

tomb group. 36. These holes along the break edge were provisions for a string repair, the earliest method of repairing pottery (Dooijes and Nieuwenhuyse 2007, p. 16). By the Geometric period, however, lead clamps had long presented an alternative to string repairs. Yet the two Geometric pots at Lerna with evidence for repairs both employed the string method (also 72). 37. Graybehl in Appendix I (pp. 404, 411–412). This sample of cooking pots contains two other uncatalogued fragments from trench PA4: lot 11. Possible Attic imports to Lerna in this period: 104, 751. 38. Jeremy Rutter (pers. comm.) raises the possibility that this is an import of northeastern Aegean gray ware. 39. Another large pedestal similar to 70 came from trench PB1 (106).

56

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

In conclusion, this is a fairly homogeneous collection in terms of date. Almost everything can be placed in MG I or MG II, with the exception of a krater pedestal (46) datable to EG II. This pedestal has only two ribs, and this number is chronologically significant, since these krater pedestals grow taller and acquire more ribs over time. There is only one complete published krater this early from the Argolid.40 With the exception of this krater pedestal, and possibly the decorated stand if it belongs as early as EG II (48), trench PA4: lots 11 and 16 present a consistent picture of an assemblage with a substantial number of MG I or MG II drinking vessels and the latest material (generally large open shapes) dating to MG II. If a single tomb was responsible for these lots, it had a substantial funerary collection, with 2 or more kraters, 1 clay imitation tripod or cauldron, 9 or 10 cups or skyphoi, 2 or more oinochoai, 1 possible neck-­handled amphora, 5 cooking pots, and perhaps 2 large vessels standing over the tomb as markers, for a possible total of at least 22 ceramic vessels. Given the associations of kraters and these specific drinking and pouring vessels with male burials elsewhere in the Argolid, this material corresponds nicely with the anthropological determination of a male occupant.41 Moreover, this presumptive burial assemblage can be dated to MG II (ca. 800–750), making it nearly contemporary with the three cist tombs in the adjacent trench (PA3:1–3) and slightly later than another pithos burial from the settlement area in trench D, discussed below. Even the burial container is informative in this case, providing clues to the often-­ complicated life cycle of pottery associated with funerary ritual (72). Matching rows of holes visible along the breaks are evidence that this jar had been repaired in antiquity, presumably before it was used as a burial container (see Fig. 46).42 This pithos was designed for heavy lifting from an upright position, as indicated by symmetrically placed vertical holes piercing the rim that would have accommodated ropes for raising and lowering the vessel when laden with staples (see Fig. 47). Finally, the body of this vessel is decorated with a raised band around the middle with an impressed chevron pattern. FINE OPEN SHAPES 40  Krater; rim and upper body Fig. 41 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Four joining fragments and two other nonjoining fragments. Partial vessel. H. of rim 0.015 m; Diam. 0.294 m, of rim 0.256 m. Light brown to orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4– 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and fine subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull dark reddish brown to black interior. Exterior rim has bands and row of dots. Shoulder window panel decorated with quatrefoil metope having diagonal midrib and hatched leaves; eight-­pointed star between each pair of leaves. Three vertical bars separate quatrefoil from central hatched meander. Three more vertical bars frame quatrefoil to left. Brown to black outside panel. Three bands below meander. 42 is probably from the same krater and has zigzag below these three bands and three more preserved lower bands. Everted thickened triangular collar rim with flat top 0.008 m wide decorated

with vertical bars and boxed Vs. Ovoid upper body. Shape and decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.43, C.289, C.423, pls. 39, 79; Coldstream 1968, pl. 25:b (large pyxis). MG II. Ca. 800–750.

40. It has three ribs (Courbin 1966, no. C.204, pl. 27; Coldstream 1968, p. 116). A similar Geometric krater pedestal with three preserved ribs came from the settlement area in Classical well BE (515). 41. On the gender associations of kraters and other vessel types, see the discussion above (pp. 42–43). 42. For this method of repair, see Dooijes and Nieuwen-

huyse 2007, p. 16. This kind of evidence addresses a concern of Hall’s (1997, p. 126), who in assessing the cost of pithos versus cist tombs, wondered whether “funerary pithoi were bought specifically for the purposes of the disposal or whether existing domestic pithoi were pressed into service.” The limited evidence of tomb PA4:1 suggests that domestic pithoi were recycled for funerary uses. See also below (pp. 105–106).

41  Krater(?); body fragment Fig. 41 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary vessel. Max. p. dim. 0.082 m; Th. of body 0.007 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4–7/6. Moderate fine sparkling and sparse fine subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull black interior. Exterior panel decorated in red with (from left to right) three preserved closely stacked zigzags, three vertical bars with pointed ends, a vertical row of dots, three more vertical bars, and three bands with ends attached to the rightmost bar. A band or red zone partially preserved above. Imported fabric. Context ca. 800–750.



TRENCH PA4

57

40

41

45

46

42

47 43

44

48

Figure 41. Geometric kraters, ring handle, and stand from PA4: lot 16. Scale 1:3

58

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

42  Krater; body Fig. 41 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary body. Max. p.dim. 0.076 m; Th. of body 0.006–0.008 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Moderate fine voids and sparse fine round dark gray and subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull dark brown interior. Exterior panel decorated with hatched meander. Three vertical bars frame panel to right. Three bands below meander, zigzag, and three more preserved lower bands. 40 is probably from same krater. MG II. Ca. 800–750. 43  Krater; handle and body Fig. 41 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Partial handle. Max. p.dim. 0.103 m; Th. of body 0.0085 m. Orangish brown to pale brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4 to 10YR 7/4. Moderate small voids but no visible inclusions. Dull dark brown to black interior. Exterior has fugitive bands. Horizontal strap handle, elliptical in section, with spur on end and decorated on outer face with vertical bars framed above and below by double bands. Context ca. 800–750. 44  Krater; body Fig. 41 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary body. Max. p.dim. 0.062 m; Th. of body 0.005 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull black interior. Exterior panel decorated with quatrefoil metope having diagonal midrib and hatched leaves, with hatching passing across midrib. Seven preserved vertical bars frame quatrefoil to left. Two preserved bands above quatrefoil and bars. Decoration: Courbin 1966, no. C.289, pl. 39. MG II. Ca. 800–750. 45  Krater; body Fig. 41 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary body. Max. p.dim. 0.078 m; Th. of body 0.005 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Moderate fine voids but no visible inclusions. Dull black interior and exterior. Window panel decorated with five preserved closely stacked zigzags. Seven vertical bars frame zigzags to right, and two vertical bars frame zigzags to left, with a hatched vertical motif to left of two bars. Three bands above zigzags. Above these bands a hatched zigzag and one more preserved band. Similar decoration to 5. MG II. Ca. 800–750. Fig. 41 46  Krater; pedestal foot Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Two joining fragments. Substantial pedestal. Diam. of pedestal 0.130 m (max. p.), of pedestal at junction with body 0.102 m. Light brown to orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4– 7/4. Sparse fine white round, sparse fine white angular, and sparse small round reddish brown inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Semilustrous black interior and exterior, with underside of pedestal reserved. Two ribs just below junction of body and pedestal. Orangish brown slip 7.5YR 7/4 on

underside of pedestal. Flaring pedestal foot. Coldstream’s (1968, p. 18) type II krater. Shape and decoration: Courbin 1966, no. C.204, pl. 27. Similar shape to 515. EG II. Ca. 875–825. 47  Tripod or cauldron; ring handle Fig. 41 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 16). Partial handle. Max. p.dim. 0.065 m; Diam. of ring 0.110 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Vertical ring handle, triangular in section, with dull black on two faces and bands on the third face. Context ca. 800–750. 48  Large vessel, fenestrated stand Fig. 41 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary stand. Max. p. dim. 0.076 m; Th. of stand 0.012 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling, moderate fine subangular black, moderate small round reddish black, and small subangular white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Finished surfaces on front, back, bottom edge, left concave edge, and right concave edge (broken top). Bows slightly, with a slightly convex front. Flat bottom 0.088 m wide. Dull reddish brown on left and right edges. Front surface decorated with bands, zone of diagonals, and cross-­hatched lozenge chain. Yellowish pale brown slip 10YR 8/4 exterior. Identical shape and decoration to 6 (and probably from the same vessel). EG II or MG I. Ca. 875–800. 49  Skyphos; rim, handle, and upper to Fig. 42 lower body Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Five joining fragments. Substantial vessel. H. of rim 0.014 m; Diam. 0.221 m, of rim 0.206 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling, fine round red, and fine subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull black interior and exterior, with zone between handle roots reserved. Interior rim has reserved band at top decorated with vertical bars. Exterior rim has reserved band at top. Inset everted rim and squat ovoid body. Upswung horizontal handle, rounded in section, with black on outer face. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, pl. 56; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 50  Mastos cup; rim to lower body Fig. 42 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Substantial vessel. H. of rim 0.008 m; Diam. 0.116 m, of rim 0.104 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and subangular dark gray to black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull brown to black interior and exterior. Interior and exterior rim has reserved band near top. Shoulder window panel between mastoi decorated with eight-­ pointed stars alternating with vertical bars, with rays of stars touching frame. Seven or eight bars between stars. Four bands below stars and bars. Brown to black on lower body and outside panel. Inset everted rim and squat ovoid body. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.837,

49

50

55 51

56 52

57

53 58

54 Figure 42. MG cups and skyphoi from PA4: lot 11. Scale 1:3

59

60

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

C.59, pl. 56 (skyphoi); 1974, p. 30, no. C.59, T.14/2, pl. 26 (skyphos), p. 49, no. C.837, T.90/2, pl. 33 (skyphos); Coldstream 1968, p. 120, pl. 24:e (skyphos). Similar shape and decoration to 52 and 129. MG I. Ca. 830–800. 51  Cup; rim to lower body Fig. 42 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Substantial vessel. H. of rim 0.008 m; Diam. 0.100 m, of rim 0.090 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and subangular white inclusions. Dull black interior. Interior rim has reserved band at top decorated with vertical bars. Exterior rim has band near top. Shoulder panel decorated with two hatched horizontal double lines. Four preserved vertical bars frame panel to left. Two bands below double lines and black on lower body. Inset upright rim and squat ovoid body. Shape and decoration: Courbin 1966, no. C.2530, pl. 76; 1974, pp. 80–81, nos. C.2530, C.2531, pl. 47. MG I. Ca. 830–800. Fig. 42 52  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Partial vessel. Diam. 0.120 m (max. p.), of rim 0.114 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull black interior. Interior rim has reserved band at top. Exterior rim has bands. Shoulder panel decorated with eight-­pointed stars alternating with vertical bars, with rays of stars touching frame. Nine bars between stars. One star has extra vertical stroke (ten-­pointed star). Two preserved bands below stars and bars. Everted rim and ovoid upper body. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.837, C.59, pl. 56 (skyphoi); 1974, p. 30, no. C.59, T.14/2, pl. 26 (skyphos), p. 49, no. C.837, T.90/2, pl. 33 (skyphos); Coldstream 1968, p. 120, pl. 24:e (skyphos). Similar shape and decoration to 50 and 129. MG I. Ca. 830–800. 53  Cup; almost complete profile Fig. 42 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Two joining fragments. Substantial vessel. H. 0.061 m, of rim 0.0075 m; Diam. 0.104 m, of rim 0.091 m, of base 0.060 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine voids but no visible inclusions. Dull black interior and exterior. Interior rim has reserved band at top. Resting surface and underside of base reserved. Inset upright rim, squat ovoid body, and slightly raised and hollowed base with concave profile underneath. Shape: Courbin 1966, no. C.35, pl. 71. MG. Ca. 830–750. 54  Cup; rim, handle, and upper to Fig. 42 lower body Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Substantial vessel. H. of rim 0.007 m; Diam. 0.110 m, of rim 0.092 m. Orangish brown to pale brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4 to 10YR 7/4. Sparse small round light gray to white and small subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Semilustrous black interior and exterior. Exterior rim has reserved band near top. Slightly everted rim and squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, with black on inner

face near roots and horizontal bars on outer face. Top of handle attaching outside rim and upper body. Shape: Courbin 1966, no. C.35, pl. 71. MG. Ca. 830–750. Fig. 42 55  Cup; rim, handle, and upper body Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.009 m; Diam. 0.100 m, of rim 0.098 m. Orangish brown to pale brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4 to 10YR 7/4. Sparse fine voids but no visible inclusions. Dull black interior and exterior. Interior and exterior rim has reserved band near top. Everted rim and ovoid upper body. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, with horizontal bars on outer face. Top of handle attaching outside rim. Shape: Courbin 1966, no. C.35, pl. 71. MG. Ca. 830–750. 56  Skyphos; rim, handle root, and Fig. 42 upper body Tomb PA4:1 (lot 16). Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.012 m; Diam. 0.162 m (max. p.), of rim 0.145 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 6/4. Sparse fine sparkling and fine subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull black interior and exterior, with zone between handle roots reserved. Interior and exterior rim has reserved band near top. Inset slightly everted rim and ovoid upper body. Horizontal handle root, ovoid in section, without preserved paint. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, pl. 56; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 57  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Fig. 42 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 16). Partial vessel. H. of rim 0.006 m; Diam. 0.108 m, of rim 0.095 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine round white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull dark brown to black interior and exterior. Interior and exterior rim has reserved band near top. Low slightly everted rim and ovoid upper body. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, C.35, pls. 56, 71; Coldstream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 58  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Fig. 42 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 16). Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.009 m; Diam. 0.131 m, of rim 0.125 m. Pale yellow fabric 2.5Y 7/4. No visible inclusions. Dull black interior and exterior. Inset everted rim and ovoid upper body. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.35, C.2478, C.2477, C.838, C.837, C.59, pls. 56, 71; Cold­ stream 1968, pl. 24:e, g. MG. Ca. 830–750. 59  Cup; base and lower body Fig. 42 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 16). Partial base. Diam. 0.081 m (max. p.), of base 0.054 m. Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. Sparse small light gray round inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Dull black interior and exterior. Resting surface and underside of base reserved. Hollowed base with slightly concave profile underneath. Context ca. 800–750.



TRENCH PA4

61

60

61

63

64

62 Figure 43. Geometric oinochoai and possible amphoras from PA4: lot 11. Scale 1:3

FINE CLOSED SHAPES 60  Oinochoe; neck and upper body Fig. 43 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Two nonjoining fragments. Substantial neck. Diam. 0.096 m (max. p.), of neck at junction with shoulder 0.074 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse small round gray inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull dark brown to black exterior. Neck window panel decorated with six closely stacked zigzags. Two preserved bands frame panel above, and two bands frame panel below. Slightly flaring neck. Shape and decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.458, C.65, C.4556, pls. 20, 22, 114. Decoration: Coldstream 1968, pls. 23:a, 24:c, d, f; Courbin 1974, p. 29, C.51, T.14/1, pl. 26. EG II or MG I. Ca. 875–800.

61  Oinochoe; body Fig. 43 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Substantial body. Diam. 0.180 m; Th. of body 0.006 m. Reddish brown to orangish brown fabric 5YR 7/6 to 7.5YR 7/4. Moderate small round light gray, small subangular black, and small subangular reddish black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Dull dark brown to black exterior, with reserved zone at shoulder decorated with two bands and reserved zone at lower body decorated with two preserved bands. Globular body. Shape and decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.458, C.65, pls. 20, 22; Coldstream 1968, pls. 23:a, 24:c. EG II or MG I. Ca. 875–800.

62

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

62  Oinochoe; handle Fig. 43 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Intact handle. Max. p.dim. 0.148 m. Light reddish brown to orangish brown fabric 5YR 7/4 to 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and subangular red inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Flaring rim and sloping shoulder. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, with horizontal bars on outer face. Top of handle attaching outside rim. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.829, C.2473, pl. 110. EG or MG I. Ca. 900–800. amphora or oinochoe; Fig. 43 63  Neck-­handled handle Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Substantial handle. Max. p.dim. 0.080 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Sparse small white round and black subangular inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m).

Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, with horizontal bars on outer face. Holes at preserved ends for ancient repair (Diam. 0.003 m). Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.829, C.2473, pl. 110. EG or MG I. Ca. 900–800. 64  Neck-­handled amphora or oinochoe; Fig. 43 handle Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Substantial handle. Max. p.dim. 0.095 m. Orangish brown to pale brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4 to 10YR 7/4. Sparse fine voids but no visible inclusions. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, decorated on outer face with two hatched double vertical lines separated by vertical bar and framed by horizontal bars near junction of handle and rim or neck. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.204, C.459, C.835, pl. 110. EG or MG I. Ca. 900–800.

COARSE AND COOK ING SHAPES 65  Cooking pot; rim and handle Fig. 44 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary rim. Diam. of rim 0.270 m. Brown to grayish brown fabric 5YR 5/4 to 10YR 5/2. Dense small to medium black angular (max. Diam. 0.003 m), dense small to medium quartz (max. Diam. 0.002 m), and moderate brown subangular inclusions. Cooking-­ware fabric. Polished surface. Handmade. Everted thickened triangular collar rim with flat top 0.011 m wide. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, attaching outside rim. Round impression where handle meets rim. Possible Attic import (fabric). Context ca. 800–750. 66  Cooking pot; rim, handle, and neck Fig. 44 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Two joining fragments. Fragmentary rim. Diam. 0.207 m (max. p.), of rim 0.204 m. Reddish brown to brown fabric 5YR 6/6 to 10YR 5/3. Sparse small sparkling, sparse small gold mica, moderate small round light gray, moderate small subangular dark gray to black, sparse small subangular reddish black, moderate small quartz, and moderate angular light gray inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Cooking-­ ware fabric. Polished surface. Handmade. Flaring rim and low concave neck. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, attaching outside rim. Context ca. 800–750. 67  Chytra; rim and neck Fig. 44 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary rim. Diam. of rim 0.170 m. Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. Moderate small subangular black, small quartz, and subangular light gray inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Cooking-­ware fabric. Polished surface. Handmade. Plain rim and low flaring neck. Context ca. 800–750.

Fig. 44 68  Chytra; rim, neck, and upper body Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary rim. Diam. 0.176 m (max. p.), of rim 0.154 m. Brown to pale brown fabric 10YR 5/3–6/4. Sparse fine sparkling, moderate small to medium subangular light brown, sparse small subangular white, and moderate small subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Cooking-­ware fabric. Polished surface. Handmade. Projecting ledge-­shaped rim, tapering neck, and gradual transition to ovoid upper body. Context ca. 800–750. 69  Small chytra; rim, neck, and upper body Fig. 44 Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Partial vessel. Diam. 0.082 m, of rim 0.080 m. Dark gray fabric 10YR 4/1, with reddish brown core 5YR 6/6. Sparse small silver mica, quartz, sparse small to medium round white (max. Diam. 0.003 m), and moderate small subangular dark gray inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Cooking-­ware fabric. Untreated surface. Handmade. Plain rim, high flaring neck, and plump ovoid upper body. Surface blackened from secondary burning. Possible Attic import (fabric). Context ca. 800–750. Fig. 44 70  Large vessel, pedestal foot Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary pedestal. Diam. of base 0.192 m. Grayish brown fabric 2.5Y 5/2. Moderate small subangular dark gray and black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Medium-­coarse fabric. Polished surface. Dull gray slip 7.5YR 5/1. Tapering pedestal and flaring foot. Similar shape to 106. Context ca. 800–750. Fig. 44 71  Large vessel; handle and body Tomb PA4:1 (lot 11). Fragmentary vessel. Max. p.dim. 0.110 m; Th. of body 0.006 m.



TRENCH PA4

63

65

66

67

70

68

71 69 Figure 44. Geometric cooking pots, chytrai, and large coarse vessels from PA4: lot 11. Scale 1:3

Pale brown fabric 10YR 6/4–7/4. Sparse small sub­ angular white and dense small dark gray to black subangular inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Medium-­coarse fabric. Polished surface. Yellowish pale brown slip 10YR 8/3. Handle ovoid in section. Similar shape to 125. Context ca. 800–750. 72  Pithos; complete profile Figs. 45, 46, 47 Tomb PA4:1. L.1702. Many joining fragments. Almost intact vessel. H. 1.30 m, of toe 0.060 m; Diam. 0.750 m, of rim 0.465 m, of toe 0.115 m.

Reddish brown to orangish brown fabric 5YR 6/6 to 7.5YR 7/6. Large angular brown inclusions (max. Diam. 0.007 m). Coarse-­ware fabric. Polished surface, particularly evident on shoulder. Orangish brown slip 7.5YR 7/6. Handmade. Flaring rim, high cylindrical neck, gradual transition to slender ovoid body, and toe with torus molding. Raised band around middle of body with impressed chevrons. Four symmetrically placed holes along rim for rope insertion (Diam. 0.007 m). Larger matching holes along breaks on body for ancient repair (Diam. 0.009 m). Context ca. 800–750.

64

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 46. Pithos container 72 from MG II

tomb PA4:1, showing repair holes. Scale 1:5

Figure 45. Pithos container 72 from MG II

Figure 47. Pithos container 72 from MG II

tomb PA4:1. Scale 1:10

tomb PA4:1, showing lift holes. Scale 1:2

TRENCH PA5 Trench PA5 was another that contained only one tomb, but unfortunately it was not as well preserved as tomb PA4:1. Tomb PA5:1 is a cist grave (0.50 × 0.90 m and 0.32 m deep) found in the scarp of the German ditch approximately 1 m below the surface. As with tomb PA3:4, this grave required an extension of trench PA5 to define the edges and fully excavate (Fig. 48). Tomb PA5:1 is oriented roughly in line with the trench but pointing slightly more to the east. Cover slabs (Th. 0.07 m) suggest that the grave had built sides, but only a large header and footer slab were found in place (Figs. 49–51). The sidewalls must have been constructed of an ephemeral material such as mud brick, or else the cover slabs would have lacked support and this grave would not have withstood the reuse implied by Angel’s study of the skeletal remains. Excavators revealed what they thought was a single skeleton lying roughly northeast–southwest and possibly facing southeast. They also observed burned matter outside the grave to the north but unfortunately found no pottery in association with this burned layer or the grave. Although the excavators were able to discern only one inhumation, Angel ascertained from the skeletal material that there were three occupants in this small and apparently crowded cist tomb. He identified the first as a 24-­year-­old female of average muscularity and short stature (1.53 m), with the mouth showing no lesions and slight tooth wear (Fig. 52). The second occupant was also determined to be female, a young



TRENCH PA5

65

Figure 49. Geometric cist tomb PA5:1, from northwest, showing

cover slabs in place. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 50. Geometric cist tomb PA5:1, from northwest, showing cover slabs removed to reveal skeleton. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 48. Plan of Pontinos cemetery

trench PA5

66

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 51. Notebook drawings of Geometric cist tomb PA5:1, showing cover slabs

in place (left) and cover slabs removed to reveal skeleton (right)

Figure 52. Skull of older female occupant from Geometric cist tomb PA5:1. Lerna II, p. 67, no. 230, pl. 1

individual who was shorter than the previous occupant (the tibial plateau exhibited only slight retroversion). Angel identified the third occupant as a child seven or eight years old and possibly a boy, with the age determination based on dental evidence, the fact that the lower first molar and first incisor had erupted, and the second incisor was about to erupt.43

TRENCH PA6 Tomb PA6:1, the only burial found in trench PA6, was an undisturbed pithos grave discovered as the excavators were walking up and down the German ditch (Fig. 53). The shoulder of the pithos must have been barely visible in the scarp, prompting the excavators to extend the trench in a small rectangle. From a photograph showing a workman excavating this pithos, we can infer that it lay buried under at least a meter of sediment, with looser topsoil occupying the top third portion of the scarp (Fig. 54). This small pithos was found resting on its side and oriented with the mouth facing south-­southwest, roughly in line with the trench but slightly more south. The reconstructed jar measures 0.69 × 0.97 m, but the crushed and flattened remains in situ yielded a smaller burial, 0.65 m long rather than 0.97 m. A stone slab covered the mouth of this jar. While cleaning, the excavators discovered five pots and a bronze fibula in a compact group in the bottom half of the pithos (Figs. 55–58). The pottery assemblage consists of decorated equipment for wine pouring and drinking (a 43. Lerna II, p. 67, nos. 230 (adult woman), 230a (young female), 230b (child), pl. 1. The child should perhaps be seen as slightly younger than Angel’s estimate, between five and seven years old, in accord with more recent interpretations of such dental evidence. The presence of a child in a cist tomb might set Lerna apart from Argos, where children occasionally

appear in such tombs in the early stages of the Geometric period but never in the 8th century (Foley 1988, p. 35). But without knowing the date of tomb PA5:1, we cannot assess the significance of a child in a cist with respect to funerary preferences at Argos.



TRENCH PA6

67

krater, a large kantharos, a cup, and an oinochoe), as well as a cooking jar. The massive fibula, clearly visible in Figure 57, lay more or less in the middle of the pottery cluster. It is decorated with an engraved bird on each side of the catch plate and had been repaired before it was deposited in the grave (73). Other bronze objects found near the fibula and among the pots include two thin bronze rings (74, 75), presumably for fingers, and a third bronze hoop that was identified by its excavators as an earring but is more likely another finger ring (76).44 In addition, near the foot of the pithos came two iron objects, one with biconical swelling, identified by DeVries as dress pins (77, 78). The excavators also found two tooth fragments between and below the pots. Angel identified these fragments, a small occiput and a newly formed first molar crown, as belonging to a young child, possibly 18 months old.45 Although there was no evidence to determine the sex, the occupant of tomb PA6:1 has entered the literature as a girl based on the iron dress pins and the assumption that such fastenings signal female dress. DeVries concluded that the iron pins secured a peplos, traditionally characterized as a feminine garment.46 The bronze fibula would then have been used to fasten an overgarment, a himation, an article of clothing without specific gender connotations. Susan Langdon, however, has questioned this traditional linkage between items of feminine dress and the identity of the deceased in tomb PA6:1, although she focused on the fibula rather than the peplos pins on which DeVries based the sex identification. The fibula (0.10 m long pin), Langdon wryly observed, “would be lethal in a toddler’s hands.”47 She wondered whether it served as a fastener not for ordinary dress but for the funerary shroud. Another alterative she suggested is that the fibula was the personal item of an adult female mourner and left as a gift for the child. Although they have gone unnoticed in this context, the finger rings also pose problems for the traditional identification of grave goods as personal items of the deceased. The rings in tomb PA6:1 are simply too large to have fit a toddler’s fingers; it is also telling that parallels for size in the Argolid have come from adult burials.48 44. As DeVries (1974, p. 81) recognized. The flat rings 74 and 75 with tremolo decoration closely resemble six rings worn by the individual in grave XXIII at Tiryns, for which see Verdelis 1963, p. 35; Foley 1988, p. 85. 45. Lerna II, p. 67, no. 231. 46. DeVries 1974, p. 82. Jacobsthal (1956, p. 95) also connected such pins with female dress during the PG period and after, based on evidence from vase painting and Athenian graves with pins in which the sex of the deceased could be determined from skeletal remains or inferred from other grave goods. Kilian-­Dirlmeier (1984, pp. 82–83), followed by Lemos (2002, p. 158), endorsed this view and associated pins with female burials in the Argolid. Foley (1988, p. 81), however, was skeptical of these claimed connections between pins and women and was able to cite at least one LG II male burial at Argos with pins (T.175). Regarding the iron objects in PA6:1, DeVries (1974, pp. 88–89) was less confident in identifying 77, with its peculiar projecting arm, as a dress pin. Perhaps this is an iron “T-­pin” as defined by Jacobsthal (1956, p. 141) and Kilian-­Dirlmeier (1984, pp. 147–150, type 18). For examples from a MG II tomb at Argos, see Courbin 1974, pp. 21–22, nos. F7:1, 2, pl. 22. But I wonder if it is not an iron obelos. For the more general problem of distinguishing pins and spits, see Foley 1988, pp. 82–83. 47. Langdon 2008, p. 63. 48. Foley (1988, p. 85) glossed over this problem by assuming that the child in tomb PA6:1 was wearing the rings. Ring 74 has a Diam. of 0.014–0.016 m, while ring 75, although broken, can be reconstructed from preserved sections as a slightly smaller ring (Diam. 0.012–0.013 m). Although burials with such rings from the Argolid seem to have belonged to adults, DeVries (1974, p. 90) noted similar rings in a child’s grave at

Eretria, which their excavator (Bérard 1970, p. 35, no. 14:2, pls. 11, 45) interpreted as bracelets for the child. PA6:1 presents an interesting mix of objects with feminine and/or adult associations—finger rings, dress pins, and a large fibula—and objects conceivably signaling masculine identity (krater and kantharos). For the masculine associations of the kantharos, at least in 9th-­century Athenian burials, see Coldstream 1977, p. 76. My reasons for identifying 79 as a krater, and not a large skyphos as DeVries (1974, p. 90) suggested, are given above (n. 33). Perhaps relevant in explaining the apparent discrepancy in this tomb between grave goods appropriate for an older female and offerings appropriate for a male child is a recent argument for the “Rich Athenian Lady” burial having another occupant in addition to the adult female known from the original publication. Through restudy of the skeletal remains, Liston and Papadopoulos (2004, pp. 28–32) identified a prenatal or newborn child and persuasively reinterpreted objects in this tomb with masculine associations (including a neck-­handled amphora) as markers of this child’s status. See also Langdon 2008, pp. 64, 142. Might tomb PA6:1 have also contained the body of an older female in addition to the child attested by the meager skeletal remains (two teeth in total)? This suggestion should not be pressed too far, since pithos PA6:1 seems too small to have contained an adult inhumation. Hägg (1974, p. 141) compared it to another small pithos burial (0.40 m long), presumably of a child, at Mycenae (Desborough 1954, p. 265). Its only grave good was an oinochoe of Argive monochrome fabric. Although PA6:1 is probably best understood as a single child’s grave, its contents certainly leave many questions unanswered and challenge traditional notions of appropriate gender categories for ceramic and metal offerings.

68

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 54. LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1, from southeast, showing workman standing near trench scarp. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 55. LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1, from above and oriented

northwest, showing trench scarp. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 53. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trench PA6

Figure 56. LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1, from above and

oriented northeast. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives



TRENCH PA6

69

Figure 58. Notebook drawing of LG I–II

pithos tomb PA6:1 Figure 57. LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1, from above and

oriented southwest. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

The pottery assemblage has been extensively studied, first by Paul Courbin and Nicholas Coldstream, and it played an important role in early attempts to define the Argive transition from LG I to LG II (79–84). The extensive descriptions in the catalogues prepared by DeVries make detailed comments unnecessary here. One theme worth stressing, however, is the connection between the Lerna material and Argive Geometric pot painters. In particular, the krater’s (79) central scene of battling horses with a man interposed is a classical composition of Argive LG, and the rendering of the Lerna example associates it with a particular painter known from works found at Argos, Coldstream’s Painter of the Sparring Horses.49 Based on this and another transitional LG I–II pot in the grave (80), tomb PA6:1 can be securely dated to around 740–720.50 Finally, DeVries has mustered strong arguments for considering the bronze fibula in the grave (73) an import from a Theban workshop, making it one of the few direct signs of contact between Boiotia and the Argolid.51 METAL OBJECTS Figs. 59, 60 73  Bronze fibula Tomb PA6:1. L5.564. Intact fibula. H.  0.054  m; L. 0.101 m. Plate H. 0.032 m; W. 0.033 m. Weight 22.6 g. Published: DeVries 1974, pp. 86–88, no. 7, pls. 15, 16:a, b. Pin generally round in section; near spring it acquires four faces. Spring has two loops. Stem retains four faces and flares. Biconical bead between stem and bow, with reel molding at end of bow. Bow has raised ribs. Biconical bead between bow and plate, framed on

either side by a sharp reel molding. Incised vertical lozenge chain in double outline on two outer faces of stem. Plate has isolated bird incised on each side, one facing straight and the other turning its head back. Birds have incised lines along neck and closely packed tremolo lines on body. Incised double lines frame sides and top, with single line at bottom and three triangles at corner adjoining the bow. Ancient repair on lower part of stem. Context ca. 740–720.

49. Coldstream (1968, pp. 133–134) delineated this workshop style and listed examples found at Tiryns as well as Argos. His list does not include the Lerna krater. For its affinities to the Painter of the Sparring Horses, see DeVries 1974, pp. 90–91. 50. From the evidence of pottery styles represented at the Sicilian colony of Megara Hyblaia (traditionally founded in 728), DeVries (1974, p. 92) offered an even narrower date range of 728–720 for the transitional LG I to LG II Argive pottery. This strikes me as far more precise than the evidence will allow. 51. Fibulae are not at all common in Geometric graves in the

Argolid; rather, local taste seems to have favored so-­called Doric dress pins. In fact, tomb PA6:1 is one of a handful of graves in the Argolid with a fibula (Foley 1988, p. 84). Another context where fibulae appear on the Argive Plain is the Heraion sanctuary, where excavations recovered three examples attributable to Boiotian workshops (DeVries 1974, p. 98). But against the view that most if not all fibulae in the Argolid were imports, Kilian (1979) and Foley (1988, p. 84) maintained that some fibulae of Boiotian style, including the Lerna example, were products of a local workshop. Hall (1995, p. 607) accepted this argument, although I do not find it convincing.

74

73

76

77

75

78

Figure 59. Bronze fibula, rings, hoop, and iron pins or spits from LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1. Scale 1:1

Figure 60. Detail of bronze fibula 73 from LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1, showing engraved

catch plate. Scale 2:1



TRENCH PA6

74  Bronze ring Fig. 59 Tomb PA6:1. L5.565a. Intact ring. H. 0.005 m; max. Diam. 0.016 m; min. Diam. 0.014 m; Th. 0.0005 m; Wt. 0.7 g. Published: DeVries 1974, p. 89, no. 10, pl. 16:e. Strip bent to form a flattened hoop, with one end overlapping the other. Incised zigzag in tremolo line around the outside. Similar shape and decoration to 75. Context ca. 740–720. 75  Bronze ring Fig. 59 Tomb PA6:1. L5.565b. Four joining fragments. Intact ring. H. 0.004 m; max. Diam. 0.013 m; min. Diam. 0.012 m; Th. 0.0005 m; Wt. 0.3 g. Published: DeVries 1974, pp. 89–90, no. 11, pl. 16:e. Incised zigzag in tremolo line around the outside. Similar shape and decoration to 74. Context ca. 740–720.

71

76  Bronze hoop Fig. 59 Tomb PA6:1. L5.565c. Substantial hoop. Diam. 0.013 m (max. p.); Th. 0.0005 m; Wt. 0.1 g. Published: DeVries 1974, p. 90, no. 12, pl. 16:e. Thin wire bent into a curve, round in section. Context ca. 740–720. 77  Iron pin or spit Fig. 59 Tomb PA6:1. L5.860. Partial shank. L. 0.046 m (max. p.); Diam. of shank 0.005 m; projecting arm W. 0.018 m; Wt. 3.8 g. Published: DeVries 1974, p. 88, no. 9, pl. 16:d. Context ca. 740–720. 78  Iron pin or spit Fig. 59 Tomb PA6:1. L5.859. Partial shank. Preserved L. 0.056 m; Diam. of shank 0.005 m; Wt. 5.4 g. Published: DeVries 1974, p. 88, no. 8, pl. 16:d. Biconical swelling Diam. 0.008 m. Context ca. 740–720.

FINE OPEN SHAPES 79  Krater Fig. 61 Tomb PA6:1. L.670. Argos Museum 267. Many joining fragments. Intact vessel. H. 0.132 m, of rim 0.021 m, of base 0.006 m; Diam. 0.216 m, of rim 0.206 m, of base 0.092 m. Published: Caskey 1956, p. 172, pl. 48:d (but identified as a large skyphos); DeVries 1974, p. 83, no. 1, pl. 13. Yellowish pale brown fabric 10YR 8/3, with yellowish green tint 2.5Y 8/2. Sparse fine sparkling and small white and gray inclusions, with spalling on surface (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Dull dark brown to black interior. Interior rim has reserved zone decorated with two bands. Exterior rim has bands and row of dots. Shoulder panel decorated at center with two antithetical horses and a man between; chevrons below the bellies of the horses, and traces of subsidiary corner panels above their backs. Three vertical bars separate central horses from three diagonally hatched vertical zigags. Three more vertical bars separate vertical zigzags from four horizontal Ms or short zigzags. Three more vertical bars frame panel. Brown to black outside panel. Bands and row of dots on lower body and band on outer face of base. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved. Everted rim with concave profile, squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder, and low ring foot. Upswung horizontal rope handles, rounded in section, with spurs on ends and brown to black on outer face. Shape: Courbin 1966, no. MN.230, pl. 30. Decoration: Courbin 1966, no. C.870, pl. 62 (skyphos). Transitional LG I–II. Ca. 740–720. Fig. 61 80  Kantharos Tomb PA6:1. L.669. Argos Museum 226. Many joining fragments. Intact vessel. H. 0.121 m, of rim 0.015 m, of base 0.007 m; Diam. 0.183 m, of rim 0.166 m, of base 0.085 m.

Published: Caskey 1956, p. 172, pl. 48:c; DeVries 1974, pp. 83–84, no. 2, pl. 14. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/6. Sparse fine sparkling and small white and gray inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Dull brown to black interior. Interior rim has reserved band at top decorated with clusters of 12 vertical bars. Exterior rim has bands. Shoulder panel decorated with row of vertical four-­bar sigmas. Vertical bars frame sigmas. Twelve bars around handle zone between sigmas. Three bands below sigmas. Brown to black on lower body, outer face of base, and resting surface. Inner face of base and underside of base reserved. Use of a multiple brush with a component of 12. Slightly everted rim, squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder, and low ring foot. Vertical strap handles, elliptical in section, with horizontal bars on outer face. Top of handle attaching outside rim. Shape and decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.2521, C.252, pl. 60; Deshayes 1966, pl. 52:1, 3 (except ours has a more articulated foot). Transitional LG I–II. Ca. 740–720. 81  Cup Fig. 61 Tomb PA6:1. L.668. Argos Museum 226. Intact vessel. H. 0.043 m, of rim 0.006 m; Diam. 0.076 m, of rim 0.070 m, of base 0.034 m. Published: Caskey 1956, p. 172, pl. 48:f; DeVries 1974, pp. 84–85, no. 4, pl. 14. Reddish brown to orangish brown fabric 5YR 7/6 to 7.5YR 7/6. Sparse fine sparkling and small white, gray, and black inclusions, with spalling on surface (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Red interior. Exterior rim has broad irregular band. Reserved zone at shoulder decorated with vertical strokes of varying height and form, with vertical bars near handle. Three bands below vertical strokes and bars, with red on lower body, outer face of base, and resting surface. Underside of base reserved. Inset evert-

79

80

81

82

83

Figure 61. Krater, kantharos, cup, oinochoe, and cooking pot from LG I–II pithos tomb PA6:1. Scale 1:3



TRENCH PB1

ed rim, squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder, and slightly raised base. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, with red on outer face. Top of handle attaching

73

outside rim. Shape and decoration: Courbin 1974, no. C.2302, pl. 41. LG I. Ca. 750–730.

FINE CLOSED SHAPE 82  Trefoil oinochoe Fig. 61 Tomb PA6:1. L.671. Argos Museum 268. Intact vessel. H. 0.117 m; Diam. 0.097 m, of rim 0.041 m, of base 0.052 m. Published: Caskey 1956, p. 172, pl. 48:g; DeVries 1974, p. 84, no. 3, pl. 14. Light brown to orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4– 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and small white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Brown to black interior. Exterior rim has bands and reserved zone decorated with row of dots. Body has bands and reserved zone at shoulder decorated with

rounded dotted lozenges and reserve zone above belly decorated with zigag. Brown on outer face of base. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved and decorated with three incised concentric circles. Use of a multiple brush with a component of four. Flaring trefoil rim, cylindrical neck, globular almost biconical body, and low ring foot. Vertical strap handle, ovoid in section, with horizontal bars on outer face framed by vertical lines on side faces. Top of handle attaching at rim. LG I. Ca 750–730.

COARSE AND COOK ING SHAPES 83  Cooking pot Fig. 61 Tomb PA6:1. L.667. Argos Museum 1099. Three joining fragments. Intact vessel. H. 0.093 m; Diam. 0.084 m, of rim 0.073 m. Published: Caskey 1956, p. 172, pl. 48:e; DeVries 1974, pp. 85–86, no. 5, pl. 14. Light brown to orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4– 7/6, with dark gray tint 7.5YR 4/1. Sparse fine silver mica, small round quartz, and small angular white and black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Polished surface. Handmade. Plain rim, high flaring neck, globular body, and rounded base. Vertical handle, rounded in section, looping high above rim and attaching at rim. Surface blackened from secondary burning on side opposite handle. Context ca. 740–720. 84  Pithos Fig. 62 Tomb PA6:1. L1703. Many joining fragments. Almost intact vessel. H. 0.965 m; Diam. 0.675 m, of rim 0.415 m, of base 0.130 m. Published: Caskey 1956, p. 171, pl. 48:b; DeVries 1974, p. 86, no. 6, pl. 12:b. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4–7/6. Moderate large angular brown and reddish brown inclusions (max. Diam. 0.005 m). Polished surface. Handmade. Projecting ledge-­shaped rim, low concave-­flaring neck, ovoid body, and raised base. Context ca. 740–720.

Figure 62. Pithos container 84 from LG I–II

tomb PA6:1. Scale 1:10

TRENCH PB1 American excavators followed the line of a second ditch, presumably another German earthwork, oriented east–west and located to the west of the diagonal section excavated as trenches PA3–PA6. This second ditch was located up the slope of Pontinos to the north, and trenches within it were labeled from east to west PB1–PB3. Since the westernmost trench contained

74

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 63. Mt. Pontinos, from southwest, showing trenches PB. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

no reported archaeological information, only trenches PB1 and PB2 are plotted in Figure 25. A general view of the PB trenches appears in Figure 63, a photograph taken from down the slope and looking northeast, with the sea visible on the far right and indicating almost due east. This photograph shows two workmen in the ditch to the left and three others at a higher elevation who are opening a northern extension to trench PB1, with what the excavators termed the “southern” wall embedded in the scarp.52 This trench is the only one to preserve architecture other than tomb structures. The first wall (the southern wall), visible here and in another photograph (Fig. 64), is constructed of large fieldstones preserved for only one course and is directly on line with the northern side of the trench, its southern face forming a border. After the excavators extended trench PB1 by opening a large rectangle on the north side with a projecting square in the northeastern corner of this rectangular extension, they delineated a second wall, called the “median” wall, also constructed of fieldstones but running on a different line than the southern wall (having an orientation slightly northeast by southwest) and at a deeper level (Fig. 65). The median wall is located more than a meter north of the southern wall. The spatial relationship between these two walls and the three burials in close proximity to them (a fourth pithos burial was found in the middle of the main trench but had no discernible relationship to the walls) is of the utmost importance in establishing the date and purpose of the architecture. Unfortunately, though, the excavation records are too limited to provide a convincing reconstruction of the architectural phases.53 It is clear from the photographs and recorded elevations in association with pottery lots, however, that the southern 52. Since Eliot reported having only four workmen, this photograph probably shows the trench supervisor and his entire team at work. Eliot may be the one in the middle, bending down to inspect the pottery basket.

53. The key documents include nine pages of description in the field notebook and three small-­ scale plans (FNB XVIII:100–105, 107–109, 129–133).



TRENCH PB1

75

Figure 64. Trench PB1, from east-­southeast, showing Geometric pit

grave PB:1, the southern wall, and the northern extension. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

wall is much higher than any of the burials and probably at least a meter above pit grave PB1:1. This wall is also at least 0.20–0.30 m higher than the median wall and lacks any stratigraphic relationship with it. The southern wall could be as late as early modern. The median wall, however, is probably Geometric. From the cursory recording of stratigraphy in the notebooks, we can infer that a stone stratum separated the upper fill from the original ground level associated with the median wall. A small pot burial (PB1:3) was found 0.50 m below the lowest course of the median wall, and this depth seems fairly consistent for other burials dug into the ground near the median wall, such as pithos grave PB1:4, the top of which appeared 0.60 m below the wall. One possible explanation is that the median wall was a Geometric retaining wall holding back the southern inclination of the Pontinos slope. But the strange fact is that the median wall appears to have only a northern face in the direction of the hillside and no southern edge. Perhaps instead of a retaining wall this was the southern boundary of a road running east–west up to the Geometric cemetery from a lower-­lying area to the southeast. Whatever the precise function of this wall, buriers respected its orientation when digging burial pits at least half a meter below ground level. This wall seems to have continued in roughly the same orientation into the next trench to the west, where the builders of tomb PB2:1 apparently incorporated it as the northern lining of a monumental cist tomb. This tomb at the very least respects the orientation of the median wall. In trench PB1, the excavators took an initial pass and labeled all material found above the level of the southern wall as trench PB1: lot 1. After cleaning the southern wall, they turned their attention to the rectangular northern extension and reached a layer of very hard soil in this area that continued down to the top of the median wall. Material from this level was saved as trench PB1: lot 2. These two contexts should be relatively recent, perhaps as late as the early modern period.54 Digging deeper to find the lowest courses of the median wall and its original ground line, the excavators encountered almost sterile soil with virtually no pottery. This cut extended only about half the length of the trench. As they exposed the median wall, which was found to be 7.50 m long and two courses deep, the excavators labeled the pottery they collected as trench PB1: lots 6 and 7.55 Progressively deeper levels in this area 54. The saved material in these lots, however, was exclusively Protogeometric and Geometric.

55. In addition to the pottery, trench PB1: lot 7 produced five mandible teeth of an adult donkey.

76

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 65. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trench PB1



TRENCH PB1

77

were assigned different lot numbers in intervals of 0.20 m depths (trench PB1: lots 8–10).56 In the soil between graves PB1:3 and PB1:4, a fragmentary Geometric pot came to light 0.30 m below the southern wall at approximately the same level as the median wall.57 It lay just below a stony stratum and probably rested on the original ground level when the cemetery was in use. This pot could therefore be interpreted as some sort of tomb marker. Then, at a deeper level between the two walls, a pithos emerged, the first of four graves discovered in trench PB1. Two other lots (trench PB1: lots 19 and 20) could not be identified with a particular layer in the notebooks but have material dating from PG to LG. All these lots should be considered general context material from trench PB1. Although disturbed tombs are the most probable source, none of this material could be associated with a particular tomb or architectural feature. The most substantial pot fragments from these lots, representing a neck-­handled amphora and an oinochoe (100, 102), certainly give the impression of coming from or marking a tomb or tombs; these are the best candidates for being the noteworthy pot discovered between graves PB1:3 and PB1:4.58 These cumulative lots contain a mixture of Protogeometric and Geometric pottery. The PG material is noteworthy, since no other contexts at Lerna have produced so much material of this early date.59 Presumably one or more disturbed PG tombs were somewhere nearby. Notable are the high conical bases from Middle Protogeometric (MPG) or Late Protogeometric (LPG) cups or skyphoi (85–90).60 There are also two fragments of a special type of high and slender skyphos that is probably also PG (91, 92), a type better known from two intact examples from what may be a grave in the settlement area, discussed below. Since there is no definite Early Protogeometric (EPG) material from Lerna, a MPG or LPG date for these skyphoi is preferable to one in the earliest phase. Three other bases belonged either to small jugs or, more probably, to this special type of skyphos (93–95).61 Other MPG or LPG vessels include a fragment decorated with compass-­drawn concentric circles (97), and the neck of an oinochoe or amphora decorated with a dogtooth row and zone of vertical bars (96). The dogtooth is essentially a PG motif, but it carries over into Argive EG I. The later, less plentiful Geometric fine-­ware pottery from these lots is shown in Figures 68 and 69. In addition to the substantial body section of a banded neck-­handled amphora (100) and the rim and upper body section of a banded oinochoe (102), mentioned above, both of which probably date to EG or MG, there is a rim and shoulder fragment of a plain black krater that is probably EG II or MG I (98), a rim and upper body fragment of a cup or 56. Trench PB1: lot 10 has an uncatalogued fragment from the same vessel listed as 104 from trench PB1: lot 7. 57. It is odd that the excavators reported this pot’s elevation in relation to the southern wall and not the closer and more recently exposed median wall. 58. The amphora (100) has a gray surface from secondary burning, suggesting its connection with a funerary pyre. 59. Caskey (1953, p. 27, fig. 6, pl. 5) published a single PG fragment from Lerna, a cup base from a later context on the settlement mound. 60. The fragmentary condition of these cups or skyphoi makes it impossible to reconstruct the type. Cups or skyphoi with a high conical foot such as these should be dated in the Argive series to MPG or LPG. Perhaps our bases are from footed skyphoi, the drinking vessel occupying the central position in the local repertoire (Desborough 1952, pp. 77–92, pls. 10, 11; 1972, pp. 166–167, pl. 32; Lemos 2002, pp. 33–44). For examples from Asine, see Wells 1983, pp. 175–206, nos. 114–318, figs. 20–30, 130–141, 139–151, pp. 244–249, nos. 622–681, figs. 186–188. Wells (1983, pp. 157–158) distinguished three types of skyphoi. The high conical foot of her

type II skyphoi might correspond to our 85, 88–90. Many of the skyphoi from Asine have decoration consisting of concentric circles on the shoulder. Other parallels include skyphoi with compass-­drawn circles from Argos (Papadimitriou 1998, p. 120, pl. 4) and Tiryns (Müller and Oelmann 1912, p. 152, nos. 3, 4, pl. 16:5, 9). 61. These bases do not have interior paint and are in some cases unfinished inside. This would normally suggest a closed shape, but not in the case of such high and slender skyphoi, which have narrow interior spaces. Jeremy Rutter (pers. comm.), who sees a general resemblance in form and decorative characteristics between these PG skyphoi and the much-­ earlier Trojan depa amphikypella drinking vessels, regards ours as an odd local variant of an Early Iron Age type. The carinated or markedly incurving lower bodies of 93 and 95 as well as the decorative characteristics of 93 and 94, with reserved lower bodies, have close parallels in the two intact cups (134, 135) shown in Figure 93. Yet these three bases are consistently larger than all but one (91) of the definite examples of this special skyphos.

78

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

skyphos with a low everted rim typical of Argive EG (99), and a neck fragment from an oinochoe or amphora decorated with a hatched meander datable to EG II or MG I (103).62 A body fragment almost certainly belonging to an amphora (104), has banded decoration with a panel of double axes alternating with vertical bars, a scheme rare in the Argolid but common on Attic amphoras of MG date.63 Another fragment from an open vessel decorated on the exterior with dots in a wave pattern is likely LG II (105), making it the latest constituent in all these PB1 lots.64 In addition, the Geometric medium-­coarse and cooking component, shown in Figure 70, includes a pedestal foot from a large vessel that possibly served as a grave marker (106), a cooking pot with a projecting ledge-­shaped rim (107), and a kalathos (108) that is comparable to an example from trench PA3: lot 17 (37). PROTOGEOMETRIC Fine Open Shapes 85  Cup or skyphos; base and lower body Fig. 66 Trench PB1: lot 1. Three joining fragments. Substantial vessel. Diam. 0.128 m (max. p.), of base 0.056 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/6. Moderate fine sparkling inclusions. Dull gray to black interior and exterior. Lower outer face of base, resting surface, and underside of base reserved. Ovoid lower body and high conical pedestal foot. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 86  Cup or skyphos; base Fig. 66 Trench PB1: lot 1. Substantial base. Diam. of base 0.051 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/3. No visible inclusions. Dull gray to black interior and exterior. Lower outer face of base, resting surface, and underside of base reserved. Low conical pedestal foot. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 87  Cup or skyphos; base Fig. 66 Trench PB1: lot 1. Fragmentary base. Diam. of base 0.068 m. Light gray to light grayish green fabric 10YR 7/2 to 2.5Y 7/2. No visible inclusions. 62. The slender ovoid shape of 100 is anomalously attenuated. An even more slender Attic LG Ib amphora is perhaps the closest published parallel (Coldstream 1968, pl. 10:a). In addition, Coldstream (1968, pl. 28:b) illustrated another similarly shaped banded amphora from Asine of LG II date. As for the date of the amphora from Lerna, the dark ground system of narrow reserved zones suggests a date no later than MG II, for, as Coldstream (1968, p. 123) observed, the makers of large vessels gradually gave up this scheme in favor of a lighter surface consisting of thin bands at the end of MG II. The trefoil oinochoe 102 is also an unusual shape: its high cylindrical neck and ovoid upper body lack parallels in the Argive Protogeometric and Geometric series. All that can be said is that its mostly black exterior paint (a single banded reserved zone is preserved) seems to preclude a date in LG. 63. An EG I skyphos from Mycenae with a double axe framed by vertical bars on a shoulder window panel, for which

Dull gray to black interior and exterior. Lower outer face of base, resting surface, and underside of base reserved. Low conical pedestal foot. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 88  Cup or skyphos; base Fig. 66 Trench PB1: lot 6. Intact base. Diam. of base 0.046 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/6. Sparse fine mica. Streaky dull gray to black interior and exterior. Lower outer face of base, resting surface, and underside of base reserved. High conical pedestal foot. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 89  Cup or skyphos; base Fig. 66 Trench PB1: lot 6. Intact base. Diam. of base 0.050 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/6. Sparse fine mica. Dull gray to black interior and exterior. Resting surface and underside of base reserved. High conical pedestal foot. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 90  Cup or skyphos; base Fig. 66 Trench PB1: lot 7. Intact base. Diam. of base 0.060 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/6. Sparse fine mica and sparse fine rounded white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). see Coldstream 1968, p. 115, pl. 22:b, demonstrates that the Argives employed this scheme, but the publications offer no illustrated examples of alternating double axes and bars on amphoras in the Argive series. Coldstream (1968, p. 123, n. 5), however, mentioned a MG II amphora with this decorative scheme (Makris plot, grave 1). In addition, Courbin (1966, no. C.878, pl. 38, no. C.4646, pl. 121) illustrated an Argive MG krater with double axes alternating with bars and another MG II krater with a similar decorative scheme differing only in having outlined double axes. The Lerna amphora 104 might be an Attic import, but unfortunately the fabric is not distinctive enough to decide macroscopically between Argive and Attic manufacture. 64. For this motif in the LG Argive repertoire, see Courbin 1966, pp. 203, 318, pl. 29; Coldstream 1968, p. 128; Foley 1988, p. 57, pl. 2:b.



TRENCH PB1

79

91

85

86

92 87

93 88

89

94

90

95

Figure 66. Protogeometric cups and skyphoi from PB1: lots 1, 6, and 7. Scale 1:3

Dull gray to black interior and exterior. Lower outer face of base, resting surface, and underside of base reserved. High conical pedestal foot. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 91  Skyphos; handle and lower body Fig. 66 Trench PB1: lot 1. Partial vessel. Diam. 0.068 m (max. p.). Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and sparse fine subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Streaky dark brown to dull black exterior, with zone between handle roots reserved. Cylindrical body with slightly concave profile and incurving lower body. Up-

swung horizontal handle, rounded in section, with dull black on outside face. Special high and slender type. Similar shape and decoration to 92, 134, 135, and 735. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 92  Skyphos; body and handle Fig. 66 Trench PB1: lot 6. Partial vessel. Diam. 0.050 m (max. p.). Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/3–7/4. No visible inclusions. Streaky gray to dull black exterior, with zone between handle roots reserved. Cylindrical body. Upswung horizontal handle, ovoid in section, with dull black on out-

80

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

96

97

Figure 67. Protogeometric oinochoe or amphora and closed vessel from PB1: lot 6. Scale 1:3

side face. Special high and slender type. Similar shape and decoration to 91, 134, 135, and 735. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 93  Skyphos(?); base and lower body Fig. 66 Trench PB1: lot 7. Two joining fragments. Substantial base. Diam. 0.065 m (max. p.), of base 0.040 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 6/4. No visible inclusions. Dull black exterior. Lower body and underside of base reserved. Incurving lower body and flattened base. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 94  Skyphos(?); base and lower body Fig. 66 Trench PB1: lot 7. Six joining fragments. Almost intact base. Diam. 0.071 m (max. p.), of base 0.034 m. Light reddish brown fabric 2.5YR 7/4. No visible inclusions. Dull black exterior. Lower body and underside of base reserved. Small nipple protruding in center of interior of base. Incurving lower body and flattened base. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. Fig. 66 95  Skyphos(?); base and lower body Trench PB1: lot 7. Intact base. Diam. 0.060 m (max. p.), of base 0.045 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/6. No visible inclusions.

Dull black exterior. Underside of base reserved. Incurving lower body and flattened base. Similar shape to 135. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900.

Fine Closed Shapes 96  Oinochoe or amphora; neck Fig. 67 Trench PB1: lot 6. Fragmentary neck. Diam. of neck 0.084 m (max. p.). Gray fabric GLEY 1 5/N. No visible inclusions. Exterior has vertical bars, two bands, dogtooth row, two bands below dogtooth row, and dull black zone. Slightly flaring neck. Gray fabric from secondary burning. Decoration: Lemos 2002, pl. 31:5 (kalathos). LPG. Ca. 950–900. 97  Closed vessel; body Fig. 67 Trench PB1: lot 6. Fragmentary body. Max. p.dim. 0.045 m; Th. of body 0.005 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/6. Sparse fine rounded black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Exterior has compass-­ drawn concentric circles (eight+), with the point of the instrument creating an indentation in the clay. Similar decoration to 514, 733, and 744. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900.

GEOMETRIC Fine Open Shapes 98  Krater; rim Fig. 68 Trench PB1: lot 1. Fragmentary rim. H. of rim 0.019 m; Diam. of rim 0.224 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Sparse small rounded to subangular white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Streaky dull black interior. Exterior rim has black with reserved band near top. Fugitive black exterior. Upright rim with flat top 0.006 m wide decorated with vertical bars. EG II or MG I. Ca. 875–800. 99  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Fig. 68 Trench PB1: lot 7. Partial vessel. H. of rim 0.005 m; Diam. 0.088 m, of rim 0.076 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/6. Sparse fine rounded black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Dull black interior and exterior. Interior rim has reserved band near top. Low everted rim and plump

ovoid body. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.61, C.3968, C.893, C.894, C.166, C.246, C.851, C.2484, C.164, C.98, C.2450, pls. 56, 70; Coldstream 1968, pl. 23:c, e; Langdon 1995, p. 208, nos. 1038, 1039, fig. 52. EG. Ca. 900–830.

Fine Closed Shapes 100  Neck-­h andled amphora; upper body Fig. 69 to base Trench PB1: lot 20. L.775. Argos Museum 1170. Many joining fragments. Substantial preservation of vessel. Diam. 0.203 m, of base 0.106 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Reddish brown to dull black exterior, with six preserved reserved zones decorated with double bands. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved. Slender ovoid body and sloping ring foot. Gray fabric from secondary burning on upper body. EG or MG. Ca. 900–750.



TRENCH PB1

81

98

99 Figure 68. Geometric krater and cup or skyphos from PB1: lots 1 and 7. Scale 1:3

101  Amphora; base Fig. 69 Trench PB1: lot 1. Partial base. Diam. of base 0.160 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling inclusions. Dull black exterior. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved. High sloping ring foot. EG or MG. Ca. 900–750. 102  Oinochoe; rim, neck, and upper Fig. 69 body Trench PB1: lot 19. Seven joining fragments. Partial vessel. Diam. 0.150 m (max. p.), of neck 0.061 m, of rim 0.082 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/3. Sparse fine rounded black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Streaky dull brown exterior. Reserved zone on bottom of preserved section decorated with bands. Flaring trefoil rim, high cylindrical neck, and ovoid upper body. EG or MG. Ca. 900–750. 103  Oinochoe or amphora; neck Fig. 69 and upper body Trench PB1: lot 1. Two joining fragments. Fragmentary neck. Diam. of neck at junction with shoulder 0.086 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. No visible inclusions. Dull black exterior. Neck panel decorated with hatched meander. Two bands frame panel below. Slightly tapering almost cylindrical neck. Gray fabric from secondary burning. Similar shape and decoration to 115. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.833, C.834, C.471, C.891, C.829, C.2435, C.160, C.835, pls. 2, 3, 9 (neck-­handled amphoras), 17, 18, 24 (oinochoai), 60 (kantharos); Coldstream 1968, pl. 23:b (neck-­handled amphora). EG II or MG I. Ca. 875–800.

Fig. 69 104  Amphora; body Trench PB1: lot 7. Fragmentary body. Diam. 0.196 m (max. p.). Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. No visible inclusions. Panel decorated with double axes alternating with vertical bars. Eighteen bars between axes. Two preserved bands above axes and bars, two bands below, and gray to black zone below these bands. Decoration: Coldstream 1968, pp. 18–19, pl. 3:a, d, l, p. 24, pls. 4:a, 5:g. Possible Attic import (decoration). MG. Ca. 830–750. 105  Large closed vessel; body Fig. 69 Trench PB1: lot 1. Fragmentary body. Max. p.dim. 0.075 m; Th. of body 0.007 m. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4. Single small white rounded to subangular inclusion exploded at surface (Diam. 0.001 m). Exterior has bands and reserved zone decorated with wavy lines framing row of dots. LG II. Ca. 730–690.

Coarse and Cooking Shapes 106  Large vessel; pedestal foot Fig. 70 Trench PB1: lot 1. Fragmentary pedestal. Diam. of base 0.190 m. Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/3. No visible inclusions. Medium-­coarse fabric. Polished surface. Dull gray slip 7.5YR 5/1. Tapering pedestal and flaring foot. Similar shape to 70. 107  Cooking pot; rim, neck, and upper body Fig. 70 Trench PB1: lot 1. Fragmentary rim. Diam. of rim 0.180 m. Reddish brown fabric 5YR 6/6. Sparse fine sparkling, dense small to medium quartz (max. Diam. 0.003 m), moderate small subangular dark gray to black, and moderate small subangular reddish brown inclusions (max. Diam. 0.002 m). Cooking-­ware fabric.

82

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

100

101

103

102

104

105

Figure 69. Geometric amphoras, oinochoai, and closed vessel from PB1: lots 1, 7, 19, and 20. Scale 1:3

Polished surface. Projecting ledge-­shaped rim with slightly convex top 0.017 m wide. Slightly flaring neck. 108  Kalathos; rim and upper body Fig. 70 Trench PB1: lot 6. Partial rim. Diam. of rim 0.081 m.

Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. No visible inclusions. Fine-­ware fabric. Untreated surface. Thickened triangular collar rim with grooves on outer face and flaring almost conical body. Shape: Courbin 1966, no. C.226, pl. 69. Similar shape to 37.



TRENCH PB1

83

106

107

108

Figure 70. Geometric large coarse vessel, cooking pot, and kalathos from PB1: lots 1 and 6. Scale 1:3

On the northern edge of PB1, near the middle of the trench, a pit grave oriented roughly east–west was found just to the south and below the southern wall (PB1:1). The cut for this tomb is visible in a general view of trench PB1, seen as an elliptical indentation in the scarp above a large flat stone and at least a meter below the southern wall (Fig. 64). The buriers seem to have prepared a floor of stone pebbles and laid the body in a contracted position with its head to the east (Fig. 71). Angel described the remains as a fragmented body of a male approximately 25 years old. He was short (ca. 1.59 m), with average muscle attachments and skeletal material including a femur neck plaque and rhomboid tibial shaft.65 The notebooks do not mention any pottery or other finds associated with this burial. Tomb PB1:2, a large pithos grave lying near the middle of the trench in the western section, is oriented northeast–southwest, with the mouth of the vessel facing the southwest (Figs. 72, 73). The excavators recovered much of the broken pithos but obFigure 71. Geometric pit grave PB1:1, served damage to the vessel, which they attributed from above and oriented west. Photo Lerna to the German diggers. No pottery was found inside Excavations Archives the pithos or even in a loose association with this grave. There were a few bones in the vessel, probably leg bones, enough to suggest that the body was laid in a contracted position. In addition, two stones on either side of the jar helped keep it in place, and a large stone covered the mouth. According to Angel, the occupant was a 32-­year-­old female of average height (1.57 m), with the pubic bones revealing that she had undergone many childbirths (perhaps four to six). From skull and jaw fragments, Angel determined that the lamboid and coronoal sutures were open and that the occupant had lost her molar teeth in life.66 65. Angel (Lerna II, p. 67, no. 232) estimated the age on the basis that the coronal and sagittal closure had just begun. As with tomb PA3:5, Angel did not provide a specific-­enough description of the skeleton to permit us to narrow the age range within the general bracket of 15–40 for the beginning of the closure of the coronal and sagittal sutures.

66. Lerna II, p. 67, no. 233. Liston and Papadopoulos (2004, pp. 18–19, n. 41) reviewed Angel’s case for interpreting marks on the dorsal surface of the pubic bone as both a general indication of previous pregnancies and a specific indication of the number of previous births. They cautiously concluded that the marks were merely suggestive of both.

84

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 72. Geometric pithos tomb PB1:2, from southeast. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 73. Geometric pithos tomb PB1:2, from north. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Another grave came to light about 0.50 m below the median wall. At this level, the excavators discovered a small pot on its side and straddling the trench with its mouth to the west, a flat stone blocking its opening (Figs. 74, 75). This burial (PB1:3) lies 1.70 m from the western edge of the trench extension and 0.35 m from the northern face of the median wall. After this pot had been cleaned and photographed, the excavators revealed a handful of bones seemingly from a newborn child.67 As with most other burials in this trench, no pottery or other finds associated with tomb PB1:3 are mentioned in the notebooks, and Angel did not publish a description of this skeleton. The most informative burial from trench PB1 is the fourth grave, a large pithos (1.00 × 1.30 m and 0.70 m deep) laid on its side and oriented northeast–southwest on roughly the same axis as tomb PB1:1 (Figs. 76, 77). It was found between the southern and median walls. The mouth of the jar was covered by a stone and faced northeast. The area around tomb PB1:4 was excavated to a lower depth than the rest of the trench in successively lower levels 67. As Foley (1988, p. 37) observed, pot burials are strongly associated with young children at Argos and usually contain few or no grave goods.



TRENCH PB1

85

Figure 74. Median wall and Geometric

Figure 76. Median wall and EG II pithos

pot tomb PB1:3, from west. Photo Lerna

tomb PB1:4, from west. Photo Lerna

Excavations Archives

Excavations Archives

Figure 75. Median wall and Geometric pot tomb PB1:3, from

Figure 77. Median wall and EG II pithos tomb PB1:4, from

above and oriented north. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

above and oriented north. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

assigned different pottery lots (trench PB1: lot 13, 0.60–0.80 m; trench PB1: lot 14, 0.80– 1.00 m; trench PB1: lot 15, 1.00–1.20 m), efforts obviously intended to recover grave goods and other material associated with this tomb. Angel inferred from the fragmentary skeletal remains that the occupant was a male, age around 38, with slight lumbar arthritis.68 Of the pottery lots associated with this grave, only the small lot 13 and the medium-­sized lot 15 could be located in the Lerna storeroom (109–121). 68. Lerna II, p. 67, no. 234. The age estimate, based on pubic symphysis, would for Katz and Suchey (1986) yield a range of 23–59, with a mean age of 39.

86

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Cups and pouring vessels constitute most of the fine-­ware assemblage from these two combined lots from tomb PB1:4. An almost intact skyphos (109) can be dated based on morphology to EG II (ca. 875–825). The low everted rim of a second skyphos or cup should also be dated to EG II (110). Cup 111 is a very peculiar vessel. It has a low everted rim, wheel ridges on the shoulder and upper body, and a piriform body profile. This vessel with its prominent wheel ridges bears a superficial resemblance to a Late Roman form of cooking pot, but it is made in a fine-­ware fabric and has paint inside and out, making its identification as a cup or small bowl virtually certain. It must be Geometric, although there are no published parallels for shape, or, for that matter, any Argive Geometric fine-­ware pots with such prominent wheel ridges.69 One suspects that it is an import, with the highly articulated ribbed surface almost qualifying as horizontal fluting and suggesting a metallic prototype. In addition, this assemblage contained rim and neck fragments from at least two amphoras with the tops of the rims decorated with vertical bars (116, 117). These cannot be precisely dated but would not be out of place in EG II. A third amphora rim and neck fragment is better preserved and has a finely drawn hatched meander in the window panel (113). This, one of the most common Geometric motifs, would usually not help date the amphora, but the proficient hatching and blocking at the angles is, according to Coldstream, more typical of MG I than EG II.70 Two bases composed of a simple ring foot (118, 119) and two handles decorated with horizontal bars (120, 121) probably also belonged to amphoras. The hatched meander of a smaller rim and neck fragment, perhaps from an oinochoe, is not as finely rendered as the amphora’s and would suggest a date in EG II (115). A better-­preserved neck and shoulder fragment from an amphora of roughly the same date has a window panel with a zigzag in a lower register separated by bands from a zone of multiple zigzags (114). Thus, tomb PB1:4 contained at least three drinking vessels (one skyphos, one cup, and one cup or skyphos), at least four amphoras, and one or more possible oinochoai. The items with arguably the strongest gender associations are the one definite (114) and two possible (120, 121) fragments from neck-­handled amphoras; they would be appropriate grave goods for the male occupant attested by the skeletal remains.71 This assemblage is fairly consistent in date, with almost everything pointing to EG II, with the exception of one amphora that gives a slight suggestion of MG I (113). Still, the weight of the evidence favors a date for the deposition in EG II, perhaps near the cusp of MG I. It should be noted that almost every pot in this assemblage shows signs of burning in a secondary context, with the intense heat turning the fabric and paint a dull gray.72 A funerary pyre would explain the condition of this material. Signs of burning were also found in connection with another tomb, PA5:1, discussed above. A surprising addition to this otherwise homogeneous assemblage is an uncatalogued Archaic Corinthian skyphos base. Unlike the Classical material from around graves PA3:5 and PA3:6, which can be interpreted as residual material above the Geometric tombs near the surface of the ditch, the Archaic cup from 69. For Roman cooking pots with wheel ridges and a similar profile, see Agora V, pp. 67–68, nos. K97–K103, pl. 14. Moreover, Byzantine cooking pots on display in the Thessaloniki Museum of Byzantine Culture have a similar appearance. But, unlike these published and unpublished parallels, 111 is a small fine-­ware vessel. It has decorative touches suggesting a much earlier date, such as a reserved band at the top of the rim, something typical of Argive Geometric cups. Although there is at least one intrusive pot in this assemblage, 111 is thoroughly burned, as with all the other material of definite Geometric date. Camila Diogo de Souza, who is responsible for publishing Geometric tomb groups from the excavations of the French School at Argos, examined this piece in June

2011 and confirmed that it is strongly Geometric in appearance, albeit not paralleled in the material she is publishing. Jeremy Rutter (pers. comm.) informs me that this pot vaguely reminds him of incised black-­slipped pottery from Lefkandi of MPG date. 70. Coldstream (1968, p. 19) was referring to the Attic Geometric sequence, but his comments seem equally relevant for Argive developments. 71. For the gender associations of neck-­handled amphoras and other ceramic shapes, see above (n. 24). 72. Of the 247 pot fragments from trench PB1: lots 13 and 15, 238 show clear signs of burning, more than 95%.



TRENCH PB1

87

109

110

111

112

Figure 78. EG cups and skyphoi from PB1: lots 13 and 15. Scale 1:3

trench PB1: lot 15 came from a deep level directly associated with a Geometric burial. It should not have been there, unless later disturbances compromised the soil matrix around the tomb.73 This skyphos base is one of the few pieces from the lots associated with grave PB1:4 that was not burned, confirming the impression that it was intrusive. FINE OPEN SHAPES 109  Skyphos Fig. 78 Tomb PB1:4 (lot 15). L.729. Argos Museum 1107. Many joining fragments. Almost intact vessel. H. 0.070 m, of rim 0.007 m; Diam. 0.168 m, of rim 0.160 m, of base 0.066 m. Pale brown to gray fabric 10YR 6/3 to 2.5Y 5/1. Sparse small subangular gray and black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Gray to brown interior. Interior rim has reserved band at top decorated with clusters of 9 or 10 vertical bars. Exterior rim has band. Gray to dull black exterior, 73. Another explanation is that this blatantly extraneous piece slipped into the pottery lot bag sometime after the excavations.

with zone between handle roots reserved. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base also reserved. Upswung horizontal handles, rounded in section, with brown on outer face. Low everted rim, squat hemispherical body with rounded shoulder, and low ring foot. Gray fabric and dull cracked paint from secondary burning. Type described by Coldstream 1968, p. 117. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.61, C.3968, pl. 56; Coldstream 1968, pl. 23:c; Langdon 1995, p. 207, no. 1036, figs. 52, 130. EG II. Ca. 875–825.

88

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

110  Cup or skyphos; rim and upper body Fig. 78 Tomb PB1:4 (lot 15). Two joining fragments and one other fragment. Partial rim. H. of rim 0.009 m; Diam. 0.138 m, of rim 0.130 m. Gray fabric 2.5Y 5/1. Moderate fine voids and moderate fine sparkling and sparse small subangular white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Dull black interior and exterior. Interior rim has bands near top. Exterior rim has bands. Low everted rim and squat ovoid body. Gray fabric and dull cracked paint from secondary burning. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.61, C.3968, C.893, C.894, C.166, C.246, C.851, C.2484, C.164, C.98, C.2450, pls. 56, 70; Coldstream 1968, pl. 23:c, e. EG II. 875–825. Fig. 78 111  Cup; rim to lower body Tomb PB1:4 (lot 15). Six joining fragments and three other joining fragments. Substantial vessel. H. 0.069 m (max. p.); Diam. 0.103 m, of rim 0.083 m.

Grayish brown fabric 2.5Y 5/2. Moderate fine voids but no visible inclusions. Dark gray to dull black interior and exterior. Top of rim reserved. Horizontal ribs on upper half of body. Low everted rim and squat piriform body. Gray fabric from secondary burning. Context ca. 875–825. Fig. 78 112  Skyphos; base and lower body Tomb PB1:4 (lot 13). Partial base. Diam. 0.101 m (max. p.), of base 0.086 m. Light brownish gray fabric 2.5Y 6/2. No visible inclusions. Dull black interior and exterior. Resting surface and underside of base reserved. Flaring foot with concave profile underneath. Gray fabric and dull cracked paint from secondary burning. Context ca. 875–825.

FINE CLOSED SHAPES 113  Amphora; neck and upper body Fig. 79 Tomb PB1:4 (lot 15). Many joining fragments. Substantial neck. Diam. 0.156 m (max. p.), of neck at junction with shoulder 0.112 m. Gray to grayish brown fabric 2.5Y 5/1–5/2. Sparse fine voids and sparse fine sparkling inclusions. Dull black exterior. Neck window panel decorated with hatched meander. Three bands frame panel above and three bands frame panel below. Meander attached to upper and lower framing bands. Meander has pro­ ficient hatching blocked at angles. Same pattern re­ peated on other side. Slightly flaring neck. Gray fabric and dull cracked paint from secondary burning. Shape and decoration: Courbin 1966, no. C.891, pl. 9; 1974, pp. 55–56, no. C.891, T.106/1, pl. 36; Coldstream 1968, pl. 23:b. EG II or MG I. Ca. 830–750. 114  Neck-­handled amphora; neck Fig. 79 and upper body Tomb PB1:4 (lot 15). Five joining fragments and three other joining fragments. Substantial neck. Diam. 0.162 m (max. p.), of neck 0.081 m (max. p.). Gray fabric 2.5Y 5/1–6/1. Sparse fine voids but no visible inclusions. Fugitive red exterior. Neck window panel decorated with (from bottom to top) three bands, zigzag, three more bands, and three preserved closely stacked zigzags. Slightly flaring rim and gradual transition to ovoid upper body. Vertical strap handle ovoid in section. Gray fabric from secondary burning. EG II or MG I. 875–800. amphora; neck and Fig. 79 115  Oinochoe or upper body Tomb PB1:4 (lot 13). Two joining fragments. Partial neck. Diam. 0.089 m (max. p.), of neck 0.080 m (max. p.).

Light brownish gray fabric 2.5Y 6/2. No visible inclusions. Dull black exterior. Neck panel decorated with hatched meander. Two bands frame panel below. Meander blocked at angles. Slightly tapering almost cylindrical neck and slightly flaring rim. Gray fabric and dull cracked paint from secondary burning. Similar shape and decoration to 103. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.833, C.834, C.471, C.891, C.829, C.2435, pls. 2, 3, 9, 17, 18; 1974, p. 78, T.176/1, no. C.2435, pl. 47; Coldstream 1968, pl. 23:b. EG II or MG I. 875–825. 116  Amphora; rim and neck Fig. 79 Tomb PB1:4 (lot 15). Three joining fragments. Substantial rim. Diam. of rim 0.151 m. Dark gray to gray fabric 2.5Y 4/1–5/1. Moderate fine voids and sparse fine subangular black and fine subangular red inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Interior rim has dull black near top. Exterior rim has dull black near top and vertical bars. Dull black on neck. Everted rim with convex profile and flaring neck. Gray fabric and dull cracked paint from secondary burning. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.51, C.891, pls. 1, 9. EG. 900–825. 117  Amphora; rim and neck Fig. 79 Tomb PB1:4 (lot 13). Fragmentary rim. Diam. of rim 0.159 m. Gray fabric 2.5Y 5/1. No visible inclusions. Exterior rim has fugitive black near top and vertical bars. Fugitive black on neck. Everted rim with convex profile and flaring neck. Gray fabric from secondary burning. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.51, C.891, pls. 1, 9. EG. 900–825.



TRENCH PB1

89

113

114

115

119

116

120 117

118

121

Figure 79. EG amphoras and possible oinochoai from PB1: lots 13 and 15. Scale 1:3

90

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

118  Amphora or oinochoe; base and Fig. 79 lower body Tomb PB1:4 (lot 15). Three joining fragments. Partial base. Diam. 0.143 m (max. p.), of base 0.127 m. Gray to light brownish gray fabric 2.5Y 5/1–6/2. Sparse fine sparkling and sparse medium round light gray and red speckled inclusions (max. Diam. 0.003 m). Gray to dull black exterior. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved. Low ring foot. Gray fabric and dull cracked paint from secondary burning. Context ca. 875–825. 119  Amphora or oinochoe; base Fig. 79 Tomb PB1:4 (lot 15). Fragmentary base. Diam. of base 0.122 m. Gray fabric 2.5Y 5/1. Sparse fine sparkling and moderate small dark gray to black round and subangular inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Dull black exterior. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved. Low ring foot. Gray fabric and dull cracked paint from secondary burning. Context ca. 875–825.

120  Neck-­h andled amphora or oinochoe; Fig. 79 handle Tomb PB1:4 (lot 15). Three joining fragments. Substantial handle. Max. p.dim. 0.111 m. Grayish brown fabric 2.5Y 5/2. Sparse fine sparkling inclusions. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, with horizontal bars on outer face. Gray fabric and dull cracked paint from secondary burning. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.829, C.2473, pl. 110. EG I or MG I. Ca. 900–800. 121  Neck-­h andled amphora or oinochoe; Fig. 79 handle Tomb PB1:4 (lot 15). Substantial handle. Max. p. dim. 0.103 m. Gray to light yellowish brown fabric 2.5Y 5/1–6/3. Sparse fine sparkling and sparse fine round black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, with horizontal bars on outer face. Gray fabric and dull cracked paint from secondary burning. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.829, C.2473, pl. 110. EG or MG I. Ca. 900–800.

TRENCH PB2 The trench adjacent to PB1 to the west was longer than any other trench at Lerna (5 × 25 m) and produced two burials, both cist tombs (Fig. 80). Tomb PB2:1 is located in the northeastern corner of the trench and is oriented more northeast–southwest than the trench boundary because it follows the line of the median wall in the adjacent trench. It measures approximately 1.00 × 2.00 m on the inside. The long north and south walls are well-­preserved rubble constructions (Th. 0.30–0.40 m), with the highest preserved course measuring 0.60 m from the floor of the grave (Figs. 81, 82). In at least one section, the roughly rectangular stones of the north wall are preserved for four courses. The east and west walls, constructed of upright slabs, are poorly preserved and do not seem to have been as substantial as the north and south walls. The cover was approximately 0.75 m above the floor, as indicated by a cover slab still in place in the baulk. What may have been another cover slab apparently fell down and came to rest east of the grave. The construction of this cist is similar for that proposed for tomb PA5:1, with both having stone header and footer slabs but with this tomb having long walls of stone rubble in place of the long walls of mud brick hypothesized for tomb PA5:1.74 Although badly damaged, this cist tomb was a large and monumental construction, more substantial than any other cist tomb known at Lerna (see Table 3). Adding to this impression of monumentality, the excavators were able to discern a mound in the northern scarp of the trench that had covered the grave with its highest point over the east end, where it rose 0.70 m above the cover slab.75 The outline of this mound must be the incised line visible 74. From Argos comes at least one parallel for this construction type, an EG II cist tomb with rubble long walls and short walls made of slabs (Courbin 1974, pp. 52–55, pls. 12, 35). 75. Tomb PB2:1 is at the top of the scale for the size of contemporary cist tombs at Argos as well, where the standard range is between W. 0.50–1.00 m and L. 1.00–3.00 m (Foley

1988, pp. 36–37; Hägg 1998, p. 132). We should exclude a class of exceptionally large cists at Argos, since they appear to be a later development in LG II (e.g., T.263, T.265, T.266, T.278). In addition, the mound of earth marking PB2:1 is not a general feature of tombs in the Argolid at any time. But there is at least one parallel, a PG cist tomb with a mound from Asine (Lemos 2002, p. 159).



TRENCH PB2

91

Figure 81. EG II or MG cist tomb PB2:1, from

east. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 82. EG II or MG cist tomb PB2:1, from south. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 80. Plan of Pontinos cemetery trench PB2

92

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

122

124

123

125

Figure 83. Geometric krater, amphoras, and large coarse vessel from PB2: lot 3. Scale 1:3

in the north scarp above the grave in Figure 82. Pottery was found within this tomb and saved as trench PB2: lot 3 (122–125). It is unfortunate, given the direct association of this lot with a tomb, that the collection is small and nondescript, with only four slightly diagnostic pots, two of which are a neck fragment from an amphora with a hatched meander in the window panel (123) and a base from an oinochoe or amphora (124). The amphora neck fragment should be dated to EG II or MG. Also from this lot came a body sherd from a large open vessel, perhaps a krater, with banding (122) and a handle of a medium-­coarse vessel (125), both obviously Geometric but not permitting closer dating. With only one datable item, the best we can do is place cist PB2:1 in the 9th or first half of the 8th century, and even this date should be considered extremely tentative. Regarding the gender associations of this material, the neck-­handled amphora (123) and possible krater fragment (122) tentatively point to a male occupant.76 FINE OPEN SHAPE 122  Krater(?); body Fig. 83 Tomb PB2:1. Fragmentary body. Max. p.dim. 0.066 m; Th. of body 0.011 m. Light brown fabric 7.5YR 6/4. No visible inclusions.

Dull black interior. Exterior has three preserved bands and black zone. EG or MG. Ca. 900–750.

FINE CLOSED SHAPES 123  Neck-­h andled amphora; neck and Fig. 83 handle Tomb PB2:1. Two joining fragments. Partial neck. Diam. of neck 0.090 m (max. p.). Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 6/6. No visible inclusions. Black exterior. Neck window panel decorated with hatched meander. Two bands frame panel above, and 76. For the associations of these particular shapes with male burials, see above (n. 24).

two bands frame panel to right. Meander has proficient hatching blocked at angles. Slightly tapering almost cylindrical neck and slightly flaring rim. Vertical strap handle, ovoid in section, attaching at neck. Shape and decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.833, C.834, C.28, C.891, pls. 2, 4, 9; 1974, p. 48, nos. C.829, C.833, T.90/1, pl. 33; Coldstream 1968, pl. 23:b. EG II or MG. Ca. 875–750.



SETTLEMENT AREA

124  Amphora or oinochoe; base and Fig. 83 lower body Tomb PB2:1. Substantial base. Diam. 0.133 m (max. p.), of base 0.117 m.

93

Pale brown fabric 10YR 6/4. No visible inclusions. Dull black exterior. Resting surface, inner face of base, and underside of base reserved. Low ring foot. Context ca. 875–750.

COARSE SHAPE 125  Large vessel; handle Fig. 83 Tomb PB2:1. Substantial handle. Max. p.dim. 0.089 m; Th. of body 0.006 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 6/3. Angular gray-­black and rounded gray inclusions. Medium-­coarse fabric.

Polished surface. Yellowish pale brown slip 10YR 8/3. Handle ovoid in section. Similar shape to 71. Context ca. 875–750.

A second cist tomb (PB2:2) was discovered in the northern scarp in the western part of the trench, requiring a rectangular extension to clear the grave (Fig. 84). This small tomb has an orientation almost exactly east–west. The only liners preserved were header and footer slabs; these had been placed upright, the tops 0.60–0.65 m above the floor of the grave, giving an indication of the depth of the grave relative to the Geometric ground level. Perhaps the long sides were constructed of mud brick, as seems to have been the case for cist PA5:1. The skeletal remains showed that the body had been laid in a contracted position with the head on the eastern side, facing south. Unfortunately, no pottery was found in connection with this grave, so we are unable to determine its date. Angel concluded from study of the skeletal remains (the skull being the only substantial portion missing) that the occupant was an early adolescent (probably 12 or 13 years old based on the observation that the acetabulum was almost ready to fuse) and most likely a boy.77

Figure 84. Geometric cist tomb PB2:2, from

south. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

SETTLEMENT AREA From the northern section of the main settlement area in trench BE came a pithos burial datable in general terms to the Geometric period (BE:1; Fig. 85). The pithos was found at an elevation of 7.54–7.33 m (bottom of pit at 6.98 m) lying on its side and oriented slightly more northeast–southwest from the compass points, with the mouth of the jar facing south (Figs. 86, 87). It was one of the largest pithoi used as a burial container at Lerna, measuring 1.10 × 1.85 m. Unfortunately, apart from a few bone fragments and the pithos itself, the excavators found no material associated with this grave. Angel identified the skeletal remains visible in one of the photographs as the lower extremities of a mature individual, probably female, age 40–50.78 This pithos burial cannot be dated more precisely than Geometric. 77. Angel (Lerna II, p. 67, no. 235) also noted that “the long bone lengths fit a modern norm three or four years younger.” This age estimate can still stand in light of recent scholarship. Depending on what Angel (Lerna II, p. 67) meant by an acetabulum “almost ready to fuse,” the adolescent in

tomb PA5:1 may have been as old as 16. According to Rissech, Sañudo, and Malgosa (2001, p. 744) and Rissech et al. (2006, pp. 214–227), the fusion of this bone occurs at 13–16 years. 78. Lerna II, p. 66, no. 105.

94

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 85. Plan of Lerna settlement area, showing Geometric pithos tombs in areas BE and D. K. Hatch and G. Sloggy

A second pithos burial came to light near the eastern edge of trench D (Fig. 85).79 A set of photographs documents various stages of its excavation (Figs. 88–90), the first showing the pithos shortly after its discovery as it lay just below the surface at an elevation of 6.15– 5.25 m (Fig. 88). This large vessel (1.55 m long) was found on its side, with only the bottom half section preserved in the soil. It is oriented northeast–southwest, with the mouth facing the southwest. The buriers had lodged several stones around the large jar to hold it in place. In the preserved hollow side of the pithos, the excavators found a few human bones, a plain 79. FNB IV:65, 81; VIII:121, 133; Caskey 1954, p. 7, pl. 2:c.



SETTLEMENT AREA

95

Figure 86. Geometric pithos tomb BE:1, from

Figure 87. Geometric pithos tomb BE:1, from

the north, showing pithos fragments in place.

the north, showing skeletal material.

Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

black cup (130), and small indistinct bronze fragments. In addition, around and under the mouth of the pithos, they identified a patch of burned earth from which came more pottery and other material, including a cup with linear decoration (129), an Argive monochrome jug (133), and a cowry shell (128).80 Another almost intact plain black cup (131) received no mention in the brief preliminary report, nor can its exact findspot be determined from the notebooks. But there can be no doubt that it came from this grave. The preliminary list of finds can be supplemented in other ways. Another well-­preserved Geometric pot, a globular aryballos, came from near the surface directly above or very near pithos D:1 (132). It dates to the same period as the other pots from the tomb (MG I) and should be considered part of the same funerary assemblage.81 In addition to the bronze fragments reportedly found inside the pithos, two other bronze objects—a dress pin and a ring—were saved from the immediate vicinity and can be associated with this burial (126, 127).82 80. This burned patch may be the remains of a pyre, with other possible cases suspected as the cause of the burned pottery from graves PA5:1 and PB1:4. 81. It is almost identical to an aryballos from a tomb found on survey of the Nemea Valley that is dated by the publisher to EG or MG and is presumably Corinthian (Sutton 1990, p. 647, fig. 22:c, pl. 96:a, right). Lawrence (1964, pp. 90–91, n. 5) established a sequence of this type of aryballos for Corinth. 82. The ring resembles examples from a MG II tomb at Argos published by Courbin (1974, p. 51, nos. B91–B94, pl. 34), while the pin conforms in general terms to Jacobsthal’s (1956,

pp. 3–9, no. 9) group 1 and Kilian-­Dirlmeier’s (1984, pp. 93– 94, pls. 18–27) type ID. Pins almost identical to ours, with a simple round shaft and an almost biconical globe, have come from tombs at Argos and Tiryns, dated to the 9th and 8th centuries. Courbin (1974, p. 20, nos. B5, B6, pl. 22) illustrated two examples from a MG II tomb at Argos. For a shorter pin of similar construction from Mycenae, dated to EG I–II, see Klein 1997, p. 319, pl. 59:c. According to Foley (1988, p. 81), pins of this type are typical of MG burials. She (p. 81) also considered pin length a potential dating criterion, with the medium length (0.201 m) of our example pointing suggestively to a MG date.

96

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Figure 88. MG I pithos tomb D:1, from southwest, showing outline

of pithos just below topsoil. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

Figure 89. MG I pithos tomb D:1, from north. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

A MG I date is certain for the decorated cup 129, since the zone of eight-­pointed stars alternating with vertical lines is characteristic of this period, with the rays of the stars touching the frame.83 Another cup with an almost identical decorative scheme was found in association with pithos burial PA4:1, a grave dated to MG II on the basis of other, slightly later material (50). The plain black cups from tomb D:1 can also be dated morphologically to MG I. Since Angel did not present an analysis of the skeletal material from this tomb, we cannot determine the age or sex of the occupant. The bronze pin 126, however, suggests a female occupant, on the assumption that it was used to fasten a woman’s 83. Coldstream 1968, p. 120.



SETTLEMENT AREA

97

Figure 90. MG I pithos tomb D:1, from north. Photo Lerna Excavations Archives

peplos and that the dress belonged to the deceased, both questionable but by no means fanciful assumptions.84 METAL OBJECTS 126  Bronze pin Fig. 91 Tomb D:1. L.4.545a–c. Three joining fragments. Intact pin. L. 0.201 m; Diam. 0.003 m, of swelling 0.008 m, of disk 0.015 m; Wt. 9.2 g. Pin with round shaft, flat disk, and almost biconical globe. Similar to Jacobsthal’s (1956, pp. 3–9, no. 9) group 1 and Kilian-­Dirlmeier’s (1984, pp. 93–94, pls. 18– 27) type ID. MG. Ca. 830–750.

127  Bronze ring Fig. 91 Tomb D:1. L.4.648. Three joining fragments. Intact ring. H. 0.006 m; max. Diam. 0.026 m, min. Diam. 0.024 m; Th. 0.004 m; Wt. 4.6 g. Shape: Courbin 1974, p. 51, nos. B91–B94, pl. 39. Context ca. 830–800.

SHELL 128  Cowry shell Fig. 91 Tomb D:1. L.3.1. Almost intact shell. H. 0.022 m; L. 0.044 m; W. 0.026 m.

Missing small portion of top (0.016 × 0.011 m). Context ca. 830–800.

FINE OPEN SHAPES 129  Mastos cup Fig. 92 Tomb D:1. L.75. Argos Museum 1097. Many joining fragments. Almost intact vessel. H. 0.060 m, of rim 0.008 m; Diam. 0.110 m, of rim 0.100 m, of base 0.056 m.

Pale brown to yellowish pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4– 8/4. Sparse small white angular inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m).

84. As discussed above in connection with tomb PA6:1 (p. 67). Perhaps also relevant for determining gender in this case is the aryballos (132), an object with possible feminine associations, for which see above (n. 23). The cowry shell, if it was worn as an amulet by the person buried in tomb D:1, might also suggest a female occupant. Hildburgh (1942, pp. 178–182) suggested an association of cowry amulets in ancient Egypt with female fertility based on the perceived re-

semblance of the shell to the human vulva. Perhaps the cowry shell from tomb D:1 had a similar talismanic function. But it should be stressed that this shell does not preserve unequivocal signs that it was mounted and worn as an amulet. We should also be cautious in transferring even a generic symbolic meaning from one cultural context to another. See also Reese in Appendix III (p. 439).

98

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

126

127

128

Figure 91. Bronze pin, ring, and shell from MG I pithos tomb D:1. Scale 4:5

Semilustrous black interior, with reserved dot at bottom. Interior rim has reserved band at top. Exterior rim has band. Shoulder window panel between mastoi decorated with eight-­pointed stars alternating with vertical bars, with rays of stars touching frame. Seven or eight bars between stars. Two bands below stars and bars. Black on lower body, outside panel, outer face of base, and resting surface. Inner face of base and underside of base reserved. Everted rim, hemispherical body with rounded shoulder, and low ring foot. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, with horizontal bars on outer face. Top of handle attaching outside rim. Similar shape and decoration to 50 and 52. Decoration: Courbin 1966, nos. C.837, C.59, pl. 56 (skyphoi); 1974, p. 30, no. C.59, T.14/2, pl. 26 (skyphos); p. 49, no. C.837, T.90/2, pl. 33 (skyphos); Coldstream 1968, p. 120, pl. 24:e (skyphos). MG I. Ca. 830–800. 130  Cup Fig. 92 Tomb D:1. L.77. Argos Museum 1098. Many joining fragments. Intact vessel. H. 0.070 m, of rim 0.010 m; Diam. 0.120 m, of rim 0.114 m, of base 0.048 m. Published: Caskey 1954, p. 7, pl. 2:c; Coldstream 1968, p. 118.

Orangish brown to pink fabric 7.5YR 7/4–8/4. Sparse small white round inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Streaky reddish brown interior, with reserved dot at bottom. Dark brown to black exterior. Underside of base reserved. Inset everted rim, squat ovoid body with rounded shoulder, and flattened base. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, with wavy vertical line on outer face. Top of handle attaching outside rim. Shape: Courbin 1966, no. C.35, pl. 71. MG I. Ca. 830–800. 131  Cup Fig. 92 Tomb D:1. L.163. Argos Museum 1105. Many joining fragments. Almost intact vessel. H. 0.065 m, of rim 0.008 m; Diam. 0.106 m, of rim 0.094 m, of base 0.044 m. Published: Caskey 1954, p. 7, pl. 2:c; Coldstream 1968, p. 118. Orangish brown fabric 7.5YR 7/4–7/6. Sparse small angular white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Semilustrous black interior and exterior, with underside of base reserved. Interior rim has reserved band at top. Inset upright rim, squat ovoid body, and flattened base. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, with horizontal bars on outer face. Top of handle attaching outside rim. Shape: Courbin 1966, no. C.35, pl. 71. MG I. Ca. 830–800.

FINE CLOSED SHAPES 132  Globular aryballos; lower neck to base Fig. 92 Tomb D:1 (Surface Section 5). L.1609. Argos Museum 1106. Eight joining fragments. Substantial vessel. Diam. 0.076 m, of base 0.055 m, of body at junction with neck 0.020 m. Pale yellow fabric 2.5Y 7/4. Sparse small white inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m).

Exterior has reserved zone at shoulder decorated with cross-­ hatched triangles each framed by three stacked triangles at apex. Three bands below shoulder zone and black on lower body and outer face of base. Resting surface and underside of base reserved. Plump piriform almost globular body and slightly raised base. Mastos at shoulder. Shape and decoration: Courbin



SETTLEMENT AREA

99

129

130

131

132

133

Figure 92. Cups, aryballos, and oinochoe from MG I pithos tomb D:1. Scale 1:3

1966, no. C.832, pl. 23; Coldstream 1968, pl. 17:b; Protonotariou-­Deilaki 1971, pl. 64. Possible Corinthian import (fabric). MG I. Ca. 830–800. 133  Oinochoe Fig. 92 Tomb D:1. L.76. Argos Museum 1100. Many joining fragments. Intact vessel. H. 0.108 m; Diam. 0.100 m, of rim 0.036 m, of base 0.042 m. Published: Caskey 1954, p. 7, pl. 2:c; Coldstream 1968, p. 118.

Pale yellow fabric 2.5Y 7/4–8/4. Sparse fine silver mica and sparse small round white, black, light brown, and reddish brown inclusions (max. Diam. 0.001 m). Argive monochrome fabric. Polished surface. Pale yellow slip 2.5Y 8/4. Handmade. Flaring trefoil rim, cylindrical neck, globular body, and flattened base. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, attaching outside rim. Shape: Courbin 1966, nos. C.481, C.4023, pl. 96. Context ca. 830–800.

100

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

Finally, an undocumented PG burial is suggested by the discovery of four intact pots—two painted skyphoi as well as a small bowl and jug in the Argive monochrome fabric (Fig. 93). Much uncertainty surrounds the circumstances of their discovery, and even the presumed context of a tomb cannot be verified in the excavation records. The lack of documentation is most regrettable in this case, since these four pots appear to come from the only PG tomb found at Lerna. Although a funerary context for these pots did not occur to the excavators, there are strong grounds for proposing this association. The strongest reasons are that the same person, Charilaos Kautilias, found all four vessels and that the inventory staff gave them consecutive catalogue numbers. Consecutive numbers in the Lerna system usually mean a common context, as with the pots from tomb PA6:1.85 If the four PG vessels came from the Pontinos cemetery, the most likely place of discovery is trench PB1, for this was the only area that produced residual PG material and special high and slender skyphoi exactly like 134 and 135. But it is difficult to imagine the relatively detailed account of the Pontinos excavations omitting the discovery of four intact pots, even if their precise findspot was not known.86 It is far more likely that they turned up in the larger-­scale excavations of the settlement area. I have belabored these inconclusive points about the circumstances of discovery because they accentuate a more general problem in working with material from older excavations. A better understanding of Early Iron Age Lerna has often come through archival detective work, but this does not allow us to resolve every question. Despite these uncertainties regarding the findspot, I regard it as virtually certain that these four intact pots came from a tomb. No other context at Lerna has yielded complete vessels. Moreover, Argive monochrome pots in this collection, such as the bowl with scalloped rim (136) and small jug (137), are documented as tomb offerings elsewhere in the Argolid.87 The two skyphoi (134, 135) also seem to have funerary associations, although they are unlike anything in the published ceramic repertoire—domestic, votive, or funerary—of the Argolid or any other region of Greece. The high cylindrical profile of 134 is strikingly unlike the standard Argive PG drinking vessel, the footed skyphos. It is a top-­heavy, almost impractical vessel.88 These skyphoi are representatives of a special type known from the Pontinos cemetery in lots with much MPG or LPG material, albeit not in direct association with a tomb (91, 92). This type is characterized by a high cylindrical body with a flaring rim and a flattened or hollowed base. Twin horizontal handles, rounded in section, spring from the middle or upper body (but always ending well below the rim). A few examples have a markedly incurving lower body (e.g., 135). In addition, a characteristic streaky brown or gray paint coats the interior rim and exterior body, with the zone between the handles, the bottom exterior, and the underside of the base often left in reserve. Although this type is without parallel in the publication record, excavations of the French School at Argos have yielded two intact skyphoi exactly like ours (C.8216 [457]), C.8217 [458]); these unpub-

85. Argos Museum inventory numbers are a less reliable guide to context, but these pots have consecutive numbers in this case too, a clear sign that they were considered a unit shortly after discovery. 86. Moreover, the supervisor of the Pontinos excavations nowhere mentions Kautilias, although he at times recognizes the contribution of individual workmen. Eliot’s small team consisted of only four workmen, and we have two names: Constantinos Lilis and Stilianos Koros (FNB XVIII:95). 87. Snodgrass (1971, pp. 94–97, n. 69), Kelly (1976, p. 28), and Lemos (2002, pp. 85, 97, 201–202) each discussed handmade PG pottery of buff “Helle Ware” fabric in the Corinthia and Argolid. “Helle Ware” is the term used for PG predecessors of monochrome wares. Standard discussions of Argive

monochrome include Weinberg in Corinth VII.1, pp. 7, 51, nos. 16–18, pls. 2, 9, 10; Caskey and Amandry 1952, pp. 202– 207, nos. 262–314, pls. 57–59; Kourou 1987. The latest and most comprehensive discussion of Argive monochrome is Strack 2007. 88. How practical was 134 as a drinking vessel when it barely stands upright? Also, most examples of this type do not have paint inside, a detail of finish that tells against an interpretation as a serviceable skyphos. It goes against this identification because interior slip, paint, or gloss is often assumed to be a requirement of cups and skyphoi to make them impermeable to wine. Thus, with these skyphoi, the ideological component apparently trumps practical function. Might they be a special class of funerary vessel?



SETTLEMENT AREA

101

lished skyphoi are labeled PG and are in the Argos storeroom, but I have not been able to ascertain their context.89 Eventual publication of these skyphoi from Argos will presumably help clarify the argument for a PG date. For now, this date seems reasonable, considering the limited evidence available from Lerna.90 FINE OPEN SHAPES 134  Skyphos Fig. 93 Unknown. L.1196. Argos Museum 1102. Three joining fragments and one other fragment. Intact vessel. H. 0.135 m; Diam. 0.051 m, of rim 0.056 m, of base 0.027 m. Pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling, sparse small subangular quartz (Diam. 0.002 m), and sparse fine dark gray to black subangular inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Streaky brown to black interior rim and exterior, with zone between handle roots reserved. Lower body and underside of base also reserved, except for small black streak on underside of base. Flaring rim, high cylindrical body with slightly concave profile, incurving lower body, and flattened base. Upswung horizontal handles, rounded in section, with black on outer face. Special high and slender type. Similar shape and decoration to 91, 92, 135, and 735. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 135  Skyphos Fig. 93 Unknown. L.1195. Argos Museum 1103. Seven joining fragments. Intact vessel. H. 0.079 m; Diam. of rim 0.063 m, of base 0.030 m.

Pale yellow to pale brown fabric 2.5Y 7/4 to 10YR 7/4. Sparse fine sparkling and sparse fine subangular black inclusions (max. Diam. 0.0005 m). Streaky brown to black exterior, with zone between handle roots reserved. Underside of base also reserved. Small nipple protruding in center of interior of base. Flaring rim, high cylindrical body with slightly concave profile, incurving lower body, and hollowed base with concave profile underneath. Upswung horizontal handles, rounded in section, with brown to black on outer face. Special high and slender type. Similar shape to 91, 92, 134, and 735. MPG or LPG. Ca. 970–900. 136  Bowl Fig. 93 Unknown. L.1194. Argos Museum 1104. Three joining fragments. Intact vessel. H. 0.024 m; Diam. of rim 0.066 m, of base 0.037 m. Pale brown to yellowish pale brown fabric 10YR 7/4– 8/4. No visible inclusions. Argive monochrome fabric. Polished surface. Drops of black along rim. Handmade. Scalloped rim, convex body, and broad rounded base. Context ca. 970–900.

135 134

136

137

Figure 93. Protogeometric skyphoi, bowl, and oinochoe from unknown context. Scale 1:3 89. They probably came from a tomb, just as we suspect with the intact Lerna examples. 90. Following the absolute dates for EPG, MPG, and LPG as

presented by Lemos (2002, pp. 25–26), I would tentatively date these skyphoi to the second half of the 10th century.

102

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

FINE CLOSED SHAPE 137  Oinochoe Fig. 93 Unknown. L.1193. Argos Museum 1101. Intact vessel. H. 0.060 m; Diam. 0.048 m, of rim 0.030 m, of base 0.028 m. Pale yellow fabric 2.5Y 8/4. No visible inclusions. Argive monochrome fabric.

Polished surface. Handmade. Flaring rim, high cylindrical neck, piriform body, and flattened base. Vertical strap handle, elliptical in section, attaching outside rim. Shape: Courbin 1966, no. C.2439, pl. 96 (larger with more rounded body). Context ca. 970–900.

CONCLUSIONS The 15 tombs (9 cist, 4 pithos, 1 pot, and 1 pit) from trenches PA and PB and the 2 pithos tombs from the settlement area (trenches BE and D) provide a basis for tentative conclusions about chronology and the burial population of Early Iron Age Lerna (Table 1). Only 8 of 17 tombs can be dated based on pottery assemblages within the tomb structure or from spreads in close association with disturbed tombs. The earliest, pithos PB1:4, can be dated to EG II (ca. 875–830). It is followed by pithos D:1 (MG I, ca. 830–800); cists PA3:1, PA3:2, PA3:3 (MG I or MG II, ca. 830–750); pithos PA4:1 (MG II, ca. 800–750); and pithos PA6:1 (LG I–II, ca. 740–720). Cist PB2:1 cannot be dated as precisely as these but should be placed in either EG II or MG (ca. 875–750). To these we might add an EG II pithos tomb (ca. 875–830) with the skeletons of two children from a different burial ground southwest of the settlement area.91 Even with this small sample of 18 tombs, we can infer that the main phase of burial at Lerna in the Geometric period was MG I and MG II (ca. 830–750), with only two outlier tombs dating to the immediately preceding phase and another tomb dating just after, resulting in a broader chronological frame of around 875–720 for funerary activity.92 Since 3 of the 18 tombs received multiple burials, the minimum number of occupants (assuming that tombs with no identifiable skeletal material contained only one occupant) from all known Lerna tombs is 23.93 This chronological distribution and the more refined dates for individual tombs provided by this study help clear up misconceptions that have entered the scholarship on the Lerna burial grounds. Courbin was the first to draw attention to the seemingly puzzling fact that none of the cist tombs at Lerna contained grave goods.94 Elsewhere in the Argolid, cist tombs almost always have grave goods, and the cist tombs tend to be richer than pithos burials. Courbin felt that the universal absence of grave goods from the cist tombs at Lerna manifested either a distinct local burial practice or, a more radical suggestion, a later date for the Lerna cists in the 7th century, when burial offerings generally become less plentiful, making the Lerna cists among the latest examples in a long tradition of tomb construction in the Argolid.95 Yet the premise that the Lerna cist tombs did not contain grave goods no longer seems valid, and Courbin’s lower dating of them can be discounted based on the newly appreciated associations of ceramic evidence and tombs. A large assemblage of previously undocumented pottery around cists PA3:1, PA3:2, and PA3:3 must surely be associated 91. A reference to this tomb appears above (n. 3). 92. Another outlier may be the undocumented PG burial reconstructed from archival sources, discussed above, which should date before around 900. Several more outlying tombs are suggested by the PG material from trench PB1. 93. The three tombs with multiple burials are cist PA3:2, cist PA5:1, and the EG II pithos excavated by the Greek Archaeological Service. I cannot account for the discrepancy with Foley (1988, p. 44), whose tally of 22 Geometric graves (presumably meaning occupants) from Lerna is based on the same data set and differs from mine by one. Other discrepan-

cies can be explained as a result of her reliance on a misleading or incomplete publication record consisting mainly of preliminary reports. For example, Foley (p. 44) mentioned an EG cist tomb from the Pontinos cemetery, but the only basis for this date was the tendency of the excavators to label all Geometric material early except from demonstrably LG graves, thereby obscuring an important MG phase, an error corrected in some cases by Courbin (1966, pp. 177, 221). 94. Courbin 1974, p. 123. 95. For the changes in burial practices at Argos after around 700, see also Morgan and Whitelaw 1991, p. 94.



CONCLUSIONS

103

TABLE 1. GEOMETRIC TOMB T YPES AND CHRONOLOGIC AL DISTRIBUTION AT LERNA Tomb

Type

Occupants

Relative Date

Absolute Date

PA3:1

Cist

?

MG I or MG II

ca. 830–750

PA3:2

Cist

Adult male, adult female, adult female

MG I or MG II

ca. 830–750

PA3:3

Cist

Adult female

MG I or MG II

ca. 830–750

PA3:4

Cist

?

?

?

PA3:5

Cist

Adult male

?

?

PA3:6

Cist

?

?

?

PA4:1

Pithos

Adult male

MG II

ca. 800–750

PA5:1

Cist

Adult female, young female, child (male?)

?

?

PA6:1

Pithos

Toddler

LG I–II

ca. 740–720

PB1:1

Pit

Adult male

?

?

PB1:2

Pithos

Adult female

?

?

PB1:3

Pot

Newborn

?

?

PB1:4

Pithos

Adult male

EG II

ca. 875–830

PB2:1

Cist

?

EG II or MG

ca. 875–750

PB2:2

Cist

Child (male?)

?

?

BE:1

Pithos

Adult (female?)

?

?

D:1

Pithos

?

MG I

ca. 830–800

Note: Sex and age determinations are based on skeletal evidence. In one case, pithos burial D:1, grave goods suggest a female occupant. I have left this as a question mark.

with one or more of these tombs. They show a connection architecturally and spatially to each other, and this would explain why an assemblage stemming from two or all three tombs would be relatively homogeneous in date. In addition, the well-­preserved fine wares in this spread of material give a strong impression of funerary ritual and an origin as grave goods. They also date the cist tombs to the second half of the 9th or first half of the 8th century, not the 7th century. Another cist tomb, PB2:1, although thoroughly disturbed, also yielded pottery, in this case scrappier material than the other cists but with at least one pot that could be tentatively dated to EG II or MG (123). This fragmentary material carries greater weight in the sense that it came from within the tomb structure rather than from a spread near a cist tomb—a less certain association. Making allowances for the more fragmentary condition of material from disturbed tombs, we can conclude that the cists at Lerna often did contain grave goods and that these ceramic items date the tombs to the 9th and first half of the 8th century, not the 7th century as Courbin suggested based in part on the false impression of absent tomb furnishings.96 But Courbin may have been right in noticing a pattern with respect to tomb types and grave goods and suggesting a point of distinction between Lerna and other cemetery sites in the Argolid. In contrast to all other documented sites, pithos burials at Lerna seem more likely than cists to have grave goods, and the richest tombs here were pithoi, not cists as expected from the evidence elsewhere. At Lerna, there were three cist tombs and five pithos burials with associated pottery, as compared to six cists and two pithoi without offerings.97 Just as significant is the fact that the richest tombs at Lerna are pithoi. Only two tombs, both pithoi (PA6:1 and D:1), contained metal objects. These two intact or almost 96. Courbin (1974, p. 123) also noted that bodies in the Lerna cemetery were nearly all almost fully extended, a practice not common at Argos in the Geometric period but encountered in two 7th-­century burials there (T.83, T.84). 97. Since nearly all these tombs had been disturbed by Ger-

man ditch diggers in World War II, the apparent distinction between cist and pithos tombs with respect to grave goods may reflect differential survival rates of these tomb types. Perhaps pithos tombs were better at maintaining the integrity of grave goods in recognizable spreads after being destroyed.

104

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

intact pithos tombs also contained five pots each, a respectable number compared to any contemporary burials in the Argolid. An even larger assemblage of pottery from another disturbed MG II pithos tomb at Lerna (PA4:1) could be associated with a single adult inhumation and suggested an unusually rich collection of grave goods, with 15 fine wares (kraters, an amphora, oinochoai, cups or skyphoi) and 5 cooking pots.98 Moreover, this and another pithos burial contained the only two clay imitations of metal vessels (PA4:1 [47], PB1:4 [111]). Few undisturbed Geometric pithos tombs in the Argolid have so many grave goods.99 But cist tombs occasionally do. Anne Foley, who documented a trend at Argos of more grave offerings over time, observed that by MG II, Argive cist tombs commonly contained a dozen pots. Moreover, there are exceptional LG cist tombs at Argos with over 20 pots.100 Nor is Lerna grave PA4:1 a unique example of an early pithos tomb with substantial offerings. The earliest pithos tomb at the site (PB1:4) could be dated to EG II and was a single inhumation with three cups or skyphoi, at least four amphoras, and one or more possible oinochoai. On a final note, tomb PA4:1 was the only burial with evidence for a large and intricately decorated ceramic tomb marker, yet another sign of the heightened concern for status surrounding this particular pithos tomb.101 Rich pithoi used for adult burials are almost unprecedented in the Argolid in EG and MG and suggest different funerary practices that distinguished Lerna from other populations in the plain. The rich data set from Argos makes this site a valuable point of comparison for Lerna. At Argos, according to the figures compiled by Foley in 1988, pithos burials are rare before the end of the Geometric period, with each of the earlier phases having only one pithos burial (Table 2).102 The overall increase in the number of burials in LG brings a proportionally greater share of pithos burials. From EG to MG II, the exceptional pithos burials are mainly of children and receive next to no grave goods. Only in the second half of the 8th century do we begin to see, in any real number, pithos burials of adults with grave goods. Foley, among others, emphasized a general rule of homogeneous burial customs in the Argolid, but this general frame left room for numerous variations in practice.103 Tiryns provides a noteworthy example of deviation from the Argos pattern. Although this site generally conforms to Argos in tomb types, construction techniques, and burial practices, pithos burials are more common here than at Argos. Seven of 15 EG tombs are pithoi, and these include adult inhumations with more than one grave good. The preference for pithos tombs at Tiryns continues into the 8th century after an overall decrease in funerary evidence in MG, with 16 of 29 LG tombs made in pithoi, including 13 belonging to adults. In the 8th century, pithoi outnumber cists at Tiryns by a factor of 3:1.104 Lerna certainly resembles 98. The scatter around tomb PA4:1 could convincingly be associated with the burial, since fragments from at least two pots from the spread were found inside the tomb as well. 99. We cannot be certain that all the pots associated with disturbed tombs at Lerna were grave goods. But the fine wares from tomb PA4:1 are types to be expected in graves as defined by better-­ documented examples at Argos, where skyphoi, cups, oinochoai, and amphoras are especially common offerings in the cemeteries. In addition, Foley (1988, p. 36) observed that large assemblages of small cups of similar form and decoration, as with the material in tomb PA4:1, frequently occur as grave goods and give the impression of funerary sets made to order. Other intact tombs at Argos and elsewhere in the Argolid permit the conclusion that almost all pots associated with burials were personal items or grave goods. Most were found in the tombs or on top of them (p. 36). There are a few exceptional cases in which pottery associated with a tomb clearly served a purpose other than an offering. These exceptions include several burials at Asine in which pots were

probably used in funerary meals near the tomb, for which see Hall 1993, p. 83; Lemos 2002, p. 159. In addition, funerary meals employing cups, bowls, oinochoai, and amphoras may have taken place on circular paved areas near the tombs at Asine (Hägg 1983b). 100. Foley 1988, pp. 36–37. See also Ekroth 1996, p. 182, n. 11. 101. The Dipylon cemetery in Athens and the class of pottery named after this cemetery have encouraged a general link between tomb markers and high-­status burials elsewhere in Greece. Evidence for tomb markers is not as plentiful for the Argolid as for Athens. One such example, discussed by Langdon (2001, p. 588), is a tomb at Argos (T.316) that employed a krater as a grave marker and possibly also as a receptacle for spondai. 102. Foley 1988, p. 36, table 6. See also Hall 1993. 103. Foley 1988, pp. 45, 162–163. 104. Foley 1988, pp. 40–42.



CONCLUSIONS

105

TABLE 2. NUMBER OF GEOMETRIC TOMBS AND TOMB T YPES AT ARGOS Type

EG

MG I

MG II

LG

Total

Cists

  21 (75.0%)

14 (77.5%)

12–16 (75.0%–80.0%)

29+ (51.0%)

76–80+

Pithoi

  1 (3.5%)

1 (5.5%)

1 (5.0%–6.0%)

14+ (24.5%)

17+

Pots

  2 (7.0%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (5.0%–6.0%)

  9 (15.5%)

 12

Pits

  4 (14.0%)

  3 (16.5%)

  2 (10.0%–12.0%)

  4 (7.0%)

 13

Total

28

18

16–20

56+

118–122+

Note: The numbers in the totals column do not include a LG tomb of unknown type.

Tiryns more than Argos in the use of pithos tombs, but there is no real parallel for the rich pithoi at Lerna. At Tiryns, just as at Argos, LG pithos tombs are generally poorer than the cists with respect to grave goods.105 The long tradition of rich pithos burials for adults at Lerna further undermines an already suspect and contested claim of a social, economic, or ethnic distinction between those burying in cists and those in pithoi. It was Foley who first presented a detailed argument that the poorer pithos tombs at Argos served a different population, whether simply a different social and economic class or a different ethnic group, usually identified as an indigenous pre-­Dorian population, with the more prosperous and politically ascendant Dorians using cist tombs.106 Jonathan M. Hall has outlined numerous objections to this thesis, the most fundamental of which is the paradigm shift since the 1980s concerning the Dorian invasion.107 Few now accept it as historical fact, at least in the way the ancient sources present it. Moreover, Foley’s claim that pithos burials tend to be at the physical margins of the town (and are the burials of outsiders), while cists are generally located at its core, also does not stand up to scrutiny. Even the premise of a compact settlement focus at Argos in the 8th century has come into question.108 Foley’s proposal that the pithoi belonged to a poorer class or different ethnic group also makes it difficult to explain the historical pattern of use: pithoi do not become a significant alternative to cist burials for adults at Argos until the second half of the 8th century. If pithoi were associated with an indigenous group, why do we not find them being used for burial earlier? And if the Dorians identified themselves as cist users, how do we explain the Argives so readily giving cists up in favor of pithoi in the 7th century? Hall also touched on another problematic assumption of Foley’s that the pithos was an inherently cheaper and less prestigious form of burial than the cist. This assumption may reflect our own values and priorities, such as the emphasis on monumental architecture in art-­historical studies, more than ancient perceptions. As Hall remarked, the effort to dig a burial pit and construct a large pithos may have been greater than the cost associated with a cist tomb, especially the small and architecturally unassuming kind of cists at Lerna (Table 3).109 Hall’s observations can be further developed here. Later evidence from Classical Greece allows us to place a monetary value on pithoi, and they were clearly very ex105. According to Foley (1988, p. 41), these pithos tombs usually have between one and six pots, with an average of three. 106. Foley 1988, pp. 39–40, 162; 1998, pp. 137–143. Hägg (1983a; 1998, p. 134) endorsed a weak version of this thesis by connecting aristocratic families with cists and poorer people with pithoi. See also Kelly (1976, p. 23), who raised the possibility, without strongly endorsing it, that Dorians introduced the practice of cist burial to Argos in the Submycenaean period. Hägg (1974, p. 136) and Whitley (1991, p. 190) posited not an ethnic but a gender distinction between pithos tombs for females and cists for males, a proposal discussed by Lang-

don (2001, p. 586). This suggested gender distinction might be plausible for Argos in certain periods but is clearly not valid for Lerna. 107. Hall (1997, p. 126), who was generally skeptical of different tomb types correlating with different ethnic groups, accepted the premise that pithos tombs are usually more poorly equipped than cist tombs in the Argolid. 108. Hall 1997, pp. 126–128. 109. Hall 1997, p. 126. The only truly monumental cist tomb at Lerna is PB2:1.

106

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

TABLE 3. GEOMETRIC CIST TOMB CONSTRUCTIONS AT LERNA Tomb

Dimensions (m)

Wall Construction (long side/short side/cover)

Orientation

Relative Date

PA3:1

L. 1.10 × W. 0.60 × D. 0.40

slab/slab/[?]

NE–SW

MG I or MG II

PA3:2

L. [1.15] × W. [?] × D. [?]

slab/[?]/slab

NE–SW

MG I or MG II

PA3:3

L. 1.55 × W. 0.50 × D. 0.28

rubble/slab/slab

NNE–SSW

MG I or MG II

PA3:4

L. 1.37 × W. 0.45 × D. 0.35

slab/slab/slab

NW–SE

?

PA3:5

L. 1.25 × W. 0.55 × D. 0.35

slab/slab/[?]

NE–SW

?

PA3:6

L. 1.25 × W. 0.55 × D. [?]

slab/slab/[?]

NNE–SSW

?

PA5:1

L. 0.90 × W. 0.50 × D. 0.32

mud brick?/slab/slab

NE–SW

?

PB2:1

L. 2.00 × W. 1.00 × D. 0.75

rubble/slab/slab

NNE–SSW

EG II or MG

PB2:2

L. [1.40] × W. [0.60] × D. 0.65

[?]/slab/[?]

E–W

?

Note: Although the excavators were not always explicit, reported dimensions seem to be based on interior measurements (except for cists PA3:3 and PA3:4, for which the excavators gave only the exterior dimensions). Brackets indicate dimensions reconstructed from small-scale notebook drawings. Slabs were generally 0.05–0.07 m thick and would need to be added to the figures presented above, with the two exceptions, to derive the overall measurements of the tombs. Cists with rubble walls, however, generally have thicker walls (0.30–0.40 m). Thus, cist PB2:1 with rubble long walls would have reconstructed exterior dimensions of 2.12 × 1.70 m.

pensive containers.110 In addition to the cost and expenditure of effort involved in pithos burials, there may also have been a currently underappreciated symbolic value attached to the pithos itself. The display value of pithoi comes into sharper focus in the Archaic period, when we can see that they carried a symbolic meaning as a form of conspicuous storage in houses.111 At least one of the pithoi used as a burial container at Lerna (PA4:1) shows signs that it was recycled, presumably from a domestic context. But the removal of this functional vessel from a house need not mean that it had a lower value than a vessel made to order for the funeral. It signifies a significant loss of use through value redirected into a funerary context.112 The main point is that pithoi and cists had no inherent value, and there was no absolute hierarchy of materials. The significance of both tomb types was culturally determined and susceptible to different interpretations, with objects and materials playing an active role in marking status. Lerna points to an unusually prominent role for pithoi in burial, a higher value than expected given the association of pithoi with the young and less well-­equipped tombs at Argos. But the way pithos burials served to mark status was not as straightforward as some have thought. When a direct relationship between status and burial expenditure is assumed, it is difficult to explain that some of the richest pithos tombs belonged to infants and toddlers. To take just two examples, an infant burial in the Theodoropoulos plot in Argos had 14 pots, while one of the richest burials at Lerna was a pithos apparently belong110. Recorded prices for pithoi at 4th-­century Olynthos indicate that individual jars there could cost as much as a house in a neighboring town (Cahill 2002a, p. 228). 111. For example, Ebbinghaus (2005, pp. 52–58) interpreted Archaic relief pithoi as a form of conspicuous storage in domestic contexts rather than a craft inspired by funerary or votive needs. Another sign of value is the frequent reuse of Archaic pithoi in Hellenistic houses on Crete, a social practice described by Whitley (2011, p. 31) as the retention of heirlooms symbolizing the household, with the pithoi acquiring “a distinct kind of agency.” At Azoria on Crete, a truly ancient Bronze Age pithos was found in a context of reuse at the end

of the Archaic period (Haggis et al. 2004, p. 354, fig. 8). See also Brisart 2009, p. 149. For repairs as a sign of value in the case of Geometric pithoi, see Papadopoulos and Smithson 2002, p. 160; Vogeikoff-­Brogan and Smith 2009–2010, pp. 87, 91–95. 112. Another possible example of an Argive Geometric pot being redirected from a domestic to funerary context is the large figural pyxis interpreted by Langdon (2001, pp. 584–592) as a dowry chest that was interred with an adult woman some 20–25 years after she acquired it, presumably when she was of marriageable age. In this case, the original domestic context may have enhanced the symbolic value of the funerary object.



CONCLUSIONS

107

ing to a toddler (PA6:1).113 The aim of funerary expenditure in these cases evidently had a strong symbolic component rather than being a simple definition of social persona.114 Furthermore, equating pithoi with a non-­Dorian identity is as problematic as ascribing a fixed social or economic meaning to the jars in funerary ritual. Lerna provides a clear counterexample to Argos, where the richest and highest-­status tombs, and what by the traditional line of argument would be candidates for the Dorian population, are the pithoi. Further confusing the picture for those connecting tomb types with ethnic groups, at least one Argolid site known to have promoted a non-­Dorian identity, Asine, had a higher incidence of cist tombs than Argos.115 For all these reasons, the rich pithos tombs at Lerna should be seen as a manifestation of local funerary rites, not as a mark of an established social class or ethnic group. Perhaps Lerna also distinguished itself in funerary ritual from other sites on the plain in more subtle ways. For example, Courbin noted a difference in the more extended position of the bodies in Lerna cists versus the more contracted bodies at Argos.116 This seems to be a real pattern; most Lerna burials have bodies with no more contraction than bending below the knees, and even the pithos burials show minimal contraction.117 But this sort of minor difference in practice between communities is not surprising and certainly does not give the impression of different and strongly held funerary beliefs. Asine furnishes a far more convincing case of difference in preparing the body, for there most of the bodies were supine, and buriers followed an almost universal practice of placing the head to the east.118 Furthermore, Lerna holds few surprises in most other aspects of tomb construction and archaeologically documented funerary ritual. As with most communities on the Argive Plain, the people of Lerna constructed cist tombs using rough fieldstones and flat liners, and they occasionally covered the floor with pebbles. Buriers lodged stones to hold pithoi in place and usually stopped the mouth of these jars with flat stones. Inhumation is the exclusive practice.119 Moreover, burned soil and material outside two graves (PA5:1 and D:1) and the thoroughly burned condition of most of the material from a large assemblage associated with tomb PB1:4 suggest some sort of pyre near these inhumations. But this form of ritual activity, if not entirely understood, has parallels in the Argolid.120 In conclusion, a descriptive approach to burial types and construction techniques reveals few unusual patterns, with the exception of the rich pithos burials, that require a special explanation for the Lerna population. The spatial organization of the Lerna burial grounds is another topic that current evidence can only partly address. The most basic question is whether the people of Lerna made a distinction between settlement and cemetery space—whether, that is, the burials on the slopes of Pontinos represent a formal, bounded locality for burial, or these graves were interspersed among clusters of houses.121 The reason why this question cannot yet be resolved is that we 113. Protonotariou-­Deilaki 1980, p. 63, grave 48; Hall 1997, p. 126. 114. Morgan and Whitelaw (1991, p. 86) offered a partial explanation by relating the rich child burials to kinship status. Another possibility is that these rich pithos burials belonged to a special class of young children whose premature death greatly moved survivors and encouraged them to pay special honors. For the application of this concept to Classical burials in Athens, see Garland 1985, pp. 77–88. 115. Hall (1997, p. 128) made this point with respect to Asine. Foley (1988, p. 42; 1998, p. 141) also had difficulty explaining the preference for pithoi at Tiryns, invoking ethnicity as a factor and interpreting the choice as an expression of independence from Argos. 116. Courbin (1974, p. 123) took this to be a late feature of

the Lerna cists. Foley (1988, p. 44), however, understood the nearly fully extended bodies at Lerna to be “a local fashion peculiar to cists.” 117. An exception is the strongly contracted position of the body in the only pit grave at Lerna, PB1:1. 118. Hägg 1998, pp. 132–133; Lemos 2002, p. 159. 119. Kelly (1976, p. 31) stressed this as a factor in Argive identity construction. 120. Such parallels include the ash deposits near some PG tombs at Asine that the excavators associated with funerary meals (Lemos 2002, p. 159). Argos itself, however, has not produced comparable evidence for funerary meals or sacrifices. 121. For the distinction between bounded and open cemetery spaces for Early Iron Age Athens, see Morris 1987, pp. 62–69.

108

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

have no Geometric settlement evidence for Lerna, and therefore cannot determine the spatial relationship between settlement and tombs.122 One possibility is to assume general continuity in settlement patterns and infer that the prehistoric settlement mound and site of later occupation by the Late Archaic period was the Geometric settlement nucleus as well, with a cluster of houses on the mound that for whatever reason have left no trace. If this mound was the focus of Geometric settlement, the burials on the slopes of Pontinos more than 200 m away would represent a bounded cemetery space outside the settlement zone. Moreover, the discovery by the Greek Archaeological Service of an EG II burial several hundred meters southwest of the mound might mark another reserved burial ground outside the loosely defined limits of the settlement. If this were the case, the two adult pithos burials (BE:1 and D:1) on the mound would need to be seen as exceptions to the general pattern of burial outside the settlement area. The strongest support for this scenario of a bounded cemetery space is the absence of houses or other signs of domestic occupation from the Pontinos excavations. Only the median wall in trench PB1 can be dated to the Geometric period, and this is a single long stretch without corners or cross-­wall divisions (perhaps as long as 15 m if the proposed continuation into trench PB2 is accepted) that can best be explained as a retaining or boundary wall. It does not seem to be part of a domestic structure, and five burials cluster around this wall on either side. Perhaps it was the southern boundary of a road leading to the higher slopes of Pontinos from lower ground to the southeast. This would imply a spatially defined cemetery, for it is difficult to imagine a road leading to houses perched on such uneven terrain. Trench PA3 also provides clear evidence for a tight clustering of tombs, with two groups of cist tombs separated by less than 2 m. Other tombs, however, are solitary examples with as much as 20 m or more separation. These solitary tombs give the impression of an open rather than bounded cemetery space. But this impression might be a result of the German diggers sweeping away all traces of other burials in the main part of the ditch. Most tombs were discovered in the scarps, where the untouched earth still protected them. Even this imperfect data set hints at spatial patterns. For example, tombs PA3:4, PA5:1, and PA6:1 more or less line up, while tombs PA3:5/PA3:6 and PA3:1/PA3:2/PA3:3 form a second axis on a rough line with tomb PA4:1. The orientation of some of these burials seems to follow the contour lines of Pontinos. A bounded cemetery might suggest a well-­defined settlement space. But we cannot dismiss the possibility that there was no spatially coherent settlement, but rather archaeologically ephemeral houses scattered around the Pontinos slopes and the area below to the east, including the mound.123 Smaller-­scale spatial divisions within the cemetery plots and general demographic characterizations of the burial population have also been difficult to establish. One might assume that adjacent cists PA3:5 and PA3:6 and the pinwheel cluster consisting of cists PA3:1, PA3:2, and PA3:3 belonged to two different families, but the adult male and unknown occupant in the first putative family cluster and the adult male, three adult females, and unknown occupant in the second pinwheel group do not clarify matters. Cist PA5:1, with an adult female, a young female, and a possibly male child, could be interpreted as a family burial. Another possible family group may have consisted of tombs PB1:1–4, with two adult males, an adult female who had experienced frequent childbirths, and a newborn. But without 122. There was no Geometric settlement evidence, that is, unless we accept the discovery of a Geometric well approximately 400 m southwest of the Lerna mound as a sign of occupation (n. 3, above). In addition, residual Geometric material found in Late Archaic well BA:1, Classical well BB, and other later contexts at Lerna might suggest some settlement

activity on the mound, but much of this material is LG, after the date of the latest tombs. 123. Nor can we dismiss a third possibility, that there was a bounded settlement but not at the mound or anywhere else that has been investigated.



CONCLUSIONS

109

TABLE 4. ESTIMATED HEIGHT OF MALE AND FEMALE ADULT OCCUPANTS OF GEOMETRIC TOMBS AT LERNA Tomb

Male (m)

Female (m)

PA3:2

1.68

–

PA3:3

–

1.47

PA4:1

1.76

–

PA5:1

–

1.53

PB1:1

1.59

–

PB1:2

–

1.57

Average

1.68

1.52

knowing if these burials are more or less contemporaries, we cannot make a strong case for them belonging to a single nuclear family. For demographic characterizations overall, skeletal evidence gives a good idea of the sex and age ranges for 16 occupants from the Lerna tombs, but this small sample amounts to little more than anecdotal evidence for the population. For what it is worth, we have an almost even number of adult male (5) and female skeletons (6), with 5 subadults, including 2 possibly male children, 1 young female, 1 unsexed toddler, and 1 unsexed newborn. The ratio of subadults to adults is 5:11 (31%), while the overall ratio of males to females is 1:1.124 In addition, Angel estimated body height for 6 individuals, 3 males and 3 females (Table 4). Following general practice then and now, he based these estimates on the preserved long bones of the leg. Despite the frustratingly small sample size, this evidence for average stature provides a valuable indication of the general health of a village population in the Early Iron Age. Although body size has a strong genetic component, it is influenced by living conditions and nutritional intake during the period of childhood and adolescent growth.125 The Lerna skeletal material does not give the impression of an exploited rural peasantry, a concept raised in Chapter 1. Adult males average 1.68 m tall, with one particularly tall individual measuring 1.77 m (5 feet, 10 inches). Women are shorter, averaging 1.52 m in stature. These numbers compare favorably to other excavated cemeteries in the Greek world. For example, at the Pantanello necropolis in Metaponto, a much larger sample produced an estimated range for average male stature of 1.62–1.67 m and average female stature of 1.53–1.58 m, figures in line with other documented Greek and Italian populations.126 Ian Morris, who surveyed a wider range of archaeological and ethnographic evidence for body height, concluded that the ancient population was generally shorter than the modern because of endemic nutritional problems, with the tallest males around 1.68 m. But, as he stressed, even some modern malnourished populations were short, including Greek military recruits in 1949 (male average of 1.65 m).127 Other anecdotal evidence for a relatively healthy population at Lerna is the general absence of serious diseases or malnutrition from the preserved skeletons, a powerful argument from silence. A few individuals who experienced mild arthritis apparently had the worst of it. But meaningful results will require comparisons between the Lerna 124. If we include the two children from the EG II pithos tomb excavated by the Greek Archaeological Service, the ratio of subadults to adults is 7:11 (39%). Modern age structures based on life tables would require roughly half of the burials in a normal population to be of children under the age of 10 (Morris 1987, p. 58). Thus, the small Lerna sample does not seem wildly skewed in terms of age and gender representation. 125. For an overview of the environmental factors influenc-

ing height, see Henneberg and Henneberg 1998, p. 505; Morris 2005, p. 107. 126. Henneberg and Hennberg (1998, pp. 519–520, table 11.14) based their estimates for Metaponto on 20 male and 40 female skeletons. Figures from other cemeteries in Italy provide a range of 1.62–1.69 m for males and 1.53–1.60 m for females. 127. Morris 2005, p. 113.

110

GEOMETRIC CEMETER Y

population and other groups in the Argolid. Unfortunately, not enough archaeologically contextualized skeletal material is available from other villages and protourban centers in the Argive Plain to permit such comparisons.128 The cumulative picture from Lerna in the Geometric period is of a small but moderately prosperous community on the edge of the Argive Plain. Certainly nothing about the tombs— the human remains or material associated with the graves—gives the impression of an exploited population. If Lerna was not as historically rooted as some other settlements in the Argolid, such as Argos, Tiryns, and Mycenae, where evidence for occupation resumes after the Mycenaean collapse in the Submycenaean or Early Protogeometric period, nor as large as these as inferred from the archaeological remains, Lerna nevertheless registers as an important settlement with evidence of internal cohesion in the organization of domestic and cemetery space—a sure sign of a community ethos.129 Moreover, it maintained a distinctive local identity through burial rites. When measured in terms of individual objects, however, this local identity is not so apparent. Lerna fully takes part in an Argive cultural koine, with almost all the fine-­ware pottery being Argive in appearance and indistinguishable from much of the material found at Argos and other sites on the plain. In many cases, there are explicit parallels with decorated pots from tombs at Argos, similarities close enough to suggest production in the same workshops.130 In addition, the bronze jewelry from two tombs at Lerna is morphologically indistinct from jewelry found at other sites in the plain. About the only things that seem truly odd are the high cylindrical skyphoi (134, 135) from what may be Protogeometric contexts at Lerna; perhaps these manifest an unusual local drinking vessel preference, although here too Argos offers parallels. Also exceptional and perhaps signifying different customs are three large vessels that seem to be tomb markers (6/48, 70, 106) and two unusual fine wares, a tripod or cauldron and a cup (47, 111), both suggesting metal prototypes and evoking the higher status of exotic forms and lavish materials. But only when contexts of consumption are considered does the Lerna material pattern seem out of the ordinary, if not enough to suggest a radical departure from the Argive cultural sphere. Subsequent chapters allow us to trace this theme of Argive cultural integration in the settlement debris of Lerna in the Late Archaic and Classical periods, when historical sources leave no doubt that Lerna fell within the territory and under the control of Argos. 128. One exception to this apparent paucity of evidence and poor publication record is the attention paid to the skeletons from the Early Iron Age cemeteries at Argos, for which see Charles 1958, 1963. 129. For settlement continuity in the Argolid, see Kelly 1976, p. 36; Foley 1988, pp. 23–24. At Lerna, the earliest evidence for occupation in the Early Iron Age dates to the second half of the 10th century, and perhaps near the end of this period. Elsewhere, burial numbers have been understood as an indication of the relative size of settlements on the plain and their comparative importance, with the increasing number at Argos in LG II seen as an index of the rise of the polis (Hägg 1974, pp. 13–17; Kelly 1976, p. 52; Foley 1988, pp. 40–46). On this basis, Wright (1982, p. 199, n. 76) also suggested that the Argos settlement was larger and more important than Tiryns. With 18 tombs and 23 occupants, Lerna compares favorably to

other medium-­sized settlements. At least one of these, Mycenae, later became a polis. See also pp. 360–361, below. 130. The decorated pottery most closely related to material at Argos includes 2, 13, 14, 17, 18, 27, 29, 32, 40, 42, 44, 45, 50–52, 60, 79–82, 104, 105, 113, 115, 129, 132. The close connections between Lerna and Argos exhibited by the more limited material available to Morgan and Whitelaw (1991, pp. 90–91) encouraged them to regard Lerna as “a daughter community of Argos,” a virtual colony with long-­standing contacts, and perhaps even periodic population exchanges, going back to the Protogeometric period. The authors have touched on a real pattern of material connections, but this is surely more than the evidence will bear. On a related note, the possibility that the people of Lerna buried their dead at Argos in the 7th and later centuries will be considered below (pp. 361–362).

3

 LATE ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSIC AL WELLS

A

fter an interval of some two centuries following the last Geometric burials on the slopes of Pontinos, 10 wells and a pit within the settlement area of Lerna make it possible to track developments from the Late Archaic to the Middle Hellenistic period (ca. 500– 175).1 This chapter documents the two earliest of these assemblages from a Late Archaic (ca. 500–490) and Early Classical well (ca. 460–440). The excavation records reveal little about the buildings to which these or any other Lerna wells belonged or the architectural construction of the wells themselves.2 This paucity of evidence is part of a more general problem of architectural preservation, for almost nothing of historical Greek date has survived from the site. There are only three exceptions of reported Greek architecture from the upper levels above the preserved tops of the wells. In trench D, John L. Caskey referred to scant architectural traces of this general period just below the plowed earth that included two parallel rows of flat stones set on edge and a short stretch of a foundation wall from the western end of the same trench.3 In addition, trench BD reportedly had several rows of rough stones similarly set on edge as orthostates running east and west.4 Unfortunately, the notebooks and other records supply no additional information about these walls, leaving us in the dark about their appearance, precise date, and function. We have only the more deeply buried well fills on which to base conclusions about settlement activity. These wells, it will be argued in Chapter 7, probably served houses, but this interpretation is based almost entirely on general probability and the nature of their ceramic assemblages rather than any direct architectural evidence.5 As for the construction of the wells themselves, most are described in the notebooks as unlined shafts about a meter in diameter, and few are credited with architectural elaborations of any sort (Table 5). One of the more elaborate wells, Classical A:1, had alternating footholds on the east and west sides of the uppermost preserved shaft. Two other Lerna wells also qualify as more substantial constructions. The shaft of well BC had a stone lining in the upper portion, while well D:2 was the most elaborate construction of all, with a stone lining in the upper section and footholds on the east and west sides beginning about 1.50 m 1. The closing date for all but one of the four latest contexts is around 300–275. The exception is a well, D:2, with the latest contents dating to the first quarter of the 2nd century, making it a later closure than any other pre-­Roman context at Lerna. 2. The shallow topsoil did not preserve architecture associated with any well, nor did the top of the shafts or wellheads survive. Figure 166 provides a vivid impression of how near the surface these wells were when the excavators first encountered the uppermost preserved shafts. It is certainly strange that so little architecture of the historical Greek or later periods has survived on the mound. Jeremy Rutter (pers. comm.) suggests

to me that this near absence of architectural remains may represent robbing activities in the 19th century a.d. This is an ­intriguing idea, but there is no positive evidence of robbing activities at this time, with the possible exception of the 19th-­ century a.d. coins discussed above (p. 3). Another possibility is that the construction of concrete gun emplacements in World War II caused damage to the site, with a particularly heavy toll on the upper levels of the mound (historical Greek and later periods). 3. Caskey 1954, p. 7. 4. Caskey 1957, p. 151. 5. See pp. 366–377, below.

112

LATE ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSIC AL WELLS

TABLE 5. LATE ARCHAIC THROUGH MIDDLE HELLENISTIC WELLS AND WELL FILL DEPOSITS Well

Construction Type

Shaft Diam. (m)

Fill D. (m)

Deposit Wt. (kg)

Absolute Date

BA:1

Unlined

ca. 1.00

 6.55

30.71

ca. 500–490

BD:1

Unlined

ca. 1.00