Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:38:24.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Diversity in Dark Age Greece

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

James Whitley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper attempts to provide new insights into the nature of Greek society in the Dark Ages (1100–700 B.C.). It re-examines the relationship between the archaeological evidence and the institutions and practices described in the Homeric poems. The archaeological evidence indicates that there were marked regional differences in settlement pattern, burial customs and pottery traditions. This must, it is argued, reflect profound regional differences in social organisation. Ethnographic analogies are used to make sense of some of these regional patterns. Two of the larger and more stable communities in Dark Age Greece, Athens and Knossos, are subjected to detailed scrutiny. A close contextual analysis of the relationship between pot style and mortuary representations in these two sites reveal two patterns which are divergent rather than convergent. In Athens burial customs and later pot style appear to be part of an age and sex linked symbolic system. In Knossos however, there is no clear patterning, either in pot style or mortuary representations. Instead there is a continuum of variation. Such fundamental differences cannot be accomodated within the concept of a uniform ‘Homeric Society’. It is suggested here that the institutions and practices described in Homer only operated at an inter-regional level.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 86 , November 1991 , pp. 341 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acknowledgements: This is an expanded version of a paper (with the same title) given at the New York Aegean Symposium, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and the Mycenaean Seminar at the University of London. It is based in part on my Ph.D. thesis and on a paper I gave at the British School at Athens, entitled ‘Knossos in the Ninth Century B.C.’. I would like to thank all those who gave comments and criticisms at these occasions, in particular Tom Palaima, Hector Catling and Lyn Foxhall. I would also like to thank Ian Morris, Richard Billows, John Lenz and Rachel (my wife) for criticism of earlier drafts of this paper, and Professors William Harris and Alfred Frazer for granting me the status of Visiting Scholar at Columbia University when I was in New York. No-one, apart frmo myself, however is to be held responsible for any remaining mistakes, nor for any of the views expressed in this article. Many of the objects referred to in this article will be found illustrated in Whitley, JamesStyle and Society in Dark Age Greece (Cambridge 1991).Google Scholar

Abbreviations

In addition to those commonly in use, I have used the following abbreviations:-

Coldstream GG Coldstream, J.N.Geometric Greece (London 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Desborough V.R.d'A Desborough The Greek Dark Ages

GAD (London 1972)

Finley WO Finley, M.I.The World of Odysseus (Harmondsworth 1979)Google Scholar

Fortetsa Brock, J.K.Fortetsa: Early Greek Tombs near Knossos (Cambridge 1957)Google Scholar

Fort. Number given to object by Brock published in Fortetsa

Kerameikos Kerameikos: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen Vols I–VII, Berlin 1939 onwards.

Lefkandi I Popham, M.R., Sackett, L.H. and Themelis, P.G. (eds) Lefkandi I: The Iron Age BSA Supp. 11 (London 1980).Google Scholar

Morris Burial Morris, I.M.Burial and Ancient Society (Cambridge 1987)Google Scholar

Snodgrass DAG Snodgrass, A.M.The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh 1971)Google Scholar

Whitley Ph.D. Whitley, A.J.M.Style, Burial and Society in Dark Age Greece (Cambridge Ph.D. 1986)Google Scholar

1 For example, Murray, OswynEarly Greece (Glasgow 1980), 38–68Google Scholar and de Polignac, FrançoisLa naïssance de la cité grecque (Paris 1984), 15–39.Google Scholar

2 Witness Adkins, A.W.H., ‘Homeric Values and Homeric Society’ JHS 91 (1971), 1–14, p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘I find it impossible to believe … that the bards of the oral tradition invented out of their own imaginations a society with institutions, values, beliefs and attitudes all so coherent and mutually appropriate as I believe myself to discern in the Homeric poems.’

3 This was first published in 1954. I have used a later, revised edition: Finley, MosesThe World of Odysseus (Harmondsworth 1979)Google Scholar, hereafter Finley WO. For archaeological arguments in favour of a Dark Age date for Homeric society, see Dickinson, O.T.P.K., ‘Homer, The Poet of the Dark Age’ Greece and Rome 33 (1986), 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 See Ventris, M. and Chadwick, J.Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge 1957)Google Scholar; see also Chadwick, J.The Mycenaean World (Cambridge 1976).Google Scholar

5 Some may still adhere to this belief, but the arguments against it to my mind are too weighty. They are summarised by Finley, M.I., ‘Mycenae and Homer: Property and Tenure’ in Finley Economy and Society in Ancient Greece (Harmonds-worth 1983), 213–232 (= Historia 6 (1957), 133–59).Google Scholar

6 Finley WO p. 230.

7 Finley WO p. 230.

8 Finley WO pp. 230–231.

9 See especially Coldstream GGP and Snodgrass DAG. 24–105. In an important paper Coldstream also makes the point that we cannot explain the marked regionalism of Dark Age Greece by a kind of geographical determinism. Regionalism in material culture is not the natural outcome of regional geography, since there were numerous periods in prehistory when the material culture, in particular the pottery styles, of Greece were noticeably uniform. See Coldstream, J.N.. ‘The Meaning of the Regional Styles in the Eighth Century B.C.’ in Hägg, R. (ed.) The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C. (Stockholm 1983). 17–25.Google Scholar It would of course be equally facile to explain away the regional diversity of Dark Age Greece in terms of ‘isolation’, particularly when there is increasing evidence that Greece was far from isolated in this period.

10 Generally, see Snodgrass DAG. 140–212. For the peculiar burial customs of Lefkandi, see Popham, M.R., Sackett, L.H. and Themelis, P.G.Lefkandi I: The Iron Age BSA Suppl. 11 (London 1980), 209–216.Google Scholar

11 See especially Snodgrass, A.M., ‘An Historical Homeric Society?’ JHS 94 (1974), 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Coldstream also puts the sceptics' case eloquently, GG p. 18: ‘Homer we cannot use: his epics, set in the heroic past, are coloured by an amalgam of anachronistic details, accumulated over centuries of oral transmission; thus Homeric society cannot be assigned to any single period.’

12 For example the funeral of Patroklos Il. xxiii 108–261. esp. 236–261: and the funeral of Hector Il. xxiv 788–804.

13 Cremations in bronze urns seem to be confined to Attica and Euboea in the eighth century. For Euboea see Berard, C.L.'Héroon à la Porte d'Ouest: Eretria III (Berne 1970)Google Scholar; for Attica see Kübler, K.Kerameikos V (Berlin 1954), graves G6, G58, G71, G72 and G78Google Scholar; AM 18 (1893), 92–93, Dipylon grave 3; AM 18 (1893), 414–415, the Pnyx grave; see also Coldstream GG. 120 & 126–127. The unique tenth-centurv example at Lefkandi is discussed further below; see Popham, M.R., Sackett, L.H. and Touloupa, E., ‘The Hero of Lefkandi’ Antiquity 56 (1982), 169–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 For regional differences in iron working, see Snodgrass DAG, 213–295 and Morris, I.M., ‘Circulation, Deposition and the Formation of the Greek Iron Age’ Man n.s. 23 (1989), 502–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Nor do I wish to take sides on the orality vs textuality (i.e. literacy) debate. Both poems stem from an oral tradition, but whether this means that they are entirely oral creations is a more difficult question. For the latest views on this subject, see Nagy, G.The Best of the Achaeans (Baltimore 1979)Google Scholar, Austin, N.Archery at the Dark of the Moon (Berkeley 1975)Google Scholar. Griffin, J.Homer on Life and Death (Oxford 1980)Google Scholar and Taplin, O. ‘Homer’ in Boardman, J., Griffin, J. and Murray, O. (eds) The Oxford History of the Classical World (Oxford 1986), 50–77.Google Scholar

16 For ‘distancing effects’ see Morris, I.M., ‘The Use and Abuse of Homer’ Classical Antiquity 5 (1986), 81–138 esp. 89–90 & 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Morris believes that the poems reflect an essentially eighth-century situation.

17 My use of the term ‘collapse’ follows the usage adopted by Tainter, Joseph R.The Collapse of Complex Societies (Cambridge 1988).Google Scholar Tainter makes the important point that any kind of society of any degree of complexity (not only states and empires) can collapse.

18 Leach, E.R.The Political Systems of Highland Burma (London 1954).Google Scholar

19 Leach [n. 18] above p. 55.

20 Leach [n. 18] above pp. 29–61.

21 For chiefs' houses see Leach [.n 18] above pp. 108–109: for chiefs' burials see Leach [n. 18] above p. 119. One consequence of having a burial surrounded by a ditch is that the archaeological visibility of chiefs' burials would be greater than those of commoners. This observation is not without its relevance to the debates that have grown up about the ‘visibility’ of burial in Dark Age Greece; see Morris, IanBurial and Ancient Society (Cambridge 1987)Google Scholar, hereafter Morris Burial.

22 I am using the term tribal in Sahlins' sense. See Sahlins, MarshallTribesmen (Englewood Cliffs NJ 1968), esp. 1–13.Google Scholar

23 Even though a case could be made for such an analogy. Certainly some features (iron working, agriculture, a low population density combined with a high degree of population mobility) seem to be common to both Highland Burma and Dark Age Greece. The similarities in social structure (see Leach [n. 18] above p. 288) are probably illusory however.

24 For burial customs see Snodgrass DAG, 140–212; for pottery styles see Coldstream GGP and Snodgrass DAG, 24–105.

25 The hierarchical nature of the Neopalatial (particularly LMI) settlement pattern on Crete has been known for some time. It has been confirmed by recent special studies: of Minoan villas by McEnroe, J.C., ‘A Typology of Minoan Neopalatial Houses’ AJA 86 (1982). 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Nixon, L., ‘Neo-palatial Outlying Settlements and the Function of the Minoan Palaces’ in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds) The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm 1987), 95–98Google Scholar; and of peak sanctuaries by Peatiield, A.A.D., ‘The Topography of Minoan Peak Sanctuaries’ BSA 78 (1983), 273–279.Google Scholar For a recent overview, see Bennett, John, ‘Knossos in Context’ AJA 94 (1990), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The lower levels of the settlement hierarchy are now being better understood as a result of various kinds of Held survey, particularly in East Crete.

26 For the site hierarchy of Classical Attica, see Osborne, RobinDemos: The Discovery of Classical Attika (Cambridge 1985). esp. 47–63.Google Scholar

27 For the settlement of Dark Age Athens, see Morris Burial. 62–69. There is also much useful information in Cavanagh's, W.G. Attic Burial Customs C.2000–700 B.C. (Ph.D. thesis. London 1977).Google Scholar

28 For Argos, see Hägg., R. ‘Zur Städtwerdung des dorischen Argos’ in Palast und Hütte: Beitrage zutn Bauen und H'ohnen in Altertum (Mainz 1982). 297–307.Google Scholar

29 For Knossos, see Hood, Sinclair and Smyth, DavidArchaeological Surrey of the Knossos Area BSA Suppl. 14 (London 1981), 16–18.Google Scholar

30 For Dhonoussa, see Zapheiropoulou, P. ‘Dhonoussa’ ADelt 24:3 B Chr (1969), 390–393.Google Scholar

31 For Zagora, see Cambitoglou, A., Coulton, J.J., Birmingham, J. and Green, J.R.Zagora I (Sidney 1971)Google Scholar and Cambitoglou, A.Archaeological Museum of Andros: Guide (Athens 1981).Google Scholar

32 For Nichoria, see McDonald, W.A., Coulson, W.D.E. and Rosser, J.J.Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece III: Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation (Minneapolis 1983)Google Scholar, esp. 9–60.

33 For Emborio, see Boardman, JohnExcavations on Chios I: Greek Emborio BSA Suppl. 6 (London 1967).Google Scholar

34 For Lefkandi generally see Popliam et al. Lefkandi I.

35 Kavousi generally see Boyd, H., ‘Excavations at Kavousi, Crete, in 1900’ AJA 2nd Ser 5 (1901), 125–157Google Scholar: and more recently Day, L.P., Coulson, W.D.E. and Gesell, G.C. ‘Excavation and Survey at Kavousi 1978–81’ Hesperia 52 (1983), 389–420.Google Scholar

36 For LH IIIC occupation on Xeropolis, see Popham, M.R. and Sackett, L.H.Excavations at Lefkandi 1964–66: A Preliminary Report (London 1968), 11–23.Google Scholar

37 For occupation on Toumba, see Popham, M.R., Sackett, L.H. and Touloupa, E., ‘The Hero of Lefkandi’ Antiquity 56 (1982), 169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Popham, M.R., Calligas, P.G. and Sackett, L.H., ‘Further Excavation of the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi, 1984 & 1986’ AR 1988–1989, 117–129.Google Scholar For further details of the ‘heroon’ see brief reports in AR: AR 1980–81, 7; AR 1981–82. 15–17; AR 1982–83, 12–15: and AR 1983–84, 17. For a more detailed plan of the Toumba ‘heroon’ see Calligas, P.G., ‘Hero Cult in Early Iron Age Greece’ in Hägg, R., Marinatos, N. and Nordquist, G. (eds) Early Greek Cult Practice (Stockholm 1988), 229–234.Google Scholar The question of whether the large building is indeed a ‘heroon’ is discussed further below.

38 See Popham et al. Lefkandi I, 11–97. Surface finds (rather than material from the small area of settlement excavation) appear to indicate that Xeropolis was never entirely abandoned during the Dark Ages, but the absence of major finds in the excavated portion of Xeropolis does seem to indicate that settlement on Xeropolis had diminished at the time of the floruit of the Toumba ‘heroon’.

39 See Day, L., Coulson, W.D.E. and Gesell, G.C., ‘Kavousi 1983–84: The Settlement at Vronda’ Hesperia 55 (1986), 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Day et al. [n. 35] above.

40 For the Kastro, see Day, L.P., Coulson, W.D.E. and Gesell, G.C., ‘Kavousi, 1982–83: The Kastro’ Hesperia 54 (1985), 328–355.Google Scholar Most of the material so far recovered from the Kastro is either Late Geometric or Orientalising. See also Day, L.P., Coulson, W.D.E. and Gesell, G.C., ‘Excavations at Kavousi Crete, 1987’ Hesperia 57 (1988), 279–301.Google Scholar There now appears to be evidence from the 1989 season that the Kastro was occupied throughout the Dark Ages, from the 11th century onwards, but the early Dark Age occupation appears to be slight compared with the major, 8th century phase.

41 For continuity of tomb use at Vronda, see Day et al. [n. 39] above, 385–387 and Day, et al. Hesperia 57 (1988), 279–298.Google Scholar

42 For continuity of use of the Toumba cemetery throughout the ninth century (SPG) see Popham, et al. Lefkandi I, 105, 108, 168–196Google Scholar; see also Popham, M.R., Sackett, L.H. and Touloupa, E., ‘Further Excavations at the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi’ BSA 77 (1982), 213–248.Google Scholar For further details see also AR 1984–85, 15–16, AR 1986–87, 12–14 and Popham et al. AR 1988–89, 117–129.

43 See Finley WO, 74–107. This fragility has been highlighted by Qviller, Bjorn, ‘The Dynamics of Homeric Society’ Symbolae Osloenses 56 (1981), 109–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the absence of organised political structures, see also Halverson, John, ‘The Succession Issue in the Odyssey’ Greece and Rome 33 (1986), 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 This is particularly eyident in the assembly scene (Od. ii 1–259) when Telemachus tries to rally support from the people for himself and his family, and fails. There appears to be no real popular feeling in support of Odysseus' family. Halvcrson [n. 43 aboye] argues that there is no succession issue in the Odyssey: that is. no-one is aiming for the kingship, since there is ‘no throne, no office of king, indeed no real Ithakan state’ (p. 119). There is simply a struggle between basileis oyer property and status. See also Finley WO. 78.

45 For Laertes' position, see Od. i 188–193; iv 737–741; 351–357: xvi 137–145: xxiv 205–212 & 244–279; see also Finley WO, 86–87. The meaning (or rather meanings) of the term basileus is discussed further below.

46 See Eumaeus', complaints to Odysseus Od. xiv, 80–108Google Scholar; and Antinous' threats to Telemachus, Od. ii 123–125Google Scholar; see also Finley WO p. 52.

47 See again Od. ii 1–259. There are one or two individuals favourble to Telemachus, (Od. ii 239–241)Google Scholar but they cannot swing the crowd. See Finley's remarks WO p. 93.

48 See Qviller [n. 43] above, esp. 116–120, who is eloquent on the subject of the institutional weakness of Homeric ‘kingship’. Any noble (basileus) could be a king (Od. i 394–398); a basileus had to feast his hetairoi in order to retain their loyalty, as is indicated in Odysseus' mendacious story which he tries to palm off on Athena. (Od. xiv 199–258. esp. 249–251). Qviller goes on to compare the rise of a Homeric basileus to that of a Melanesian ‘big man’.

49 The most succint account is by Sahlins, Marshall, Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief Comparative Studies in Society and History 5 (1963), 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar There are also some excellent ethnographic accounts of ‘big-man’ societies, for example Strathern's, A.J.The Rope of Moka (Cambridge 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 Binford, Lewis R.In Pursuit of the Past (London 1983), 219.Google Scholar

51 See Snodgrass DAG, 360–368, esp. 364. For a summary of recent survey evidence see Morris Burial. 156–160, esp. fig. 54 and table 12. Morris bases his estimates for the rise and fall of population on the number of occupied sites, not the number of interments. Snodgrass', A.M. estimates, both in DAG and in Archaic Greece (London 1980), 22–23 figs. 3 & 4Google Scholar, are therefore probably a little overdrawn.

52 Binford [n. 50] above p. 219.

53 Binford [n. 50] above p. 220.

54 See references in notes 35. 37 and 39 above.

55 Se Day et al. [n. 39] above figs. 2 & 3.

56 See refs in [n. 37] above, especially note the plans in AR 1981–82 p. 17 and Calligas [n. 37] above p. 231 fig. 1.

57 Murray, Oswyn, ‘The Symposion as Social Organisation’ in Hägg, R. (ed.) The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C. (Stockholm 1983), 195–199Google Scholar; see also Murray [n. 1] above 49–50. Murray here echoes many of the points that Qviller [n. 43] above makes.

58 See refs in [n. 37] and [n. 39] above.

59 See refs in [n. 37] above, especially AR 1981–82, 17 and Calligas [n. 37] above p. 231.

60 See McDonald, et al. [n. 32] Nichoria III, 19–42.Google Scholar

61 See refs in [n. 37] above, especially Calligas [n. 37] p. 231 fig. 1.

62 See refs in [n. 37] above. The most forceful expression of these views has been in Popham, et al. Antiquity 56 (1982), 169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar, but see also AR 1981–82, 16.

63 See refs in [n. 37] above, especially AR 1982–83. 14–15.

64 See Calligas [n. 37] above p. 231 fig. 1; see also AR 1983–84 p. 17.

65 See particularly the criticisms of Mazarakis-Ainian, A.J., ‘Early Greek Temples: Their Origin and Function’ in Hägg, R., Marinatos, N. and Nordquist, G. (eds) Early Greek Cult Practice (Stockholm 1988), 105–119, esp. p. 116Google Scholar: and ‘Contribution á l'Etude de l' Architecture Grecque des Ages Obscurs’ AntCl 54 (1985), 5–48 esp. 6–9. Mazarakis-Ainian also has much to say about the function of building A at Vronda and Unit IV. 1 at Nichoria; see ‘Early Greek Temples’ p. 106. Not all those involved in the excavations at Lefkandi think that the large building on Toumba hill is a ‘heroon’ (See Calligas [n. 37] above p. 232) and indeed I know of no scholar, apart from the excavators, who does. For further criticisms see F. de Polignac [n. 1] above p. 92 n. 146.

66 See Strathern [n. 49] above 37–52.

67 See Strathern [n. 49] above 37–52.

68 See Bitifbrd [n. 50] above 215–220.

69 I am referring here to the school of economic archaeology that is concerned in particular with the social mechanisms of minimising risk, notably the work of Paul Halstead. See Halstead, P. and O'Shea, J., ‘A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed: Social Storage and the Origins of Social Ranking’ in Renfrew, A.C. and Shennan, S.J. (eds) Ranking, Resources and Exchange (Cambridge 1982), 92–99.Google Scholar

70 Though not everyone believes that terms such as arisieus, agathos, cheiron or kakos denote class divisions or distinctions of birth. See George Calhoun, M., ‘Classes and Masses in Homer’ CP 29 (1934), 192–208 & 301–316Google Scholar: see also Geddes, A.G., ‘Who's Who in “Homeric Society”’ CQ 78 (1984), 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71 For the importance of ‘good birth’ see Finley WO 59–60 and Qviller [n. 43] above 116–120. On the importance of assemblies and oratory see Qviller [n. 43] above, Murray [n. 57] above and Finley WO p. 82. Needlss to say, the Iliad is full of assembly scenes and public speeches by the basileis.

It may be useful here to discuss the term basileus, usually translated as ‘king’. This has been the subject of two recent monographs. Drews, R.Basileus: The Evidence to Kingship in Geometric Greece (New Haven 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Carlier, P.La Royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre (Strasbourg 1984).Google Scholar To my mind both works suffer from what I would call an ‘evolutionary fallacy’. Both authors expect the meaning of a word to evolve in an orderly fashion, from the qa-si-re-u (‘chief’) of the Mycenaean tablets to the Persian Great King, and for the word to retain a clear single meaning in any one time period. Hence we have Garlier's ingenious suggestion that, in Homer, basileus means king in the singular but nobles in the plural. For some, this may help to explain why the 108 suitors in the Odyssey are termed basileis and why the dorophagoi basilees that Hesiod (Op. 263–264) refers to appear, not to be kings, but members of a local aristocracy. But to me such inconsistencies are an indication of the ambiguity and flexibility of the term basileus, which can mean ‘king’, ‘chief’, ‘noble’, ‘lord’, or ‘big man’ according to circumstances. The flexibility of the term basileus is paralleled in modern English usage by the term secretary, which can mean anything from a personal clerk (‘my secretary’) to a great officer of state, such as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

72 For ‘big men’ and oratory see Sahlins [n. 49] above and Binford [n. 50] 215–220.

73 See Sahlins [n. 49] above p. 291: ‘The rising big man necessarily depends initially on a small core of followers, principally his own household and his closest relatives.’

74 This is obviously the solution favoured by Murray [n. 57] above.

75 It is at least curious, though, that Homer regularlv uses kinship terminology (phylon and phrētrē) to describe non-kin political relations; see Iliad ii, 362–363, 668; ix, 63–64; see also Donlan, W., ‘The Social Groups of Dark Age Greece’ CP 80 (1985), 293–308.Google Scholar This suggests that Homer's audience were perhaps more at home with kinship terminology than the poems would otherwise suggest.

76 This is of course to assume that the poems were indeed composed in the late eighth century B.C., and that they were essentiallv ‘Ionian’. For dating see Janko, R.Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns (Cambridge 1982), esp. 228–231Google Scholar and Morris [n. 16] above 91–94. For the latest on the Ionian poetic tradition see West, M.L., ‘The Rise of the Greek Epic’ JHS 108 (1988), 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 For Emborio, see Boardman [n. 33] above and remarks in Mazarakis Ainian [n. 65] ‘Early Greek Temples’ 109–111.

78 See refs in notes 30 and 31 above and Mazarakis Ainian [n. 65” ‘Early Greek Temples’ 109–11.

79 For Athens generally see Morris Burial esp. 72–96 and Cavanagh “n. 241 above. See also Whitley, A.J.M. Style. Burial and Society in Dark Age Greece (Cambridge Ph.D. 1986) [hereafter Whitley Ph.D.]. 96–250.Google Scholar

80 For the Kerameikos generally, see Kraiker, W. and Kübler, K.Kerameikos I (Berlin 1939)Google Scholar, Kübler, K.Kerameikos VI. I (Berlin 1943)Google Scholar, Kerameikos VI.2 (Berlin 1954), Kerameikos VI. 1 (Berlin 1959), Kerameikos VI. 2 (Berlin 1970) and Kerameikos VII. 1 (Berlin 1976). For criticisms of Kubler's approach, see Hachmann's, R. review of Kerameikos V in GGA 215 (1963), 47–63Google Scholar. For recent re-interpretations of the Kerameikos cemetery, see Krause, G.Untersuchungen zu denältesten Nekropolen am Eridanos in Athen (Hamburg 1975)Google Scholar and Morris Burial 72–74. 81–85, 129–132 & 152–153.

81 For Kriezi street, see Alexandri, O.AAA I (1968), 20–30Google Scholar; ADelt 22 B Chr (1967), 92–96; ADelt 23 B Chr (1968), 20–27 & 67.

82 For Erechtheion street, see ADelt 19 B Chr (1964), 87; ADelt 20 B Chr (19 65), 84–87; ADelt 22 B Chr (1967), 55–7 & 78; ADelt 23 B Chr (1968), 55–56; ADelt 29 B Chr (1973/74), 131–132; see especially Brouskari, M.Apo ton Athenaiko Kerameiko tou 8ou Aiona pro Christou (Athens 1979)Google Scholar and ‘A Dark Age Cemetery in Erechtheion Street, Athens’ BSA 75 (1980), 13–31.

83 For Knossos see Hood and Smyth [n. 29] above 16–18 and Whitley Ph.D. 251–353.

84 For the Fortetsa cemetery, see Brock, J.K.Fortetsa: Earlr Greek Tombs near Knossos (Cambridge 1957)Google Scholar, hereafter Fortetsa.

85 For the North Cemetery, see Catling, H.W. ‘The Knossos Area 1974–76’; AR 1976–1977, 3–23Google Scholar and ‘Knossos 1978’ AR 1978–79, 43–58; see also Sackett, L.H., ‘A New Figured Krater from Knossos’ BSA 71 (1976), 117–129.Google Scholar

86 For burial plots see Morris Burial 72–74 & 92–93; the best example of a ‘grave plot’ is probably the Areopagus cemetery published by Smithson, E.L. ‘A Geometric Cemetery on the Areopagus: 1897, 1932, 1947’ Hesperia 43 (1974), 325–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

87 For the whole question of the genos and the alleged ‘tribal’ structure of Archaic Athens, see Bourriot, F.Recherches sur la Nature du Genos (Paris 1976)Google Scholar and Roussel, D.Tribu el Cité (Paris 1976).Google Scholar After the criticisms of these two scholars, the whole question of the social organisation of Archaic Athens, and the role of kinship as an organising principle, is now an open one.

88 See Whitley Ph.D. 275–281.

89 See Whitley Ph.D. 275–281. For a physical anthropologist's view, see Jonathan Musgrave's remarks in Coldstream, J.N., Callaghan, P.J. and Musgrave, J., ‘Knossos: An Early Greek Tomb on Lower Gypsadhes Hill’ BSA 76 (1981), 141–165 esp. 163.Google Scholar

90 For comparisons of the densities of the two sites see Whitley Ph.D. 107–111 (Athens) and 263–267 (Knossos); see also Morris Burial 62–69 for Athens and Hood and Smyth [n. 29] above for Knossos.

91 The seminal works in ‘contextual archaeology’ are Hodder's, IanSymbols in Action (Cambridge 1982)Google Scholar, The Present Past (London 1982) and Reading the Past (Cambridge 1986), The practical implications of contextual archaeology have been brought out by many of his students; see articles in Hodder, I. (ed.) The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings (Cambridge 1987).Google Scholar

92 For the settlement evidence from Athens, see again Morris Burial 62–69. For filled in wells, see Brann, E.T.H.The Athenian Agora VIII: Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery (Princeton 1962) esp. p. 108Google Scholar and ‘Late Geometric Well Groups from the Athenian Agora’ Hesperia 30 (1961), 93–146.

93 For settlement evidence generally see Whitley Ph.D. 258 & 263–267 and Hood and Smyth [n. 29] above 16–18. For wells see Coldstream, J.N., ‘A Geometric Well at Knossos’ BSA 55 (1960), 159–71.Google Scholar There is in fact much more direct evidence for Dark Age settlement at Knossos, but it has not been published in such a way to make it readily intelligible as settlement evidence. See Coldstream, J.N., ‘Knossos 1951–61: Protogeometric and Geometric Pottery from the Town’ BSA 67 (1972), 63–98Google Scholar; Sackett, L.H., ‘Post Minoan Occupation above the Unexplored Mansion’ AR 1972–1973, 62–71Google Scholar; and Warren, P.M.AR 1982–1983, 63–87Google Scholar & AR 1983–84, 124–129.

94 There is an interesting dilference between American and British researchers in this field. Compare Tainter's, Joseph R. ‘Mortuarv Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Svstems’ in Schiifer, M.B. (ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (New York 1978), 105–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar with the more empirical work of Susan Shcnnan, E., ‘The Social Organisation at Branč’ Antiquity 49 (1975), 279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hodson, F.R., ‘Quantising Halstatt: Some Initial Results’ American Antiquity 42 (1977), 394–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

95 Binford, Lewis R. ‘Mortuarv Practices: Their Study and Their Potential’ in Binford An Archaeological Perspective (New York 1972), 208–243.Google Scholar

96 Saxe, A.A. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices (Ann Arbor Ph.D. 1970).Google Scholar

97 For criticisms of Binford and Saxe, see Pearson, M. Parker, ‘Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Case Study’ in Hodder, I. (ed.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge 1982), 99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Pader, E.J.Symbolism. Social Relations and the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains (Oxford B.A.R. 1982)Google Scholar: see also Whitlev Ph-D. 33–54.

98 This is the central argument of my Ph.D. thesis. What follows is essentially a summary of this.

99 For Subminoan and Protogeomctric in Knossos, see Desborough PGP 236–250 and GDA 57–63 & 225–234. For Protogeometric ‘B’ and Early Geometric see Coldstream GGP 234–241 and GG 68–70 & 99–102. Generally see Brock Fortetsa esp. p. 143 and Whitley Ph.D. 282–324.

100 See Coldstream, J.N., ‘A Protogeometric Nature Goddess from Knossos’ BICS 31 (1984), 93–104.Google Scholar

101 This fact is not clearly brought out in most of the standard publications, not even Fortetsa. Examples of ‘coarse’ vessels used as urns from the Fortetsa cemetery at Knossos include the coarse krater Fort. 159 [tomb XI, 6], the coarse necked pithos Fort. 291 [tomb LST, 5] and the coarse straight-sided pithos Fort. 499 [tomb X, L3]. See Whitley Ph.D. 282–337, esp. 295–296

102 Again, see Whitley Ph.D. 282–324 & 350–353.

103 Male interments with weapons have been identified in the North Cemetery, based on Jonathan Musgrave's examination of the bone material. Examples include the interment in Teke tomb J, vessel no. 1 and KMF tomb 285, vase no. 61. See refs in [n. 85] above.

104 This is again part of the argument of Whitley Ph.D., see especially 126–131 and 135–250. But it is also implicit in Coldstream's study of Attic Geometric; see GGP 8–111 esp. 8–28 and GG 26–35, 55–63. 73–81 & 110–123.

105 See Desborough PGP 1–126 esp. 5–37 and GDA 145–158.

106 For Attic corase ware shapes see Kerameikos I plates 154–156.

107 Again see Coldstream GGP 8–21 and GG 26–35 & 55–63; see also Whitley Ph.D. 168–171.

108 This was first noted hv Desborough PGP 5–6 but see also Whitley Ph.D. 151–165.

109 Examples of rich Protogeometric female burials include Kerameikos PG4 and PG5. see Kerameikos I 95–98, and PG39 and PG48, see Kerameikos IV 39–41 & 44–46.

110 See Whitley Ph.D. 151–165.

111 Examples of such graves include the ‘Areopagus Warrior Grave’. D 16:4. see Blegen, C.W., ‘Two Athenian Grave Groups of about 900 B.C.’ Hesperia 21 (1952), 279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the grave at Markos, AyiosADelt 19 B Chr (1964), 54Google Scholar; and the grave at the junction of Mitsaion, and Zitrou, streets ADelt 21 B Chr (1966). 85.Google Scholar

112 Examples of such graves include grave G41 in the Kerameikos, see Kerameikos V 235–236 & plate 46: grave H 16:6 in the Agora, see Smithson, E.L., ‘The Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady circa 850 B.C.’ Hesperia 37 (1968), 77–116Google Scholar; and Kriezi street grave XII, see Alexandri, O.AAA I (1968), 20–30.Google Scholar The cremated remains from both Agora H 16:6 and Kerameikos G41 have been examined by physical anthropologists, and both appear to be the remains of middleaged women.

113 For example Kerameikos graves G2 and G43, see Kerameikos V 210–212 & 238–239 & plates 17 & 22.

114 See for example the circular motifs (Kreisornamente) on Athens NM 803, 804, 806 & 990 and New York 34.11.2. These are (or will be) illustrated in Whitley, A.J.M.Style and Society in Dark Age Greece (Cambridge 1991)Google Scholar and are also illustrated in Whitley Ph.D. For circular motifs and other forms of Geometric decoration, see also Himmelmann-Wildschutz, N. ‘Der Mäander auf geometrischen Gefässen’ MarbWPr 1962 (1962) 10–43Google Scholar and ‘Über einige gegenständliche Bedeutungsmöglichkeiten des frühgriechischen Ornaments’ AbhMainz Nr. 7 (1968), 259–346.

115 See Whitley Ph.D. 166–93 and Morris Burial 79–81, 122–125 & 147–151.

116 For graves in Argos generally, see Hägg, R.Die Gräber der Argolis Boreas 4.1 (Uppsala 1974)Google Scholar and Courbin, P.Tombes Géometriques d'Argos (Paris 1974).Google Scholar For warrior graves see Courbin, P., ‘line Tombe Géometrique d'Argos’ BCH 81 (1957), 322–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hägg, R., ‘Burial Customs and Social Differentiation in 8th Century Argos’ in Hägg, (ed.) The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C. (Stockholm 1983), 27–31.Google Scholar

117 For ninth-century bronze, gold and iron finds from Lefkandi see Popham et al. Lefkandi I, 218–225 & 231–264; Antiquity 56 (1982), 169–174; BSA 77 (1982), 213–248; AR 1984–85, 15–16; AR 1986–87, 12–14; and AR 1988–89, 117–129. For an alternative interpretation of ‘depositional practices’ at all these sites in the Dark Age, see Morris, Man n.s. 23 (1989), 502–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

118 Jones, S.Men of Influence in Nuristan (London 1974).Google Scholar

119 Murray [n. 57] and [n. 1] p. 68 above.

120 Jones [n. 118] above 61–91 & 165–204.

121 Jones [n. 118] above p. 184.

122 Jones [n. 118] above 184–185. Waigal vallev material culture is further discussed in Jones, S. ‘The Waigal “Horn Chair”’ Man n.s. 5 (1970), 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

123 See Jones [n. 118] above p. 119.

124 See refs in notes 99. 100 and 101 above.

125 For gold objects in Lefkandi graves, see Lefkandi I 101–207, 217–225 & 417–422. See also Popham, et al. BSA 77 (1982), 213–248Google Scholar and AR 1988–89, 117–129.

126 For example the bronze bowl inscribed with Phoenician characters found in Tcke tomb J; see Catling AR 7976–77, 3–23 and Snycer, M., ‘L'Inscription Phéniciènne de Tekkè, près de Knossos’ Kadmos 18 (1979), 89–93.Google Scholar

127 For Phoenicians in Crete generally, see Shaw, J. ‘Phoenicians in Southern Crete’ AJA 93 (1989), 165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with references.

128 For Levantine interest in Sardinia, see Ridgway, D., ‘Archaeology in Sardinia and Etruria’ AR 1970–80, 54–62Google Scholar; ‘Archaeology in Sardinia and South Italy’ AR 1988–89, 130–136; and ‘Sardinia and the First Western Greeks’ in Balmuth, M.S. (ed.) Studies in Sardinian Archaeology II (Ann Arbor 1986), 172–185.Google Scholar Recently one of the finds from the Khaniale Tekke tombs has been identified as being of Sardinian origin; see Vagnetti, L., ‘A Sardinian Askos from Crete’ BSA 84 (1989), 355–360.Google Scholar It is difficult to imagine how this object might have reached Knossos, unless it came in a Phoenician ship. For the Khaniale Tekke tombs generally see Hutchinson, R.W. and Boardman, J.BSA 49 (1954), 215–228Google Scholar; and Boardman, J.BSA 62 (1967), 57–75.Google Scholar These tombs contain much material which is clearly of Levantine inspiration, if not of Levantine origin.

129 Rowlands, M.J., ‘Kinship, Alliance and Exchange in the European Bronze Age’ in Barrett, J. and Bradley, R. (eds) Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age (Oxford B.A.R. 1980), 15–55 esp. p. 31.Google Scholar

130 Those being the Kachin, the ‘big man’ societies of Melanesia, and Nuristan.

131 For the definition of a tribal society, see Sahlins [n. 22] above 1–13.

132 See Sahlins [n. 49] above p. 291: ‘The rising big man necessarily depends initially on a small core of followers, principally his own household and his closest relatives.’

133 See Jones [n. 118] above 118–142 & 62–91.

134 For Priam's family generally, see Il. vi 242–252; for his numerous sons, see Il. iv 499; v 159. 462–463; viii 301–305; xi 101–104; xii 93–95; xvi 737; xx 80; xxi 34–35, 97; xxii 46–48. 746–748; for his son-in-laws Il. xiii 170–173, 363–367. Generallv see Finley WO 127.

135 The small size of Odysseus' kin group is emphasised in Od. xvi 117–120. Halverson [n. 43] above would of course argue that Odysseus is not trying to regain his kingdom, merely his wife and his possessions.

136 See Walcot, P.Greek Peasants, Ancient and Modern (Manchester 1970)Google Scholar and Millett, P.C., ‘Hesiod and his World’ Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 210 (1984), 84–115.Google Scholar These works are exceptional in making good use of ethnographic analogies, and in realising that there is a case that has to be made.

137 See Redfield, RobertThe Primitive World and its Transformations (Ithaca 1953), 26–53.Google Scholar esp. p. 31: ‘There were no peasants before the first cities’ and Redlield, R.Peasant Society and Culture (Chicago 1956), 23–39.Google Scholar

138 See Wolf, Eric R.Peasants (Englewood Cliffs NJ 1966).Google Scholar Wolf is particularly insistent on this point: ‘a peasantry always exists within a larger system’ (p. 8); ‘Not the city, but the state, is the decisive criterion for civilization and it is the appearance of the state which marks the threshold of transition between four cultivators in general and peasants. Thus it is only when a cultivator is integrated into a societv with a state — that is when the cultivator becomes subject to the demands and sanctions of a power-holder outside his social stratum — that we can appropriately speak of a peasantry’ (p. 11).

139 See Walcot [n. 136] above and Millett [n. 136] above 90–93.

140 Hesiod Op. 11–26, the Eris passage. I would not disagree with Walcot and Millett that Hesiod in the Works and Days does stress self-sufficiency as an ideal, but I would argue that this is not an ideal which is confined to peasants.

141 See Hesiod Op. 633–638.

142 See especially Snodgrass, A.M.An Archaeology of Greece (Berkeley 1987), 170–210.Google Scholar The Sarakatsani have been vividly described by Campbell, JohnHonour. Family and Patronage (Oxford 1964).Google Scholar

143 This view is only made explicit in Hesiod Op. 156–173. The hero in Homer is a slightly more complex figure: a hero, though mortal, achieves a kind of immortality through his actions, through living up to the heroic ideal; in dying he achieves kleos and somehow comes to equal the gods while remaining mortal. This paraphrase cannot however do justice to the more sophisticated arguments of Nagy, G.The Best of the Achaeans (Baltimore 1979)Google Scholar and Griffin, J.Homer on Life and Death (Oxford 1980), esp. 81–102.Google Scholar

144 Contra Finley WO 26–50. I am thinking here of the Yugoslav poems recorded by Parry and Lord; see Lord, A.B.The Singer of Tales (Cambridge Mass. 1960).Google Scholar See also Morris [n. 16] above 83–94.

145 See M.I. Finley WO 108–141 and ‘Marriage, Sale and Gift in the Homeric World’ in Economy and Society in Ancient Greece (Harmondsworth 1983), 233–245. For ‘ritualised friendship’ see Herman, G.Ritualised Friendship and the Greek State (Cambridge 1987), esp. 1–13 & 164.Google Scholar Herman notes on p. 164: ‘in the Homeric world, friendship … was, apart from marriage, the only bond to create enduring obligations between peers.’

146 For example the exchange of armour between Glaukos, and Diomedes, il vi 212–236.Google Scholar Of course. Glaukos gets the worst of this deaf, but it does serve to illustrate the importance of ‘ritualised friendship’ amongst the international aristocracy. See Herman [n. 145] above p. 1.

147 For Homeric marriage see Finley [n. 145] ‘Marriage. Sale and Gift’ above; see also Lacey, W.K., ‘Homeric hedna and Penelope's kyrios’ JHS 86 (1966), 55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar and The Family in Classical Greece (Ithaca 1968), 33–50.

148 The term ‘interaction sphere’ was coined by prehis-torians of the American Middle West to describe the curious phenomenon of the Hopewell, but it is also clearly applicable to other times and places. For the original term, see Caldwell, J.A., ‘Interaction Spheres in Prehistory’ in Caldwell, J.A. and Hall, R.L. (eds) Hopeuellian Studies (Illinois State Museum Papers no. 12 1964), 133–143Google Scholar: for its wider application, see articles in Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. (eds) Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change (Cambridge 1986).Google Scholar

149 For the career of Alcibiades, and his shrewd use of ties of xenia. see Herman [n. 145] above 7–8. 116–118 & 147–151.

150 See Janko [n. 76] above ibid and Morris [n. 16] above 91–94.

151 See Morris [n. 16] above 89–90 & 97.

152 For the production of bronze tripods see Snodgrass DAG 275–286. Most British (but not most German) archaeologists tend not to believe that tripods in bronze were continuously produced throughout the Dark Ages. The earliest datable evidence for their production is the moulds' deposit from Lefkandi, datable to circa 900 B.C.; see Catling, in Lefkandi I 93–97.Google Scholar Most bronze tripods appear to be of eighth century date, and have been found chiefly in sanctuaries, particularly Olympia: see Maas, M.Die Geometrischen Dreijusse ron Olympia: Ol Forsch X (Berlin 1978).Google Scholar

153 See for example Coldstream, J.N.. ‘Gift Exchange in the Eighth Century B.C.’ in Hägg, (ed.) The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C. (Stockholm 1983), 201–207.Google Scholar

154 This has been confirmed by the discovery of Protogeometric, Sub Protogeometric and Geometric Euboean pottery at Tyre; see Coldstream, J.N. and Bikai, P.M., ‘Early Greek Pottery in Tyre and Cyprus: Some Preliminary Comparisons’ RDAC 1988:2 (1988), 35–44.Google Scholar There are of course numerous finds of Levantine objects from Lefkandi; see Popham et al. Lefkandi I. 217–264; BSA 77 (1982). 213–28; AR 1988–89, 117–129. For early Levantine contact with Knossos, see refs in [n. 121] above; for ninth-century Athenian contacts with the Levant see Coldstream GG 55–63.