voutsaki 2005 presentation of mh argolid project autochthon

8/8/2019 Voutsaki 2005 Presentation of MH Argolid Project Autochthon

1/10

SOCIAL ANDCULTURALCHANGE IN THEMIDDLEHELLADICPERIOD:PRESENTATION OF A NEW PROJECT

S. VOUTSAKI*

ABSTRACT This paper presents a new interdisciplinary project (financed by the Netherlands Organisation for ScientificResearch and the University of Groningen), which endeavors to interpret the important social, political and cultural changesthat took place in the southern Greek mainland during the MH period and the transition to the Mycenaean period (ca. 2000 1500 BC). This task is undertaken by means of an integrated analysis of settlement, funerary, skeletal and iconographic datafrom the Argolid. The central question of the project is the redefinition of personal, social and cultural identities within wider processes of change.

K EYWORDS Sociocultural change, identity, process, Middle Helladic period, early Mycenaean period.

I. I NTRODUCTION Oliver Dickinsons The Origins of MycenaeanCivilisation(1977) provided the first synthesis on theMH period and constituted the earliest attempt tounderstand the changes that took place in the southernmainland towards the end of the MBA. It remains toour day the starting point of any investigation on thiseraand it is therefore only appropriate that a paper on social and cultural change in the MH period openswith a summary of the evidence largely based on his book.1

The MH period is characterised by depopulation,relative material poverty, and the absence of overtsocial differentiation, especially during the earlier andmiddle phases (MH IMH II) (Dickinson 1977: 38,106). There is no pronounced site hierarchy, nor dohouses within a settlement vary significantly in termsof architecture, size, or contents (1977: 334). There issome differentiation among graves in terms of tombtype, or in the presence and diversity of offerings: thedead were buried in intramural graves below or between houses, or in extramural cemeteries; they

* Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen, Poststraat 6,Groningen 9712 ER, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected].

1 I would like to thank Oliver for being a constant source of inspiration, sound advice and constructive criticism over morethan a decade. I am looking forward to our collaboration in this project and to long conversations on the MH period!

were placed in burial jars, cists or pits, and sometimesunder burial mounds (tumuli); they usually received noofferings, but were at times accompanied by one or two vases, or a few simple ornaments made of bone,stone or paste (1977: 334, 38). Metal finds are quiterare, and precious metal (gold, silver) virtually absent(1977: 346).

During this period, the southern mainland wasculturally rather isolated, although economicexchanges are attested through the presence of ceramicimports from Aegina, the Cyclades and Crete alongthe eastern coast of the mainland (1977: 367).Cultural influence from the neighbouring areas can beseen only in the production of local pottery imitatingCretan wares, found once more mainly in the south eastern mainland.

However, at the end of the period, i.e. during the MHIIILH I phases, important changes took place,especially in the mortuary sphere (1977: 38). This period saw the introduction of more labourintensivetombs, the adoption of a complex burial ritual, a sharpincrease in the deposition of valuables with the dead,and the introduction of figurative art. Thesedevelopments find their most dramatic manifestation

in the Grave Circles of Mycenae (Karo 19301933;Mylonas 1973; Dickinson 1977: 3958). The people buried in the two Grave Circles were treated in a way


2/10

S. VOUTSAKI

that elevated them above the rest of the community:their burial place was demarcated by a circular enclosure and made more conspicuous by the use of funerary stelae; the dead were buried in increasinglylarge and deep shaft graves, designed especially for reuse; some of the people buried received secondarytreatment, and their funeral involved complex rites,such as animal sacrifices and funerary meals; finally,the dead were accompanied by unprecedentedamounts of mostly imported, finely crafted offerings,made of precious materials and decorated withcomplex figurative scenes. These burials clearly mark the emergence of a social lite at Mycenae (Kilian Dirlmeier 1986; Graziadio 1991), that used mortuarydisplay and conspicuous consumption as a strategy of exclusion and differentiation (Voutsaki 1995; 1997).

While the wealth of the Mycenae Grave Circles is

unique, in MH IIILH I the entire southern mainlandwitnessed a general increase in prosperity, moremarked differentiation between and withincommunities, as well as increasing interaction with theAegean. The mainland regions participated in thesedevelopments in different degrees.2 I have arguedelsewhere (Voutsaki 1993: 1634, 1678) that socialand political imbalances within and between regionsset off a process of competition and emulation, whichsoon engulfed the entire southern mainland and led tothe emergence of small principalities in the earlyMycenaean period, and the formation of larger palatialstates in the late Mycenaean period.

The seeds of these developments, however, should besought further back in time, during the MH period.Therefore, explaining social change in the latter period becomes an imperative task. This is the main objectiveof a new fiveyear project based at the GroningenInstitute of Archaeology in the Netherlands.3

2 For instance, a certain concentration of moderately rich tombscan be seen in Messenia (Dickinson 1977: 914; for a morerecent synthesis, see Boyd 2002) and a scatter in Thebes, Atticaand Corinth (see Cavanagh & Mee 1998: passim).3 The project is directed by myself, and financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) andthe Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen. For moreinformation on the project, see Voutsakiet al. 2004 [2003];Voutsaki et al. in press; and, on the internet,http://www.MHArgolid.nl. I would like to thank Mrs Z.Aslamatzidou, ephor of the Fourth Ephorate of Classical andPrehistoric Antiquities at Nauplion, and the Department of Conservation of the Greek Ministry of Culture for granting us permission to examine and sample the skeletal material fromLerna and Aspis (Argos). I would also like to thank theAmerican School of Classical Studies at Athens, as well asProf. M. Wiencke, Dr. C. Zerner and Prof. E. Banks, for allowing us to examine the Lerna skeletons and finds, and totake samples from the skeletons. We are equally thankful to theFrench School of Archaeology, in particular to Prof. G.Touchais and Mrs. A. PhilippaTouchais, for allowing us toexamine the finds from Aspis and to take samples from the

II. THE AIMS OF THEPROJECT The central aim of this project is to explain the changesthat took place during the MH period, and their intensification in the transition to the LH period. The project focuses on the Argolid and, in particular, theArgive plain [Pl. 1] . More extensively, the keyobjectives are:

To establish the nature of social organisationduring the MH period.

To reconstruct the process of social change duringthe MH period, and to assess the changingarticulation of kinship and status at that time.

To reconstruct the process of political change,and, in particular, to explain the rise of Mycenaetowards the end of the MH period.

To explore the role of external contacts in thecultural transformation of the Greek mainlandsocieties.

To explore the redefinition of personal and groupidentities in wider processes of cultural and socialchange.

III. THE PROBLEM: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHANGEDURING THEMIDDLEHELLADICPERIOD

A. SOCIALSTRUCTURE ANDSOCIALCHANGEDURING THEMIDDLEHELLADICPERIOD O. Dickinson has described MH society as not particularly complex (1977: 38). To quote him: []few tumuli and big houses are the only possibleevidence of a ruling class until the [] Late Phase,which suggest some social stratification, although theyare not separated or in any way different from the rest[] (1977: 38). His conclusions have been largelyconfirmed by more recent and detailed studies. For instance, G. Nordquist has suggested that the Lernasociety did not develop from a more egalitarian to amore complex one, but from a society with fewer andless marked rank groups to one with larger socialdivisions and more marked ranking, and clearer sexdifferences (Nordquist 1979: 44; 2002: 29). In their recent monograph on mortuary practices in the prehistoric Aegean, W. Cavanagh and C. Mee (1998:35) have concluded that there was some degree of social hierarchy in this [MH] period which can be

skeletons. Finally, we would like to express our thanks to theSwedish Institute of Archaeology, Prof. G. Nordquist, Prof. R.Hgg and Prof. C.G. Styrenius for permission to examine thefinds and skeletons from Asine. We are deeply grateful to Dr.Zerner, Prof. Touchais, Mrs. PhilippaTouchais and Prof. Nordquist for giving us access to unpublished information,deriving from their work at the respective sites.


3/10

SOCIAL ANDCULTURALCHANGE IN THEMIDDLEHELLADICPERIOD: PRESENTATION OF A NEW PROJECT

traced back to the beginning of the period. It istherefore generally agreed that some form of socialdifferentiation existed towards the end of the period, but there is some ambivalence about the nature anddegree of differentiation during the earlier phases.

One scholar, however, has offered a substantiallydifferent reading of the data: I. KilianDirlmeier, inher recent publication of the shaft graveor better,built tombof Aegina (1997) has proposed theexistence of an lite and social stratification already inthe earlier phases of the MH period. In this study, she presents a list of lite burials ( Hervorgehobene Bestattungen), which she interprets as the burials of MH chiefs. These lite graves consisted usually of single burials, deposited in large graves in aconspicuous location, and were sometimes enhanced by a burial mound. They were accompanied by rich

offerings, including weapons, and date primarily to theMH II period. Typical examples are the built tomb inAegina and the socalled Ampheion at Thebes, whileother tombs, such as the ones at Dramesi,Kephalovryso, Ayia Irini (Grave 28), Marathon(Tumulus I, Tomb 1), Thorikos (Tumulus V, shaftgrave), and the tumuli at Asine (IQ), Pappoulia andVoidokoilia (KilianDirlmeier 1997: 83106, with fullreferences) are also included in her list of early MHlite burials. The inclusion of weapons in some of these tombs and the absence of overt signs of Minoaninfluence led KilianDirlmeier to conclude that the basis of power in the early MH period was acombination of military achievement and economicactivities, rather than a connection with, or influence by, the Minoan lite. She, therefore, explains the ShaftGrave phenomenon as the intensification of earlier patterns of differentiation, and attributes it to internaldevelopments.

There is, however, a logical weakness in thisexplanation: if we accept that there is already socialhierarchy in the MH IMH II periods, or, to put itdifferently, if we see the Shaft Grave phenomenon as aculmination of internal processes, we run the risk of seeing the dramatic changes that took place in MH III LH I as natural and inevitable; in fact, we almost evadethe need to explain them.4

In addition, the homogeneity of this group of tombs interms of chronology, location, grave architecture,mode of disposal and wealth is questionable. Mostimportantly, their date is problematic: while theAegina grave certainly belongs to the MH II phase, for the others a MH III date cannot be excluded or is even

4 As J. Wright (2001: 182) has observed: KilianDirlmeier hascollected evidence of early MH high status burials, but has notsituated them within the dynamic processes that led to the moreelaborate burials of the end of the period.

preferable.5 In terms of wealth, again there areexceptions: neither the Marathon tomb, nor the tumuliin Pappoulia and Voidokoilia (KilianDirlmeier 1997:1034) contained any valuable items during their earlier phase of use.

I would also like to express a methodologicalreservation. KilianDirlmeier singles out lite burialsfrom different regions, and thereby treats the entiresouthern mainland as an undifferentiated entity. In thisway, both regional differences and differences amongspecific sites are obscured. The publication of theAegina tomb has initiated a very interesting discussionon MH society, but I believe that the evidence for theexistence of a clearly demarcated lite in the earlier part of the period is not overwhelming.

Our project will adopt a different approach in order to

reconstruct social structure during the MH period: weintend to undertake a detailed, contextual andstatistical analysis of all attested tombs in one region.6

If we undertake such an analysis in the Argolid,7 thefollowing picture emerges. Under the apparentsimplicity and homogeneity of MH mortuary practices, there is a wide diversity of forms. Burialswere either intramural or extramural, while the possibility of separate burial plots in abandoned areasof the settlement should also be mentioned; there areflat cemeteries and tumuli; there are several tombtypessimple inhumations, pits, cists, pot burials andsome hybrid forms; most burials were singlecontracted inhumations, but there are a few multiple

5 I cannot do full justice to KilianDirlmeiers complexarguments here because of space limitations, but it should be pointed out that the tomb in Thebes is generally thought to belong to the transition from MH to LH I (e.g. Rutter 1999:357; cf. Dickinson 1977: 978) rather than the MH II period;the tomb at Dramesi was totally destroyed and has never been properly excavated. Kephalovryso contained multipleinterments and its use in MH II (and more specifically, theattribution of some of the metal finds to MH II) is uncertain.Finally, the Ayia Irini, Marathon and Thorikos tombs have beenassigned to a later phase by their excavators (see Kilian Dirlmeier 1999, for full references). If these tombs belong tothe MH III period, as it is suggested here, they are part of theShaft Grave phenomenon, i.e. the growing elaboration andostentation of the mortuary practices in MH IIILH I, and notits prelude.6 Ideally, of course, the next step would be to undertakecomparisons between regions; this is, however, beyond thescope of this project.7 The observations are based on a preliminary analysis of thedata. I would like to acknowledge the financial assistance of theAylwin Cotton Foundation, as this analysis was undertakenwhile I held an Aylwin Cotton Foundation fellowship. Morerecently, further preliminary analyses of the Lerna cemeteryhave been carried out, partly in collaboration with E. Milka (aPh.D. student at the Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen, who is studying the funerary data). I have alsoconsulted the following studies: Nordquist 1979; 1987; 2002;Mee & Cavanagh 1984; Cavanagh & Mee 1998.


4/10

S. VOUTSAKI

graves and some cases of secondary treatment. Theresult is a complex and diffuse patterning, rather thanclearcut differentiation. We can observe some generaltrends and associations, but there is no consistentcorrelation among the various aspects of mortuary practices, e.g. the type and construction of the grave,the number of grave offerings, the age and sex of thedeceased, etc. If, for instance, we consider age as adifferentiating criterion, it is true that children weremore often buried in intramural gravesbut, on theother hand, childrens burials were also richlyfurnished on occasion. If we examine gender, no pronounced differences can be observed.8 It is difficultto distinguish clear status distinctions, or to isolate agroup that can be designated as the lite. It has been pointed out that the people buried in tumulirepresented a more privileged group (Dickinson 1977:38). However, the distribution of such mounds is

markedly uneven (cf. Dickinson 1982: 134): they arefound mostly in Argos, while the majority of burials belongs to the later phase of the MH period (Deilaki1980; Dietz 1991: 2815).9 Nordquist (2002: 29) hasrecently suggested that the group of people buried inextramural cemeteries constituted the MH lite. It isdifficult, however, to see these people as an exclusivegroup. While it is true that MH III tombs in extramuralcemeteries tended to be larger, more complex and better furnished than those found in the settlements, nosimilar pattern can be established for the MH IMH II phases.10

To conclude, so far: the variety of forms andcombinations and the absence of clear levels of wealthor grave elaboration indicate a subtle categorisationrather than strict differentiation. This lack of emphasison distinction through material signs is reinforced bythe general austerity of the MH material culture, whichshows a remarkable lack of ritual or specialisedartefacts and a total absence of what we could call art(cf. Dickinson 1977: 36).

How should we explain the absence of clear distinctions in the mortuary record? Nordquist hasmade an interesting remark: since the wearing [of jewellery] is not restricted by age or sex, its limited useis probably due to status in a society where status istransmitted and inherited through, e.g., family ties(Nordquist 1987: 45). Equally, Cavanagh and Mee(1998: 34) have suggested the existence of socialhierarchy in MH times (see above), but at the sametime they have stressed the role of kinship: family

8 For a full discussion of age and gender differentiation in theMH period, see Voutsaki in press.9 But see J. Marans remarks on the dating of the tombs (Maran1992: 3578).10 Needless to say, these two suggestions are being carefullychecked during the systematic analysis of the funerary data byE. Milka (see footnote 7).

groupings were emphasised, and status was mediatedthrough kinship. It is interesting that these scholarshave introduced kinship and descent into thediscussion about social structureafter all, kinship isthe main organising principle in premodern, small scale, facetoface societies. However, their viewsabout the articulation between kinship and statusduring the MH period are ambivalent. I believe thatthis is not fortuitous; in fact, I would like to proposethat it is in thechanging articulation of kin and status that an explanation of the transformation at the end of the MBA can be sought. Let me clarify this statement:I believe that the main structuring principle underlyingmortuary patterning in MH IMH II was kinshiprather than social status; that as authority wasinscribed and embedded in kin relations, it did notrequire elaborate practices and material distinctions for its legitimation. However, in the MH IIILH I periods

a new mode of social evaluation was introduced, one based on ostentatious practices (such as conspicuousconsumption at death, see Voutsaki 1997), and possibly military achievement. This is the workinghypothesis of our project, formulated on the basis of the preliminary analyses of the evidence.

However, only a systematic examination of all aspectsof the funerary data from the MH Argolid will allowus to establish whether this hypothesis is correct. Theanalysis of the funerary data will proceed in four stages:

A radiocarbon analysis11 of the human skeletalmaterial, to increase the chronological resolutionof our investigation.

The analysis of the archaeological data,12 todetermine if there is variation between individual burials, groupings and cemeteries, and toreconstruct change through time.

The reexamination of all extant skeletalmaterial,13 with a view to confirm age and sexidentifications, but also to examine variation in

occupational activities, pathologies and diet.

11 The radiocarbon analysis will be done by Dr. A.J. Nijboer (Groningen Institute of Archaeology), in collaboration with theCentre for Isotope Research of the University of Groningen.12 This analysis is being carried out by E. Milka (see footnote7).13 Dr. S. Triantaphyllou (Department of Archaeology,University of Sheffield) and Dr. A. IngvarssonSundstrm(Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala) will reexaminethe skeletal material from Lerna and Asine respectively. Dr.Triantaphyllou has already examined the human skeletons fromAspis for the publication of the site. We would like to thank Prof. Touchais and Mrs. PhilippaTouchais for allowing us touse the results of Dr. Triantaphyllous study in advance of publication.


5/10


Dental microwear analysis14 and Stable Isotopesanalysis15 will be used in parallel, in order toreconstruct the diet of the MH populations.

At a final stage, the integration of the radiocarbon,archaeological and anthropological information,which will allow us to reconstruct variation withinand between communities, as well as changethrough time.

A further goal of our project is to reconstruct kinshiprelations within communities. Three methods areemployed: the first involves a purely archeologicalanalysis of variation between clusters of graves (rather than individual burials), in order to establish if entiregroupings behave in a similar way. Second, we hopeto be able to reconstruct domestic groups andhouseholds by examining (intramural) burial

groupings in relation to floors, houses and openspaces.16 These archaeological analyses may allow usto suggest kinship ties, but archaeological data alonecannot prove the existence of such ties. For this reason,we are carrying out DNA analysis on selected burialsfrom the main MH cemeteries at Lerna, Argos andAsine.17 DNA analysis is a powerful method whichallows to establish blood relations (albeit only downthe maternal line). It is not a panacea, however:extracting and amplifying ancient DNA presentssevere problems, and the risk of contamination withmodern DNA is considerable. Nevertheless, we havedevised a sampling and processing strategy allowingus to enhance the chances of extracting DNA and tominimise contamination risk.18

To sum up: a contextual and statistical analysis of MHfunerary data19 will allow us to understand the way inwhich MH societies were organised during the earlier part of the period, and will constitute a crucial first steptowards reconstructing processes of change during theMH period.

14 The dental microwear analysis is undertaken by Dr.Triantaphyllou as part of a separate project, financed by theInstitute of Aegean Prehistory (Philadelphia).15 The stable isotopes analysis is carried out by Prof. M.Richards, Department of Archaeological Science, University of Bradford.16 This will be undertaken in collaboration with the excavators,or scholars entrusted with the publication of the MH materialfrom the main sites: Dr. Zerner (Lerna), Prof. Nordquist(Asine), Prof. Touchais and Mrs PhilippaTouchais (Aspis).We are deeply grateful to these scholars for sharing their knowledge of MH Argolid with us.17 The pilot analysis of 12 samples from Lerna and five samplesfrom Aspis are currently under way. Asine will be sampled in2005.18 The DNA analysis is carried out by Prof. S. Kouidou Andreou and Dr. L. Kovatsi, both at the Medical School of theUniversity of Thessaloniki.19 For more details on the methods employed, see Voutsakiet al. 2004 [2003]; in press A; cf. http://www.MHArgolid.nl.

B. POLITICAL CHANGE AND SITE HIERARCHY IN THEARGIVEPLAIN Social change constitutes only one aspect of thetransformation of the MH societies. The unevendistribution of rich and elaborate tombsand mostsignificantly, their concentration in Mycenaeadds afurther dimension that needs to be investigated: thechanging political interrelations in the Argive plain.Two questions need to be addressed: first, what causedthe rise of Mycenae? And second, what was the statusof Mycenae during the MH IMH II period?

The initial analysis of mortuary data from the Argolidcan provide some answers. During the earlier part of the period (MH IMH II), nonceramic offerings(ornaments, tools and weapons) are found mostly(though always in small quantities) in Lerna, Asineand Argos.20 It is interesting that hardly any non

ceramic offerings have been found in Mycenae andTiryns in this period. However, a word of caution isnecessary here: most of our evidence comes fromLerna, Asine and Argos. The situation in Mycenae isunclear, as only the tombs from the PrehistoricCemetery have been published (Alden 2000), whilemost of the (unpublished) tombs found in the (later)settlement area are robbed and/or poorly preserved. Nevertheless, the few rich tombs that are found areconsistently late in the sequence, i.e. of LH I and LH IIdate.21 The situation is even more unclear in Tiryns,where only a few graves have been uncoveredagain,

most of them unfurnished.The uneven intensity of research, the state of publication, the chronological uncertainties, and the problems of preservation prevent us from reaching adefinite conclusion. Nevertheless, on the basis of theevidence as we now know it, we have no reason tothink that Mycenae occupied an important position inthe plain already in MH IMH II.22

This conclusion renders the problem even more acute:how and why did Mycenae grow in significanceduring the ensuing, MH IIILH I periods? In order to provide an answer, we need to investigate the nature of relations between Mycenae and the other sites in theArgolid. Moderately rich burials dating to MH IIILH

20 The cemeteries in Prosymna and Myloi date to the MH III period. No MH IMH II tombs are known from Dendra, whilethe MH tombs in Berbati are unpublished.21 I should add that I have examined all the MH burials,including those outside the Prehistoric Cemetery, e.g. those inthe area of Building M, House N, the East House, etc. Oncemore, these are unfurnished. A useful summary of thedistribution of MH finds and graves in Mycenae is given byDietz (1991: 286, with full references).22 Oliver Dickinson has also pointed out (1982: 134) that thereis no evidence for a steady increase in the significance of Mycenae. Needless to say, this conclusion can be reversed withnew discoveries, or with the publication of earlier findings.


6/10

S. VOUTSAKI

I are attested in Argos, Asine, Lerna and Dendra, buttheir wealth cannot in any way be compared to that of the Grave Circles of Mycenae. If we look at thesettlement evidencekeeping in mind, of course, the problems of preservation or intensity of research, theidea of a certain decrease in importance for Lerna,Argos and Asine can receive some confirmation.There are indications that the size, and possibly alsothe importance of these sites, changed during thecrucial MH IIILH I periods. In the case of Lerna, wecan see a clear contrast between the thriving MH I MH II settlement and the virtual absence of architectural remains in the excavated area during theMH IIILH II periods (Dietz 1991: 286). Argosappears to have grown in MH III in terms of settlement size, but to have declined in importance(and shrunk in size?) already in LH I (Dietz 1991:2813; Touchais 1997). In Asine, we see a clear

expansion of the settlement in MH III, but hardly anyarchitectural remains and finds can be dated to the LHILH II periods (Dietz 1984).23 Therefore, in the MHIIILH II periods we can observe the reversal of theearlier (MH IMH II) pattern of concentration of richer tombs in Lerna, Asine and Argos. Disentanglingcause from effect is very difficult in the prehistoricrecord, but I have suggested elsewhere that these two processes, the rise of Mycenae and the decline of rivalsites in the plain, are clearly connected (Voutsaki2001).

These thoughts, however, are based on preliminaryobservations on the distribution of valuable items inthe graves. Power shifts in the plain can only bereconstructed by means of a detailed, comparativeanalysis of all Argive cemeteries. The analysis will proceed in three stages: first, the data from the largeand well documented cemeteries at Argos, Asine andLerna will be carried out.24 At a second stage, theevidence from Mycenae and Tiryns, two veryimportant, but less documented sites, will be added.During the final stage, the lesser sites (e.g. Dendra,Berbati, Prosymna, Myloi, etc.) will be included.

C. THE CAUSES OFCHANGE: TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH So far, I have discussed how MH societies changed: Ihave tentatively suggested that in the MH IIILH I periods kinship became replaced by status as the maincriterion of social categorisation, and that Mycenaerose to prominence by eliminating rival sites in the plain. But we still need to address the crucial question:why did MH societies change?

23 No comparative data exist for MH Dendra.24 The comparative analysis of the welldocumented cemeteries(Lerna, Asine, Argos) is carried out by E. Milka (see footnote7).

The traditional, but still prevailing, explanationattributes the changes on the Greek mainland toinfluence from the more sophisticated, palatialsocieties of Minoan Crete. Indeed, the period that I amcovering (MB IIILB I) represents the peak of Minoanexpansion in the Aegean. However, Minoan influencecannot explain the timing of the changes, since thesouthern mainland had been in contact with Cretesince the MH I period.25 Second, it cannot explain thedistribution of imports and rich tombs in the MH III LH I periods, as at least two concentrations of richtombsthe Grave Circles at Mycenae and theMessenian sitesare found in sites or areas which didnot seem to participate actively in exchanges with theAegean during the earlier phases of the MH period.Finally, Minoan influence cannot explain the nature of the changes, and in particular the adoption of newmortuary forms and practices during the MH IIILH I

periods, as these practices bear little similarity toMinoan customs.26 Generally, in Crete the emphasiswas on the elaboration of the domestic and ritualsphere in this period, rather than funerary practices.This stands in clear contrast to the mainland, where nosignificant changes can be detected in the domesticsphere. We can conclude, therefore, that Minoaninfluence must have played a role, but it cannot be thesole cause of the changes that occurred on themainland at this time.27

More recently, and primarily under the influence of systemic models (e.g. Renfrew 1972), the emphasishas shifted away from external cultural stimuli tointernal social factors.28 According to Renfrewsmodel, agricultural intensification led to the productionof surplus and the emergence of a redistributive lite,who promoted trade and craft specialisation in order toacquire valuable items and strengthen their position.The model can be criticised on theoretical grounds for being deterministic and too focused on the economy,for neglecting external stimuli (and thereby, the wider historical context), and for disregarding the role of social agents (Voutsaki 1993: 469). In the case of theMH mainland, it can also be refuted on purely factualgrounds: a process of economic growth, settlementexpansion, intensification of production and trade can be observed at best in parallel with, but mostly after,

25 The presence of plentiful Minoan ceramic imports, as well asof local imitations, throughout the MBA testifies to this.Imports from Aegina and the Cyclades are also found on thesouthern mainland.26 Dickinson (1989: 135) has stressed that there is no evidencefor Minoan influence on MH III burial customs.27 For a more extensive discussion on this point, see Voutsaki1999.28 As we have seen, KilianDirlmeier (1997) shares withRenfrew an emphasis on internal developments rather thanexternal influences; but neither does she adopt his economicdeterminism, nor does she provide an explanation for theintensification of change in the MH IIILH I periods.


7/10


the transformation of the mortuary practices in the MHIIILH I periods.29 Therefore, the changes on themainland occurred in the first instance in the sphere of ritual and sumptuary practices, and only subsequentlyin the sphere of economy and production.

An objection to Renfrews internalist model has beenvoiced by A. Sherratt and S. Sherratt (1991).According to them, the transformations of the Aegeansocieties should be attributed to their integration intothe eastern Mediterranean networks of alliances andexchanges. While I agree with their position in generalterms (see below), their model pays little attention todifferences in the way specific regions, sites or socialgroups became incorporated into these networks. For instance, their model may explain the changes on themainland during MH IIILH I, but it cannot accountfor the absence of change in the MH IMH II periods.

Therefore, if internalist models ignore external stimuliand the wider historical framework, this last model pays little attention to local motives behind culturalreceptivity or resistance.

We see, therefore, that that neither purely externalstimuli, nor purely internal developments can accountfor the transformation of MH societies. Both sets of factors need to be combined in order to reach a more balanced explanation. We intend, therefore, toreconstruct internal processes of change by observingdifferentiation across space and through time (seeabove), but also to situate these processes in their wider historical context:30 the Minoan expansionist pressures, the growth of the Aegean maritime polities(Aegina, Ayia Irini, Akrotiri and Phylakopi), and theincreasing interaction, mobility and tension in theAegean.

However, combining internal conditions and externalfactors is not sufficient. We need to develop anapproach to change that transcends the division between culture and society. Overcoming thisdichotomy is one of the main tenets of the post processual approach. Yet, we cannot seek inspirationfor the explanation of change in postprocessualstudies, as they tend not to address this question.31 Thisis to a large extent understandable, as the post processual approach was shaped under the influence of poststructuralist thought (Foucault 1972), which notonly cast doubt on earlier (marxist, positivist,29 As Dickinson (1989: 133) has pointed out, we do not observea process of gradual change during MH: the first signs of []irreversible change only appear in the latest stages of MH, perhaps the last century or so []. 30 See also Wright 2001, for a similar approach. Dickinson(1989: 136) has also suggested that the expansion of trade andMinoan influence during the Second Palace period must have played a role in the changes that occurred on the mainland.31 See, for instance, Barrett 1994 and Thomas 1999 in the fieldof European prehistory.

functionalist, etc.) models of change, but alsoquestioned the very need for explaining change andthe principle of linear causality. However, for adiscipline such as archaeology, which deals primarilywith the long term, understanding change remains acrucial question. The otherwise valid points made by poststructuralist critics need to be integrated intoarchaeological interpretations, and alternatives to previous deterministic models need to be formulated.

In order to formulate a new approach to change, wefirst need to move beyond the social determinism thatcharacterised earlier archaeological interpretations. Weneed to acknowledge the importance of ideologicaland cultural factors, alongside social tensions andeconomic imbalances. The approach proposed herecombines some of the insights gained inanthropological theory (Douglas & Isherwood 1979;

Appadurai 1986); the causes of change on themainland will be sought in the changing patterns of consumption and demand, associated with theemergence of new personal, social and culturalidentities.

I mentioned earlier that social status replaced kin as themain criterion of social categorisation in the MH III LH I periods. However, we still need to explore thecultural dimension of the changes that took place inMH IIILH I. There are two issues that need to beconsidered here: first, the meaning of the newmortuary practices; and second, the significance of representational art.

I have discussed the significance of the new mortuaryforms and practices adopted towards the end of the period extensively elsewhere (Voutsaki 1998); here Ican only summarise my argument. I have proposedthat the changes in MH IIILH I cannot be reduced tosocial change alone (i.e. the emergence of an lite), butsignal a deeper transformation, which involved theredefinition of cosmological and cultural boundaries. Ihave suggested, first, that the more widespread use of extramural cemeteries created a new spatial division between the realm of the living and the realm of thedead. Second, I have argued that the increasingcomplexity of the mortuary ritual, which started toinvolve a first burial followed by secondary treatment,set up a new cyclical temporal scheme. Finally, theadoption of multiple tombs and the ritualisation of themortuary sphere implies an emphasis on ancestors, andthereby the assertion of common descent and identity.I suggested that this emphasis on cosmological andcultural boundaries should be understood against theincreasing receptivity to external influences, but also aneed to express a separate mainland cultural identity.

While some suggestions towards the interpretation of the new forms have already been made, we still need


8/10

S. VOUTSAKI

to reflect on the meaning of the classic MH customs:the practice of intramural burial underneath or betweenhouses, the habit of burying single contractedskeletons in fairly small and simple tombs, and therarity of offerings.32 We need to elucidate the attitudesto death that underlie these practices. We also need tounderstand MH funerary ideology and its relationshipto social life. This brings us back to the hypothesisformulated earlier namely that MH burial customswere permeated by a preoccupation with kinship. If this proves to be correct, and if burial groups point tokinship ties, then we will need to explore how theemphasis on kin and descent was reproduced (or subverted) through mortuary practices. We can onlyexplain the transformation of the burial practices at theend of the MH period if we understand their meaningduring the earlier MH phases.

The second issue, the relatively sudden adoption of representational art in the MH IIILH I periods, hasnever attracted the attention that it deserves.33 In stark contrast to the Minoan or Cycladic cultures, the MHculture is uniconic: there are virtually norepresentations of the human or natural world, andornaments on pottery are restricted to simplegeometric motifs. Likewise, the concentration of representational scenes in the assemblages from theshaft graves has not been adequately commentedupon. It is deemed obvious and natural that anemergent lite on the mainland should have adoptedMinoan, or generally Aegean styles, motifs andscenes. The adoption of figurative art is indeed asymptom of cultural receptivity towards Minoan andAegean influences. But it also needs to be understoodas part of the social strategies adopted by an emergentlite during the transition to the Mycenaean period.34 On the other hand, even if the adoption of figurativeart is primarily a social strategy, its cultural contentcannot be ignored. The first figurative scenes reveal astrong Minoan influence, but they also reflectindigenous identities, norms and values. The preponderance of scenes of men fighting and huntingin the Shaft Grave assemblage, and the strongemphasis on violence, may be interpreted as amanifestation not only of an lite ideology, but also of a mainland ethos.

In order to understand the emergence of figurative art,a systematic analysis of all representational scenes andartefacts found in the Greek mainland between MH III

32 For the significance of intramural burials, see now Philippa Touchais in press.33 Rutter (2001: 12830, 13941), however, has stressed this point in his recent review on the MH period.34 Rutter (2001: 149) has also posited that the adoption of representational art served to enhance individual status.

and LH I needs to be undertaken.35 While theemphasis will inevitably be on lite assemblages, andnotably on the finds from the Shaft Graves, it isimportant to study figurative scenes found in nonlitecontexts as well.36 This systematic investigation willallow us to understand the gradual infiltration of, or sudden exposure to, external influences and their adaptation to local social and cultural needs.

In a nutshell, this project will attempt to break throughdichotomies established by earlier models of change: itwill investigate both internal conditions and externalstimuli; both social manoeuvres and cultural strategies.However, explaining change cannot stop atreconstructing or elucidating general processes. Anattempt will be made to understand the position of social actors within wider processes of change, and tosee how individuals, kin groups and entire

communities redefined their position in these period of shifting values and emergent divisions.37

CONCLUSION This project addresses two general problems whichoccupy a central position in current archaeologicaltheory: the interpretation of change, and theconceptualisation of the person and his/her role inwider processes of change. The project will examinedifferent types of data from the MH Argolid and willcombine both traditional and innovative methods. The

data will be analysed by different specialists, includingarchaeologists, physical anthropologists and thosespecialising in radiocarbon and biomolecular analyses.In outline, the analytical techniques employed are:

The radiocarbon analysis of human bones fromArgos, Asine and Lerna.

The statistical and contextual analysis of funerarydata from the Argolid.

The analysis of skeletal material from the maincemeteries at Argos, Asine and Lerna, which will

35 This investigation will be carried out by myself. Needless tosay, the few representational artefacts from the MH period will be included as well.36 An example of this is the depiction of a human figure on acoarse vessel from Tsoungiza (Rutter 2001: 141).37 The study of variation at the level of individual graves, burialgroups, and cemeteries as a whole will provide us with theresolution necessary for such an analysis. The analysis of themortuary data by E. Milka (see footnote 7) will be combinedwith an investigation of wellpreserved household assemblages,which will allow us to detect differentiation in the domesticsphere. This investigation will be undertaken by myself, inclose collaboration with the excavators, or scholars responsiblefor the publication of the MH material of the main sites (i.e. Dr.Zerner for Lerna, Prof. Nordquist for Asine, and Prof.Touchais and Mrs. Philippa Touchais for Aspis).


9/10


include an osteological analysis, as well as DNAand Stable Isotopes analysis.

The analysis of welldocumented houseassemblages from the large sites.

The analysis of imagery introduced at the end of the MH period.

With this combination of diverse analytical methodsand the integration of different types of data, it ishoped that the transformation of the MH societies, oneof the most pressing questions of Aegean prehistory,will be elucidated.

R EFERENCES Alden, M. 2000.WellBuilt Mycenae, VII. The PrehistoricCemetery. PreMycenaean and Early Mycenaean Graves,Oxbow: Oxford.

Appadurai, A. 1986 (ed.).The Social Life of Things,Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Barrett, J. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity, Blackwells:Oxford.

Branigan, K. 1998 (ed.).Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1,Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield.

Boyd, M.J. 2002.Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean

Mortuary Practices in the Southern and Western Peloponnese, British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 1009, Archaeopress: Oxford.

Cavanagh, W. & Mee, C. 1998. A Private Place. Death in Prehistoric Greece, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology125,strm: Gteborg.

Cullen, T. 2001 (ed.). Aegean Prehistory. A Review,American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1,Archaeological Institute of America: Boston.

Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1977. The rigins of MycenaeanCivilisation, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 49,strm: Gteborg.

Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1982. Parallels and contrasts in theBronze Age of the Peloponnese,Oxford Journal of Archaeology1 (2): 12539.

Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1989. The origins of MycenaeanCivilisation revisited, in Laffineur 1989 (ed.): 1316.

Dietz, S. 1984. Kontinuitt and Kulturwende in der Argolisvon 2000700 v. Chr: Ergebnisse der neuen schwedischen dnischen Ausgrabungen in Asine, in Frey & Roth 1984(eds.): 2352.

Dietz, S. 1991. The Argolid at the Transition to theMycenaean Age. Studies in the Chronology and Cultural

Development in the Shaft Grave Period , National Museum,Denmark: Copenhagen.

Douglas, M. & Isherwood, B. 1979.The World of Goods.Towards an Anthropology of Consumption, Allen Lane:London.

Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge (translated from the French by A.M. Sheridan Smith),Tavistock: London.

Frey, O.H. & Roth, H. 1984 (eds.). Zur gischen Frhzeit ,Kleine Schriften aus dem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar Marburg 17, PhilippsUniversitt Marburg: Marburg.

Gale, N.H. 1991 (ed.). Bronze Age Trade inthe Mediterranean, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology90,strm: Gteborg.

Graziadio, G. 1991. The process of social stratification at

Mycenae in the Shaft Grave period: a comparativeexamination of the evidence, American Journal of Archaeology95 (3): 40340.

Karo, G. 19301933. Die Schachtgrber von Mykene,volumes 12, Bruckmann: Munich.

KilianDirlmeier, I. 1986. Beobachtungen zu denSchachtgrbern von Mykenai und zu den Schmuckbeigabenmykenischer Mnnergrber. Untersuchung zur Sozialstruktur in spthelladischer Zeit, Jahrbuch des RmischGermanischen Zentralmuseums33: 15998.

KilianDirlmeier, I. 1997. Das mittelbronzezeitlicheSchachtgrab von gina, Philipp von Zabern: Mainz amRhein.

KilianDirlmeier, I. & Egg, M. 1999 (eds.).Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, RmischGermanisches ZentralmuseumMonographien 43 (1), RmischGermanischesZentralmuseum: Mainz am Rhein.

Laffineur, R. 1989 (ed.).Transition. Le monde gen du Bronze Moyen au Bronze Rcent. Actes de la deuximerencontre genne internationale de l Universit de Lige(1820 avril 1988), Aegaeum 3, Universit de Lige,

Histoire de l Art et Archologie de la Grce Antique &University of Texas at Austin, Program in Aegean Scriptsand Prehistory: Lige and Austin.

Laffineur, R. & Niemeier, W.D. 1995 (eds.).Politeia.Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the Fifth International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archologisches Institut (1013 April 1994), Aegaeum 12 , Universit de Lige, Histoire de l Art etArchologie de la Grce Antique & University of Texas atAustin, Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory: Lige andAustin.

Maran, J. 1992. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Peukakiamagula in Thessalien III. Die mittlere Bronzezeit ,Habelt: Bonn.


10/10

S. VOUTSAKI

Mylonas, G.E. 1973. , 73,Archaeological Society at Athens: Athens.

Nordquist, G.C. 1979. Dead Society. Study of the Intramural Cemetery at Lerna, unpublished M.A. thesis,University of Southampton.

Nordquist, G.C. 1987. A Middle Helladic Village. Asine inthe Argolid , Boreas 16, University of Uppsala: Uppsala.

Nordquist, G. 2002. Intra and extramural, single andcollective, burials in the Middle and Late Helladic periods,in Wells 2002 (ed.): 259.

Pariente, A. & Touchais, G. 1998 (eds). Argos et l Argolide:topographie et urbanisme. Actes de la table rondeinternationale, Athnes, Argos (28 avril1 mai 1990),Recherches FrancoHellniques 3, Diffusion de Boccard:Paris.

PhilippaTouchais, A. in press. Les tombes intra muros del HM la lumire des fouilles de l Aspis d Argos, inConference sur les pas de W. Vollgraff. Un sicle d activitsarchologiques Argos (AthnesArgos, 2528 septembre2003), Editor ? Intended publisher/place ?

ProtonotariouDeilaki, E. 1980. ,unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Athens.

Renfrew, C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilization. TheCyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC ,Methuen: London.

Rutter, J.B. 1999. Review of Das mittelbronzezeitlicheSchachtgrab von gina (I. KilianDirlmeier), American Journal of Archaeology103: 3578.

Rutter, J.B. 2001. The prepalatial Bronze Age of thesouthern and central Greek mainland, in Cullen 2001 (ed.):95155.

Sherratt, A. & Sherratt, S. 1991. From luxuriesto commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Agetrading systems, in Gale 1991 (ed): 35186.

Thomas, J. 1999.Understanding the Neolithic, Routledge:

London (revised second edition).Touchais, G. 1998. Argos lpoque mesohelladique: unhabitat ou des habitats?, in Pariente & Touchais 1998 (eds.):7184.

Voutsaki, S. 1993.Society and Culture in the MycenaeanWorld. An Analysis of Mortuary Practices in the Argolid,Thessaly and the Dodecanese, unpublished Ph.D. thesis,University of Cambridge.

Voutsaki, S. 1995. Social and political processes in theMycenaean Argolid: the evidence from the mortuary practices, in Laffineur & Niemeier 1995 (eds.): 5565.

Voutsaki, S. 1997. The creation of value and prestige in theLate Bronze Age Aegean, Journal of European Archaeology 5 (2): 3452.

Voutsaki, S. 1998. Mortuary evidence, symbolic meaningsand social change: a comparison between Messenia and theArgolid in the Mycenaean period, in Branigan 1998 (ed.):4158.

Voutsaki, S. 1999. The Shaft Grave offerings as symbolsof power and prestige, in Kilian & Egg 1999 (eds.): 10317.

Voutsaki, S. 2001. The rise of Mycenae: political inter relations and archaeological evidence, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies45: 1834.

Voutsaki, S. in press. Age and gender in the southern Greek mainland, 20001500 BC, EthnographischArchologische Zeitung 45.

Voutsaki, S., Triantaphyllou, S., KouidouAndreou, S.,Kovatsi, L. & Milka, E. 2004 [2003]. Lerna, 20001500BC. 2004. A pilot analysis, Pharos 11: 7580.

Voutsaki, S., Triantaphyllou, S. & Milka, E. in press.Project on the Middle Helladic Argolid: a report on the2004 season, Pharos 12.

Wells, B. 2002 (ed.). New Research on Old Material from Asine and Berbati in Celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversaryof the Swedish Institute at Athens, Acta Instituti AtheniensisRegni Sueciae, Series 8o 17, Svenska Institutet i Athen:Stockholm.

Wright, J. 2001. Factions and the origins of leadership andidentity in Mycenaean society, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies45: 182.

voutsaki 2005 presentation of mh argolid project autochthon

Documents