UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date:______
I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:
It is entitled:
This work and its defense approved by:
Chair: ______
Feasting in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Aegean: Variability and Meaning
A thesis submitted to the
Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences
2007
by
Sarah Lima B.A., Indiana University, 2002
Committee: Jack L. Davis and Kathleen M. Lynch, Co-Chairs
i
ABSTRACT
This thesis compares and contrasts how feasting operated in communities during the Bronze Age and Iron Age in Greece by examining archaeological data from sites in western Messenia and
Euboea. Working under the assumption that feasting represents an expression of the social structure in which it functions, I argue that feasts sponsored by Mycenaean palatial administrators functioned diacritically, and served to legitimize and maintain control over resources, as well as to define a stratified social hierarchy. However, following the collapse of the Mycenaean palace systems in the LH IIIB period, banqueting was more generally oriented toward bringing individuals together and establishing unified group identities. Another observation of this study is that while feasts at LH IIIB palatial centers such as Pylos and Thebes appear similar in their forms and motivations, feasts at post-palatial sites such as Nichoria,
Xeropolis, and Toumba show some variation when they are compared with one another. This characteristic of variability is also reflected in the different forms and motivations of feasts depicted in the Homeric epics, which seem to demonstrate that multiple modes of feasting would have been known in Iron Age Greece, serving a number of functions for the communities in which they circulated.
ii
Feasting in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Aegean: Variability and Meaning
Sarah Lima, M. A.
University of Cincinnati, 2006
Copyright © by Lima, Sarah. All rights reserved. iii
PREFACE
The idea for this thesis arose as a result of my participation in a seminar on the symposium offered at the University of Cincinnati in the spring of 2005 by Kathleen Lynch and
Barbara Breitenberger. My paper examined the question of whether or not prefigurations of the
Archaic symposium were observable in depictions of feasting within the Homeric epics and in the material records of Iron Age sites. Within the scope of the Iliad and the Odyssey, I discussed how Homer’s portrayals of heroes’ feasting behaviors conveyed statuses and relationships of characters within the stories. Through this examination of literary and archaeological evidence, I discovered that there was not just one mode of Iron Age feasting, but many. The variety of
“expressions” of feasting struck me as important, because it seemed to contradict the idea of a single, monolithic model for Iron Age social dynamics. Feasting also drew my attention to its flexibility as a social currency that allowed for the creation and confirmation of new relationships within a context of leisure.
Kathleen Lynch recommended that I expand on this study to incorporate archaeological evidence from the Late Bronze Age. She and Jack Davis both helped me to refine my ideas on this topic, centered on this question: if feasting and commensality reflect particular forms of social organization, and the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age in the
Aegean involves dramatic social restructuring of communities throughout Greece, then what happens to the role of feasting during this transition?
Rather than incorporating evidence from many parts of the Aegean, I have compared data from a few well-published sites in order to explore modes of feasting behavior at various points within a span of time covering the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. Sites that have been identified as settings for commensal behavior, including Pylos and Nichoria in western iv
Messenia, were employed as examples of Mycenaean and Iron Age feasting, respectively.
Observations about activities at these sites were compared and contrasted with data from
Toumba and Xeropolis, both located at modern Lefkandi on Euboea. The “variability and meaning” in the title reflects the results of my exploration, which found that feasting displayed considerable variability following the waning of influence of the Mycenaean palaces at the end of the LH IIIB period.
The process of composing this thesis has taught me a great deal about myself and about what motivates my scholarship. In light of the inextricable link that I see between food and identity, I have realized that it was the possibility of understanding people and my relationships with them that led me to this field and to this topic. As examples, I need look no further than instances of commensality that have formed identity, in various capacities, for me—lunches huddled around low tables in the graduate student tearoom in Blegen Hall, departmental cookouts, and the all-important institution of the coffee break. Therefore, it is no surprise that whenever I felt particularly stuck, I would imagine myself at the completion of this thesis, seated at the head of a long table like those in the great hall of Alcinous, celebrating at a lively feast with a room full of those who helped me as I researched and wrote.
Surely the chine, the cut of honor across the backbone of the bull, would go to Kathleen
Lynch and to Jack Davis. As co-advisors, the two of them have helped me to develop my ideas, to improve my writing, and to stay focused and motivated. Kathleen introduced me to this topic, and Jack steered me toward the site of Lefkandi, in addition to suggesting that I look at sites in
Messenia as comparanda. Jack even helped me to obtain an advance copy of Lefkandi IV so that my data would be as current and solid as possible. Jack and Kathleen have pushed me to make v this work something that I can be proud of, and for the time, patience, and encouragement that they have offered to me, I thank them.
In the seat beside me, as he has been from the beginning, would be Brian, my husband, who has been immensely understanding and patient as I wrestled with this process. He has endured my distracted presence and conspicuous absence on various occasions with grace, love, and kindness. Finally, I would fill the rest of the table with my comrades, people who have contributed to this work in any number of ways through encouragement, feedback, advice, friendship, humor, and even well-timed silence. All are students and friends of the University of
Cincinnati’s Department of Classics. What a rarity and a bit of good fortune it is to be surrounded by such people every day. I raise my glass to all of you.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract...... i
Preface...... iii
Table of Contents...... vi
List of Tables...... viii
List of Figures...... ix
Chapter 1. Introduction...... 1
Approach of This Thesis...... 2 Past Scholarship on Feasting and Reciprocity...... 5 Bronze Age and Iron Age Feasting in Greece...... 10
Chapter 2. Models of Feasting from Messenia, the Homeric Epics, and Hesiod...... 14
A Mycenaean Model: Feasting at the Palace of Nestor at Pylos...... 14 The Linear B Tablets...... 15 The Architecture and Iconography...... 20 Faunal Remains and Ceramic Data...... 25
An Iron Age Model: Feasting at Nichoria...... 26 Unit IV-1, Phase 1...... 28 Unit IV-1, Phase 2...... 31 Changes in the Form and Function of Unit IV-1...... 33
Post-palatial Variability: Hesiod, Homer and Iron Age Feasting...... 37 Agamemnon and Leadership Feasting in Wartime...... 38 Alcinous and Leadership Feasting in Postwar Scheria...... 40 Good Neighbors and Bad Guests: Comments from Hesiod...... 42 Feasting for Feasting’s Sake: Divine Commensality...... 43 To Indulge is Divine: Hubristic Suitors in the Odyssey...... 44
Chapter 3. Feasting on Euboea...... 48
Introduction to Euboea...... 48 Topography and Geography...... 48 Chronology...... 49
Feasting in Late Bronze Age Euboea...... 52
vii
Introduction to Lefkandi...... 57 Topography...... 57 Research Goals of the Lefkandi Publications...... 60
Feasting at Xeropolis...... 62 Architecture...... 62 Pottery and Small Finds...... 66 Imagery from Pictorial Kraters...... 69 Feasting at Xeropolis and Feasting at the Palace of Nestor...... 72
Feasting at Toumba...... 74 Description of the Toumba Building...... 75 Interior Features of the Toumba Building...... 77 Pottery from the Toumba Building...... 82 Pottery from the Iron Age Cemeteries...... 84 Communal and Mortuary Feasting at Toumba...... 88 Feasting at Toumba and Feasting at the Palace of Nestor...... 90
Chapter 4. Conclusion...... 93
Works Cited...... 103
Tables...... 115
Figures...... 119
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1a. Contents of selected deposits from the LH IIIC Xeropolis settlement, part 1. 115
Table 1b. Contents of selected deposits from the LH IIIC Xeropolis settlement, part 2. 116
Table 2. Contents of selected deposits from the Middle Protogeometric Toumba Building (Lefkandi II.1, pp. 3-5)...... 117
Table 3. Summary of pottery deposits from PG graves from the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi (After Lefkandi III, Table 1)...... 118
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Plan of the Palace of Nestor at Pylos (PN III, fig. 303)………………………... 119
Figure 2. Map of Dark Age sites in Messenia (Nichoria III, fig. 3-1)………………….... 120
Figure 3. Reconstructed plan of Unit IV-1, Phase 1, Nichoria (Nichoria III, fig. 2- 18)………………………………………………………………………………………..... 121
Figure 4. Artist’s reconstruction of Unit IV-1, Phase 2, Nichoria (Nichoria III, fig. 2- 23)………………………………………………………………………………………..... 122
Figure 5. Map showing the location of Xeropolis and Lefkandi (Lefkandi I, pl. 2a)…….. 123
Figure 6. General site plan showing Xeropolis, Lefkandi, Toumba, and the cemeteries (Lefkandi I, pl. 2b)……………………………………………………………………….... 124
Figure 7. Schematic plans of the Protogeometric building at Lefkandi and its features (Lefkandi II.2, pl. 5)………………………………………………………………………. 125
Figure 8. Main Excavation, overall plan of structures/burials, Xeropolis phase 2a (Lefkandi IV, fig. 1.19)…………………………………………………………………..... 126
Figure 9. Simplified plans of structures at Xeropolis phases 1b and 2a (Lefkandi IV, fig. 1.18)…………………………………………………………………………………... 127
Figure 10. Drawing of pictorial sherd from LH IIIC Xeropolis depicting banqueter (Lefkandi IV, pl. 71)……………………………………………………………………..... 128
Figure 11. Fresco from the megaron at Pylos showing a procession (Wright 2004d, fig. 12)………………………………………………………………………………………..... 129
Figure 12. Fresco from the megaron at Pylos showing a lyre player, a sacrificial bull, and banqueters (Wright 2004d, fig. 13)…………………………………………………... 130
Figure 13. Main Excavation, details and finds in West House, Rooms 11 and 12, phase 1b (Lefkandi IV, fig. 1.8)………………………………………………………………..… 131
Figure 14. Main Excavation, details and finds in North House, Room 2, phase 2a (Lefkandi IV, fig. 1.20)…………………………………………………………………..... 132
Figure 15. Trial IV/V: phase 1b: details and finds in the South House and South Area (Lefkandi IV, fig. 1.37)…………………………………………………………………..... 133
x
Figure 16. Detailed plan of Apse Room, W. Corridor and N. and S. Rooms (Lefkandi II.2, pl. 23)……………………………………………………………………………….... 134
Figure 17. Detailed plan of the surviving west end of the Central Room (Lefkandi II.2, pl. 9)…………………………………………………………………………………….… 135
Figure 18. Detailed plan of the East Room and Porch. (Lefkandi II.2, pl. 7)…………...... 136
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
τοῖσιν δ’ Ἀντίνοος μετέφη, Εὐπείθεος υἱός· “κέκλυτέ μευ, μνηστῆρες ἀγήνορες, ὄφρα τι εἴπω. γαστέρες αἵδ’ αἰγῶν κέατ’ ἐν πυρί, τὰς ἐπὶ δόρπῳ κατθέμεθα κνίσης τε καὶ αἵματος ἐμπλήσαντες. ὁππότερος δέ κε νικήσῃ κρείσσων τε γένηται, τάων ἥν κ’ ἐθέλῃσιν ἀναστὰς αὐτὸς ἑλέσθω· αἰεὶ δ’ αὖθ’ ἥμιν μεταδαίσεται, οὐδέ τιν’ ἄλλον πτωχὸν ἔσω μίσγεσθαι ἐάσομεν αἰτήσοντα.” ὣς ἔφατ’ Ἀντίνοος, τοῖσιν δ’ ἐπιήνδανε μῦθος. τοῖς δὲ δολοφρονέων μετέφη πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς· “ὦ φίλοι, οὔ πως ἔστι νεωτέρῳ ἀνδρὶ μάχεσθαι ἄνδρα γέροντα δύῃ ἀρημένον· ἀλλά με γαστὴρ ὀτρύνει κακοεργός, ἵνα πληγῇσι δαμείω…. ”
(Od. 18.43-54)
And then Antinous spoke among them, the son of Eupeitheos: “Hear me, proud suitors, so that I may say something: Here- these stomachs of goats you are burning on the fire, the ones that we laid down for supper after filling them up with fat and blood. Well, whichever one is victorious and shows himself superior, Upon rising, let him choose for himself the one of the lot that he wants; And what’s more, let him perpetually feast with us, and let us not deign for any other beggar to be within our company and entreat us.” Thus spoke Antinous, and the speech was pleasing to them. And Odysseus of many wiles, with a trick in mind, spoke back to them: “Friends, there is no way that an old man beset by sorrow can fight against a younger man; but my stomach, the villain, compels me, such that I may be subjected to blows…” 1
Feasts, defined as occasions when multiple individuals consume food and drink together in a manner that is ideologically significant for them, yield rich evidence for the exploration of relationships between distribution of sustenance and dynamics of power. In the above passage,
Odysseus’s deliberately deceptive response to Antinous’s speech illustrates two points that are central to the relationship between feasting and social organization in Late Bronze Age and Early
1 All translations are my own. 2
Iron Age Greece. First, the passage illustrates that eating and drinking are linked to control.
When Antinous suggests that the disguised Odysseus and the beggar Irus fight to entertain the suitors while they are feasting, relationships of dominance and dependency are physically acted out in the distribution and acceptance of sustenance. The contrast between Antinous’s abundance of food and Odysseus’s empty stomach creates an imbalance in their relationship, establishing the reliance of the hungry party on the provider. The role of food as a determinant of power balances and dependency relates to a second important point: that group processes of eating and drinking are linked to identity, which can be manipulated to serve the needs of those who project it. In the exchange between Odysseus and Antinous, both men feign roles that do not correspond to their true social standings. Antinous is a freeloader, yet he characterizes himself as a host with enough food to support an impoverished outsider; Odysseus, the true master of the house, acts the part of a wanderer who must depend upon others for charity. Their exchange demonstrates the theatrical nature of feasting, and the opportunity that it provides for participants to assume an identity through their “role” in the banquet as a guest, a provider, or a dependent.
Approach of This Thesis
This thesis synthesizes and compares evidence for feasting from Bronze Age and Iron Age sites in Greece. The goal is to identify continuities, variability, and meaning in the objectives and forms of feasting in different contexts through time, using evidence from sites in western
Messenia and central Euboea.
During the Late Bronze Age, and more specifically the Late Helladic IIIB period
(heretofore LH IIIB, ca. 1300-1200 B.C.), there was a visible decentralization of the Mycenaean palace systems at several sites in Greece. General scholarly opinion maintains that the 3 destruction of the palaces prompted a widespread movement of populations, variations in sizes, locations, and organization of settlements, and a change to small-scale methods of subsistence.
Archaeologists have proposed different models of social organization and leadership for settlements that were previously under the control of the Mycenaean palatial centers, and for communities that were out of the range of impact of these centers. Did different forms of social organization pair with different sets of social customs that reinforced them? If so, how were communal eating and drinking activities affected by changes in social organization that occurred during the transition between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages? This question can be also extended to inquire how the function of communal eating and drinking may have varied in domestic versus mortuary contexts.
An assumption underpinning this study of feasting in Bronze Age and Iron Age Greece is that feasting is identifiable in the archaeological record. As the scholarship on feasting and reciprocity to be discussed below suggests, consumption can be observable in palatial settings, but evidence from non-palatial settings has presented a challenge. One way of identifying communal eating and drinking that may have been ideologically significant to its participants is to establish a baseline for everyday levels of communal eating and drinking by comparing potential evidence for feasts against material from definitively identified “domestic” contexts.
The difference would reflect the magnitude of a feast by defining the degree to which it deviates from behavior designated as “normal.”
Another assumption that underlies this examination of feasting in Bronze Age and Iron
Age Greece is that feasting is linked to social structure, and that it was used differently at
Mycenaean palaces than at regionally important settlements postdating the palaces’ destruction
(heretofore “post-palatial” sites). Chapter 2, which focuses on western Messenia, examines the 4 differences between the functions of feasting at the Palace of Nestor at Pylos during the Late
Bronze Age, and at the settlement of Nichoria during the Iron Age. The Palace of Nestor at
Pylos, which flourished in the LH period, contained architectural, ceramic, faunal, and written
Linear B evidence for feasting activities sponsored by the palace. Although there is not sufficient evidence to be able to effectively discuss Iron Age Pylos, the Dark Age settlement at Nichoria, located in the hinterland of the palace of Nestor, provides data for examining consumption of food and drink following the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces. In addition, depictions of feasting in the Homeric epics and the poetry of Hesiod are examined in order to explore the different ways that Iron Age audiences could have perceived feasting. The analysis of the differences between feasting at Pylos and Nichoria, combined with evidence from Homer and
Hesiod, forms a basic framework for this thesis’s comparison of how this social practice functioned differently during LH IIIB and post-palatial periods.
The analysis of how feasting operated at Pylos and at Nichoria anticipates the findings from the examination of Bronze Age and Iron Age feasting in central Euboea in Chapter 3.
Limited evidence from Linear B has suggested the possibility that settlements on Euboea were under the control of the Mycenaean palace at Thebes during the LH IIIB period. Using the relationship between LH IIIB Pylos and sites in its hinterland as a model, I explore the possibility that like the hinterland settlements in Messenia, LH IIIB Lefkandi and other settlements peripheral to Thebes contributed to palatially-sponsored feasts. Although there are certainly observable differences between the way that the two palaces operated, feasts sponsored by the administrations at Pylos and at Thebes show some similar assertions of influence over their subsidiary territories. 5
Then, I examine evidence from the LH IIIC (ca. 1185-1065 B.C.) settlement of Xeropolis at Lefkandi, which suggests that in post-palatial contexts, communal consumption of food and drink was centered within household units. Alternatively, data from the Protogeometric Toumba building and cemetery at Lefkandi suggest that Iron Age feasting activities were focused on creating and bolstering an elite group ideology by referencing past expressions of power and prestige. Generally, while feasting served to establish and confirm a centralized authority at the
Palace of Nestor or at the Kadmeion at Thebes during the LH IIIB period, it was employed at post-palatial communities as a means of creating and maintaining communal and group identities.
Despite these general similarities, there were also variations in the forms and social roles of feasting at Nichoria, Xeropolis, and Toumba. In Chapter 4, this post-palatial variability is explored in relation to different functions of feasts described within the Homeric epics and
Hesiod to suggest that not one, but many forms of feasting would have been familiar to Iron Age audiences. Finally, the potential that these comparisons of feasting have for telling us about the broader social dynamics of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Greece will be discussed.
Past Scholarship on Feasting and Reciprocity
The foci and goals of studies of feasting have changed over time because of interdisciplinary treatment of the topic, as well as the introduction of new categories of evidence. Anthropological studies of gift exchange and reciprocity have pointed to the important role that feasting has played in communities’ subsistence strategies and economies. Researchers have also examined how different kinds of communal eating and drinking have operated socially, ideologically, and politically at different points in time and in different cultures and communities. What follows is a 6 summary of studies that have contributed approaches to my examination of feasting in Bronze
Age and Iron Age Greece.
Processualist and Post-processualist theory has impacted anthropologists’ and archaeologists’ treatment of the phenomenon of feasting. The Processualists of the 1960s through the beginning of the 1980s tended to advocate comparative studies that were based upon the scientific method. They employed quantitative data to make observations about how feasting
(and, more generally, reciprocity and exchange) functioned economically.
Qualitative observations of earlier scholars comprised part of the framework for
Processualist approaches. For example, the sociologist Marcel Mauss treated the topic of ritual exchange in his Essai sur le don, first published in 1925. Mauss discussed social exchange and feasting in terms of such practices as Melanesian sagali (harvest food distributions) and various forms of the American potlatch (competitive large-scale giving, receiving, and repaying based on obligation).2 He made two key observations. First, he concluded that obligation and shame were constructs created through gift giving, as exemplified by the theatrical and public nature of the potlatch.3 Second, he observed that exchange served as a form of “credit” in societies with family/clan social groupings in place by attaching senses of value to gifts that recipients felt compelled to repay, to the point of passing along outstanding debts to their descendents.4
Later, Colin Renfrew observed anthropological models of 19th and 20th century Greek crop specializations in order to understand how prehistoric subsistence patterns may have effected the creation of palatial systems on the Greek mainland, in the Cyclades, and on Crete.
2 Mauss 1954 [1925], pp. 27, 31, 37.
3 Mauss 1954 [1925], p. 37.
4 Mauss 1954 [1925], p. 45. 7
Based on modern examples, Renfrew suggested that new olive and vine species allowed communities to exploit previously unused microenvironments, thereby making it possible for communities to use agricultural specialization as insurance against the possibility of a poor harvest in one of the crops.5 Renfrew also incorporated evidence from Linear B tablets to explain the process of palace-to-hinterland redistribution in terms of a reciprocal relationship, not unlike the basic “credit” system that Mauss observed.6
Similarly, J. M. Maltby considered redistribution and ritual exchanges of pigs at feasts in a community in New Guinea, in which more meat was distributed to individuals living in regions outside of hosts’ settlements than to people living in regions within them.7 The implication of this study was that the hosts distributing the pigs were interested in incorporating exterior or outlying areas into a network of reciprocity or obligation. Such studies—Maltby and Rappaport especially—situated feasting within a broader sphere of exchange and mutual obligation, processes that were manipulated in order to create and symbolize cohesion among members of a group.
When Post-processualism developed as a movement in anthropology during the 1980s, scholars became more focused on identifying cognitive and symbolic meanings behind feasting.
Perhaps in response to Processualism’s positivist approach to the study of human behavior, Post- processualist studies are often characterized as relativist, emphasizing context as a necessary component for examining and explaining human behavior. Post-processualist scholars have also applied question-based research approaches (or lenses) to feasting, many of which have focused
5 Renfrew 1972, p. 307.
6 Renfrew 1972, pp. 296-297.
7 Maltby 1985, p. 60; on this same topic, see Rappaport 1984. 8 on how feasts functioned ideologically, sociopolitically, or as expressions of identity for individuals and communities.
Multidisciplinary approaches to the gathering and analysis of archaeological data, which represent hallmarks of Post-processualism, have yielded diverse kinds of evidence for analysis.8
For example, John Bennet and Jack Davis integrated architectural features with fresco programs from the Palace of Nestor in western Messenia in order to re-create the experience of non-elite guests at palace-sponsored feasting events mentioned within the Linear B tablets.9 James Wright and Yannis Hamilakis have each explored the social significance of wine during the Bronze Age by combining ceramic evidence with considerations of context—that is, how using an object in an act defined as elite attached value to that class of object, and how similar forms of consumption, when acted out within different contexts, require very different methods of interpretation.10 Along the lines of establishing power within Mycenaean palace systems,
Cynthia Shelmerdine has focused more generally on the ways that people involved in the administration established themselves at the top of the hierarchy, as reflected in Linear B texts.11
In addition to being concerned with the ways that feasting and its ideological significance can vary according to context, Post-processualist archaeology has also attempted to account for ways that the archaeological record for feasting has been altered as a result of cultural formation processes—natural or anthropogenic factors that have affected the survival of archaeological
8 Examples include Sherratt 1991 (paleoethnobotany of Mycenaean crop selection) and Killen 1994 (Linear B tablets at Thebes, Knossos, and Mycenae).
9 Davis and Bennet 1999.
10 Hamilakis 1996; Hamilakis 1999. Studies in the subfield of Classical archaeology have also examined studying the ways that elites were defining themselves through sympotic drinking parties (e.g., Lissarrague 1990).
11 Shelmerdine 1999. 9 evidence within its primary depositional context over time. One approach toward overcoming these limitations in the archaeological record is to compare modern ethnographic data regarding feasting and its material record against the observable archaeological evidence. In 2001, Michael
Dietler and Brian Hayden’s conference proceedings entitled Feasts: Archaeological and
Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power brought together numerous case studies of modern and ancient data to examine how feasting has functioned socially, economically, and politically within different communities. In general, contributors’ conclusions derived from focused regional studies rather than large-scale, multi-regional comparisons. In his synthesis of the studies incorporated within the volume, Hayden concluded that feasts are the product of an evolutionarily adaptive behavior for the establishment of social ties.12 Hayden developed a working typology for forms of feasting and a series of archaeological markers of feasts by empirically comparing ethnographic data with archaeological data.13 He attempted to distinguish archaeological or material markers specific to the practice of “feasting” as opposed to everyday consumption of food and drink.14 He also developed several testable hypotheses about determining the magnitudes of feasts through such factors as sizes of storage facilities.15
In 2004, the publication of two more sets of conference proceedings illustrated scholarly interest in the nature of feasting in the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age. The studies collected in The Mycenaean Feast integrated different types of archaeological evidence using frameworks established in Dietler and Hayden’s work to examine how feasting functioned in the formation
12 Hayden 2001, pp. 40-41.
13 Hayden 2001, pp. 38-41.
14 Hayden 2001, pp. 58-59.
15 Hayden 2001, pp. 58-59. 10 and maintenance of Mycenaean identity.16 Paul Halstead and John Barrett, the editors of Food,
Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, examined the role of feasting in different social systems and leadership models to test the theory that feasting activities both directly and indirectly impacted social interactions.17 By exploring how prehistoric Greek feasts are visible in the archaeological record, all three of these conference proceedings offered innovative methods of examining the ways that feasting functioned within different prehistoric social contexts.
Bronze Age and Iron Age Feasting in Greece
Studies of feasting within the context of the Mycenaean palaces have found that feasting served a diacritical function. That is, feasts emphasized individuals’ ranks and designated group identities through various aspects of the experience of dining.18 Thomas Palaima, in his assessment of the
Ta Linear B tablets at Pylos, and Sharon Stocker and Jack Davis, in their study of feasting deposits around the Palace of Nestor, have concluded that instances of feasting at LH IIIB Pylos were related to the legitimization of either a wanax figure or of other socially central elites.19
Lisa Bendall and Paul Halstead and Valasia Isaakidou have also argued for a diacritical role for feasting at Pylos through examination of spatial distributions of archaeological evidence. Bendall has hypothesized that there was a hierarchy of access to feasting space, and Isaakidou and
Halstead studied the distribution of various types of faunal data at Pylos.20 They suggested in
16 Wright 2004a.
17 Halstead and Barrett 2004a, pp. 1-12.
18 Palaima 2004, pp. 113-115; Stocker and Davis 2004a, p. 71; Wright 2004a, p. 51; Borgna 2004b; Steel 2004.
19 Palaima 2004, pp. 113-115; Stocker and Davis 2004a, p. 71.
20 Bendall 2004; Halstead and Isaakidou 2004; Borgna 2004b. 11 their examination of deposits of animal bones from the Palace of Nestor that guests’ ranks and membership in specific social spheres of the palatial hierarchy were expressed through what they ate, as well as where they dined.
Feasting is not only capable of building and enforcing social structures and relationships, but it may also be employed as a construct of power in order to generate economic changes within communities.21 This conclusion, which reflects the stance of Michael Dietler, is demonstrated by Polly Weissner’s study of how the deliberate inclusion of pig-centered rites within ceremonial feasting activities served to popularize pig husbandry in the Kepele cult of western Enga (Papua New Guinea).22 Numerous papers in Halstead and Barrett’s collection explored similar questions about ways that feasts imbued artifacts and contexts with prestigious value, thereby also transferring prestigious status to participants. Elia Vardaki has examined
Bronze Age cooking utensils to identify preparation and cooling practices that defined a particular “cuisine,” and Jeremy Rutter discussed definitions of local identity at Kommos as expressed in sets of finely decorated cooking vessel forms.23 John Killen’s examination of Linear
B evidence from Knossos, Pylos, and Thebes suggested that Mycenaeans reserved particular types of cereal products for specific redistributive purposes (e.g., for rations versus religious contexts and state-sanctioned banquets).24 These contributions supported Halstead and Barrett’s conclusion that “prestige foods, drinking services or etiquettes are as likely to achieve their value by association with persons of high-status as vice versa.”25
21 Dietler 2001b, p. 70.
22 Weissner 2001, pp. 125-126.
23 Vardaki 2004, pp. 201-203; Rutter 2004, pp. 78-79.
24 Killen 2004, p. 168.
25 Halstead and Barrett 2004a, p. 8. 12
Michael Dietler and Ingrid Herbich’s ethnographic study found that feasts were made possible through mobilization of labor, and thus they concluded that feasting served as a framework for the establishment and maintenance of control over labor and resources. By accruing a surplus of food to distribute to workers, resources for further feasting activity could be generated.26 According to Dietler and Herbich, this “conversion chain” of surpluses to obligation, obligation to labor, and labor back to surpluses was more socially acceptable than more direct forms of conversion of power involving exchanges of material goods.27 These observations also apply to the role of feasts in Iron Age Greece, as explored by Susan Sherratt.
Sherratt, who has examined the ways in which the Homeric texts can inform communal eating and drinking during the Iron Age, has suggested that feasting outside of the control of the
Mycenaean palace systems was primarily driven by such principles as reciprocity, ritual gift exchange, social cohesion, and group dependency.28 Sherratt has pointed out that these principles ran in contrast with characteristics of feasting under the Mycenaean palaces, which emphasized social stratification. In a similar vein of feasting in non-palatial contexts, Yannis Hamilakis suggested that Mycenaean feasting at small sanctuaries could have served a different function from feasting’s role in centralized, palatially-sponsored activities. In a paper analyzing the bones of sacrificed pigs from the Mycenaean hinterland sanctuary site of Ayios Konstantinos,
Hamilakis has associated feasting activities with Mycenaean religious sacrifices.29 Apparently, at
Ayios Konstantinos, commensality and sacrifice were intended to engender intimacy within a
26 Dietler and Herbich 2001, pp. 241-242, 246.
27 Dietler and Herbich 2001, p. 257.
28 Sherratt 2004, p. 211.
29 Hamilakis 2004, p. 146. His conclusions approximate those of Stocker and Davis 2004a, pp. 61-62. 13 small group of people.30 The studies of Sherratt and Hamilakis have suggested that in instances when communities were not under the control of a Mycenaean palace, feasting functioned as a means of sharing risk and creating social ties among participants. It is principally this hypothesis that will be tested within this thesis, using case studies from western Messenia and from central and southern Euboea.
This overview has examined how scholarship on feasting has been impacted by both comparative Processual studies based on observable qualitative and quantitative data, and relativist Post-processual studies that are multi-disciplinary and concerned with examining the effects of cultural formation processes on archaeological data. This thesis applies multi- disciplinary and relativist approaches that Post-processual archaeologists have embraced by examining a variety of data for feasts from a number of distinct periods and contexts from prehistoric Greece. However, it also employs a comparative Processual approach by integrating these data in order to examine feasts as expressions of different social dynamics of Late Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age communities.
30 Hamilakis 2004, p. 146-147. 14
CHAPTER 2. MODELS OF FEASTING FROM MESSENIA, THE HOMERIC EPICS,
AND HESIOD
My Introduction surveyed previous studies of feasting, including ethnographic and archaeological case studies. The approach for this chapter will be comparative, examining differences in feasting in Bronze Age palatial and Iron Age post-palatial contexts from western
Messenia. The model for Mycenaean feasting will be based on evidence from the Palace of
Nestor at Pylos including Linear B records, architectural planning, iconography, and ceramics.
This Bronze Age model will then be compared and contrasted with an Iron Age model for feasting based on architectural evidence from the Iron Age site of Nichoria, as well as depictions of feasts from the Homeric epics and the poetry of Hesiod. The comparison of evidence from
Bronze Age Pylos and Iron Age Nichoria examines how feasting operated in Messenia during and after the LH IIIB period. The subsequent examination of evidence from Homer and Hesiod adds to these data, demonstrating that numerous forms of feasting would have been known to
Iron Age audiences. That feasts served variable purposes during the Iron Age is a point that is revisited in Chapter 3, which discusses how feasts functioned at Xeropolis and Toumba, two post-palatial sites from Euboea.
A Mycenaean Model: Feasting at the Palace of Nestor
During the Late Helladic III period, the Palace of Nestor at Pylos occupied the Ano Englianos ridge and served as a focal point for the collection and redistribution of resources from much of
Messenia.31 Evidence from the 1000+ Linear B tablets recovered from the site suggests that
31 PN I, p. 419. 15
Pylos served as a religious, economic, and political center for sixteen “satellite” sites tied to the central palace.32 Ties between the palace and the hinterland were emphasized though manipulation of resources related to land and, perhaps, sustenance.33
The Linear B Tablets
Linear B tablets record a great deal of information about the social function of feasting at the
Palace of Nestor. Scribes at Pylos kept track of the contributions from communities and individuals related to the palace, as well as the management of resources in the palace. Because
Linear B was an administrative script designed to record and track goods and people, scholars have naturally perceived that it reflects a highly structuralized social system with a specific and deliberate organization. However, the Linear B tablets present a picture of an artificially structured and organized social system that may actually reflect its limited set of users more than
Pylian society. In addition, viewing the Pylos tablets as a single picture of Mycenaean social structure is problematic, because their content represents a snapshot, indeterminate in its scope, from only the very end of the life of the Palace of Nestor. Finally, while there is evidence that feasting was employed diacritically within some Mycenaean social structures, it is important to remember the way that Linear B records have colored and driven current scholarly opinion of this practice. Records of feasting from the tablets represent standardized accounts of what could have been a range of different events that took place for any number of reasons, and not only because they legitimized power or confirmed palatial authority. Nevertheless, the Linear B tablets from Pylos describe details about locations, individuals, and goods involved in feasts, and
32 Bennet 1995.
33 Foxhall 1995. 16 they are therefore of great use in studies of Mycenaean banqueting, particularly when paired with other forms of archaeological evidence.
Many Linear B tablets were found within the so-called “Archive Complex” (rooms 7 and
8), located near the area identified as the main administrative center of the palace in Rooms 5 and 6 (Fig. 1). The location of the Archive Complex suggests that goods passed through Room 1 as their first entry into the palace.34 Rooms 7 and 8 contained evidence for the recording, processing, and storage of palatial documents.35 Stocker and Davis’s examination of the non-
Linear B remains from Room 7 concluded that remains of feasts may have been brought to an archivist for purposes of verifying and recording palatially-sponsored events. Among the contents of Room 7 were animal bones, 20-22 mini-kylikes, a spearhead, and a sword.36 The sword and spearhead were interpreted as sacrificial weapons, and seem to have been antiques at the time of the palace’s destruction.37 The mini-kylikes’ capacity was small, and the amount that they held may have had a ritual rather than practical significance.38 This interpretation of the non-tablet finds from the Archive Complex suggests that the Palace of Nestor had a centralized system for tracking the goods and resources that were consumed in the vicinity of the palace.
The tablets found within the Archive Complex contain further evidence for palace- sponsored feasting.39 The Pylos Ta tablets, which record inventories of furniture and equipment
34 Pluta 1996-1997, p. 245.
35 Pluta 1996-1997, p. 245.
36 Stocker and Davis 2004b, p. 189.
37 Stocker and Davis 2004b, pp. 190-191; Whitelaw 2001, pp. 52-62.
38 PN I, p. 366.
39 Palaima 1995, p. 624. 17 used in the palaces, describe seating accommodations for a small group at a feast at the palace.40
The tablets list 11 tables and 22 seats; the latter number seems to approximate the number of miniature kylikes found in Room 7.41 The possibility exists that the records of the chairs and the miniature kylikes themselves are the remains of an exclusive dinner with approximately 22 guests.42
Entries in the Ta series also record dining equipment made from valuable or exotic materials, such as ebony, ivory, gold, and cyan.43 The equipment includes knives, portable hearths, thrones or chairs, tables, axes for stunning sacrificial animals, and even bridles.44 Cups, tripods, ewers, and shallow pans are also recorded.45 These tablets, along with feasting equipment found in the palace, confirm that the palace was outfitted as a location for feasting.
Pylos tablet Un 2 names an individual whose title may be transliterated into ancient
Greek as epiteuxeos, (o-pi-te-
40 Palaima 2004, pp. 235-236.
41 As Stocker and Davis (2004b, p. 191, n. 59) point out, this “paired dining” motif would match depictions of seated couples within the fresco in the Throne Room.
42 Stocker and Davis 2004b, p. 191.
43 Palaima 2004, pp. 234-235. PY Ta 716 describes gold, PY Ta 713.1 describes ebony and ivory, and PY Ta 714.1-
2 describes cyan and gold.
44 Palaima 2004, p. 236.
45 Palaima 2004, p. 236.
46 Palaima 2004, pp. 223-224. 18 equipment was regulated and standardized by administrators who created prestige through particular dining customs.47
PY Un 138 records the dedication of 53 animals and other foodstuffs at a large-scale feast, which as many as 1000 individuals may have attended.48 The tablets have formulaic elements, and consequently, based on numerous instances of an item + the word pa-ro + a personal name in the dative, it has been suggested that individual contributions were collected by intermediary “agents” on behalf of the palace, and were then stored until the time of the banquet itself.49 This formula also describes other systems of collection and redistribution employed in regards to feasts at other sites, such as Thebes. In fact, the number and proportions of animals listed on PY Un 138 closely approximate the number of animals listed on the individual
“nodules” recovered from Thebes, the Wu series.50 It here need only be noted that individuals may have come from many locations in order to attend a feast, maintaining ties to the palace by sending offerings to support palace-sponsored events. In this way, the Palace of Nestor could have employed feasting in order to control surrounding settlements.
Similarly, feasting outside of the Palace of Nestor defined the extent of Pylos’s resources, as well as the palace’s possession of the hinterland region surrounding the palace. For example,
PY Un 2, which has already been mentioned, records an initiation ceremony of a wanax that does
47 The idea of a message being expressed through visual or physical cues embedded within types of dining equipment recalls notions of dining “etiquette” as observed by James Wright (2004b).
48 Palaima 2004, p. 223. There is also evidence for smaller-scale feasts on tablet PY Un 6. This tablet lists small quantities of animal sacrifices with deities as recipients. It mentions a cow, ewe, boar, and two sows in individual entries to Poseidon, and twice to the female deity Pe-re-*82.
49 Palaima 2004, p. 223.
50 Palaima 2004, p. 223. 19 not take place within the Palace of Nestor itself, but at Pakiana (Pa-ki-ja-ne).51 If Pakiana represents the place where the banquet and initiation ceremony actually took place, this implies a decentralized location for feasting. Other tablets from Pylos as well as from Knossos name non- palatial locations for their feasts.52 Extra-palatial feasting would have represented the integration of the palatial administration with subordinate authority figures in other areas. The initiation feast is likely to have been a statement of control over areas on the edges of the Pylian kingdom and to legitimize the new leader’s power. Feasting was manipulated to make a large-scale statement of the wanax’s capability to provide resources to key areas of the kingdom.
PY Un 718, found in the Archives Complex, represents further evidence for the legitimization of authority through feasts. The tablet lists individual contributors of specific goods for purposes of communal feasting, and records eight foodstuffs in addition to animal sacrifices: wheat, wine, cheese, honey, oil, barley, flour, and spelt.53 Contributors included high- ranking officials within the palace and shadowy subsidiary figures whose identities remain largely uncertain. The items from PY Un 718 are registered as coming from people of various social tiers, and as going to a group designated as o-wi-de-ta, possibly rendered as “sheep
51 This particular place-name is mentioned numerous times in the Pylos tablets, and has been thought to represent a location outside of the main palace, possibly related to animal sacrifice or slaughter. It is also possible that Pakiana was where the animals were stored until the time of the feast, when all foodstuffs were brought to the palace
(Palaima 2004, p. 225).
52 Other locations mentioned in the locative in conjunction with feasting activities from the Pylos tablets include
Lousos (ro-u-so, mentioned in PY Un 47) and Sarapeda (Sa-ra-pe-da, previously mentioned in PY Un 718)
(Palaima 2004, p. 226). Some tablets also explicitly specify that their feasts took place at Pylos.
53 Palaima 2004, p. 231. 20 flayers.”54 The hierarchical structure of Un 718 has been interpreted as follows: the highest was the (presumed) wanax (e-ke-ra2-wo, who donates a bull), then the lawegetas (ra-wa-ke-ta,
“military leader”, who donates a sheep with the da-mo), next the damos (da-mo, perhaps a group related to land management), and then the wo-ri-ki-jo-ne-jo-ka-ma, worgioneion ka-ma (possibly a land-tillage group incorporating non-native Messenian residents that donated).55 Additionally, all contributors gave some kind of grain as well as wine. The way that items from this feast are listed may suggest that feasting participants were honored not only by attending feasts, but also through contributing to them.
The Linear B tablets inform us of various aspects of how feasting functioned at the
Palace of Nestor. While the Ta tablets demonstrate that feasts were centered at the palace and that the palace provided equipment for use at these events, tablets such as Un 138 and Un 2 demonstrate that feasting was also a way that the palace expressed its control over the communities and resources around it. Finally, feasting legitimized the authority of the administration of the Palace of Nestor by styling select officials related to the palace as providers for the kingdom at large. Overall, feasting served in a diacritical capacity by providing a setting where social roles and relationships could be established, but the variable scales of palace- sponsored banqueting would also have communicated different messages to the participants of these different events.
The Architecture and Iconography
54 Palaima 2004, p. 223.
55 Palaima 2004, pp. 230-231. 21
The palace complex consisted of four separate buildings with different functions—two related to residential and administrative use, one as a workshop, and one as a wine magazine (Fig. 1).56 The architectural evidence for banqueting supports the idea that feasting played a diacritical role for the officials and their staff.57 Feasts were one way of communicating roles, responsibilities, obligations, and privileges for individuals and groups within the kingdom of Pylos. There are also indications that access to parts of the palace itself was differentially controlled. For some participants, simply being invited to a feast at the palace must have been an honor; for others, a prestigious seat within a specific important room may have been provided.58
One of the ways that feasting activity has been archaeologically documented at Pylos is through analysis of the structural and decorative layout of the palace itself.59 There are spaces at
Pylos that were built to accommodate large groups of people, and there are architectural features that would have regulated access to parts of the palace using combinations of doors, hallways, and guard stations.60 Moreover, there are storage rooms near areas designated as “courts,” which contained accoutrements such as serving vessels and cooking equipment, and which would have facilitated the process of serving those in attendance at a large banquet.61 Finally, iconographic programs in these large-scale halls and courts depicted imagery that related to palace-centered activities, including feasting.62 Frescoes would have been visible to diners as they consumed
56 PN I, pp. 33-34.
57 Cf. Stocker and Davis 2004b; Palaima 2004; Wright 2004a; Davis and Bennet 1999.
58 Davis and Bennet 1999, pp. 106-111.
59 Davis and Bennet 1999.
60 Davis and Bennet 1999, p. 110.
61 PN I, pp. 239-241; Davis and Bennet 1999, p. 110.
62 Stocker and Davis 2004b, p. 191. 22 food in a palatial setting, perhaps serving to articulate the various social roles and responsibilities of feasting participants. These components created a controlled experience that would have impressed guests.63
The Southwestern Building of the palace appears to contain rooms and structures designed for public gatherings. Court 63, for example, represents one of the largest spaces within the entire palace complex, and it is strategically located near a suite of two large rooms (Fig. 1).64
The interconnected Halls 64 and 65 are monumental, rectangular, and contain columns that supported a second storey and perhaps also served an aesthetic function.65
Court 63 also communicated with Court 88, another space that served as a place for visitors to gather.66 This design is similar to that of Main Halls 5 and 6 to the northeast, the
Throne Room Complex of the Main Building.67 The Throne Room Complex, which is embedded deep within the corridors of the palace, may have served groups of elite banqueters.68 Hall 6, which is similar in design to Hall 65, contains four columns arranged in a square, flanking a central hearth.69 Guard stations immediately outside of Halls 6 and 65 controlled access to these rooms.70
63 Davis and Bennet, pp. 106-111; Bendall 2004, pp. 112-128.
64 Davis and Bennet 1999, p. 110; Bendall 2004, pp. 112, 119-120.
65 PN I, pp. 253-254, 257.
66 PN I, pp. 244, 248.
67 Cf. PN I, pp. 87-89, 253-254; see also p. 258.
68 PN I, pp. 87-89; Davis and Bennet 1999, pp. 115-116; Bendall 2004, pp. 122-124.
69 PN I, pp. 76-78.
70 PN I, pp. 74, 254. 23
The progression of rooms and corridors leading to the presumed administrative center in
Hall 65 suggests that foot traffic was controlled.71 Ramp number 59, which leads northwest toward Court 63, turns into a narrower corridor, number 61 (Fig. 1).72 Just before this intersection, a doorway opened into room 60.73 When Carl Blegen excavated this space, he found it to be filled with serving vessels, cups, and other dining equipment.74 This storeroom may have served crowds that assembled in Court 63, further articulating the role of the palace in providing both food and equipment during a feast.75 In the Main Building, Rooms 18-21, conveniently bordering Court 88, also served as areas for storage of vessels used in eating and drinking, and could have served both the Southwestern and Main Buildings.76
As participants partook of their meal within Court 63, they would have been able to view frescoes on the walls of Court 64 that expressed the manpower and resources of Pylos.77 Beneath bands and beams these frescoes depicted dogs and combat scenes, including both charioteers and infantry scenes.78 Within the frescoes, there are figures that have been identified specifically as
71 Davis and Bennet 1999; Bendall 2004, p. 124.
72 PN I, pp. 236-237, 241.
73 PN I, pp. 236-240.
74 PN I, pp. 239-240
75 Davis and Bennet 1999, p. 110. If storerooms were serving the court, one might picture a scenario whereby visitors made their way down Hallway 59 toward Court 63, stopping off at Room 60 to pick up a cup and possibly a bowl, or some other combination of service. Another possible scenario would be that individuals would gather in the court, and then palace servants or people responsible for inventories or storage would distribute vessels, possibly with portions of food already doled out. Bendall (2004, p. 120), however, disagrees.
76 Davis and Bennet 1999, p. 110, n. 21.; Bendall 2004, pp. 117-120.
77 PN I, p. 253; Davis and Bennet 1999, pp. 108-110.
78 Davis and Bennet 1999, pp. 108-110. 24
Mycenaeans based on the type of armor that they are wearing and the shields that they carry.79
There are also figures that have been identified as specifically non-Mycenaean because they wear skins.80
The martial frescoes from Court 64 contrast with those from Hall 6, which depict pairs of diners at tables, a figure interpreted as a bard, and a bull (Fig. 12).81 Hall 6, which leads to Hall
5, contains images of a procession (Fig. 11).82 Those dining in these halls, in the main administrative area of the palace, were treated to meta-commensal images of feasting rituals, perhaps idealized ones; those participating in large-scale banqueting in Court 63-88 viewed polemic images that reflected the palace’s martial strength.83
There are a number of possible reasons why the programs of imagery differed between the two parts of the palace. One explanation is that the iconographic program was once uniformly martial and that this situation changed when newer constructions were added onto the
Main Building.84 Another possibility is that iconographic choices were deliberately tailored to the spaces that they decorated. By this interpretation, scenes of warfare would have been
79 Davis and Bennet 1999, p. 109.
80 Davis and Bennet 1999, pp. 109-113. Although the question of whether or not there was a Mycenaean distinction of “other” remains open for debate, the figures in the frescoes have been confidently identified as Mycenaeans who are fighting against opponents, usually in pairs.
81 Lang (1969, pp. 79-81, 109-110, 194-196) and McCallum (1987, pp. 90-91, 94-95, 108-113) disagree on whether the bull is standing or not, i.e., whether the bull is being sacrificed. It is now no longer clear that a bull is even depicted (Stocker and Davis 2004b, p. 190, n. 47).
82 McCallum 1987, pp. 77-87.
83 Davis and Bennet 1999, pp. 116-117; As Stocker and Davis (2004b, p. 191, n. 59) point out, the fresco itself suggests an outdoor setting.
84 Davis and Bennet 1999, pp. 116-117. 25 intended to be visible as a show of force to a wider range of individuals, as opposed to the more select group of elite included in more intimate feasting rituals.85 Overall, then, the architectural layout of the palace and its decoration directed attention to the banqueting experience in the interest of projecting an image of palatial strength, as well as elite solidarity.86 These accompaniments to feasting complemented the ritual meal itself to accentuate social distinctions among guests.
Faunal Remains and Ceramic Data
The large number of kylikes found in Court 63 and Room 6 indicate that drinking was an important element within palace-sponsored activities and confirms that communal drinking activities represented at least one component of feasts that took place within the palace.87 Lisa
Bendall identified another area, Court 58, which contained large quantities of burnt pottery (Fig.
1).88 Bendall has suggested that this area accommodated guests who were permitted to enter the citadel but who could not enter the palace itself.89 In fact, her analysis of ceramic assemblages found in various rooms within the palace has identified a hierarchy of feasting equipment that was employed within differentially ranked spaces in the palace.90
85 Davis and Bennet (1999, pp. 110-111; 116-117) argue that everyone admitted to feasts would have been considered “elite.”
86 It is important to remember that kinesthetic features would also have been in place when the palace was not engaged in feasting.
87 Bendall 2004, pp. 112-122; Whitelaw 2001, pp. 52-62.
88 Bendall 2004, pp. 120-122.
89 Bendall 2004, pp. 121-124.
90 Bendall 2004. 26
Paul Halstead and Valasia Isaakidou’s analysis of burnt bone deposits confirms that feasting occurred on a very large scale.91 They argue that the roughly two tons of meat represented by faunal remains from the Palace of Nestor could have fed all heads of households in the kingdom of Pylos, based on Todd Whitelaw’s estimate of a population of 3,000 for the town around the palace and 50,000 for the entire kingdom.92
The archaeological evidence from Pylos supports the general impression of diacritical feasting deduced from the Linear B tablets: administratively controlled factors such as architectural organization, food and equipment, and fresco decorations were used to control the experiences of guests at feasts. Feasting perpetuated participants’ belief in the administrative power of the Palace of Nestor and may also have emphasized a “Pylian” identity for guests. The sponsor(s) of the feast may also have established a link between feasting and prosperity, the latter represented by the surplus of food. For attendees, such beliefs are likely to have contributed to a positive feedback loop that would have encouraged continued repetition of the ritual.93 It also would have created a positive association between abundance and the administrative figure who sponsored the event, garnering credence for his role as regulator and provider of resources for palatial subsidiaries.
An Iron Age Model: Feasting at Nichoria
Linear B evidence suggests that Nichoria was one of many hinterland settlements that were dependent on the Palace of Nestor at Pylos during the Bronze Age, and archaeological evidence
91 Halstead and Isaakidou 2004.
92 Halstead and Isaakidou 2004, pp. 148-149.
93 Cf. Dornan 2004, using the example of the classic Maya states. 27 indicates that Nichoria also remained occupied after the palace was destroyed in the 13th century
B.C. Pylian Linear B tablets have identified Nichoria as the Late Bronze Age settlement ti-mi-to a-ke-e, located north of the boundary line between the hither province and the further province of the Palace of Nestor.94 The site overlooks the Pamisos Valley to the east and northeast, and the
Messenian Gulf to the southeast (2 km away; Fig. 2).95 It also guards an intersection of a major north to south coastal road and an east to west route linking modern Pylos to the southern half of the Pamisos Valley.96 This chapter will focus not on Bronze Age Nichoria’s relationship to
Pylos, but rather on how feasting at Iron Age Nichoria differed from feasting at the Bronze Age
Palace of Nestor.
Lin Foxhall has speculated that life at Nichoria did not change suddenly or immediately in the absence of the Palace of Nestor’s influence, because Nichoria was located in an area where although it was subsidiary to Pylos, it was not subject to the palace’s direct command.97 During the Iron Age, however, Nichoria became a first order regional center in its own right.
Nichoria, as one of the few systematically excavated and published Iron Age settlements from Greece, offers an almost unparalleled opportunity to examine feasting within the spatial organization and architecture of activities at an Early Iron Age settlement. Evidence from
Nichoria will be compared with evidence from Bronze Age Pylos to examine the differences
94 Chadwick 1973, pp. 141-145, 415-417. Numerous Linear B tablets from Pylos listed declined forms of ti-mi-to a- ke-e, but one of the most revealing occurrences of this place name was tablet An 661.10 of the o-ka tablet set, where ti-mi-to a-ke-e is named as a guard post for “watchers of the sea” located near the coast and along the provincial border (Shelmerdine 1981, p. 321).
95 Nichoria I, pp. 26-28.
96 Nichoria I, p. 28.
97 Foxhall 1995, pp. 244-245. 28 between the role of feasting in a Mycenaean palace system and the role of feasting in an Iron
Age community. After the two models from Messenia are compared, this chapter will discuss different forms of feasting behavior visible within the Homeric epics and the poetry of Hesiod.
The variability of these depictions seems to indicate that a range of functions and forms of feasting that was known to Iron Age audiences, and this same variability is borne out in comparisons of the data from the post-palatial sites of Xeropolis and Toumba, which are treated in Chapter 3.
Unit IV-1, Phase 1
The settlement at Iron Age Nichoria was concentrated primarily in Area IV, the saddle of the ridge on which it was located; there, the land was leveled, and numerous terrace walls were built
(Figs. 3 and 4).98 Excavators recognized two periods of construction for Unit IV-1, a large structure from Area IV.99 The building spanned a period of nearly 200 years from approximately
975 B.C. to 800 B.C. A Dark Age II (975-850 B.C.) mudbrick superstructure was first built on standing Mycenaean foundations, and a second period of construction occurred during the Dark
Age II/III transitional period (ca. 850-800 B.C.).100 The house was oriented roughly from east to west, its eastern side skewed approximately ten degrees toward the south (Fig. 3).101 During this second phase in the 9th century, Unit IV-1 reached its maximum size (8 m north to south by 15.9
98 Nichoria I, pp. 29, 124-128.
99 The other large structure from Area IV is Unit IV-5, which dates to the Dark Age III period, possibly supplanting
Unit IV-1 (Nichoria III, pp. 20-21).
100 Nichoria III, pp. 19-31, 33-42.
101 Nichoria I, p. 19. 29 m from east to west).102 The size of the building has led scholars to suggest that it was a location for communal activities of storage and redistribution, as well as possibly a shrine.103 Unit IV-1, however, also contains features that point to a domestic function.
During Phase I, the plan of Unit IV-1 was rectangular (Fig. 3).104 The entrances to the building were located on its eastern and northern ends.105 An off-center eastern doorway with a worn threshold appears to have served as a main entrance.106 This doorway opened into an enclosure, with a single course of stones forming a kind of balustrade around the eastern entrance of the building.107 This area was perhaps shaded by an overhanging thatched roof, from which there remain postholes outside of the structure.108
A second threshold to the west of the reconstructed balustrade opened directly into Room
1, apparently the main living space during the early phase of the structure.109 This rectangular space was roughly 8 m from east to west by 6 m from north to south.110 This room possessed a central pit hearth, approximately 1.08 m in diameter, which contained charred fragments of wood, soft black dirt, and small stones.111 A large, flat stone set in the center could have served
102 Nichoria III, pp. 33, 40.
103 For other contemporary examples of apsidal structures, see Mazarakis-Ainian 1997.
104 Nichoria III, p. 19.
105 Nichoria III, pp. 23-25.
106 Nichoria III, pp. 23-25.
107 Nichoria III, pp. 23-24.
108 Nichoria III, pp. 23-24, p. 32. Another possibility is that these postholes were added later.
109 Nichoria III, p. 15.
110 Nichoria III, p. 25.
111 Nichoria III, p. 28. 30 as a cooking surface.112 Near it was refuse from household activities: Dark Age II pottery (60% coarse and 40% fine) and animal bones (sheep, pig, and cattle) containing knife marks and traces of gnawing.113 This space appears to have been a focus for such domestic activities as food preparation and consumption.
A feature in the westernmost part of Unit IV-1 may have served as an altar (Fig. 3).
Approximately 25 cm from the middle of the western wall, a paved circular structure was found, measuring approximately 1.6 m in diameter and built of small flat stones.114 Large stones were used in the center of the circle, small stones were employed on the outer edges, and efforts had been made to select stones with a smooth edge for the southern side of the circle.115 A layer of carbonized material, approximately 5 cm thick, covered the top of the stones.116 The layer of ash covering the feature suggests that that it was heavily used; it seems unlikely that it was a working hearth, since one existed elsewhere in Room 1. Its central position in the room would have served, moreover, to focus the attention of visitors as they stepped through the main entrance in the room. If this feature was an altar, it could indicate that Unit IV-1 was used by many individuals and not merely a single household.117
Phase 1 pottery from Unit IV-1 reflects both storage and consumption. Most of the fragments from fill covering the lowest floor were skyphoi, but a limited number of cups and
112 Nichoria III, pp. 28-29.
113 Nichoria III, pp. 27-28.
114 Nichoria III, pp. 28-29.
115 Nichoria III, p. 29.
116 Nichoria III, p. 30.
117 Nichoria III, p. 30. 31 kraters were also found.118 Closed shapes were comparatively rare, but included oinochoai and jugs, and a few amphorai and pithoi.119 While the quantity of skyphoi appears great, it is difficult to tell whether the deposit as a whole represents refuse from communal or domestic activities.
However, the balustrade, the porch, the large dimensions of the room, and the paved circular structure imply that the building had special functions. James Whitley has suggested that
Nichoria Unit IV-1 might have been “both house and feasting hall.”120 Whitley’s interpretation presupposes the presence of an influential leader managing resources for a group, but the paved circular feature may point to a different interpretation of the building as a religious center for the settlement.
Unit IV-1, Phase 2
Unit IV-1 underwent a period of expansion during the 9th century B.C., the Dark Age II/III transitional period. The settlement at Nichoria also became more compact at this time, and consequently there is little evidence for occupation outside of Area IV.121 Consolidation of the population into a smaller space, together with the enlargement of Unit IV-1, may reflect an increase in the building’s importance to the community situated around it.
During Phase 2, Unit IV-1 was extended on both its west and east sides, with the addition of an apse to the west of Room 1, a porch to the east of the balustrade, a new wall to the south, and external posts around the long walls and the apse (Fig. 4).122 Within Unit IV-1, a doorway
118 Nichoria III, pp. 197-202.
119 Nichoria III, pp. 197-202.
120 Whitley 1991, p. 349.
121 Nichoria III, pp. 90-91.
122 Nichoria III, p. 33. 32 leading into the apse (Room 3) was inserted into the northern part of Wall D (the western wall of
Unit IV-1 in Phase 1).123 Finally, a wall was constructed to the north of the paved circle, forming a three-sided enclosure around it.124 The new building measured 15.9 x 8 m.125
The area enclosed by the new front porch measured approximately 7.1 m from north to south and 2.3 m from east to west.126 This addition would have allowed larger groups of people to be accommodated within that space. Wall Ca was rebuilt, and shifted farther south; its predecessor probably served as a bench (Fig. 4).127 Artifactual evidence points to activities in
Room 1 similar to those in Phase 1: the floor consisted of very dark hard-packed earth, and the surface was uneven because debris had been swept into the corners of the room.128 On the floor were many medium sized stones, large numbers of cattle and pig bones, and small numbers of sheep and goat bones.129 A decorated krater fragment was found near the center of the room.130
Room 3 was used for storage; there were a few pits in the southern portion of the room.131
Many charred seeds and coarse ware pots indicated an area employed for storage, preparation and redistribution.132 The sherds of coarse ware vessels and fine ware vessels that were on the floor of Room 3 included a skyphos, a ribbed kylix, a coarse lid, pithos body fragments, and a
123 Nichoria III, p. 33.
124 Nichoria III, pp. 33, 42, n. 2-7.
125 Nichoria III, pp. 33, 40.
126 Nichoria III, pp. 33-34.
127 Nichoria III, p. 34.
128 Nichoria III, p. 35.
129 Nichoria III, pp. 35, 39.
130 Nichoria III, p. 39.
131 Nichoria III, pp. 36-37.
132 Nichoria III, p. 37. 33 grill fragment.133 Bones from sheep, cow, pig, and dog lay on top of the same floor.134 Small finds included an iron knife, a bronze shield boss, a fragmented iron axe head, and small lead tokens.135 The hearth in Room 1 appears not to have been used in this phase, and Room 3 may have supplanted its functions.136
During this phase, the circular structure in Room 1 was bordered on three sides by walls.137 Goat and sheep bones, as well as charcoal, were found west of the circular structure.138
The assemblage of finds is comparable to that from Phase 1. Because of its position directly in line with the main entrance of Unit IV-1, it would have been noticed by anyone who entered the structure. Its location near Room 3 would have been ideal for food preparation, whether sacred or secular.139
Changes in the Form and Function of Unit IV-1
It seems likely that the settlement at Nichoria, which once was bound to the Palace of Nestor as ti-mi-to a-ke-e, became independent once the palatial system collapsed.140 Lin Foxhall and
Cynthia Shelmerdine, for example, have each explored the possibility that the end of the palatial
133 Nichoria III, pp. 37, 41.
134 Nichoria III, p. 37.
135 Nichoria III, p. 37.
136 Nichoria III, p. 36.
137 Nichoria III, p. 38.
138 Small finds included a bronze finger ring, a bronze bar, a small iron tool, and four clay spindle whorls (Nichoria
III, pp. 38-39).
139 Nichoria III, p. 38.
140 Nichoria III, p. 323. 34 system resulted in a shift from an economy based on cultivation to one more focused on animal husbandry.141 Such a change in subsistence patterns might well have encouraged new types of land tenure, perhaps leading to new risk-spreading social strategies and alliances. But did the nature of feasting at Nichoria change after the palace fell out of power? The rectangular layout of
Unit IV-1 may have reflected a specific memory of Mycenaean architecture, but the addition of an apse points to a break with the Late Bronze Age tradition. Studies such as Alexandros
Mazarakis-Ainian’s examination of so-called “rulers’ dwellings” have pointed to the inception of the apsidal shape as one indication of a decision not to reuse a Late Bronze Age rectangular building.142 Unit IV-1, as we have seen, would have been big enough to accommodate a large group, and measures nearly double the size of the other buildings in Area IV from Dark Age
Phases II and III.143
During Phase 1, communal dining that may have occurred in Unit IV-1 is likely to have been small in scale. The second phase of Unit IV-1 may reflect a period of transition at the site of
Nichoria. The settlement contracted around this building, pottery changed, and new forms of architecture were introduced. In general, the architectural features of Unit IV-1seem to point to the importance of the building to the community that used it.144
The study of Phases 1 and 2 of Unit IV-1 demonstrates how the use of space was fluid at post-palatial sites. Palaces regulated, to some extent, individuals’ access to places, people, and
141 Foxhall 1995; Shelmerdine 1981.
142 Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, pp. 98-99.
143 For a comparison against other units from Area IV, see Nichoria III, pp. 20-21. The only unit that comes close in size to Unit IV-1 is Unit IV-5, which probably succeeded Unit IV-1 during the Dark Age III period.
144 Nichoria III, p. 37. Exterior posts for roof support, moreover, may foreshadow plans for later peripteral temple layouts. 35 resources. In the case of a structure such as Unit IV-1, divisions of space were defined, but spaces were also easier to penetrate. Unit IV-1 appears to have served both domestic and communal activities, and may have been the scene of sacrifices if it in fact did have an altar. In effect, this structure served in many of the same capacities as the Palace of Nestor at Pylos, but on a smaller and more self-contained scale and within a smaller sphere of influence.145
The differing social structures of Pylos and Nichoria surely contributed to the types of feasting behavior that are observable in the archaeological record today. It would be impossible to construe the feasting activities from Late Bronze Age Pylos as domestic; the courts and halls of the Palace of Nestor were communal spaces intended to accommodate guests and visitors.
Scribes recorded feasting activities in permanent records that were housed within the palaces, and resources from settlements under the control of the Palace of Nestor were utilized during feasts, possibly as a form of palatial control. Mycenaean feasting defined administrative power and bolstered a palatial ideology for guests that attended such events.
At post-palatial Nichoria commensality occurred on a smaller scale, and presumably within a smaller group of participants. Feasting was centered in Unit IV-1, a structure with an
145 It is here helpful to define some of the relative terms of scale that are used in this thesis. I use the term “large scale,” to refer to feasts characterized by the Palace of Nestor, which were comprised of several large groups of guests, ranging in size from about 20 participants in exclusive contexts to nearly 1000 in others, based on Linear B and archaeological evidence. Participants in large-scale feasts were gathered from outside of a community or settlement, were accommodated in central spaces of the dimensions of the courts and halls in the Southwestern
Building, and by the pottery from the palatial storerooms. Terms such as “intimate” and “small scale” refer to feasts characterized by settlements such as Nichoria or Xeropolis, which were comprised of small numbers of guests, often members of a household or community, who gathered in settings that were limited in size (e.g., the 5 x 5 m units at
Xeropolis). 36 altar and a porch that could be characterized as communal, but which was also much smaller in size and could have been domestic, suggesting that administrative power at Nichoria was differently situated from administrative power at Pylos. Although it is difficult to identify the precise political structure at Nichoria, it is clear that the central building of the Iron Age community there was not a palace. Instead, in the absence of a centralized palace structure after the LH IIIB period, commensality at Nichoria would have brought together members of the community in this central building. The architecture and finds point to a small group making use of Unit IV-1, possibly with a chief-like leader who derived power from activities that took place within the building.146 Such events would, no doubt, have forged personal bonds among participants. In times of crisis, these friendships might have been “activated” as sources of support.
Up to this point, this chapter has compared the archaeological evidence from one Bronze
Age and one Iron Age site in Messenia in order to examine different forms of feasting behavior before and after the collapse of Mycenean administration at Pylos. However, a model for post- palatial feasting behavior should not be based on evidence from just one site, because these feasts varied in the ways that they were expressed according to both place and context. By incorporating evidence from the poetry of Homer and Hesiod into the Iron Age model of feasting from Nichoria, it is my intention to identify different approaches to banqueting that would have circulated as ideas familiar to Iron Age audiences. This model for Iron Age feasting, which suggests that there was greater variability following the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces, will later be considered in relation to the roles of feasting at the Euboean post-palatial sites of
Xeropolis and Toumba.
146 Nichoria III, pp. 317, 328. 37
Post-palatial Variability: Hesiod, Homer, and Iron Age Feasting
Homer and Hesiod provide commentary on feasting in Greece that dates at least as early as the
8th c. B.C. Although some scholars have suggested that the Iliad and the Odyssey were standardized in ca. 750 B.C. and written down under Peisistratos in the mid 6th c. B.C., the actual time period that the poems describe remains uncertain.147 Some parts of the poems would have been topical, relevant, and contemporary for the Homeric audience, while other elements seem to have hearkened back to a fantastical and remote Heroic Age, well earlier than the 8th century
B.C.148 This thesis does not view the Homeric epics and the poetry of Hesiod as histories or eyewitness accounts, but as traditional stories that have preserved ideas and character types that were familiar to Iron Age audiences. The characters of the epics are very richly drawn and display a broad range of motivations and actions. Consequently, the Iliad and the Odyssey are valuable sources for opening our minds to variations in Iron Age social systems – and by association, Iron Age motivations for, and manipulations of, feasting. Moreover, because balances of power were capable of being expressed through feasting, variations in depictions of feasts within the Homeric epics and the poems of Hesiod indicate that numerous leadership models were also familiar to Iron Age audiences.149
147 Edwards 2001, p. xxxv; Willcock 2003, p. 719.
148 Susan Sherratt (1990, pp. 812–813, 816–817) has suggested that some passages even preserve elements of the
Late Bronze Age, and characterizes feasting passages as early elements of the epics with a terminus post quem of ca.1200 B.C.; other scholars (e.g., Knox 1990, p. 13-14), however, disagree.
149 See the Antinous-Odysseus exchange from Chapter 1 for an example of how power balances are played out through feasting. 38
In order to demonstrate some of the varied leadership models and feasts included within the Homeric epics, I will examine elements of banquets sponsored by such characters as
Agamemnon, Alcinous, the suitors of Penelope, and the gods. A general feature of their feasts is that communal eating and drinking tended to be geared toward establishing bonds and relationships between individuals rather than within administrative power structures. However, each host placed different kinds of expectations upon their participants, and the types of bonds and mutual obligations that were forged between guests and hosts were also variously styled.
These characteristics of interpersonal bonding and varied expectations of host-guest relationships are important principles for interpreting the archaeological evidence for feasting in post-palatial settings in western Messenia as well as central Euboea.
Agamemnon and Leadership Feasting in Wartime
Within the Iliad, feasts initiated by Agamemnon exemplify a category that I have chosen to call
“leadership feasts.” Homeric leaders such as Agamemnon employ commensal events such as sacrifices and exclusive meals to confirm their own power and to encourage social cohesion of select groups of individuals. Leadership feasts also function to recruit manpower and resources, concluding with requests for action or assistance. Preceding or following hard battles,
Agamemnon frequently initiates leadership feasts. Key elements of these feasts are underlined in the following passage (Il. 7.312 – 324.):
Οἳ δ’ ὅτε δὴ κλισίῃσιν ἐν Ἀτρεΐδαο γένοντο, τοῖσι δὲ βοῦν ἱέρευσεν ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαµέµνων ἄρσενα πενταέτηρον ὑπερµενέϊ Κρονίωνι. τὸν δέρον ἀµφί θ’ ἕπον, καί µιν διέχευαν ἅπαντα, µίστυλλόν τ’ ἄρ’ ἐπισταµένως πεῖράν τ’ ὀβελοῖσιν, ὄπτησάν τε περιφραδέως, ἐρύσαντό τε πάντα. αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ παύσαντο πόνου τετύκοντό τε δαῖτα, 39
δαίνυντ’, οὐδέ τι θυµὸς ἐδεύετο δαιτὸς ἐΐσης· νώτοισιν δ’ Αἴαντα διηνεκέεσσι γέραιρεν ἥρως Ἀτρεΐδης εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαµέµνων. αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο, τοῖς ὁ γέρων πάµπρωτος ὑφαίνειν ἤρχετο µῆτιν Νέστωρ, οὗ καὶ πρόσθεν ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή·
But when they came into the shelters of the son of Atreus, Agamemnon, lord of men, slew a bull for them, male, five years old, for the son of Kronos, more than mighty. They flayed it, and saw to it, and they separated it completely. And they pierced the meat with spits, placing it on, and very carefully they roasted [it], and they drew all of them off. But when they ceased from the labor and had prepared the meal, they took their shares, and not did any spirit lack an equal portion; but the heroic son of Atreus, wide ruling Agamemnon, did reward Ajax with the unbroken chine.150 But when they had let go of the desire for food and drink, the old man first of all began to impart advice to them Nestor, from whom also before the best counsel had revealed itself.
This passage shows the leadership feast bringing together key Achaean warriors, and it also highlights the normative role of feasting within the war-ridden setting of the Iliad. Eating is a biological function that needs to be fulfilled; by assuming the role of provider, Agamemnon assures, both physically and symbolically, the survival of his comrades. Moreover, the sacrifice takes place “κλισίῃσιν ἐν Ἀτρεΐδαο,” within the private space of Agamemnon’s shelter. His circle is exclusive.
Agamemnon’s leadership feasts serve as venues for the exchanges of power and favors, and these exchanges are portrayed as intensely personal. Agamemnon recalls past feasts in order
150 Within the Homeric epics, the chine, which is a cut of meat from between the shoulder blades, was given by the person performing the carving of the meat to a person of valor. Another example of this occurs in the Odyssey, when
Odysseus awards the chine to the bard Demodocus during a feast (Od. 8. 474-498). 40 to hold his comrades to their vows to fight, as when he rebukes Menestheus and Odysseus for their lack of vigor in preparing to face the Trojans (Il. 4.339 – 347).
τίπτε καταπτώσσοντες ἀφέστατε, µίµνετε δ’ ἄλλους; σφῶϊν µέν τ’ ἐπέοικε µετὰ πρώτοισιν ἐόντας ἑστάµεν ἠδὲ µάχης καυστειρῆς ἀντιβολῆσαι· πρώτω γὰρ καὶ δαιτὸς ἀκουάζεσθον ἐµεῖο, ὁππότε δαῖτα γέρουσιν ἐφοπλίζωµεν Ἀχαιοί. ἔνθα φίλ’ ὀπταλέα κρέα ἔδµεναι ἠδὲ κύπελλα οἴνου πινέµεναι µελιηδέος ὄφρ’ ἐθέλητον· νῦν δὲ φίλως χ’ ὁρόῳτε καὶ εἰ δέκα πύργοι Ἀχαιῶν ὑµείων προπάροιθε µαχοίατο νηλέϊ χαλκῷ.
Why on earth do you stand apart cowering, and wait for others? For you two, it would be appropriate that you set up together with those who are foremost and meet with blazing battle. For you two are the first to heed the call of my feast, whenever we Achaeans prepare a feast for the elders. Then it is lovely to eat roasted meats and to drink cups of honey-sweet wine as you each wish. But now happily you would both watch, even if ten bastions of your Achaeans did battle before you with pitiless bronze.
Agamemnon’s leadership feasts often contain passages in which elite individuals make individual claims, boasts, or vows. These passages exemplify the use of banqueting for personal advancement and recruitment, as the meal becomes an extension of battle as a medium for the warrior to prove his valor. He does this principally by gaining an invitation into the circle of elite dining, where he has the opportunity to document his martial prowess, achievements, wealth, and wisdom, and, in so doing, to create and strengthen bonds with other elite men.
Alcinous and Leadership Feasting in Postwar Scheria 41
The character of Alcinous employs commensality in comparable ways within the domestic and peaceful setting of Scheria. Alcinous, like Agamemnon, manages his subjects by sponsoring communal eating and drinking, but Scherian feasts are more leisurely than those of the Achaeans in the Iliad. This difference is illustrated particularly well at the beginning of Book 9 of the
Odyssey, in which Odysseus himself specifically praises such delights as the presence of an aoidos (represented by the bard Demodocus) and the liberal surplus of wine and food available for guests. The feasts of Alcinous also may occur at night (e.g., Od. XI. 373-376).
Alcinous employs his feasts as a way of establishing and perpetuating relationships with his fellow kings, on whom he may call for service or goods (as when he demands that they offer
Odysseus clothing, gold, or cauldrons and tripods, Od. 8.392–395; Od. 13.4–13.63). At Scherian feasts, ephemeral honors are also bestowed upon guests in addition to formally exchanged, extravagant gifts. Choice cuts of meat and seats of honor reflect momentary triumphs that engender a spirit of achievement among some of the feast’s participants, and among others a will to compete (Od. 7. 186–206; Od. 8. 474–498). But these temporary honors do not last long enough to upset the balance of power among guests. Within the Odyssey, only visitors receive extravagant gifts, perhaps to curb jealousy among more regular feasting participants (Od. 8.367–
8.432).
The ultimate motivations of the feasting practices of Agamemnon and Alcinous were to confirm the loyalty of their followers, to provide opportunities for the sharing of counsel and for cementing oral agreements, and to bolster their followers’ morale. Within the context of feasting,
Homer portrays Agamemnon and Alcinous as stable and powerful “host” characters who organize and direct action. Some of their feasts are extravagant events situated in palaces, with servants equipped to accommodate large groups of guests who offer themselves, through tribute 42 in kind and through physical manpower, in the service of their kings. However, there are also depictions of feasting in mid-battle that appear to reflect the promotion of unity within a small, elite group. In martial situations, Agamemnon’s feasts bring together prominent men of the
Achaean army in order to create bonds of solidarity, and to make tactical and strategic decisions.
Good Neighbors and Bad Guests: Comments from Hesiod
In Works and Days, a poem dating to approximately 700 B.C. and nearly contemporary with
Homer, the poet Hesiod confirms the use of feasting to bolster alliances and establish mutual obligations among participants.151 In this example, feasting comrades are characterized in the same familiar role of protective allies, and Hesiod goes so far as to delineate that commensal companions should be neighbors, for purposes of greater safety (Hes. Op. 341 – 344):
Τὸν φιλέοντ’ ἐπὶ δαῖτα καλεῖν, τὸν δ’ ἐχθρὸν ἐᾶσαι· τὸν δὲ µάλιστα καλεῖν ὅστις σέθεν ἐγγύθι ναίει· εἰ γάρ τοι καὶ χρῆµ’ ἐγκώµιον ἄλλο γένηται, γείτονες ἄζωστοι ἔκιον, ζώσαντο δὲ πηοί.
Call the one who is a friend to a feast, but leave an enemy be; But most of all call on somebody who lives close to you; for if an affair or otherwise should happen to you in a shared area, neighbors come out ungirt, but kinsmen gird themselves.
The forging of mutually beneficial defensive relationships is seen as a key function of feasting in the 8th century.
In the same work, Hesiod also offers a caveat about dependency (Hes. Op. 354.):
δώτῃ µέν τις ἔδωκεν, ἀδώτῃ δ’ οὔ τις ἔδωκεν·
151 West 2003, p. 700. 43
also give to a man who gives, and don't give to a man who doesn't give;
The poet gives this advice generally, but the principle naturally applies to feasting activities.
Hesiod warns both against troubles with “deadbeat friends” and about becoming embroiled in alliances or agreements that are impossible to uphold.
The sorts of alliances and agreements that Hesiod describes are those that Agamemnon recalls to Menestheus and Odysseus in one of the proceeding passages. These are relationships formed by a host’s providing for guests and comrades, who in turn pledge services or reciprocate in kind. Hesiod’s comments reinforce our picture that a distinction existed between host and guest. In reciprocity-based relationships such as these, the giver is at a distinct advantage over the recipient: it would have been unthinkable to reject an offer of hospitality, and shameful not to offer something in return (cf. Od. 2. 138–145).
Feasting for Feasting’s Sake: Divine Commensality
Homeric depictions of divine feasting portray the gods almost perpetually eating and drinking together for pleasure and in luxurious setting. Since there is no true physical need for feasting in the divine sphere, the poet employs this characterization as an anthropomorphizing element.
Divine feasts, like leadership feasts, do occasion counsel and action, but this does not appear to be the primary purpose for gatherings of the gods. Instead, divine feasts are held as leisurely pastimes, to provide amusement and opportunities for conversation; relationships and alliances may at the same time be defined (Il. 1. 564 – 567). Besides lacking the underlying social motivations that motivate leadership feasts, divine feasts differ because the gods consume nectar and ambrosia instead of wine and meat (Il. 1. 493 – 611).152
152 Sherratt 2004, p. 183, n. 5. 44
The pleasure-based image of divine feasting resembles early Archaic symposia in its form. Although Archaic elements including klinai (couches), a specialized cupbearer, and servants are absent from Homeric divine feasts, certain aspects of these gatherings do foreshadow the symposium. There is an emphasis on physically comfortable seating, including the employment of footstools (Il. 14. 238 – 241). Hephaistos, moreover, is portrayed as a cupbearer in Book 1 of the Iliad in a description that may suggest audience familiarity with the tradition of wine being distributed by a young male, the standard at later symposia.153 The presence of entertainment at divine feasting scenes and at Alcinous’ feasts would have been a reference to the feast settings where the Homeric epics were themselves performed (Od. 9. 2-11;
Il. 1. 601–604.).
To Indulge is Divine: Hubristic Suitors in the Odyssey
Although they cannot be categorized as a type of feasting in their own right, the feasts of the suitors at Odysseus’s palace represent an inversion of appropriate host feasting as exemplified by leadership feasts of Alcinous. The feasts that take place in Odysseus’s palace while he is away are characterized as environments where violations of cultural taboos are commonplace and courtesies are obsolete. Rude and callous guest figures violate numerous principles of guest- friendship during their escapades at Odysseus’ palace. They enter and occupy Odysseus’ domestic sphere uninvited, slaughter his animals and consume his household goods, court his
153 The mention of wine being poured ἔπιδέξια, “from left to right,” and the fact that the gods are laughing at their
“beautiful” wine-boy are traits that Mark Wecowski has targeted as indications of a Homeric knowledge of the symposium (2002, pp. 630–631). I view these traits more as prefigurations than as representative of sympotic references. 45 wife, and show disrespect for his son.154 Homer sends the clear message that these characters are behaving badly and that their actions are abnormal and inappropriate, as the following comment by Athena (with relevant phrases underlined) suggests (Od. 1.224 – 228.):
τίς δαίς, τίς δὲ ὅµιλος ὅδ’ ἔπλετο; τίπτε δέ σε χρεώ; εἰλαπίνη ἦε γάµος; ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἔρανος τάδε γ’ ἐστίν, ὥς τέ µοι ὑβρίζοντες ὑπερφιάλως δοκέουσι δαίνυσθαι κατὰ δῶµα. νεµεσσήσαιτό κεν ἀνὴρ αἴσχεα πόλλ’ ὁρόων, ὅς τις πινυτός γε µετέλθοι.”
What feast, what throng is here? And what on earth is your compulsion? Is it a banquet, a wedding feast? Since these things are not, at any rate, of an eranos [a potluck]; and to me, these men, so arrogantly overstepping their bounds, seem to divvy up the entire house. A man would be right to be resentful if he looked on these many shameful things, any prudent man who should approach, at any rate.
Homer employs the idealized feasts of the gods as a foil for the suitors’ abuse and misuse of commensality in order to exemplify their hubristic and base behavior. While it is in the nature of immortals to be able to feast day after day without consequence, the pseudo-feasts of the suitors, which flow on in an unending stream of consumption and drunkenness, are characterized as excessive.155
The construction of the Odyssey’s plot distinguishes the suitors’ feasting behavior as unacceptable by rendering their commensality ineffective. The suitors, characterized by their violent impotence, do not achieve interdependency or alliance through their communal eating
154 All of these actions are covered at once in Od. 2. 50–98, but occur throughout the Odyssey (cf. Od. 1. 224–251,
17. 529–541, 18. 384–428, and 21. 287–310). The behavior of the suitors is frequently described as hubristic, reckless, and selfish by numerous characters, including Athena, Telemachos, Eumaeus, and Penelope.
155 The typical formula for suitors’ feasts is exemplified in Od. 1. 145–162. 46 and drinking, nor do plans and decisions made by the suitors during meals come to pass (Od. 2.
91–93: Od. 16. 346–357; Od. 22. 372–377). The social structure of the suitors’ feasts deviates from models that we have observed in the feasts of figures like Agamemnon and Alcinous because of the lack of a defined hierarchy within their band. Although there are a few ringleaders, there is no clear host figure within the group. This casual social structure approximates the equal relationships that participants in the Archaic symposium enjoyed.
The Homeric epics may contrast leaders’ feasts with the feasting of the suitors in
Odysseus’s palace to reflect cultural tension regarding proper commensal behavior. In this way, the Homeric epics and Hesiod’s Works and Days reflect different attitudes toward communal eating and drinking from the luxuriant sympotic practices that became common in the 7th century
B.C. Negative depictions of the suitors eating and drinking excessively in the house of Odysseus may be a response to increased Greek exposure to foreign feasting practices that prefigured the
Archaic symposium.
The Homeric epics and the poetry of Hesiod depicted characters situated within social dynamics that dictated different forms of feasting for specific purposes and ends. While some traditions such as large-scale feasts situated within palaces seem to indicate a memory of
Mycenaean feasting practices and power structures, other descriptions such as the feasts of
Agamemnon and his troops during battle or the reciprocal banqueting relationships described by
Hesiod appear to be based more in an interest in building communal solidarity and unity among members of communities, sometimes for purposes of mutual gain and defense. Conversely, the feasts of the gods or the inversions of feasting in which the suitors appear are based in pleasure and the establishment of an elite party of guests. 47
Regardless of the different motivations and expressions of these feasts, communal eating and drinking functions within the Homeric epics and Hesiodic works as a way of creating relationships on a person-to-person level. These layers of feasting within the Homeric poems alert us to the variability of behavior and relationships when the epic poems were in circulation during the 8th century B.C. This variability will become clear when archaeological evidence for feasting is compared among the post-palatial sites of Nichoria, Xeropolis, and Lefkandi in
Chapter 4. Such a comparison will reveal that although post-palatial feasts shared a common feature of establishing forms of group solidarity, the ways in which that solidarity was expressed could vary according to the different conditions and needs of LH IIIC and Iron Age communities. 48
CHAPTER 3. FEASTING IN EUBOEA
The previous chapter explored archaeological evidence for feasting at Pylos and Nichoria in order to compare and contrast how feasting functioned in Bronze Age and Iron Age contexts in the region of Messenia. Depictions of feasting from the poetry of Hesiod and Homer were also examined in order to show variable forms of feasts that would have been familiar to Iron Age audiences. This chapter will discuss the role of feasting during the Bronze Age and Iron Age on the island of Euboea, primarily at two sites located in the modern coastal town of Lefkandi.
First, Lefkandi will be considered in light of its topographical position on the island: how did Euboean settlements interact during the Bronze Age and Iron Age? I will employ archaeological, topographical, and Linear B evidence to explore the possibility that a settlement at Lefkandi, like its neighboring settlement of Amarynthos, could have been a subsidiary territory of a Mycenaean palace at the end of the LH IIIB period.156 Then, I will examine how feasting may have operated at Lefkandi at different times during the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron
Age transition, focusing on the LH IIIC settlement at Xeropolis, and the Protogeometric building at Toumba. The roles of feasting at these two post-palatial sites will be considered in comparison with the motivations and forms of Mycenaean banqueting that characterized feasting at Pylos discussed in Chapter 2, and which have been tentatively linked to Thebes.
Introduction to Euboea
Topography and Geography
156 Killen 1994; Palaima 2004, p. 50. 49
Euboea is the second largest island in Greece after Crete. It runs parallel to the eastern coast of central Greece, and is separated from the mainland by the Euboean Gulf. Its length is nearly 175 km, and its width varies from 20 km near Chalkis, to approximately 3 km near the northern city of Aedipsos.157 Some of the most fertile land on the island of Euboea is located in the central coastal region, where the island curves close to the Greek mainland.158 The archaeological sites of Manika, Chalkis, Lefkandi, Amarynthos, and Psachna are all located within this region (Fig.
5).159 This coast possessed three fertile plains, the Psachna, the Lelantine, and the Eretrian, which were bounded by the sharp slopes of Kandili to the north, and Mount Kotylaion to the south.160
Chronology
During the 1960s, pottery studies conducted by John Boardman, Hector Catling, and J. Nicholas
Coldstream drew attention to the fact that during the Bronze Age and the obscure “Dark Age,”
Euboea was linked by trade to the Near East, the Cyclades, and Greece.161 Their research spawned a growing interest in the topography and interrelations of prehistoric Euboean sites, and this led to an extensive survey conducted across a large part of Euboea by several representatives from the British School in Athens.162 The survey described, in a general way, distributions of
157 The Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece 2006.
158 The Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece 2006.
159 Sackett et al. 1966, pp. 53-69 for full description.
160 Sackett et al. 1966, pp. 52-58; 103-105.
161 Boardman 1957, pp. 4-9. Popham 1968, pp. 26-27.
162 Sackett et al. 1966. Results of the survey were also included in Thomas Jacobsen’s dissertation, published in
1970. 50 settlements, movements of populations, and exploitation of natural resources on the island throughout prehistory. The British survey of Euboea discovered that settlement in areas with arable land increased during the Late Helladic period, but that there were no signs of occupation or continuity in settlements from the LH IIIC into the Protogeometric period.163
In his examination of ceramic material from the survey, Mervyn Popham noticed that LH
IIIB sites from the central coastal area shared common pottery styles, including traditions of local production from a clay source located near Lefkandi and Chalkis.164 These stylistic commonalities may have been dictated by interactions with Mycenaean palaces, such as the
Kadmeion at Thebes.165 Popham also noticed that ceramic material from LH IIIC sites showed regional variation in comparison with material from other periods, despite also having certain characteristics of a koine of style.166
In 1964, Mervyn Popham and Hugh Sackett began excavating the site of Xeropolis with the British School at Athens and the Greek Archaeological Service. The aim of the project was to understand settlements surrounding the Lelantine Plain.167 Discoveries included a large cemetery containing many richly furnished graves.168 Excavators were surprised to see a significant volume of foreign goods included in burials, probably serving as markers of status for occupants
163 Sackett et al. 1966, pp. 99-106.
164 Sackett et al. 1966, pp. 103-105.
165 Sackett et al. 1966, p. 105. He mentions that Chalkis’s pottery often imitates the Theban style in shape and pattern.
166 This observation, appearing in one of his early works on the region, represents one of Popham’s early assertions of the “Euboean koine” (Sackett et al. 1966, pp. 105-106).
167 Popham 1959.
168 Lefkandi I, pp. 101-231. 51 of the graves or for the kin who had interred them.169 The range of goods supported excavators’ theories about Euboea’s wide-ranging connections at the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age.
Other Euboean sites, meanwhile, were also being explored with the aim of clarifying
Euboea’s role in the network of economic and social relationships of the prehistoric Aegean.
Karystos, Eretria, Amarynthos, Kyme, and Chalkis/Chalkis-Manika were excavated during the
1970s and 1980s.170 Finds from these sites also showed a striking homogeneity after 1100 B.C., bolstering Popham’s observations about ceramic material from the LH IIIC period.171
Not only were locally produced styles of pottery similar from site to site, but there were also indications of the transfer of customs and ideas, such as the adoption of apsidal architecture or of a similar “package” of burial customs. This “Euboean koine,” as originally defined by
Desborough, did not merely reflect finds from the island itself, but also finds from nearby sites on the mainland of Greece, and from sites in the Levant, such as Al Mina.172 Although the LH
IIIC and Early Iron Age periods had commonly been characterized as times when settlements were largely self-contained and unconnected, Lefkandi showed signs of extensive external contacts.
As investigations of Lefkandi continued through the 1980s and 1990s, it became increasingly clear that the site contained remarkable signs of social stratification. Finds such as
Lefkandi’s monumental 10 x 47 m apsidal “Toumba” building with rich burials in its floor, altered traditional scholarly views that had imagined a Dark Age comprised of subsistence
169 Lefkandi I, pp. 7-8.
170 Bennet 1999.
171 Desborough 1977.
172 Boardman 1957, pp. 6-10. 52 farmers scratching out their living in small, temporary huts.173 Speculation surrounding the rich discoveries at Lefkandi led some scholars, particularly those associated closely with excavations at the site of Lefkandi, to develop increasingly “Euboea-centric” viewpoints concerning the spread of materials and ideas, as well as maritime interaction, during the Iron Age.174 These theories have been tempered with reminders about the impact and importance of Phoenician activities in the Levant during this same period.175 The middle ground between these perspectives is that the region of Euboea was fostering the exchange of foreign ideas, goods, and peoples during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods, and that this generated an environment that fostered innovation.
Based on Linear B evidence, links have been established between the Kadmeion (the
Mycenaean palace that operated from Thebes) and at least two Bronze Age settlements on
Euboea. These connections between settlements on the central coast of Euboea with Thebes are reflected in evidence for tribute and feasting explored below, practices comparable to those already discussed from Pylos.
Feasting in Late Bronze Age Euboea
The central Euboean site of Amarynthos is known to have been a subsidiary settlement under the influence of the Kadmeion, the Mycenaean palatial center located at Thebes.176 Amarynthos is mentioned in one of a number of recently discovered sealings of the Wu series from the
173 See especially Popham 1987, pp. 72-74.
174 Lemos 1998a; Lemos 1998b; Boardman and Popham 1994.
175 Papadopoulos 1997.
176 This activity seems to predate the destruction of the Kadmeion in Thebes in the LH IIIB1 (Symeonoglou 1985, pp. 89-91). 53 palace.177 This sealing lists a pig that was o-pa, “completed” by qe-ri-jo, presumably a personal name. The form of the place-name Amarynthos has been interpreted as the place from where the pig was being sent. The name “Karystos,” which is an Euboean site located well to the southeast of Amarynthos, has been read on another seal.178 Because both of these nodules and the rest of the sealings were found in small caches, and because they are smaller in size than Pylian Linear
B tablets and have holes punched through their centers, they have been interpreted as tags for singular or small-scale offerings from institutions or individuals.179
If the nodules from Thebes served as portable documents that communicated between people offering goods and palatial officials receiving them, then they indicate that Thebes was exerting influence over some areas of the central and southern coasts of Euboea during the Late
Bronze Age. They also offer insight into Mycenaean palatial strategies for mobilization of resources, possibly for use in feasting. Many of the 50-some cached nodules mention specific types of animals that were being sent to the palace at Thebes. Both John Killen and Thomas
Palaima have examined the lists of animals mentioned in the nodules, and they have tallied the total numbers of contributions for each species of animal mentioned. These sums have been compared with “master lists” from Pylos—long records of supplies, collected from separate sources, for big palatial events.180 The proportions of animal species among the totals generated from the nodules are strikingly similar to the proportions of the species mentioned on the master
177TH Wu 58 is the nodule that lists the offering of a single pig. For full text of the tablet TH Wu 58, see
Aravantinos 1995, p. 37.
178TH Wu 55 also lists an offering of a single pig; for a full text, see Aravantinos 1995, p. 37.
179 Killen 1994, p. 70.
180 Tablets such as PY Un 138, PY Jn 829, and PY Tn 316 appear to represent master lists. For a full text and translation of each of these three tablets, see Palaima 2004, pp. 240-242 and Killen 1994, p. 72. 54 lists. The similar totals suggest that there was a standardized form of offering, possibly transcending a single palace’s walls, to be doled out by palatial authorities hosting large-scale feasts. If this was indeed the case, it may hint at a shared Mycenaean ideology for resources provided at palace-sponsored events. The comparison between the Theban nodules and PY Un
138 also suggested that settlements outside of the palace’s immediate sphere of influence would perhaps send, rather than deliver, offerings to the palace. The use of small tags as labels suggests that the Kadmeion may have employed “collectors” for transporting resources to the palace, since it may have been unnecessary to have tag contributions if donors had actually been present at the palace, where a note of the donor’s identity could have been made in person on a tablet.
It is rather surprising to see Amarynthos and Karystos included in the list of place names sending tribute to Thebes, because both sites are far from the Kadmeion and are separated from the mainland by water. The scenario is not unthinkable, however, in light of the Pylian palace- hinterland model discussed in Chapter 2.181 Reasons why an external territory would be locked into paying tribute to a palatial center could include any number of possibilities— as a sop to allay invasion by palatial forces, as an incentive for protection by palace forces from invasion, as a guarantee for such benefits as stability, security, and risk spreading, or as a clientage arrangement, wherein local elites tended land belonging to a larger palatial system based at
Thebes. Amarynthos is also mentioned on another series of tablets from Thebes, the Un series.
Th Un 25 and Th Un 27 describe either shipments of wool going to Amarynthos, or Amarynthian female collectors, identified by toponymic adjectives, who are keeping track of donations of
181 Examples of hinterland sites further than 50 km from the Palace of Nestor at Pylos include Volimnos and
Kardamili (Fig. 2; Palaima 2004, p. 226). 55 wool that appear to be intended for ritual purposes.182 If the latter is correct, this supports the previous idea that collectors may have been employed for purposes of gathering resources from settlements under palatial control.
If Thebes was in a position of control over areas of Euboea, one might expect to see local production and use of palace-sponsored pottery or imagery, standardization of such elements as town planning and architecture, and imitation or endorsement of practices that were dictated or imposed by the central palace site. Because excavations at the site are still ongoing, with only fragments of Bronze Age walls published, it is difficult to comment on more than Amarynthos’s associations with the nodules.183 In the case of the collecting implied by the previously mentioned Amarynthos wool tablets, it is significant that the Kadmeion was supervising collection and perhaps production of resources at a satellite location on Euboea. The Wu sealings, in turn, represent a more direct means of communication between contributors or collectors and the administrative system. That Late Helladic Amarynthos shows indications of having been a subsidiary site of Mycenaean Thebes raises the possibility that such sites as
Lefkandi and Chalkis were also under Mycenaean control, and that they may have engaged in similar forms of contribution. Unfortunately, it is difficult to comment upon the LH IIIB evidence from Xeropolis, because the LH IIIC settlement was built over the LH IIIB remains.
Theban political control may have been asserted over a number of sites on Euboea, and was likely reinforced by demanding contributions from hinterland sites, not unlike the Pylian model of the Late Helladic IIIB period in Messenia. In this way, the Kadmeion at Thebes may have flexed its administrative muscles as a centralized palace structure and ensured that
182 Schachter 1996, p. 894.
183 For preliminary publications of the prehistoric finds from Amarynthos, see Sapouna-Sakelleraki 1989. 56 contributors understood the importance and necessity of their existence.184 Redistribution of resources back to the hinterland by the palace would have served as a form of reciprocity, a show of good faith that contributions of goods, services, and loyalty from the hinterland settlements were not going to waste.185
Feasts could have been centralized or distributed throughout settlements in the hinterland.
If the proportions of animals in the nodules and sealings from the Kadmeion can be connected to proportions of animals on the previously mentioned “master lists” from Pylos, then we can imagine by comparison with master tablets such as PY Jn 829 that some feasts organized by authorities at Thebes could have taken place in areas outside of the palace.186 Whether feasts were also held at the Kadmeion, as they demonstrably were at the Palace of Nestor, remains to be determined. Regardless, the act of feasting, whether in a palatial structure or in a location designated by the palaces, would have combined the visceral satisfaction of eating with the diacritical feature of imposing tribute.187
As stated above, evidence for how feasting operated at LH IIIB Lefkandi does not survive in the archaeological record, nor can it be definitively asserted that Lefkandi was under the control of Thebes during the Bronze Age. However, two sites at Lefkandi provide data for
184 Bennet 1999.
185 It is worth considering whether redistribution was offered to everyone who gave a contribution. Palaima (2004, pp. 226-227), like Davis and Bennet (1999, pp. 110-111) quite rightly asks who was actually invited to Mycenaean feasts.
186 PY Jn 829 describes sanctuaries in areas outside of the palace, and the feast from PY Jn 718 is also listed as taking place outside of Pylos. However, there is currently no direct evidence to support that this was the case at
Thebes.
187 Davis and Bennet 1999, pp. 115-117. 57 the way that feasting operated after the influence of Mycenaean palatial administration waned:
Xeropolis, a settlement dating to the LH IIIC period, and Toumba, a unique building and cemetery dated to the Protogeometric period. Following a brief introduction to the excavations at
Lefkandi, evidence for feasting will be described and discussed for each site. These data will then be compared with the models for feasting from western Messenia to allow regional, temporal, and contextual variation in the functions of feasting in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron
Age Greece to be observed.
Introduction to Lefkandi
Topography
Lefkandi is the name of the modern fishing and agricultural village situated approximately halfway between Chalkis and Eretria on the Lelantine Plain, a fertile coastal river valley offering good farmland to its surrounding regions (Figs. 5 and 6).188 Excavations at Lefkandi have taken place in a number of different areas across the site, and, therefore, a number of names will be used in order to describe particular places. When the place name “Lefkandi” is used, it is intended to refer to the area encompassing all of the sites dug by the British School, including the cemeteries.
Excavations at Lefkandi have been concentrated at two main sites: Toumba and
Xeropolis. At Xeropolis, there is evidence for continuous occupation from the EBA through LH
IIIC (ca. 1185-1065 B.C.), followed by a hiatus until the Late Geometric period (ca. 750-700
B.C.). Protogeometric and Geometric levels only survived minimally to the north, where the
188 Lefkandi I.1, p. 1. 58 slope of the hill caused soil to accumulate and protect the deeply buried ancient soil levels from deep plowing.189
The shape of the Xeropolis hilltop is the result of natural and anthropogenic factors such as erosion, destruction, ancient and modern construction and rebuilding, and cultivation of the soil.190 The hilltop slopes gently upward from its northern inland side, terminating in a ridge that overlooks the sea.191 There is evidence that the southern ridge once extended further out into the sea, but it appears that much of it has been lost due to erosion.192 Unfortunately, the eroded area contained some of the LH IIIB settlement.193
Occupation was spread over the hill’s slopes, which may have been equipped with terraces to enlarge and level the surface area; judging from the architectural remains that we do have, one possibility is that later houses were frequently built on top of earlier ones. It is also likely that the surface of the hilltop was narrower during the Bronze and Iron Age.194 The
189 Lefkandi I.1, pp. 4-5; Lefkandi II.1, p. ix. The following dates are assigned to the various phases of pottery at
Lefkandi: Protogeometric: 1050-900 B.C., with Middle Protogeometric at approximately 950 B.C.;
Subprotogeometric: 900-750 B.C., with three subphases of I (900-875 B.C.), II (875-850), and III (850-750 B.C.); and Late Geometric, dated between 750-700 B.C.
190 Lefkandi I.1, p. 2.
191 The depth of the soil at the top of the hill best demonstrates the extent of erosion: the stratigraphy is less than 1.5 m deep. Because of the gentle slope running from north to south, the stratigraphy is dramatically deeper on the inland face of the hill, where bedrock lies approximately 8.5 m below surface levels (Lefkandi I.1, p. 2).
192 Lefkandi I.1, p. 2.
193 Lefkandi I.1, p. 2.
194 Lefkandi I.1, p. 2. 59 chronology of Xeropolis has been divided into three phases based on its stratigraphy and pottery.195
With the exception of intramural burials inside of the Late Helladic IIIC walls of the
Xeropolis settlement, no LH IIIC cemeteries were found. However, Lefkandi does have five cemeteries with graves dating to the Submycenaean and Early Protogeometric, as well as to the
Middle, Late, and Sub-Protogeometric periods (Fig. 6).196 The four largest cemeteries are Palia
Perivolia, the East Cemetery, Skoubris, and Toumba.197
In addition to being the site of a cemetery used from the Middle Protogeometric through the Sub-Protogeometric periods, Toumba is also the location of the large apsidal structure (also nicknamed the “Toumba” structure and “The Heroön”) that has been variously interpreted as a house, a tomb, or a communal or elite building. This building is oriented from east to west and sits on the very top of the Toumba hill.198 The Toumba structure was constructed in the early part of the Middle Protogeometric Period, and was comprised of several areas with different uses.
The building contained a porch where a majority of the serving and consumption vessels were found, a central room that received two very rich burials, accompanied by a slab of burnt stone that may have been a pyre, and an apsidal eastern half, which contained several pits that may
195 Lefkandi IV, p. 1.
196 The terrain in these areas consisted of coarse and loose pebble conglomerate with occasional marl beneath the surface, optimal for digging shaft and cist graves (Lefkandi I.1, pp. 2, 102).
197 Lefkandi I.1, pp. 191. All of the cemeteries are documented in Lefkandi I, but the Toumba cemetery is more extensively documented in Lefkandi II (the Protogeometric building) and III (the cemetery).
198 Lefkandi II.1, p. 1. 60 have been dug for purposes of storage.199 During the later part of the Middle Protogeometric
Period at Lefkandi, frequent communal or domestic use of the building ceased, and the Central
Room was incorporated within a tumulus focused on the two burials interred there.200
Research Goals of the Lefkandi Publications
The goals of the excavation at Lefkandi, as stated by Mervyn Popham and Hugh Sackett, were as follows: “To establish a date for the end of the site, to define the character of local
Protogeometric and Geometric pottery, and to see whether there had been continuity of occupation through the latest stages of the Mycenaean period into the Early Iron Age.” 201
These goals changed during the course of excavations, as the Late Helladic IIIC remains at Xeropolis came to light. Excavations at Xeropolis ceased in 1970, and the first excavation volume, which described primarily the Geometric remains from Xeropolis (Lefkandi I), was published in 1980. The focus of fieldwork in the years 1981, 1984, 1986, and 1992-1994 was the Toumba structure and cemeteries associated with it.202 Heated disputes between landowners and excavators made it difficult for plans to always proceed in exactly the way that excavators had envisioned.203 In 2006, Lefkandi IV appeared. This volume represents the publication of the
LH IIIC settlement of Xeropolis, and has been compiled from the work of Mervyn Popham and
199 The apsidal room was first treated in Lefkandi II.1, and the pyre was treated in Lefkandi II.2, p. 2. C.f. also the apsidal room and the burnt structure in the central room with Nichoria, structure IV-2.
200 Lefkandi II.1, p. 1.
201 Lefkandi I.1, p. 3.
202 Excavation volumes pertaining to this fieldwork appeared as Lefkandi II.1 and II.2 (1990) and Lefkandi III
(1996).
203 Cf. Lefkandi I.1, pp. 4-5. 61 several other collaborators.204 The intention of Mervyn Popham was that two more volumes describing the EBA and MBA phases would follow the publication of the LH IIIC material, as well as an article covering the LH I-LH IIIB levels.205 It is important to note the absence of the published LH evidence from our picture of the site, as well as the fact that only a small percentage of the site has been excavated.206
It is also important to understand that the pottery published from Toumba represents approximately 3.5% of the pottery from the site, with preference given to “feature pieces” such as handles, bases, and rims, as well as sherds with uncommon forms of decoration and diagnostic attributes.207 The uncatalogued pottery, not a part of the aforementioned 3.5%, was treated in a statistical analysis included as an appendix in Lefkandi II.1, recording the occurrence of particular types of shape and decoration.208 Using raw figures from the catalogued pottery and bulk figures from the uncatalogued pottery, Catling and Lemos calculated a minimum number of vessels for generalized shape categories.209 Therefore, while it is worth considering relationships between different functional categories of vessels, selective collection without thorough methodological documentation makes it impossible to fully understand that relationship.210
204 Collaborating scholars included Hugh Sackett (trial excavations), Elizabeth Schofield (pottery), Susan Sherratt
(pottery), and Don Evely (small finds, editor).
205 Lefkandi IV, p. xviv.
206 Lefkandi IV, p. 1.
207 Lefkandi II.1, pp. 5-6.
208 Only the criteria for selection of pottery from Toumba were explicitly laid out, so there is no account of cataloguing methods for the ceramic material from Xeropolis. (Lefkandi II.1, pp. 147-160).
209 Lefkandi II.1, pp. 147-151.
210 Ceramic data could also have become skewed during processes of cataloguing and publication. 62
In the following examinations of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age material from
Xeropolis and Toumba, such factors as site preservation, natural and anthropogenic cultural formation processes, and methods of excavation and publication, are important for our understanding of the data. Moreover, because preservation of Bronze Age material is primarily visible at Xeropolis and Iron Age material is more prominent at Toumba, it is paramount that differences in context also be taken into account in the analysis of particular artifact types and their locations at each site.
Feasting at Xeropolis
Feasting at Xeropolis during the LH IIIC period was conducted on small scale and in domestic settings. This stood in contrast to the diacritical feasting at the Palace of Nestor at Pylos, or to the experiences of a contributor from Amarynthos who may have sent offerings to Thebes. Despite the small scale of feasting activities at Xeropolis, there is also evidence that elite ideologies were being asserted at feasts through the use of imported goods, imagery on serving vessels, and possibly even through architecture. Feasts at LH IIIC Xeropolis functioned in a different way from feasts at LH IIIB Pylos and from LH IIIB Thebes in terms of their scale and focus.
Architecture
Because of the spotty nature of the stratigraphy, it is difficult to examine, in detail, the transition between the LH IIIB and LH IIIC phases at Lefkandi.211 Although enough data have been gathered to be able to state that the LH IIIB hilltop was fortified, it is difficult to determine the
211 Lefkandi IV, p. 135. 63 settlement’s extent at that time.212 Building activity increased and new architecture emerged in the LH IIIC period, which dates, on the basis of architectural phasing and pictorial pottery styles from Xeropolis, between approximately 1185-1065 B.C.213
The chronology of the pottery and architectural changes at Xeropolis has been divided into three sub-phases of development.214 These phases, designated as 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b, have been connected with sequences of stratified LH IIIC pottery from other sites in the Argolid and in Lokris.215 Visible destruction layers have also defined the three phases of Xeropolis, with a burnt level indicating the demise of the 1b settlement.216 The large-scale destruction dividing level 1b from level 2a preceded the onset of significant innovation in pottery styles.217 This chapter treats material from all three phases, but it focuses largely on material from phase 2. This is because the material from phase 2 is generally more copious than that of phase 1, there is relatively little material from phases 3a and 3b, and also because phase 2a was easy for excavators to notice because of its position above the burnt 1b destruction layer.
In examining evidence for communal eating and drinking at Xeropolis, it is helpful to consider what spaces were available for these activities. The LH IIIC settlement of Xeropolis was characterized by square-shaped, two storey units, comprised of rooms of a fairly standardized 5 x 5 m size, occasionally connected to other neighboring rooms. The phase 1b
212 Lefkandi IV, pp. 101-102, 135.
213 Lefkandi IV, p. 246.
214 Lefkandi IV, p. 246.
215 Lefkandi IV, pp. 220-231.
216 Building alignments from phase to phase indicate that although use of the Xeropolis site changed slightly, there was a tendency to follow past precedents (Lefkandi IV, p. 1; Cf. p. 46).
217 Lefkandi IV, pp. 1, 190, 193, and 220. 64
West House, comprised of suited rooms 9, 10, 11, and 12, exemplifies this arrangement (Figs. 9 and 13).218 Rooms 9, 10, 11, and 12 each contained specialized groupings of vessel types that complemented and balanced one another to create unified household assemblages, suggesting that these suites of rooms had communication between upper and lower floors.219 It is attractive to hypothesize that different activities related to the preparation and service of meals took place in these various rooms, with consumption of food and drink also occurring in a separate space.
Areas at Xeropolis that have been identified as yards seem like feasible candidates for spaces large enough to accommodate larger-scale commensality, but generally the archaeological evidence does not support this idea. An example of a yard space from phase 1 at Xeropolis is
Yard 8/13, which measures approximately 17 x 3-4.5 m (Fig. 9).220 Yard 8/13 was in use during all of phase 1 and took the form of Yard 8/9 during phases 2 and 3 (Fig. 8). The phase 1 yard,
Yard 8/13, contained deposits of pottery that may have been refuse from a long-term dump.221
The fact that the pottery was comprised of mixed 1a and 1b material indicates that the deposit accumulated over long periods rather than being generated as the result of a single, intensive period of use. In the case of comestibles, we should expect material from feasting activities to form a single, homogenous deposit. Pottery, however, does not usually comprise part of rubbish deposits, since it is not commonly thrown out unless it has been damaged. In cases where pottery was retired, however, a one-time event would probably have generated similar types of material from a single ceramic phase rather than varied types of material from different phases.
218 Lefkandi IV, pp. 25-26. Deposits from the upper and lower storeys of Room 9 are listed in Table 1.
219 Lefkandi IV, pp. 25-26.
220 These spaces are unroofed (Lefkandi IV, pp. 39-40).
221 The deposit from phase 1 contained at least one krater sherd, a few cups, four pot bases, several bovid terracotta figurines, and several pieces of worked bone (Lefkandi IV, p. 40). 65
Following phase 1, Yard 8/13 was leveled and building construction continued in the same pattern around the open space (called Yard 8/9 during phase 2; Figs. 8 and 9).222 A large deposit of pottery dating to the end of phase 2a was found here, but it resulted from collapse from the upper storeys of buildings surrounding yard 8/9 rather than from feasting within the yard (Fig. 8).223 Although the yard was available as a large-scale and centralized space where communal activities could have taken place, there is little artifactual evidence to recommend this interpretation.
Yard 8/9 was used differently in phase 3, but there is still no evidence for feasting within this space. A large deposit from the yard in an area just north of the South House contained sherds and large fragments of kraters, deep bowls, basins, a scoop, and a stirrup jar.224 To the west, also in Yard 8/9, another deposit contained pictorial krater sherds and several bowls, a stirrup jar, a tray, a jug, and a large cooking pot.225 These deposits were discarded as groups, and probably represent secondary dumps that were thrown away in fragmentary form. Occupants would not very likely have dined where they disposed of trash, suggesting that dining was taking place inside of houses rather than outside in the yard. Therefore, yards may not have served as spaces for feasting, but as places for the disposal of refuse from feasting.
Apart from the yards, there are no indications of large-scale spaces where people would have gathered for feasts. At Xeropolis, ceramics and small finds suggesting the service of meals often come from deposits associated with the collapse of upper storeys of dwelling spaces. Finds
222 Lefkandi IV, pp. 46-47.
223 The assemblage was large and included several krater fragments, three deep bowls, two kylikes, a rhyton, and a stirrup jar (Lefkandi IV, p. 48).
224 Lefkandi IV, p. 85.
225 Lefkandi IV, p. 86. 66 of cooking wares, pithoi, amphorai, and grinding tools indicate that storage and preparation of food took place on the first storeys of dwellings, while collapsed debris consisting of open shaped vessels and fine wares suggest that the distribution and consumption of food and drink took place on the second floor.226 More specifically, second storey debris deposits included hydriai, jugs, dippers, tripod cookers, kraters, kalathoi, cups, and kylikes, and were found below the roof collapse in conjunction with disintegrated mudbrick and beam impressions.227 The positioning of the disintegrated building material indicates that the vessels had dropped from above, thereby helping to establish the position of dining areas within dwellings from the settlement, and further supporting the idea that banqueting was taking place inside rather than outside of houses.
Pottery and Small Finds
Tables 1a and 1b summarize the deposits from several contexts at Xeropolis that were potentially associated with dining or preparations for dining. These deposits were selected on the basis of the types of vessels that they contained, or on the basis of their original projected locations within upper storey rooms. The tallies for each type of vessel are totaled according to broad rather than specific categories of shape, as identified by Lefkandi IV (e.g., conical cups and lip- banded cups have been grouped together as “cups”). Vessels and small finds have been grouped
226 Lefkandi IV, pp. 17-20, 33-35, 39-40, 122-124.
227 E.g., the deposit preserved from the South Room and South Area from the Central Tests, Lefkandi IV, pp. 122-
123. These vessel shapes are associated with drinking. Hydriai and jugs are spouted vessels that would have been used for pouring liquid, while kraters and kalathoi are larger, open vessels that were used to mix and hold wine. A dipper was employed to decant the liquid from a larger vessel into cups and kylikes. 67 according to general functional categories, followed by the criteria for their inclusion in these categories in parenthesis.
A comparison of deposits from upper and lower storeys of several rooms yields a few observations about feasting at Xeropolis. Pithoi are consistently located in lower floor deposits, as exemplified by the Central Tests North Room and South Room, as well as the West House,
Room 9 (Table 1a). This makes sense purely on a convenience level, because it would have been difficult to place a large storage vessel in an upper storey room. However, in light of the close quarters of the rooms at Xeropolis, it seems unlikely that inhabitants would have cluttered their gathering space with storage. The same point about saving space may perhaps be applied to deposits featuring large caches of serving and pouring vessels on bottom storeys, as exemplified by nine pouring vessels from the West House, Room 9 and five kraters from the North House,
Room 2 (Table 1a). One possibility is that only vessels that were needed for a specific dining event would have been brought up to the top storeys of houses, and that a majority of those vessels would have been stored elsewhere when feasting was not in progress.228 The presumed layer of collapse from the upper storey of the North House, Room 2 contained a preponderance of drinking vessels, including six kylikes, a deep bowl, and a cup (Fig. 14; Table 1a).229
Dining in the upper storeys of houses would have limited the number of participants to smaller groups of people. The six kylikes from the North House deposit might suggest a reasonable maximum capacity for the space available in 5 x 5 m dwellings. The ceramic assemblages that have been found confirm this conclusion; generally, individual vessels such as
228 The fact that all of the second floor ceramic material comes from secondary deposits makes this scenario difficult to confirm.
229 Another possibility is that this deposit represented a second layer of use on top of an earlier level (Lefkandi IV, pp. 50-52). 68 cups, bowls, and kylikes rarely number over five (Table 1a).230 Because there is no tenable evidence for feasting taking place on a larger scale than this, and because it cannot be proven that feasts were taking place outside, it is only possible to state that there is evidence for small feasts taking place in households at Xeropolis.
Some classes of vessels and small finds from banqueting contexts at Xeropolis have been identified as imports, such as the carinated style of krater, the Cypriot base/ring bowl, trays, stirrup jars, obsidian blades, and deep bowls with vertical handles (Tables 1a and 1b).231A number of imports from Xeropolis are open shapes, which would be at home in a feasting assemblage: kraters have already been discussed as mixing bowls, and ring bowls and deep bowls are round and individual-sized vessels with steep sides that appear similar in function to cups. Trays are shallow and broad, often with edges that taper gently outward. Stirrup jars (squat, ovoid, closed vessels with high handles that are usually attached at the neck or shoulder) were likely used for storage, perhaps as substitutes for amphorai.
Figs and olive pips appear within a second storey deposit from the East House, Room 5, representing rare evidence for food from Xeropolis (Table 1b). The presence of blades in upper and lower storey deposits at Xeropolis may also remind us of the role that food would have played in communal eating and drinking (Table 1b). As illustrated in Chapter 2, the apportionment and distribution of meat was an important component of Homeric commensality.
At Xeropolis, obsidian blades of the sorts recorded in Table 1b would have been appropriate
230 The North House assemblage is an exception. Lefkandi IV, pp. 51-52.
231 Imported shapes of vessels are described in Lefkandi IV, p. 309. An example of obsidian blades being featured in a potential banqueting context are those from the upper storey fill from Trial P on the summit of Xeropolis Hill, described in Lefkandi IV, pp. 100-101. 69 utensils for the task.232 A carving utensil in an imported material such as obsidian, or in a valued metal such as a copper alloy, would have increased the prestige of the acts of division and distribution.
Susan Sherratt points out that “exotic” imported pottery was evenly distributed at
Xeropolis, and that imported vessels, including storage vessels such as stirrup jars, were consistently found with serving vessels.233 Additionally, there appears to be a division in the quality of vessels included within contexts of dining versus contexts of preparation. The deposit from the Central Tests, South Room contained finewares within the upper storey deposit, and coarsewares from the basement of the building (Fig. 15; Table 1a).234 Imports and finewares were used where they could be seen and admired, and they distinguished dining as a context of display in which participants were made to feel special as a part of a small gathering.
Imagery from Pictorial Kraters
As in Chapter 2, the experience of feasting at the LH IIIB Palace of Nestor combined symbolic actions such as the provisioning of food and drink with visible symbols of power, such as martial fresco imagery, in order to awe and entertain guests. The large-scale fresco programs that adorned the main dining spaces portrayed Mycenaean ideals such as martial prowess, and may even have served as backdrops for performative acts, such as ritual, recitations of narrative, or
232 See Il. 7.312—324, where Agamemnon awards Ajax the unbroken chine of a slaughtered bull for his valor.
233 For Sherratt’s commentary, see Lefkandi IV, p. 309. See also Table 1a, a deposit from the East House, Room 5, floor level; the grouping from the Yard, collapse from surrounding 2a upper floors; and the assemblage from the
North House, Room 6, presumed to be from upper floor collapse (Lefkandi IV, pp. 37-38, 48, and 55-56, respectively).
234 Lefkandi IV, p. 122. 70 the singing of songs.235 The experiences of guests were enhanced through ambient elements, which were combined to create an association between the act of providing sustenance and pleasure, and the power of the authority figure who sponsored the event.
The site of Xeropolis does not contain frescoes. However, other imagery would have been visible during dining rituals. Pictorial kraters are present in significant numbers at the site.
In the same way that frescoes expressed, on a large scale, the roles of various figures within the
Pylian kingdom, the imagery of pictorial kraters, vessels of elemental importance to drinking experiences, may have conveyed important ideas to their audience as well.
The krater was of great importance in later Archaic Greek sympotic contexts.236 The person in charge of mixing the wine was the one who determined its strength.237 Those who served it (in the Archaic period, these may have been the symposiasts themselves) determined the portion that each individual participant received.238 The krater remained centrally located, and the wine was distributed into cups using a dipper.239 Kraters thus served as a focal point for sympotic ritual, the source for the substance being consumed.240 In the 7th century in Greece, kraters seem to have portrayed imagery that would have been meaningful to the elite symposiasts who used them. Scenes of warfare, hunting, commensality itself, or mythological scenes
235 PN I, p. 253; Davis and Bennet 1999, pp. 108-113.
236 Luke 1994; Lissarrague 1990, pp. 123-139.
237 Luke 1994, p. 23.
238 Luke 1994, p. 27.
239 Lissarrague 1990, p. 34.
240 Luke 1994, p. 35. At highly formulized symposia, the duration of the drinking party was sometimes measured out into three kraters, served one after another. It should also be noted that, in light of the differences in size between
Archaic and Iron Age kraters, it is possible that Iron Age feasts may have featured multiple serving vessels at once. 71 conveying these ideals were popular subjects.241 The ideals articulated through imagery on pottery were complemented by the imagery of lyric poetry, which was itself performed within sympotic contexts, based on references to drinking embedded within the poems. Not unlike the way that lyric poetry was intended to speak to the participants of the symposium, the imagery from the krater served as a form of “performance” by communicating with the participants of a drinking party about their status or behavior.
If such observations about Archaic kraters are applicable to earlier Iron Age contexts, then it is reasonable to suppose that imagery portrayed on kraters would have commanded the attention of guests during the course of a communal meal. The krater would have served in a capacity similar to the wall imagery at the Palace of Nestor at Pylos by providing an ideological focus for participants in a feast.
Imagery depicted on pictorial kraters from Xeropolis ranges from scenes of nature featuring animals, to martial scenes that feature warriors or men with horses and chariots, to mythological creatures.242 The scenes featuring animals include birds, goats, and other wild beasts, and may point to an interest in hunting among residents of the site (for example, red- tailed deer antlers are found in numerous contexts at Xeropolis).243 Some of the fragments with chariot scenes or warriors in action laud martial prowess, a theme that was also present upon the walls at the Palace of Nestor and on pictorial pottery from such LH IIIC sites as Mycenae.244 It would appear that, within contexts of display, polemic iconography was thematically popular at
241 Schnapp and Schmitt 1982.
242 Lefkandi IV, p. 237.
243 Lefkandi IV, p. 307.
244 Lefkandi IV, pp. 238-240. Pictorial kraters also survive from the LH IIIB period, and often depict similar motives, particularly scenes involving chariots. 72
Xeropolis. However, while Pylian frescoes may have expressed the martial prowess of the state, the imagery on LH IIIC pictorial kraters may be more representative of the ideals of warrior culture—impressions of an idealized and heroic class of preceding fighters. This point will be discussed at greater length below. The force behind the imagery very likely differed from context to context. The mutual recognition or understanding of particular stories, symbols, and traditions could have represented a way of constructing a group identity during feasts.
One scene from a pictorial krater itself reflects the act of drinking (Fig. 10). The fragment depicts a man, seated in front of a krater with a kylix sitting inside of it.245 The image in the context of its use at a feast would have reinforced the importance of the event in which the participants were taking part. Whether images on the kraters from Xeropolis depicted scenes with which feasters would have been familiar, or whether they facilitated the creation and endurance of memories that endured from one generation to the next, they reflected and reinforced common ideas shared among those who viewed them.
Feasting at Xeropolis and Feasting at the Palace of Nestor
The data discussed above characterize the goals and objectives of feasting at LH IIIC Xeropolis as small scale in comparison with palace-centered diacritical feasting at LH IIIB sites like Pylos and Thebes. The architectural evidence suggests that although there were large outdoor spaces at
Xeropolis where feasting could have taken place, such as Yards 8/13 and 8/9, ceramic evidence and small finds instead suggest that feasting occurred in upper storeys of houses or within suites of rooms. Examples of finewares and imports in upper storey deposits indicate that dining experiences were contexts of display, even when small groups took part. Finally, iconography
245 Lefkandi IV, pp. 240-241. 73 from pictorial kraters offers the opportunity to examine how imagery would have functioned during a feast at a post-palatial settlement, and how it would have communicated the values of the audience that viewed it. At LH IIIC Xeropolis, elements of setting, equipment, and imagery worked together to create an experience that, while intimate and individualized, was also relatively standardized for households within the community. In contrast, Pylian feasts were monolithic and conveyed a message of hierarchically-based control to guests.
Comparisons between feasting at Xeropolis and at the Palace of Nestor make the following points clear. First, because architectural and ceramic evidence points to small groups of participants, we might imagine that co-diners were tied by kinship or that they constituted groups of peers, making dining more intimate than the large-scale feasts held at the Pylos.246
Additionally, there was greater variability in the kinds of vessels used at Xeropolis, in contrast to the standardized sets made available at Pylos. The focal points of the experience of drinking and dining within each context would also have varied, and factors of setting, including imagery, participation in ritual, or performances of narrative or song could have affected guests’ experiences in different ways. 247
The ceramic evidence from Xeropolis points to a similar distribution of shapes from deposit to deposit, but with some internal variation. This contrasts with the character of dining sets employed at the Palace of Nestor, where storerooms located near halls and courts contained massive caches of hastily-made kylikes in order to accommodate the needs of many guests.248
246 Dining in upper storeys is not an activity that was unique to Xeropolis. Upper floors were used for communal commensal activities in Minoan contexts (e.g., Schoep 2004, p. 246; Cherry 1986, p. 27).
247 By “focal points,” I mean the physical surroundings of feasts that are dictated by the number of participants and their positioning and spacing.
248 Davis and Bennet 1999, p. 110, n. 21. 74
The deposits from Xeropolis, which featured a variety of shapes in small quantities that may have functioned as a set, reflected the needs of individual households rather than of a central authority. While feasting projected identities to different social tiers for large groups at the
Palace of Nestor, it more likely conveyed a unified communal identity for smaller groups at
Xeropolis.
Even within small groups, however, communal eating and drinking remained an event linked to display of wealth and resources, a context capable of imbuing both objects and participants with prestige. In this dynamic, an imported pot or a pictorial krater demonstrated its owner’s influence—something that the palaces expressed through elements such as spectacle and scale. Consequently, images communicated different messages in LH IIIB and LH IIIC, although their content was similar. The inclusion of images on a wall, as in the case of scenes from the
Palace of Nestor at Pylos, may be interpreted as an expression of power because of the effort required to produce the frescoes, as well as the context of display in which they were placed.
Images on LH IIIC pictorial kraters also communicated messages to viewers, and they made use of similar themes in order to do so. However, these images probably served as references to the memory of former symbols of power that circulated in contexts of prestige. The inclusion of decoration on pottery used in banqueting emphasized its use in a special context where it would have contributed to defining and establishing collective power for a small group, in contrast to the role that imagery played in establishing divisions of power of a larger group within the context of the Mycenaean palaces.
Feasting at Toumba 75
The LH IIIC settlement of Xeropolis and the Protogeometric building and cemetery at Toumba were separated by approximately 500 m (Fig. 6).249 The structure in the area of Lefkandi that is known as Toumba also dates to the Middle Protogeometric period, to approximately 950 B.C. At the end of the Middle Protogeometric period, the Toumba structure was filled and turned into a tumulus. It has been hypothesized that the leveling fill for the Toumba tumulus was taken from the settlement at Xeropolis, although extensive Middle Protogeometric remains have not been uncovered there.250 The Toumba structure’s short lifespan, its evidence for both communal activities and mortuary practices, the mystery of its incomplete state when it was destroyed, and its partial destruction by a large backhoe on August 15, 1980 have made its function and purpose difficult to determine.251 However, it is clear that the building was significant to the people who constructed and modified it during the Middle Protogeometric period, and it is that aspect of the structure that will form the basis for this discussion of feasting at Toumba.
Description of the Toumba Building
The apsidal Toumba structure, named for the hill upon which it rests, has also garnered the nickname “The Heröon,” owing to scholarly speculation that the building served as a hero shrine in association with the rich warrior burial in its Central Room.252 The dimensions of the structure are unparalleled for Protogeometric architecture: approximately W. 13 m x L. 47 m (Fig. 7).253
249 Lefkandi II.2, p. 1.
250 Lefkandi II.1, p. ix.
251 Lefkandi II.2, p. 34.
252 Lefkandi II.2, p. 100.
253 Lefkandi II.2, p. 35. 76
The features of this structure suggest a variety of uses that are not represented in other contemporary structures. It is much larger than other Iron Age structures, which typically are smaller in size than Unit IV-1 from Nichoria (approximately 11 x 8 m, which is already large for its assigned date).254 Therefore, the size of the Toumba structure is truly exceptional. A series of covered supports described as parts of a “veranda” encircled the Toumba building on three sides, and a single line of supports ran in an east to west orientation down the structure’s Central
Room, where two very rich Middle Protogeometric burials were also interred (Fig. 7).255
James Coulton, the site architect from the excavations at Lefkandi, reconstructed the structure as having a pitched thatched roof, on the basis of the placement of the previously mentioned structural supports.256 The eaves of the “veranda,” which extended approximately 1.8 m on each side of the structure, could have provided some shelter and shade to the north and south of the building.257 Coulton also suggested that the “veranda” was constructed to make the structure look larger and more impressive.258 The Porch, which connected to the East Room through a large 5 m wide doorway on its west side, would have helped to illuminate the interior of the structure and would have provided an additional entrance (Fig. 18).259
254 Nichoria III, pp. 28-29.
255 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 40-41, 48-49, 57-60. James Coulton noted that the amount of wood employed in the construction of the posts and roof supports would have been great, but he suggests that these resources could have been easily obtained from Euboean forests.
256 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 44-49.
257 The shade would have varied seasonally (Lefkandi II.2, pp. 57-59). For a more recent discussion of the depth of veranda, see Lemos 2002, p. 141.
258 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 58-59.
259 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 8-10. 77
Interior Features of the Toumba Building
Features uncovered inside of the Toumba structure have posed some difficulties of interpretation, but they indicate that this building was significantly modified during the course of the Middle
Protogeometric period, and that it possessed areas that were devoted to different kinds of activities. The East Room, which measured L. 8.3 m x W. 8.8 m, may have served as an area where ritual activity such as sacrifice took place (Fig. 18).260 A rectangular mudbrick structure,
L. 1.95 m x W. 0.95 m, was found in the northwestern corner and contained quantities of ash and bone. A 1.6 m x 1.3 m ovoid platform with a very smooth fired clay surface was found in the southwestern corner.261 Also, a circle of stones, 1.75 m in diameter, may have served as an altar, but it contained no traces of burning.262
The Central Room measured approximately 22 m in length (Figs. 7 and 17).263 Two burials were found oriented east to west in the Central Room, and they are important in determining the function and the significance of the Toumba building.264 The remains of a male cremation lay in the southern half of the southern shaft.265 Grave goods consisted of a bronze
260 The functions of many features of the East Room are unknown. For a full summary of features, see Lefkandi II.2, pp. 10-11 and Lemos 2002, pp. 142-143.
261 Lefkandi II.2, p. 11.
262 Lefkandi II.2, p. 11; Lemos 2002, pp. 142-143.
263 As was the case in the East Room, several features within this room were of unknown function (Lefkandi II.2, pp.
15-16; Lemos 2002, pp. 166-167).
264 Lefkandi II.2, p. 17.
265 Lefkandi II.2, p. 19. 78 amphora, with a bronze bowl set on top as a lid.266 The amphora was buried along with a sword, a razor, an iron spearhead, and a whetstone, and it also contained textiles along with its fill.267
When the amphora was removed from the earth, a great deal of wood was also found, a fact that suggested that the shaft might originally have had a wooden floor.268
The female, an inhumation, lay in the northern half of the pit, facing west, arms folded, hands and feet crossed.269 Her corpse had been very richly adorned, with gold spirals on either side of her head, the remains of a gold and electrum-beaded necklace offsetting a central gold pendant, two pectorals made of sheet gold, and rings of electrum and gold.270 She also had, on her person, several pins made of combinations of iron, bronze, bone, and gold.271 An iron knife with an ivory pommel was positioned near her right shoulder.272 Because there was no conclusive evidence that the two bodies were deposited on separate occasions, it has been suggested that the woman was sacrificed at the same time that the man was buried, sharing a fate similar to that of the four horses found inhumed in a shaft directly to the north.273 Just to the south of the southern shaft lay a large scatter of fragments from an extraordinarily large krater
266 Lefkandi II.2, p. 19.
267 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 19-20.
268 Lefkandi II.2, p. 20.
269 Lefkandi II.2, p. 20.
270 Lefkandi II.2, p. 20.
271 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 20-21.
272 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 20-21.
273 Lemos 2002, pp. 166-167. For a description of the horse burial, see Lefkandi II.2, pp. 21-22. Two of the horses had iron bits. 79
(0.88 m in diameter) that had been damaged during the bulldozing of the room.274 This krater seems to have formed part of a floor deposit within the Central Room.275
The Apse Room, located west of the Central Room, appeared to have been used for the storage and preparation of food (Fig. 16). A wide central corridor connected the Central Room to the Apse Room, and two small wings (the North Room and the South Room) were situated on opposite sides of this corridor.276 The North and South rooms contained a few pits, and a nearly complete monochrome cup was found resting on the floor of the North Room (Fig. 16).277 The
Apse Room featured a curving western wall, and the southeastern corner of this room contained a series of deep pits.278 These pits contained fill consisting of compacted sandy soil on the outside and loose, dark soil on the inside; they were 0.7 m in diameter and 0.6 m deep.279
Coulton suggested that these pits once contained tapered storage vessels (e.g., amphorai), and that these vessels were removed from their pits, which were filled in before the building was transformed into a tumulus.280
Coulton interpreted the structure as funerary, built in imitation of a house and erected over the preexisting burials that were later covered by the floor of the Central Room.281 His basis
274 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 16-17.
275 Lefkandi II.2, p. 17.
276 Lefkandi II.2, p. 22.
277 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 23-24.
278 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 25-26.
279 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 25-26.
280 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 25-26. These pits seem comparable in function to those from Unit IV-1 from Nichoria
(Nichoria III, pp. 36-37).
281 Lefkandi II.2, p. 49. 80 for this interpretation was a slight anomaly in the distance between the two central posts nearest to these two burials. The spacing between the two posts in question was wider than between other more regularly-spaced posts along the interior central axis of the building.282 In Coulton’s view, this difference in spacing indicated that the presence of the two graves was considered when the building was being constructed over them.283 He also observed that soon after the structure was built, a tumulus was heaped over it. The anomalous and unusual features of the building must therefore have reflected conscious decisions made at the time of its construction, rather than modifications made after its construction.284 Coulton’s conclusion that the Toumba building had a short lifespan is supported by Irini Lemos’s recent analysis of the ceramic material included in the fill of the structure of the Tumulus.285 The pottery associated with the deposit from the last use of the building is of approximately the same date as that in the fill of the tumulus. As a way of explaining why such a large building would contain burials in its Central
Room, it has been suggested that the building was always a monumental tomb and was consequently never used in a communal capacity.
However, the Toumba structure’s features suggest that it was intentionally created to serve the living. The features in the Apsidal Room, the Central Room, the East Room, and the
Porch indicate that the entirety of the structure was being utilized. While the structure’s short span of use seems to point to the creation of a large-scale marker or tomb for the elite burials
282 Lefkandi II.2, p. 49.
283 Lefkandi II.2, p. 49.
284 Lefkandi II.2, p. 49.
285 Lefkandi II.1; Lemos (2002) has reexamined Protogeometric ceramics from the fill that were originally treated by
Desborough, and she has confirmed that the material dates to the Middle Protogeometric Period. 81 within, it seems more likely that the structure was constructed above the graves as a communal center because the place had special significance for the people who built it.
One indication of the Toumba building’s communal significance is that considerable manpower and resources were channeled into its construction and remodeling. Prior to the construction of the building, the hilltop was leveled in order to accommodate the foundations.286
It seems likely that this position was selected because of its visibility in the surrounding landscape. The Toumba structure’s size and the fact that it was roofed are other indications of the effort and architectural ingenuity that went into building it, as well as the large crowd that it was intended to accommodate.
Its relative isolation in the landscape also suggests a communal function. There are no smaller houses around it. The Toumba structure instead seems to have been the only focal point for human activity in the area, apart from the surrounding Toumba cemetery.287 Many graves from the cemetery were oriented toward the door of the structure, in some instances excavated into the tumulus and arranged in concentric semicircular rows.288 This establishes the burials as reactive to the presence of the building-turned-tumulus on the hilltop. 289 It is clear that the
Toumba building held a special significance for the people who manipulated it and constructed their graves around it, even after its “active” life.
Alternatively, Alexandra Coucouzeli has argued that the Toumba building functioned as a structure that housed an egalitarian family group that defined its relationships to each other by
286 Lefkandi II.2, pp. 36-37.
287 Lefkandi II.2, p. 100.
288 For a plan of the Toumba Cemetery and its relationship to the Toumba building, see Lefkandi III, pls. 3 and 4.
289 Lefkandi II.2, p. 100; Lefkandi I.1, p. 105. 82 descent from a common ancestor (represented by the burials from the Central Room).290 In this interpretation, the structure would have functioned as a dwelling, a communal structure, and a tomb. The fact that there are not signs of daily use inside of the building seems to refute
Coucouzeli’s interpretation of the structure as a space where an extended family group could once have lived. However, this interpretation of the structure raises the important point that the building could have meant multiple things at once to the people who built and used it. In particular, the concept of individuals strengthening their connections to one another through ties to a remote elite figure serves well to explain the rich warrior burials that appear in the adjacent
Toumba cemetery during the Late Protogeometric period, seemingly in response to the Middle
Protogeometric burials in the Central Room. In modification of Coucouzeli’s model, however, I argue that the people who used the Toumba building were not bound to the building as a living space, or necessarily related by blood. Instead, perhaps the construction and use of the building represented an assertion of the power and resources of a group of elites who identified with the ideology of the warrior burial from the Central Room. In this scenario, feasting could have served a means of asserting that ideology, while simultaneously adding to the Toumba structure’s significance as a focal point of solidarity for selected members of the community.
Pottery from the Toumba Building
Although the integrity of the Toumba building’s pottery assemblage was compromised by anthropogenic factors, excavators were able to point to some vessels that had come from primary depositional contexts contemporary with the final period of use of the building.291 There were a
290 Her argument likens the structure to an Iroquois longhouse (Coucouzeli 2004, pp. 467-472).
291 Lefkandi II.1, pp. 3-5. 83 dozen nearly complete pots that rested directly on the floor of the Toumba building, and these constituted the assemblage in use at the time of the building’s deliberate destruction (Table 2).292
The pottery from the Central Room is striking because its collection of shapes is suggestive of an assemblage associated with communal drinking practices. First of all, a krater that measured 0.88 m in diameter was found.293 The inclusion of an oinochoe within this assemblage suggests that something liquid was being distributed, probably wine. A skyphos was present, possibly as a vessel for receiving the wine, and the lekythos was frequently used as a container for oil or perfume; it is known, at any rate, to have been employed at sympotic functions during the Archaic period. There was also a cooking vessel, which may seem out of place among shapes related to consumption, but could have contained food that was consumed at the same time as the drink.
The assemblage in the Apse Room appears to have been geared toward storage and serving, more so than the assemblage from the Central Room. Two amphorai, a hydria, and two bowls were present.294 Although there were no cooking pots in this room, there were vessels that were reserved for the preparation and distribution of drink. This makes sense if the Central Room served as the focal point of the structure, where guest-host interaction took place, and the Apse
Room represented a place for preparation. The presence of the cooking pot within the Central
Room could be explained, in fact, if some part of the preparation of food took place in front of the guests for purposes of heightening the dramatic tension of the event. The presence of cups
292 Lefkandi II.1, pp. 3-5, 44-46. Excavations could differentiate between fill and floor levels because of the presence of decayed organic material within the building. This was thought to have resulted from a collapse that occurred after the Toumba building was abandoned, and while it was being remodeled later in its “lifespan.”
293 Lefkandi II.1, pp. 25-26.
294 Lefkandi II.1, pp. 3-5. 84 within the South Room as well as those present in fragmentary numbers from the Apse Room could indicate that the back of the building served for storage.295 The analysis of uncatalogued pottery from the fill of the building showed that there were slightly higher proportions of pithos and cooking sherds in the three western rooms than in the East Room and Central Room.296
Although these assemblages are small and few, I believe that they attest to a communal use for this building. In particular, the grouping of these deposits in different rooms makes a strong case for their use in particular ways. The krater and the oinochoe from the Central Room were vessels employed in the distribution of drink, while amphorai were used in storage. Hydriai could have been employed in preparation as vessels containing water, which would fit with the activities of the Apse Room. Finally, the deposits from the Toumba building suggest activities related to communal consumption of food and drink. The large size of the krater from the Central
Room would have been designed to attract the attention of participants and to accommodate the needs of a group that was probably larger in attendance than groups at Xeropolis. The preponderance of open shapes suggests that drinking took place on the premises. In short, the pottery from the Toumba building indicates that multiple activities took place in different areas of the structure, and that the structure was clearly valued by the community that used it, making it an appropriate location for activities such as feasting.
Pottery from the Iron Age Cemeteries
295 Lefkandi II.1, pp. 3-5. It is inconclusive whether one of the cups belongs to the fill or not.
296 Lefkandi II.1, p. 5. This pottery has been considered to be from a secondary dump, and, therefore, does not represent a floor deposit. 85
The rich burials in the center of the Toumba structure indicate that elite status could be projected and perpetuated even after death, through the use of highly valued grave goods. The concentration of precious metals, imported pottery, and even skillfully crafted antiques within these two graves would have conveyed a sense of opulence and grandeur to guests who attended funerary rites for these individuals. The deceased from the Central Room were also ascribed a powerful status based on their associations with prestigious institutions (e.g., the man’s association with a warrior class, as expressed by the neighboring horse burial). Through use of the Toumba building, those living could claim a similar status by asserting their associations with the deceased.297 These associations could be expressed through symbolic actions such as feasts, or they could be projected through imitation of heroic behavior in mortuary ritual. The prevalence of exotica in Late Protogeometric graves in the Toumba cemetery suggests that the elite image projected by the rich burials from the center of the Toumba structure remained influential even after the Toumba building went out of use.
If it is accepted that burial goods within the Protogeometric graves near the Toumba building were intended to express an elite social status, then perhaps the particular shapes of pottery included in these graves were also deliberate and significant. This section examines diachronic trends in the shapes of vessels deposited as offerings in graves at various cemeteries from Lefkandi. Then, I examine how the idea of ascribed status through feasting, introduced in the previous sections about the Toumba building and its pottery, may have impacted mortuary
297 Antonaccio 2002, pp. 15-25; Lemos 2001, pp. 217-223. 86 assemblages from the neighboring Toumba cemetery, which began to be used during the Middle
Protogeometric Period.298
This discussion groups and discusses vessels according to their function, as can be seen on the accompanying table summarizing Middle Protogeometric, Late Protogeometric, and Sub-
Protogeometric pottery deposits from graves from the Toumba cemetery (Table 3).299 Table 3 will be referenced when deposits from Toumba are being discussed in comparison with general trends from all of the Iron Age cemeteries from the site of Lefkandi.
The early data from the Skoubris and Palia Perivolia cemeteries reveal a shifting trend from small, personal vessels associated with storage and consumption to fuller and more diverse deposits that may represent drinking services. Submycenaean deposits from the Skoubris cemetery exemplify this trend, showing a preference for lekythoi, small closed vessels that usually contained perfume or oil. Lekythoi remained popular through the Early Protogeometric period.300 During the Early Protogeometric period, the amphoriskos shape also became popular, and cups became prevalent along with skyphoi.301
During the Middle Protogeometric period at Lefkandi, the nature of mortuary pottery deposits seemed to change. Open shapes became predominant, and there was a visible rise in the
298 A fuller treatment that includes non-ceramic grave goods in addition to the pottery would greatly enrich this study, since examining pottery function only gives a part of the image that graves may have projected.
299 On the other hand, the inclusion of particular pots in graves may have been based on reasons that were more ideological than practical, and identifying and articulating the emic values that vessels carried may instead necessitate considering the contents pots held or the imagery on their surfaces.
300 Lefkandi I.1, app. A.
301 Lefkandi I.1, app. A. 87 number of such pouring vessels as oinochoai and jugs in graves.302 While previous
Submycenaean and Early Protogeometric ceramic deposits had emphasized storage and personal use, Middle Protogeometric deposits reveal a shift to a focus on distribution and consumption and distribution.303 The Middle Protogeometric graves from the cemetery at Toumba reflect this trend, albeit on a limited scale (Table 3, Tombs 12b and 62b).
Pottery deposits from Late Protogeometric graves from cemeteries at Lefkandi included a still wider variety of vessels, again suggesting that feasting sets, rather than a few personal vessels, were being included in deposits.304 The Late Protogeometric deposits summarized in
Table 3 reflect this same diversification of function for deposited vessels, as illustrated by the sets from Tombs 26, 46, and 54. The Late Protogeometric pottery from the Toumba cemetery also reflects two other trends that are visible in the mortuary evidence from all of the cemeteries from Lefkandi: an interest in such foreign shapes as pyxides and kalathoi, as well as imported wares (Table 3, Tombs 46, 63, and 71).305 This interest in imports seems to pair with an increase in exceptionally rich graves and grave goods.306
During the Sub-Protogeometric period at the Toumba cemetery, tombs possessed great quantities of pyxides and kalathoi, as well as cups (Table 3, Tombs 45, 55, and 59). These caches
302 Lefkandi I.1, app. A.
303 Remarkably, kraters, which appeared in quantity at LH IIIC Lefkandi, appear hardly at all in Protogeometric graves. Their function may be supplanted by kalathoi, open ritual vessels that were sometimes associated with
Cretan forms of mortuary drinking ritual during the Late Minoan IIIC and Submycenaean periods. Because of their size, kalathoi may also be alternatively interpreted as drinking rather than serving vessels.
304 Lefkandi I.1, app. A.
305 Lefkandi I.1, app. A.
306 Lefkandi I.1, app. A. 88 may represent displays of conspicuous consumption intended to symbolize an abundance of resources at the command of the people who deposited them. The shift in the character of ceramic assemblages in Middle Protogeometric and Late Protogeometric graves from Lefkandi and Toumba in particular could mean that deceased individuals were increasingly being portrayed as participants in ritual communal drinking activities, or that drinking activities were occurring within the context of mortuary rituals.
One possible interpretation for the increase in grave offerings following the transformation of the Toumba building is that commensality became incorporated into mortuary ritual at Toumba after the Middle Protogeometric period. Perhaps this was because the building was no longer available as an accessible focal point for projecting elite or warrior ideologies through feasting. Another possibility is that people chose to project that ideology on an individual rather than a communal level. Regardless, it is clear that the Toumba building remained visible in the landscape and impacted the orientation of graves in the Toumba cemetery after it fell out of use at the end of the Middle Protogeometric period.
Communal and Mortuary Feasting at Toumba
The Toumba building represented a significant undertaking for the community that constructed it during the Middle Protogeometric period. In addition to commanding a position on top of a hill that would have made it prominent within the surrounding landscape, it was also constructed on an extraordinary scale that seems to have been unparalleled for its time. The importance of the
Toumba structure was increased by the inclusion of two elite burials in its Central Room, in addition to a shaft containing four sacrificed horses. The division of space and the distribution of ceramics within the Toumba structure permits the interpretation that, rather than serving only as 89 a monumental tomb intended to house the burials that it contained, this building represented a location where group banqueting activities could have been carried out as a means for elites to legitimize their power by associating themselves with ideals of warrior culture—notions of a past nobility that derived its power and resources through ability and physical prowess. These ideals were embodied in the grave goods from the two burials, but the act of feasting itself may also have carried a heroic or noble connotation, which may have recalled former large-scale palatial structures of power, or even the actions of powerful, remote heroic players known through the circulation of orally related narratives. The transformation of the building into a tumulus at the end of the Middle Protogeometric period may have referenced a former structure of power associated with wealth and authority, or it could have represented another powerful way of visibly impacting the landscape surrounding the Toumba hill.
Although the Toumba building was only active during the Middle Protogeometric period, its impact continued to be felt even after its transformation into a tumulus by effecting the alignment of Late Protogeometric and Sub-Protogeometric graves in the Toumba cemetery.
Following the building’s abandonment and transformation into a tumulus, it appears that the elite warrior ideology that had been expressed within the context of the Toumba structure began to be expressed in mortuary contexts in the adjacent cemetery. One way that this is reflected in the archaeological evidence is through increased instances of possible drinking sets within graves, which projected an image of the deceased as associated with feasting, perhaps in association with the figures covered over by the Toumba tumulus. Another way that mortuary assemblages expressed elite ideology was through the inclusion of imported shapes and wares along with luxury goods, perhaps also in the spirit of the extravagant offerings included in the burials in the tumulus. 90
During the Protogeometric period, the function of feasting within these two contexts from
Toumba was to connect participants to an elite warrior ideology. However, while elites who used the Toumba building may have expressed that connection by actually participating in banqueting, it is possible that within mortuary contexts, ceramic drinking sets only represented references to the act of feasting, rather than remains from mortuary feasts.307 There was also a competitive element to the inclusion of drinking sets within mortuary assemblages from
Toumba, as suggested by the collective increase in certain kinds of imported vessels and rich grave goods observed in Late Protogeometric and Sub-Protogeometric graves.308
Feasting at Toumba and Feasting at the Palace of Nestor
A comparison of the function of feasting at Toumba with feasting at Pylos offers the opportunity to examine how feasts operated at two first-order regional centers from the Iron Age and the
Bronze Age. The previous section has just outlined how feasting operated within communal and mortuary contexts at Toumba in order to express relationships of elites to past individuals or structures of power, which were characterized by political dominance, large scale feasting, and
307 This recalls the way that martial scenes from the pictorial kraters from Xeropolis may have depicted polemic imagery in order to reference power structures of preceding palatial authorities, rather than to express a particularly martial spirit to viewers.
308 One possibility for why this same competitive behavior is not observable in the evidence from the Toumba building is that the more individualized focus and visibility of graves encouraged this kind of competition.
Conversely, perhaps feasts in the Toumba building were also competitive environments, but there was no corresponding material expression for that behavior. If this was indeed the case, then the many examples of boasting and competitive behavior during feasts from the Homeric epics may reflect Iron Age audiences’ awareness of such a tradition. 91 martial prowess. Whether these expressions of elite identity took the form of actual imitative action, as I have proposed in the case of communal feasting in the Toumba building, or whether elites merely promoted or referenced the act of feasting in order to project a particular image on behalf of someone who was deceased (or their associates), feasting represented membership within a prestigious and intimate circle that differed considerably from the large-scale participation that would have taken place at Pylos.
Like feasting at Toumba, feasts sponsored by the Palace of Nestor were in the service of elites. However, Mycenaean feasting at Pylos was primarily centered on defining and legitimizing the hierarchical administrative structure of the palace. In contrast, there is not a similarly observable hierarchical structure to communal feasting at Toumba, aside from the reverence shown to the idealized warrior with whom participating elites would have identified.
At Pylos, where architectural and Linear B evidence demonstrates that aspects of large-scale feasts were manipulated in order to communicate participants’ and contributors’ ranks within the palace system, food was used in order to directly express control over resources under the auspices of the palace. The same kind of control could be expressed over territories surrounding
Pylos, both by sponsoring feasts at locations away from the palace and by exacting contributions to feasts from subsidiary individuals and settlements. Elites at Toumba also bolstered their status via access to valuable resources, but this appears to have been reflected in imported ceramics and lavish grave goods included within Protogeometric graves rather than through the acquisition and redistribution of natural resources, since it seems likely that there would have been more extensive evidence for storage within the building if it were being used in that capacity.
On the whole, the main differences between feasting at Toumba and at Pylos appear to have been scale and purpose. While feasts at Toumba identified particular communal elites as 92 equals by linking their behavior to a memory of powerful figures and actions from the past, feasts at Pylos defined the structure of the palatial administration on the basis of who was and wasn’t invited, where they dined, and what they contributed to and consumed from the repast.
Mycenaean feasting also served an economic function by demonstrating the palatial administration’s capability to provide for its adherents by redistributing food in a symbolic, large-scale event that would have earned the palace obedience in times of collection. Feasts at
Toumba made more references to the projections of power asserted by Mycenaean palaces than to the palaces’ ability to acquisition natural resources from the surrounding hinterland, and these values reflect the aims of the elites who espoused them.
93
CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSION
This thesis, which has considered ways that feasting functioned in communities in Greece during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, has assumed that communal eating and drinking varied according to differences in social organization. Jack Goody, for example, has observed in his
Cooking, Cuisine, and Class that feasting is linked to social factors such as identity, control, and dependency.309 One of Goody’s most important points is that the identity and differentiation of a group is brought out during the consumption of prepared food and drink.310 Consumption represents what human beings choose to take into their bodies and literally incorporate into their being; likewise, prehistoric peoples who shared in feasting expressed their relationships to one another in a specific and important way.
In order to observe how feasting operated under the influence of a Mycenaean palatial administration, the Palace of Nestor in western Messenia was selected as a model because it has been well-excavated and is rich in this category of evidence. For the Iron Age model, the settlement of Nichoria in western Messenia was selected. Archaeological evidence from Nichoria was combined with descriptions of feasting from the works of Homer and Hesiod to create a thorough picture of the variety of forms of feasting that circulated in Iron Age Greece.
Data from post-palatial sites from Euboea (Xeropolis and Toumba) were then compared with the model of feasting from Pylos to examine how the presence or absence of a Mycenaean palace affected the role that feasting played within communities. Viewed together, these differing case studies offer a lens for viewing how social dynamics of settlements in Greece may
309 Goody 1982.
310 Goody 1982, p. 38. 94 have changed during the period following the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces, ca. 1200-800
B.C.
In adopting this framework, I encountered some problems, which I will now describe in the interest of identifying areas of this field that warrant further examination. Next, evidence for feasts from Pylos will be compared with evidence from Thebes; likewise, data from Nichoria,
Xeropolis, and Toumba will also be compared. These comparisons will serve to characterize the range and nature of the functions of feasts during each period. Homeric and Hesiodic representations of feasting will also be discussed in terms of their connections to trends observable within the archaeological evidence. The results of these comparisons of the roles of feasting at LH IIIB and post-palatial sites invite a reevaluation of blanket Iron Age social models and the idea of a uniform “Iron Age Greece.”
There were some challenges to this undertaking that are worthy of brief mention because they indicate ways that this topic can be treated in the future. First, while this thesis offers a powerful model for how feasting operated in Mycenaean palatial contexts by employing evidence from Pylos and from the Kadmeion at Thebes, it does not offer evidence for how
Mycenaean feasting may have functioned within non-palatial contexts.311 A model incorporating evidence for feasting from small, peripheral sites in addition to large-scale palatial sites would offer a broader view of the nature of Mycenaean feasting and could help to measure the influence that a palatial system had in regulating such activities.
Another problem that arose was the difficulty of comparing material that was both chronologically and regionally distinct. For example, it is difficult to say whether differences in
311 Yannis Hamilakis’s (2004, p. 146) treatment of a Mycenaean sanctuary at Ayios Konstantinos represents one study that treats feasting in a non-palatial Mycenaean context. 95 expressions of feasting at LH IIIB Pylos and Middle Protogeometric Toumba were due to date, location, context, or none of these variables. However, I have justified my comparison of
Nichoria and Lefkandi with the Palace of Nestor based on their roles as major sites during their respective peak periods.
Next, although this thesis is intended to be about collective consumption of food and drink, the evidence for drink is far more common than the evidence for food. Pottery survives as a part of the archaeological record in greater volumes than animal bones for most sites, because it is generally more durable and easier to recognize than shell or bone, and because bones were often not kept from early excavations. There are also more scholars of Greek archaeology who have been trained to study ceramics than scholars who have been trained in faunal analysis, so analyses of pottery outnumber those that discuss faunal material. Finally, because we are unable to attribute singular and specific uses to particular shapes of ceramic vessels, it is sometimes difficult to say which shapes were used in the consumption of food versus the consumption of liquid. In general, though, analysis of ceramic material largely addresses questions of communal drnking. Nevertheless, faunal studies are essential for being able to say something, however small, about the role that meat played in Late Helladic feasting practices, and this study has attempted to incorporate them when possible.
Finally, there was a difficulty in distinguishing behavior as feasting as opposed to everyday domestic consumption. The terms “feasting” and “domestic” are subjective, and scholars use them in different ways. Only by examining a large corpus of material comprised of both domestic and feasting deposits can one begin to distinguish between the two. The analyses of ceramic material from domestic contexts at Xeropolis and communal and mortuary contexts from Toumba from Chapter 3 attempt this, but more thorough analysis and more comparative 96 data are needed to be able to recognize behavior that definitely functioned “above the scale of everyday dining” in terms of scale or ideology.
A comparison of feasting at Pylos and at the Kadmeion at Thebes during the LH IIIB period reveals that both palaces employed feasts as a way of exerting control over land and resources. Pylian Linear B tablets such as PY Un 138, a list of offerings sent from subsidiary territories, indicate this. From Thebes, there are the Wu nodules, which were probably once attached to offerings sent to the palace as tributes from surrounding subsidiary settlements. Both palaces also demonstrated that their influence over surrounding areas was far-reaching, as reflected by Pylian control of such remote settlements as Volimnos and Kardamili and associations of the Kadmeion with such Euboean settlements as Amarynthos and Karystos.312
Acquisitioning resources across long distances may have prompted palatial administration to employ agents for collecting, as exemplified by a list of contributors and possible agents described on PY Un 718.313
Returning to tablet PY Un 138, there are striking similarities between the proportions of animals sacrificed at a single large-scale feast at Pylos and animals listed on a cache of Wu nodules recording individual offerings from Thebes. These similar proportions suggest that some offerings may have been standardized at multiple palaces. Although it would be foolish to assume that forms of feasting were completely alike among the Mycenaean palaces, feasting does appear to have served a comparable function at the Palace of Nestor and at the Kadmeion.
Perhaps this indicates a normative quality associated with Mycenaean feasts, which would also have complemented their diacritical function.
312 Fig. 2; Palaima 2004, p. 226.
313 Palaima 2004, p. 223. 97
A comparison of the roles of feasting at Nichoria, Xeropolis, and Toumba suggests that feasts at post-palatial sites shared common characteristics of operating on a smaller scale from that of the palaces, and of functioning as expressions of group identities that were primarily non- hierarchical. However, feasts from these three places differed in their motivations, their means of expression, and the kinds of group bonds that they created.
Xeropolis, as an LH IIIC settlement, represents an odd site for comparison with the two
Iron Age sites; however, I based my comparison on the fact that all three places represent communities from post-palatial time periods. At Xeropolis, feasting was centered within individual households rather than within a singular large-scale venue. There, dining activities were often situated on upper storeys of houses, as indicated by distributions of ceramics and architectural collapse. Counts of drinking vessels taken from dining contexts at Xeropolis suggest that dining groups would have been small, an idea supported by the 5 x 5 m dimensions of the rooms. The impression is that of a single family unit. Despite this seemingly modest scenario, the prevalence of imported vessels and pictorial kraters within feasting contexts at
Xeropolis indicates that dining was being utilized as a context of display. The scale, location, and focus of dining at Xeropolis suggest that it was enacted on an individual household level.
However, the way in which household dining was enacted through use of vessel shapes and imagery on pictorial kraters was also an expression of that family’s relationship to the rest of the settlement, since these components would have referenced structures of power understood by the community.
Contrary to the decentralized feasts at Xeropolis, the large size and central location of
Unit IV-1 indicates the great importance that it held to the settlement at Nichoria. The internal division of space in Unit IV-1 indicated that specialized activities took place within different 98 parts of the building, and features such as its possible “altar” and its extended porch may indicate that this building served as a focal point of the surrounding community, perhaps as a place where animal sacrifices were performed and consumed.
The building at Toumba, on the other hand, would have dwarfed rooms at Xeropolis, and was well over double the size of Unit IV-1. However, the two large-scale apsidal structures shared similar internal features, such as a tripartite division that included a porch, a front main room containing a hearth, an apsidal back room reserved for storage vessels, and postholes surrounding most of the structure.314 Despite these architectural similarities, feasts within Unit
IV-1 at Nichoria would have functioned differently from feasts held within the Toumba building or decentralized dining within individual households at Xeropolis. Because Unit IV-1 was incorporated as part of a settlement, it would have been difficult to regulate access to the building. Consequently, feasting activities at Nichoria would probably have been inclusive and communally focused. The Toumba building, on the other hand, was situated on a hilltop, alone and commanding a surrounding valley. Because of its isolated position, use of the Toumba building may have been limited only to those who actively asserted an association with it.
While organization of banqueting at Nichoria was perhaps focused around activities associated with Unit IV-1 or its “altar,” the rich burials in the Central Room at Toumba probably constituted the focal point of feasting activity there. A drinking set found as a floor deposit inside of the Toumba building may indicate that feasting was initiated as a heroizing behavior that expressed elites’ claims to associations with a noble warrior class that the deceased in the central
314 Both buildings also underwent anthropogenic manipulation over time, with Unit IV-1 having an apse added during its second phase, and the Toumba structure being transformed into a Middle Protogeometric tumulus .
99 graves embodied. A similar elite status continued to be ascribed through associations with feasting after the Middle Protogeometric building went out of use. Late Geometric and Sub- protogeometric ceramic deposits from the adjacent Toumba cemetery contained drinking sets that may have either symbolized the elite behavior of feasting or represented actual remains of feasts in honor of the deceased. In summary, I have characterized feasts at Nichoria as inclusive, communal, and possibly ritualistic; feasts at Toumba were more likely based on establishing links to other elites through the projection of warrior ideologies.
The determining factor that dictated differences in the social roles of feasting for non- palatial communities was context. As was the case with events sponsored by the Mycenaean palaces, feasts were provided and manipulated to serve the needs of the communities that initiated them. However, while the current impression suggests that Mycenaean palaces possessed an affinity for standardized expressions of power through feasting, post-palatial communities very likely featured different forms of social organizations and used different kinds of feasting to address any number of needs.
Therefore, in spite of possessing a shared characteristic of promoting non-hierarchical group identity and solidarity, these comparisons of post-palatial feasts suggest that a model accounting for variability is necessary for comparative analyses of post-palatial feasting. The diversity of depictions of feasting within the Homeric epics and the poetry of Hesiod provide welcome support for the idea that multiple forms and impressions of feasting behavior would have been familiar to Iron Age audiences, even before the traditional period to which the poems are dated in the middle of the 8th century B.C.
For example, palatially-based feasts offered by Alcinous and labor recruitment feasts described by Agamemnon seem to reflect Iron Age memories of earlier palatially-based feasting 100 practices (Od. 8.392–395; Od. 13.4–13.63; Il. 4.339 – 347). At these gatherings, hierarchical structures are dictated by powerful hosts, kings who determine positions and honors and who exact tributes of goods or service from their guests. On the other hand, the feasts that
Agamemnon sponsors for his troops in the heat of battle at Troy depict ideals that are appropriated and stylized as projections of a warrior image during the Iron Age (Il. 7.312 – 324).
These scenes feature a small circle of warriors distinguished by their relationship to the host, the distribution of goods according to individual valor, and the use of a privatized, elite space unattached to a settlement. Hesiod, on the other hand, articulates uses of feasting in relation to its usefulness in communal contexts, citing it as a form of promoting unity with neighbors in defense against threats both human and natural (Hes. Op. 341 – 344).
The point in relating some of the salient examples from the larger set of depictions of feasting provided in Chapter 2 is to note that many different kinds of feasts, employed within different scenarios for different purposes, would have been familiar to audiences of the Homeric epics and the poems of Hesiod.
Consequently, it might be tempting to associate Hesiod’s description of feasting and reciprocity with evidence from a site such as Xeropolis or Nichoria, and we can perhaps also see references to ideals exemplified by Agamemnon’s martial feasts in the feasts within the Toumba building. It seems likely, then, that different forms of feasting were practiced and referenced as necessity dictated.
If the interpretation holds that post-palatial forms of feasting exhibited a greater potential for formal and focal variability in contrast to more standardized versions of banqueting offered by the Mycenaean palaces, then this reflects a broad range of post-palatial communities’ needs for various and nuanced forms of group unity and solidarity. Moreover, if food and society are 101 linked, as this thesis has assumed they are, then varied feasting behaviors within the Homeric epics may also indicate a need for less myopic scholarly views of Iron Age leadership, as has perhaps been the case with overly enthusiastic application of the Melanesian “Big Man” model as a means of interpreting both the works of Homer and archaeological remains.315
The Homeric epics are sources that are tantalizingly detailed, yet fraught with difficulties of date, authorship, and historicity. Archaeologists, philologists, and historians are all forced to decide how the epics ought to be used as a source for understanding the history and prehistory of
Greece. It is hoped that this study has shown that the epics can help to reveal a potential for variation in social practices of the Early Iron Age, as a companion to the still limited archaeological evidence that we have uncovered from this time period. It must be stressed that this thesis does not advocate a literal reading of every detail of the Homeric epics as evidence for reconstructing “Homeric society,” but it does assert that the epics may open archaeologists’ minds to possibilities that might not have been considered in an examination of archaeological material alone.
This study has identified the challenges of examining social practices in Greece during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Movements of populations, changes in settlement and subsistence patterns, and differences in the structures of communities make it very difficult to compare life in one place against life in another, particularly when slight temporal or regional variations may considerably affect the experience of inhabitants. Only through tenacious and diligent research into all of the categories of evidence available does it become possible to observe patterns and trends that reflect “norms” for any activity within a given site or region. These norms are essential components for identifying a behavior such as
315 Whitley 1991 outlines the “Big Man” model’s application to Iron Age remains. 102 feasting, which is characterized by its abnormality and its extraordinary qualities. The case studies for Mycenaean and post-palatial feasting that have been treated in this thesis have permitted the identification of preliminarily observed trends, based on a limited number of examples. It is hoped, with the identification and publication of more Bronze Age and Iron Age sites, that our knowledge of the social roles of feasting in Greece will grow to be both deep and diverse by accounting for instances of repetition and variability alike in the archaeological record.
103
WORKS CITED
Andersen, Ø., and M. Dickie. 1995. Homer's World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality, Bergen.
Andrikou, E. 1999. "The Pottery from the Destruction Layer of the Linear B Archive in Pelopidou Street, Thebes: A Preliminary Report," in Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X. internationalen mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.–5. Mai 1995, ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller, and O. Panagl, Vienna, pp. 79–102.
Antonaccio, C. M. 1995. "Lefkandi and Homer," in Homer's World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality, ed. Ø. Andersen and M. Dickie, Bergen, pp. 5–28.
______. 2002. "Warriors, Traders, and Ancestors: The ‘Heroes’ of Lefkandi," in Images of Ancestors, ed. J. M. Højte, Oxford, pp. 13–42.
Appadurai, A. 1988. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, New York.
Aravantinos, V. 1995. "Old and New Evidence for the Palatial Society of Mycenaean Thebes: An Outline," in POLITEIA: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the Fifth International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April, 1994 (Aegaeum 12), ed. R. Laffineur and W. Niemeier, Liège, pp. 613–622.
______. 1999. "Mycenaean Texts and Contexts at Thebes: The Discovery of New Linear B Archives on the Kadmeia," in Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X. internationalen mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.–5. Mai 1995, ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller, and O. Panagl, Vienna, pp. 45–78.
Bakhuizen, S. C., and M. Kiel. 1985. Studies in the Topography of Chalcis on Euboea: A Discussion of the Sources, Leiden.
Bakhuizen, S. C., and R. Kreulen. 1976. Chalcis-in-Euboea, Iron and Chalcidians Abroad, Leiden.
Barker, G., and C. Gamble. 1985. Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe: Investigations in Subsistence Archaeology and Social Complexity, London.
Barrett, J. C., and P. Halstead. 2004. The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited, Oxford.
Bats, M., and B. D'Agostino, eds. 1998. Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in occidente: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli, 13–16 Novembre 1996, Naples.
Bendall, L. 2004. "Fit for a King? Exclusion, Hierarchy, Aspiration and Desire in the Social Structure of Mycenaean Banqueting," in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece 104
(Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), ed. P. Halstead and B. Barrett, Oxford, pp. 105–135.
Bennet, J. 1995. "Space through Time: Diachronic Perspectives on the Spatial Organization of the Pylian State," in POLITEIA: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the Fifth International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April, 1994 (Aegaeum 12), ed. R. Laffineur and W. Niemeier, Liège, pp. 587–602.
______. 1999. "Pylos: The Expansion of a Mycenaean Palatial Center," in Re-thinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea, ed. M. L. Galaty and W.A. Parkinson, Los Angeles, pp. 9–18.
Binford, L. R. 1977. For Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Modeling, New York.
Blegen, C. W. 1953–1954. A Royal Tomb of Homeric Times: Uncovering the Great Grave Close to the Palace of Nestor at Pylos [and] Revealing the Palace of Homer's Nestor: Excavations at Pylos, in the Peloponnese, London.
Blegen, C. W., and M. Rawson. 1962. A Guide to the Palace of Nestor, Cincinnati.
Boardman, J., and M. R. Popham. 1994. "Euboean Pottery, East and West," PACT 40, pp. 15– 254.
Boardman, J. 1957. "Early Euboean Pottery and History," BSA 52, pp. 1–29.
Borgna, E. 2004a. "Social Meanings of Food and Drink Consumption at LM III Phaistos," in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), ed. P. Halstead and B. Barrett, Oxford, pp. 174–195.
______. 2004b. "Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective," in The Mycenaean Feast, ed. J. C. Wright, Princeton, pp. 127–160.
Branigan, K. 1998. Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield.
Brown, L. A. 2001. “Feasting on the Periphery: The Production of Ritual Feasting and Village Festivals at the Cerén Site, El Salvador,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 368–390.
Calligas, P. G. "Euboea and the Cyclades," in Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris. Proceedings of the Seventh British Museum Classical Colloquium, June 1983, ed. L. J. Fitton, London, pp. 88–98.
Carter, J. B. 1998. "Egyptian Bronze Jugs from Crete and Lefkandi," JHS 118, pp. 172–177. 105
Chenal-Velarde, I., and J. Studer. 2003. "Archaeozoology in a Ritual Context: The Case of a Sacrificial Altar in Geometric Eretria," in Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, ed. E. Kotjabopoulou, London, pp. 214–220.
Cherry, J. F. 1986. "Polities and Palaces: Some Problems in Minoan State Formation," in Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, ed. C. Renfrew, and J.F. Cherry, Cambridge, pp. 19–46.
Clarke, M. J. 2001. “Akha Feasting: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 144–167.
Coldstream, J. N. 1998. "Drinking and Eating in Euboean Pithekoussai," in Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in occidente: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli, 13–16 Novembre 1996, ed. M. Bats and B. D'Agostino, Naples, pp. 303–310.
Coucouzeli, A. 2004. "From Tribe to State in the Greek Early Iron Age: The Archaeological Evidence from Lefkandi and Zagora," in Το Αιγαίο στήν Πρώιµη Εποχή του Σιδήρου: Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συµποσίου, Ρόδος, 1–4 Νοεµβρίου 2002, ed. N. C. Stampolides, and A. Giannikouri, Athens, pp. 461–480.
Crielaard, J. P. 1995. "How the West was Won: Euboeans vs. Phoenicians," in Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Aspects of Trade. Proceedings of the Third International Workshop, Athens 1993, ed. C. Gillis, C. Risberg, and B. L. Sjöberg, Jonsered, pp. 125–127.
Cunliffe, B. W. 1987. Origins: The Roots of European Civilisation, London.
Dabney, M. K., P. Halstead, and P. Thomas. 2004. “Mycenaean Feasting at Tsoungiza at Ancient Nemea,” in The Mycenaean Feast, ed. J. C. Wright, Princeton, pp.77–96.
Davis, J. L., and J. Bennet. 1999. "Making Mycenaeans: Warfare, Territorial Expansion, and Representations of the Other in the Pylian Kingdom," in POLEMOS: le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze (Aegaeum 19), ed. R. Laffineur, Liége, pp. 105–120.
Day, P. and D. Wilson. 2004. “Ceramic Change and the Practice of Eating and Drinking in Early Bronze Age Crete,” in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), ed. P. Halstead and B. Barrett, Oxford, pp. 45–62.
DeBoer, W. R. 2001. “The Big Drink: Feast and Forum in the Upper Amazon,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 215–239.
Desborough, V. R. D. 1977. "The Background to Euboean Participation in Early Greek Maritime Enterprise," in Tribute to an Antiquary: Essays Presented to Mark Fitch, ed. F. Emmison, London, pp. 25–40. 106
Dietler, M. 2001a. "Digesting the Feast — Good to Eat, Good to Drink, Good to Think: An Introduction." in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 1–20.
______. 2001b. “Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in African Contexts,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 65–114.
Dietler, M., and B. Hayden, eds. 2001. Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, Washington, D.C.
Dietler, M., and I. Herbich. 2001. “Feasts and Labor Mobilization: Dissecting a Fundamental Economic Practice,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 240–266.
Dimoudis, N., and A. Kyriazoulis, eds. 1998. The History of the Hellenic Language and Writing from the Second to the First Millennium B.C.: Break Or Continuity?, Altenburg.
Dornan, J. L. 2004. "Beyond Belief: Religious Experience, and Cultural Neuro-Phenomenology in the Interpretation of Past Religious Systems," CAJ 14, pp. 25–36.
Earth Sciences Web Team. 1990. “Earth from Space: Evvoia Island.” http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/EFS/printinfo.pl?PHOTO=STS036-151-95 (15 March 2006).
Evely, R. D. G., I. S. Lemos, and E. S. Sherratt. 1996. Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham (BAR-IS 638), Oxford.
Fitton, J. L., ed. 1983. Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris. Proceedings of the Seventh British Museum Classical Colloquium, June 1983, London.
Foxhall, L. 1995. "Bronze to Iron: Agricultural Systems and Political Structures in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Greece," BSA 90, pp. 239–250.
Galaty, M. L., and W. A. Parkinson, eds. 1999. Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea, Los Angeles.
Garnsey, P. 1999. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, New York.
Gilbert, R. I., and J. H. Mielke. 1985. The Analysis of Prehistoric Diets, Orlando.
Godelier, M. 1999. The Enigma of the Gift, Chicago.
Goody, J. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine, and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology, New York.
Gosden, C., and J. G. Hather. 1999. The Prehistory of Food: Appetites for Change, New York. 107
Hägg, R. and N. Marinatos, eds. 1987. The Function of the Mycenaean Palaces (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae 15), Sweden.
Halstead, P., and J. C. Barrett. 2004a. “Introduction: Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece,” in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), ed. P. Halstead and B. Barrett, Oxford, pp. 1–15.
Halstead, P., and J. C. Barrett, eds. 2004b. Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), Oxford.
Halstead, P., and V. Isaakidou. 2004. "Faunal Evidence for Feasting: Burnt Offerings from the Palace of Nestor at Pylos," in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), ed. P. Halstead and B. Barrett, Oxford, pp. 136–155.
Hamilakis, Y. 1998. "Eating the Dead: Mortuary Feasting and the Politics of Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age Societies," in Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. K. Branigan, Sheffield, pp. 115–132.
Hamilakis, Y., and E. Konsolaki. 2004. "Pigs for the Gods: Burnt Animal Sacrifices as Embodied Rituals at a Mycenaean Sanctuary," OJA 23, pp. 135–151.
Hankey, V. 1952. "Late Helladic Tombs at Khalkis," BSA 47, pp. 49–95.
Hayden, B. 2001. "Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting," in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler, and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 23–64.
Højte, J. M. 2002. Images of Ancestors, Oxford.
Hruby, J. A. 2006. “Feasting and Ceramics: A View from the Palace of Nestor” (diss. Univ. of Cincinnati, Ohio).
Jacobsen, T. W. 1984. "Prehistoric Euboia" (diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia).
James, W., N. J. Allen, and M. Mauss. 1998. Marcel Mauss: A Centenary Tribute, New York.
Jones, R. E. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies, Athens.
Junker, L. L. 2001. “The Evolution of Ritual Feasting Systems in Prehispanic Philippine Chiefdoms,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 267–310.
Kelly, L. S. 2001. “A Case of Ritual Feasting at the Cahokia Site,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 334–367. 108
Killen, J. T. 1994. "Thebes Sealings, Knossos Tablets, and Mycenaean State Banquets," BICS 39, pp. 67–84.
______. 2004. “Wheat, Barley, Flour, Olives and Figs on Linear B Tablets,” in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), ed. P. Halstead and B. Barrett, Oxford, pp. 155–173.
Knox. B. 1990. "Introduction" in R. Fagles, ed. The Iliad, New York, pp. 3-67.
Komter, A. E. 2005. Social Solidarity and the Gift, New York.
Kosso, C. 1997. “The Southern Euboea Exploration Project” http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~seep-p/ (22 April 2006).
Kotjabopoulou, E., ed. 2003. Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances (British School at Athens Studies 9), London.
Laffineur, R., and W. Niemeier, eds. 1995. POLITEIA: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 12), Liège.
Lefkandi I = M. R. Popham, L. H. Sackett, and P. G. Themelis, The Iron Age: The Settlement; The Cemeteries (BSA Suppl. 11), London 1979.
Lefkandi II.1 = R. W. V. Catling and I. S. Lemos, The Protogeometric Building at Toumba, Part 1: The Pottery,(BSA Suppl. 22) London 1990.
Lefkandi II.2 = M. R. Popham, P. G. Calligas, and L. H. Sackett, The Protogeometric Building at Toumba, Part 2: The Excavations (BSA Suppl. 22), London 1990.
Lefkandi III = M. R. Popham and I. S. Lemos, The Toumba Cemetery: The Excavations of 1981, 1984, 1986 and 1992–4 (BSA Suppl. 29), Athens 1996.
Lefkandi IV = D. Evely, J. Crouwel and E. French, The Bronze Age (BSA Suppl. 39), Oxford 2006.
Lemos, I.S. 1998a. "Euboea and its Aegean Koine," in Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in occidente: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli, 13–16 Novembre 1996, ed. M. Bats and B. D'Agostino, Naples, pp. 45–58.
______. 1998b. "What is Not "Dark" in the so-Called "Greek Dark Age"," in The History of the Hellenic Language and Writing from the Second to the First Millennium B.C.: Break Or Continuity?, ed. N. Dimoudis and A. Kyriazoulis, Altenburg, pp. 279–304.
______. 2001. "The Lefkandi Connection: Networking in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean," in Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity, 1500–450 BC: Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America at 109
Columbia University November 16–18 2000, ed. L. Bonfante and V. Karageorghis, Nicosia, pp. 215–226.
______. 2002. The Protogeometric Aegean: The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC, Oxford.
Lissarrague, F. 1990. The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet: Images of Wine and Ritual, trans. A. Szegedy-Maszak, Princeton.
Luke, J. "The Krater, Kratos, and the Polis," GaR 41, pp. 23–32.
MacClancy, J. 2004. "Food, Identity, Identification," in Researching Food Habits: Methods and Problems (Anthropology of Food and Nutrition 5), ed. J. MacClancy and H. Macbeth, New York, pp. 63–74.
MacClancy, J., and H. Macbeth. 2004a. "How to do Anthropologies of Food," in Researching Food Habits: Methods and Problems (Anthropology of Food and Nutrition 5), ed. J. MacClancy and H. Macbeth, New York, pp. 1–14.
______. 2004b. "Epilogue: Some Final Hints," in Researching Food Habits: Methods and Problems (Anthropology of Food and Nutrition 5), ed. J. MacClancy, and H. Macbeth, New York, pp. 224–228.
Mars, G., and V. Mars. 2004. "Doing it Wrong: Why Bother to do Imperfect Research?" in Researching Food Habits: Methods and Problems (Anthropology of Food and Nutrition 5), ed. J. MacClancy and H. Macbeth, New York, pp. 193–196.
Mauss, M. 1954. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, Glencoe, Ill.
Mazarakis Ainian, A. 1997. From Rulers' Dwellings to Temples : Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 B.C.), Jonsered.
______. 1998. "Oropos in the Early Iron Age," in Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in occidente: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli, 13–16 Novembre 1996, ed. M. Bats and B. D'Agostino, Naples, pp. 179–216.
McCallum, L. R. 1987. "The Decorative Program in the Mycenaean Palace of Pylos: The Megaron Frescoes" (diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania).
Messer, E. 2004. "Food, Culture, Political and Economic Identity: Revitalizing the Food-System Perspective in the Study of Food-Based Identity," in Researching Food Habits: Methods and Problems (Anthropology of Food and Nutrition 5), ed. J. MacClancy and H. Macbeth, New York, pp. 181–192.
Mommsen, H., E. Andrikou, V. Aravantinos, and J. Maran. 2002. "Neutron Activation Analysis Results of Bronze Age Pottery from Boeotia Including Ten Linear B Inscribed Stirrup Jars 110
of Thebes," in Archaeometry 98: Proceedings of the 31st Symposium, Budapest, April 26–3 May 1998 (=BAR-IS 1043), ed. E. Jerem and K.T. Biro, pp. 607–612.
Morgan, C. 1998. "Euboians and Corinthians in the Area of the Corinthian Gulf?" in Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in occidente: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli, 13–16 Novembre 1996, ed. M. Bats and B. D'Agostino, Naples, pp. 281–302.
Nichoria I = G. R. Rapp, Jr., and S. E. Aschenbrenner, eds., Site, Environs, and Techniques, Minneapolis 1978.
Nichoria II = G. R. Rapp, S. E. Aschenbrenner and W. A. McDonald, The Bronze Age Occupation, Minneapolis 1992.
Nichoria III = W. A. McDonald, W. D. E. Coulson, and J. Rosser, eds., Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation, Minneapolis 1982.
PN I = Blegen, C. W., M. Rawson, and M. L. Lang. 1966. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, Princeton, N.J.
PN II = M. L. Lang, The Frescoes, Princeton 1969.
PN III = C. W. Blegen, M. Rawson, L. W. Taylour and W. P. Donovan, Acropolis and Lower Town; Tholoi, Grave Circle, and Chamber Tombs; Discoveries Outside the Citadel, Princeton 1973.
Palaima, T. G. 1995. "The Nature of the Mycenaean Wanax: Non-Indo-European Origins and Priestly Functions," in The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean (Aegaeum 11), ed. P. Rehak, Liège, pp. 119–139.
______. 2004. "Sacrificial Feasting in the Linear B Documents," in The Mycenaean Feast, ed. J. C. Wright, Princeton, pp. 217–246.
Papabasileiou, G. A. 1910. Περί τoν εν Ευβοία αρχαίων τάφων, Athens.
Papadopoulos, J. 1997. "Phantom Euboeans," JMA 10, pp. 191–219.
Pappa, M., P. Halstead, K. Kotsakis, and D. Urem-Kotsou. 2004. “Evidence for Large-scale Feasting at Late Neolithic Makriyalos, Northern Greece,” in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), ed. P. Halstead and B. Barrett, Oxford, pp. 16–44.
Perodie, J. R. 2001. “Feasting for Prosperity: A Study of Southern Northwest Coast Feasting,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 185–214. 111
Pluta, K. 1996–1997. "A Reconstruction of the Archives Complex at Pylos: A Preliminary Report," Minos 31–32, pp. 231–250.
Popham, M. R. 1959. "Why Euboea?" ASAthene 19, pp. 237–239.
______. 1980. "Al Mina and Euboea," BSA 75, pp. 151–161.
______. 1987. "Lefkandi and the Greek Dark Age," in Origins: The Roots of European Civilisation, ed. B. W. Cunliffe, London, pp. 67–80.
Popham, M. R., and I. S. Lemos. 1995. "A Euboean Warrior Trader," OJA 14, pp. 151–157.
Popham, M. R., and E. Milburn. 1971. "Late Helladic IIIC Pottery of Xeropolis (Lefkandi): A Summary," BSA 66, pp. 333–352.
Popham, M. R., and L. H. Sackett. 1968. Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboea, 1964–66: A Preliminary Report, Athens.
Rapp, G. R., S. E. Aschenbrenner, and W. A. McDonald. 1978. Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece, Minneapolis.
Rappaport, R.A. 1984. Pigs for the Ancestors, 2nd edition, New Haven.
Renfrew, C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C., London.
Rutter, J. B. 2004. “Ceramic Sets in Context: One Dimension of Food Preparation and Consumption in a Minoan Palatial Setting,” in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), ed. P. Halstead and B. Barrett, Oxford, pp. 63–89.
Sackett, L. H., et al. 1966. "Prehistoric Euboea: Contributions Toward a Survey," BSA 61, pp. 33–122.
Sampson, A. A. 1981. Ευβοϊκή Κύµη I, Athens.
______. 1985. Manika I. An Early Bronze Age Settlement Near Chalkis, Athens.
______. 1988. Manika II. The Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery, Athens.
Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. 1989. “Ἐρευνα στην προϊστορική Αµάρυνθο και στη Μαγούλα Ερέτριας,” Archeion Euboikon Meleton, pp. 91-104.
______. 1995a. Eretria: The Site and Museum, Athens. 112
______. 1995b. "A Middle Helladic Tomb Complex at Xeropolis (Lefkandi)," BSA 90, pp. 41–54.
______. 1998. "Geometric Kyme," in Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in occidente: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli, 13–16 Novembre 1996, ed. M. Bats and B. D'Agostino, Naples, pp. 59–104.
Schachter, A. 1996. "Evidence for Cult and Continuity from Linear B Documents at Thebes," in Atti e Memorie Del Secondo Congresso Internazionale (Incunabula Graeca 98.2), ed. E. De Miro, L. Godart, and A. Sacconi, Rome, pp. 891–899.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 2001. “Feasting in the Ancient Near East,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 391–403.
Schmid, S. G. 1998. "Recent Excavations at Eretria (Euboea) in Greece," Minerva 90, pp. 29– 310.
Schnapp, A., and P. Schmitt. 1982. "Image et société en Grèce ancienne: Les représentations de la chasse et du banquet," RA 1981–1982, pp. 57–74.
Schoep, I. 2004. "Assessing the Role of Architecture in Conspicuous Consumption in the Middle Minoan I–II Periods," OJA 23, pp. 243–269.
Shelmerdine, C. 1973. "The Pylos Ma Tablets Reconsidered," AJA 77, pp. 260–275.
______. 1981. "Nichoria in Context: A Major Town in the Pylos Kingdom," AJA 85, pp. 319–325.
Sherratt, S. 1990. "'Reading the Texts': Archaeology and the Homeric Question," Antiquity 64, pp. 807–824.
______. 2003. "Visible Writing: Questions of Script and Identity in Early Iron Age Greece and Cyprus," OJA 22, pp. 225–242.
______. 2004. "Feasting in Homeric Epic," in The Mycenaean Feast, ed. J. C. Wright, Princeton, pp. 181–182.
Spyropoulos, T. G., and J. Chadwick. 1975. The Thebes Tablets II, Salamanca.
Stampolides, N. C., and A. Giannikouri, eds. 2004. Το Αιγαίο στήν Πρώιµη Εποχή του Σιδήρου: Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συµποσίου, Ρόδος, 1–4 Νοεµβρίου 2002, Athens.
Steel, L. 2004. "A Goodly Feast...A Cup of Mellow Wine: Feasting in Bronze Age Cyprus," in The Mycenaean Feast, ed. J. C. Wright, Princeton, pp. 161–180. 113
Stocker, S. R. and J. L. Davis. 2004a. “Animal Sacrifice, Archives, and Feasting at the Palace of Nestor,” in The Mycenaean Feast, ed. J. C. Wright, Princeton, pp. 59–76.
______. 2004b. "Animal Sacrifice, Archives, and Feasting at the Palace of Nestor," Hesperia 73:2, pp. 179-195.
Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece. 2004. “Landscape: Euboea.” http://www.unil.ch/esag/page20464.html (6 May 2006).
Symeonoglou, S. 1985. The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to Modern Times, Princeton.
Thomas, C. G., and C. Conant. 1999. Citadel to City-State : The Transformation of Greece, 1200–700 B.C.E., Bloomington.
Tiverios, M. A. 1998. "The Ancient Settlement in the Anchialos-Sindos Double Trapeza: Seven Years (1990–1996) of Archaeological Research," in Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in occidente: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli, 13–16 Novembre 1996, ed. M. Bats and B. D'Agostino, Naples, pp. 243–254.
Tzalas, H. E., ed. 2001. Sixth International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Lamia, 28–30 August 1996: Proceedings (Tropis 6), Athens.
University of Cincinnati. 1996. “The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project.” http://river.blg.uc.edu/prap/PRAP.html (7 April 2006).
Vardaki, E. A. 2004. “Animal Husbandry Revisited: The Social Significance of Meat Consumption in a Highland Village of Mount Psiloritis, Central Crete,” in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), ed. P. Halstead and B. Barrett, Oxford, pp. 196–205.
Ventris, M., and J. Chadwick. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, Cambridge.
Wecowski, M. 2002. "Homer and the Origins of the Symposion," in Omero. Tremila anni dopo. Atti del Congresso di Genova 6–8 Luglio 2000. Con la collaborazione di Paola Ascheri. (Storia e letteratura 210), ed. F. Montanari, Rome, pp. 627–637.
West, M. L. 2003. “Hesiod,” OCD3, p. 700.
Whitelaw, T. 2001. "Reading Betwen the Tablets: Assessing Mycenaean Palatial Involvement in Ceramic Production and Consumption," in Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (CPS Suppl. 27), eds. S. Voutski and J. Killen, Cambridge, pp. 51–79.
Whitley, J. 1991. "Social Diversity in Dark Age Greece," BSA 86, pp. 345–361. 114
Wiessner, P. 2001. “Of Feasting and Value: Enga Feasts in a Historical Perspective (Papua New Guinea),” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Washington, D.C., pp. 115–143.
Willcock, M. M. 2003. “Homer,” OCD3, pp. 718-720.
Wright, J. C., ed. 2004a. The Mycenaean Feast, Princeton.
______. 2004b. "Mycenaean Drinking Service and Standards of Etiquette," in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), ed. P. Halstead and B. Barrett, Oxford, pp. 90–104.
______. 2004c. "A Survey of Evidence for Feasting in Mycenaean Society," in The Mycenaean Feast, ed. J. C. Wright, Princeton, pp. 133–178.
______. 2004d. “The Mycenaean Feast: An Introduction,” in The Mycenaean Feast, ed. J. C. Wright, Princeton, pp. 1–12.
115
Table 1a. Contents of selected deposits from the LH IIIC Xeropolis settlement, part 1
Vessel Class/Find Type (Grouped by Functional Category) Storage (closed vessels) Serving (large open vessels) Food Preparation Pouring (spouted vessels) Consumption (small open vessels) otal (1a & 1b) T otal
Context amphora amphoriskos jar pithos pyxis stirrup jar storage jar dipper jug hydria jug juglet spouted bowl/basin krater tray tub bowl cup deep bowl feeding bottle kalathos kylix rhyton ring-vase ceramic crucible cooking pot stone pestle stone pounder stone quern stone tripod mortar T Grand - Phase 1 (all from Phase 1b with the exception of the first entry) Western Tests, Trial E, presumed upper floor collapse; Lefkandi IV, pp. 100-101. 1 2 3 3 1 4 1 1 1 17 24 Central Tests, South Room, fill from collapsed upper story; Lefkandi IV, p. 123-124. 1 4 3 1 2 1 1 13 16 Central Tests, South Room, floor deposit; Lefkandi IV, pp. 122-123. 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12 26 Central Tests, North Room, fill from collapsed upper story; Lefkandi IV, p. 120. 1 1 1 1 4 7 Central Tests, North Room, floor deposit; Lefkandi IV, pp. 119-120. 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 12 20 East House, Room 5, on or near the floor level; Lefkandi IV, pp. 37-38. 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 12 21 East House, Room 5, pottery from above floor, presumed to be from collapsed upper room; Lefkandi IV, pp. 38-39 and pl. 103. 1 1 2 39 West House, Room 11, pottery from above floor, presumed to be from collapsed upper room; Lefkandi IV, pp. 17-18. 1 2 2 2 7 16 West House, Room 9, floor deposit; Lefkandi IV, pp. 22-23. 1 4 4 1 2 2 4 1 1 20 21 West House, Room 9, pottery from above floor, presumed to be from collapsed upper room; Lefkandi IV, pp. 23-24. 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 13 - Phase 2 (all from Phase 2a) 0 North House, Room 2, floor deposit; Lefkandi IV, pp. 50-51. 1 2 1 5 1 1 11 20 North House, Room 2, pottery from above floor, presumed to be from collapsed upper room, but may be a second level of bottom floor deposition; Lefkandi IV, pp. 51-52. 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 6 1 2 20 33
North House, Room 6, ambiguous deposit from floor or from above floor; Lefkandi IV, pp. 55-56. 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 17 21 North House, Yard, collapse from upper stories of toppled buildings surrounding yard; Lefkandi IV, p. 48. 1 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 15 19
Grand Total 6 6 4 6 1 4 2 1 12 19 2 1 26 1 2 6 11 19 2 2 15 1 1 2 7 2 6 1 1 169 296 116
Table 1b. Contents of selected deposits from the LH IIIC Xeropolis settlement, part 2
Vessel Class/Find Type (Grouped by Functional Category) Other Food Cutting otal (1a & 1b) T otal
Context figs olive pips chert (blade) metal (blade) metal (knife) obsidian (blade) obsidian (chunk) awl/point boar's tusk plaque bone pin bone shaft bone tool bone, human skull fragment bull's head protome button clay bead clay fluted cylinder clay loomweight clay reel clay whorl metal object (spearhead) metal sheet metal sickle blade metal stud stone axe/hammer stone fragment stone tool stone weight stone whetstone/polisher terracotta figurine T Grand - Phase 1 (all from Phase 1b with the exception of the first entry) Western Tests, Trial E, presumed upper floor collapse; Lefkandi IV, pp. 100-101. 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 24 Central Tests, South Room, fill from collapsed upper story; Lefkandi IV, p. 123-124. 1 1 1 3 16 Central Tests, South Room, floor deposit; Lefkandi IV, pp. 122-123. 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 14 26 Central Tests, North Room, fill from collapsed upper story; Lefkandi IV, p. 120. 1 1 1 3 7 Central Tests, North Room, floor deposit; Lefkandi IV, pp. 119-120. 1 2 3 1 1 8 20 East House, Room 5, on or near the floor level; Lefkandi IV, pp. 37-38. 1 3 1 3 1 9 21 East House, Room 5, pottery from above floor, presumed to be from collapsed upper room; Lefkandi IV, pp. 38-39 and pl. 103. 6 25 2 1 1 2 37 39 West House, Room 11, pottery from above floor, presumed to be from collapsed upper room; Lefkandi IV, pp. 17-18. 3 1 1 2 1 1 9 16 West House, Room 9, floor deposit; Lefkandi IV, pp. 22-23. 1 1 21 West House, Room 9, pottery from above floor, presumed to be from collapsed upper room; Lefkandi IV, pp. 23-24. 1 1 1 3 6 13 - Phase 2 (all from Phase 2a) 0 North House, Room 2, floor deposit; Lefkandi IV, pp. 50-51. 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 9 20 North House, Room 2, pottery from above floor, presumed to be from collapsed upper room, but may be a second level of bottom floor deposition; Lefkandi IV, pp. 51-52. 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 13 33 North House, Room 6, ambiguous deposit from floor or from above floor; Lefkandi IV, pp. 55- 56. 1 1 2 4 21 North House, Yard, collapse from upper stories of toppled buildings surrounding yard; Lefkandi IV, p. 48. 1 1 1 1 4 19
Grand Total 6 25 2 1 1 9 6 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 14 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 14 127 296 117
Table 2. Contents of selected deposits from the Middle Protogeometric Toumba building (Lefkandi II.1, pp. 3-5)
Vessel Class/Find Type (Grouped by Functional Category) Pouring (spouted vessels) Consumption (small open vessels) Storage (closed vessels) Serving (large open vessels) Food Preparation otal T -bowl
Context amphora lekythos black slip jug hydria oinochoe krater circle skyphos cup krater strap-handled bowl cooking pot Grand Apse Room 2 1 1 1 5 Central Room 1 1 1 1 1 5 East Room 1 1 South Room 2 2 South Veranda 1 1 Grand Total 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 14 118
Table 3. Summary of pottery deposits from PG graves from the Toumba Cemetery (after Lefkandi III, Table 1)
Vessel Class/Find Type (Grouped by Functional Category) Pouring (spouted vessels) Consumption (small open vessels) Imports Storage (closed vessels) Serving (large open vessels) Food Preparation otal T
Context - Tomb Numbers
(Grouped by Date) amphora amphoriskos lekythos jug/juglet pyxis trefoil oinochoe hydria/hydriskos PSC Plate krater kalathos cup skyphos feeding-bottle coarse and cookware fabric handmade burnished Attic other Grand - Middle Protogeometric T. 12b 1 1 T. 62b 1 1 - Late Protogeometric T. 1 1 1 2 4 T. 3 5 5 T. 7 2 1 3 T. 12a 2 2 T. 14 2 2 T. 17 3 3 T. 18 1 1 T. 26 4 3 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 25 T. 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 T. 44 1 1 1 4 1 8 T. 46 1 3 1 1 4 4 14 T. 48 2 2 4 T. 54 3 1 6 2 2 3 6 3 26 T. 57 2 1 1 1 1 6 T. 58 1 1 T. 62a 1 1 1 3 T. 63 1 1 6 3 1 12 T. 64 1 1 T. 70 1 1 1 3 T. 71 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 14 - Sub Protogeometric T. 15 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 T. 23a 1 1 1 3 T. 25 1 2 3 T. 29 1 1 T. 37 1 1 2 T. 40 1 11 1 1 14 T. 41 6 1 1 1 1 10 T. 42 1 1 2 2 6 T. 45 3 1 2 18 1 1 2 28 T. 50 1 1 T. 51 6 1 2 9 T. 55 1 2 15 1 19 T. 59 17 1 1 2 2 1 1 25 T. 69 1 1 Grand Total 9 15 23 27 29 15 10 2 2 55 39 12 4 1 18 13 1 275 119
FIGURES
Figure 1. Plan of the Palace of Nestor at Pylos (PN III, fig. 303)
120
Figure 2. Map of Dark Age sites in Messenia (Nichoria III, fig. 3-1)
121
Figure 3. Reconstructed plan of Unit IV-1, Phase 1, Nichoria (Nichoria III, fig. 2-18)
122
Figure 4. Reconstructed plan of Unit IV-1, Phase 2, Nichoria (Nichoria III, fig. 2-23)
123
Figure 5. Map showing the location of Xeropolis and Lefkandi (Lefkandi I, pl. 2a)
124
Figure 6. General site plan showing Xeropolis, Lefkandi, Toumba, and the cemeteries (Lefkandi I, pl. 2b)
125
Figure 7. Schematic Plan of the Protogeometric Building at Toumba and Its Features (Lefkandi II.2, pl. 5)
126
Figure 8. Main Excavation, overall plan of structures/burials, Xeropolis phase 2a (Lefkandi IV, fig. 1.19)
127
Figure 9. Simplified plans of structures at Xeropolis, phases 1b and 2a (Lefkandi IV, fig. 1.18)
128
Figure 10. Drawing of pictorial sherd from LH IIIC Xeropolis depicting banqueter (Lefkandi IV, pl. 71)
129
Figure 11. Fresco from the megaron at Pylos showing a procession (Wright 2004d, fig. 12)
130
Figure 12. Fresco from the megaron at Pylos showing a lyre player, a sacrificial bull, and banqueters (Wright 2004d, fig. 13)
131
Figure 13. Main Excavation, details and finds in West House, Rooms 11 and 12, phase 1b (Lefkandi IV, fig. 1.8) 132
Figure 14. Main Excavation, details and finds in North House, Room 2, phase 2a (Lefkandi IV, fig. 1.20) 133
Figure 15. Trial IV/V: phase 1b: details and finds in the South House and South Area (Lefkandi IV, fig. 1.37) 134
Figure 16. Detailed plan of Apse Room, W. Corridor and N. and S. Rooms (Lefkandi II.2, pl. 23) 135
Figure 17. Detailed plan of the surviving west end of the Central Room (Lefkandi II.2, pl. 9) 136
Figure 18. Detailed plan of the East Room and Porch. (Lefkandi II.2, pl. 7)