Proceedings Ofthe Danish Institute at Athens • II
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Proceedings ofthe Danish Institute at Athens • II Edited by Seven Dietz & Signe Isager Aarhus U niversitetstorlag Langelandsgade 177 8200 Arhus N © Copyright The Danish Institute at Athens,Athens 1998 The publication was sponsored by: The Danish Research Council for the Humanities. Consul General Gosta Enbom's Foundation. Konsul Georgjorck og hustru Emmajorck's Fond. Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens General Editor: Seren Dietz and Signe Isager Graphic design and Production by: Freddy Pedersen Printed in Denmark on permanent paper ISBN 87 7288 722 2 Distributed by: AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS University ofAarhus DK-8000 Arhus C Fax (+45) 8619 8433 73 Lime Walk Headington, Oxford OX3 7AD Fax (+44) 865 750 079 Box 511 Oakvill, Conn. 06779 Fax (+1) 203 945 94 9468 The drawing reproduced as cover illustration represents Kristian Jeppesen's proposal for the restoration of the Maussolleion, in particular of the colonnade (PTERON) in which portrait statues of members of the Hecatomnid dynasty said to have been carved by the famous artists Scopas, Bryaxis,Timotheos, and Leochares were exhibited. Drawing by the author, see p. 173, Abb. 5, C. The Cyclades and the Mainland in the Shaft Grave Period - a summary Soren Dietz Abstract sophistication in metalwork and otherfields of handicraft. In the years before the volcanic de It is usual to consider the main economic, social struction ofThera, Mainland influences arefelt and artistic trends in early Mycenaean society as strongly onThera. It should be emphasized, demonstrated in the Shaft Graves of Mycenae however, that the new preeminent objects in to be derived more orless directly from Crete. In Mycenae, in a newstyle, were most probably this scenario, societies on the Cycladic islands produced by Mainland craftsmen, inspiredfrom fulfil the role ofsailors and ship owners procu Crete, working in a technology and tradition ring the one-sided delivery of ideas and goods established 150 to 200 years earlier when Crete, from Crete to the Mainland. It is the claim of the Cyclades and the Mainland enjoyed a flo the present article that the development ofearly wering commercial and ideological (?) intercourse. Mycenaean culture and society can only be ex Modes of exchange during the years of the later plained as a rather long-termed process. It is Shaft Graves and the "international spirit"pre shown that relations with the Cyclades, both in vailing the Aegean area during the mostflouris theArgolid and inAttica, were substantial du hing years of the New Palaces in Crete, cannot ring theformative phase of the Mycenaean soci be explained by simple models. The Cyclades, ety—during MHIII in Mainland terminology. however, hardly ever regained the political During this time, when thefirst rich graves are strength they enjoyed during the period of the found in Mycenae, Cretan influence is either earlier Shaft Graves. non-existant orinsignificant, on the Mainland as in the Cycladic islands. The suggested expla nation is that Cretan societies had notyet reco Mainland Chronology and vered andMinoanforeign relations were not re Cycladic Pottery Imports established after the destruction of the Old Pala ces. Cycladic ships, predominantlyfrom Phyla- The Grave Circle B at Mycenae kopi in Melos, ensured the important supply of The excavation ofthe grave circle B at metals —probably from the lands of the Eastern Mycenae in the 1950's established possibi Mediterranean. lities for a more careful evaluation ofCyc ladic relations with the Mainland during Minoan influences are discernible again infull the shaft grave period. In contrast to the strength during the early part ofLMIA and finds from Schliemann's grave circle the early LCI in the Cyclades. It was not until new graves contained a considerable NOTE 1 then that well known Minoan features within amount ofimported Cycladic pottery in This contribution is based thefields of architecture, wall-painting, pottery dicating that there might have been more on a lecture given at the Goulandris Museum of and communication systems were introduced on than two actors involved in the history of Cycladic Art in Athens, the islands. Akrotiri on Thera - as the island early Mycenaean development. In addition November 7, 1994. I am under strongest influencefrom Crete (perhaps the epoch-making excavations ofthe town grateful for comments and even a "colony") - became the leading Cycladic ofAkrotiri on Thera in the sixties and later reactions especially from island in trade relations with the surrounding provided important new information Professor Christos Dou- mas, Dr. Marissa Marthari world. On the Mainland this new trend was felt about Cycladic/Mainland relations in the and Dr. Kathie Demako- through import ofTheran pottery alongside period. In order to give a reliable picture poulou. Minoan —butfirst ofall through an increasing ofthe character ofCycladic influences at Mycenae it was, however, necessary to stinction divides the phases MHIIIB and NOTE 2 establish a safe local chronological frame LHIA while it corresponds to the division For instance Kilian-Dirl- meier 1986, 177, n. 8 and work for the period in Mycenae and the between Late Phase I and Late Phase II in Graziado 1988, 344. Dietz Northeastern Peloponnese. IfMinoan and Graziadio's chronology (1988). 1991,23-26. Cycladic influences were shown to be contemporary it would support the idea of Figure 1 compares the two chronological NOTE 3 the Cyclades as a transit area probably systems Dietz 1991,252, Fig. 79. acting as part ofa Minoan Thalassocracy; if NOTE 4 not, other explanations had to be found. Graziadio Early Phase/Dietz MHIIIB Dickinson 1977, Dietz (earlyf.The associations classified by Grazi 1980 and 1991, Graziadio It seems generally accepted that the chro adio fall predominantly within an earlier 1988 and Kilian-Dirlmeier nology of the Shaft Graves should be based part of Dietz MHIIIB.This phase was not 1986. on local pottery sequences.2 The problem explicitly defined by Dietz (1991). It was NOTE 5 with using sequences from the Shaft Graves suggested however that graves in the Argo- Compare Graziadio 1988, mainly derives from the fact that associati lid with shallow rounded kantharoi (type 346-350 with Dietz 1991, ons in most cases, and certainly the most AA-1) should probably be arranged in an 106-132 and 243-246. In important ones, are dependant on inter earlier subphase of MHIIIB.7 The diver Dietz 1991 also "non-pot pretations. This goes for both grave circles, gences concerning graves Zeta, Iota, tery" groups are defined. even if the situation for the Circle A is of Lambda28 and Xi are not important as NOTE 6 course the more difficult. As a control, they are placed within the general MHIII Graziadio 1988, 344 fol however, it is possible, to a certain degree, phase. Divergences derive from different lowing Dietz 1980,80-81 to test the reliability ofthe chronological analytical concepts ofthe local pottery de and 141-144. reconstructions against chronological uni velopment. It should be emphasized that ties from other parts ofthe Argive plain. As the development in the local pottery is NOTE 7 Dietz 1991, Fig. 77.The for settlement material the situation is gradual with several typological overlap- painted kantharoi type even worse as hitherto only one stratified pings.The definition ofphases depends on AA-1 are first of all sequence has been published.3 available associations.The phase MHIIIA is characteristic for Zerners first ofall defined on the stratigraphical phase V:7 in Lerna=Dietz It should be emphasized that a three phase settlement deposits from Asine Lower phase MHIIIA. Town. Joseph Maran is undoubtedly cor division ofthe transitional period MH/LH NOTE 8 has been suggested recently by most scho rect when he suggests that there might not Graziadio did not define a lars occupied with analytical studies ofthe be exact correspondance between the phase corresponding to Shaft Grave chronology.4 There are, how MHIIIA settlement and the MHIIIA Dietz MHIIIA. ever, significant differences concerning the phase defined by the grave associations. In NOTE 9 definitions ofthe various phases. In this my opinion, however, this does not mean Maran in a review of Dietz connection I should like to comment on that the difference between MHIIIA and 1991, PZ 68, 1993, 159. the controversy existing between systems MHIIIB might depend on social criteria.9 developed by Graziadio (1988) and Dietz The task is to divide a continuum, and NOTE 10 (1991) relating to the classification ofthe from this point ofview there are no great Graziadio 1988,348. graves in the Circle B. First ofall it should differences between Dietz and Graziadio as be pointed out that there is consensus on to the dating ofthe Circle B graves. More certain important points.Thus there are primary material is needed in order to sett not many important differences between le the details.A major discrepancy, how the contextual groupings ofthe pottery ever, is that grave Lambda 1 was attributed (though there are some).5There is on the to the Late Phase II (=LHIB) by Grazia other hand general agreement concerning dio.There does not seem to be sufficient the suggestion that "Yellow Minyan" gob information on the stratigraphy for dating lets with concentric incised rings around this grave later than grave Lambda.10 The the stem and lower body (group 1) be Cycladic jug in "Black and Red" style longs to an earlier phase than goblets (Lambda 1, 114) was found with a local without this characteristic feature (group kantharos type AA-1 and the context 2).6 In Dietzs terminology (1991) this di should thus be dated early in MHIIIB.We 10 POTTERY • • • • • • LDW Argive • * * <*> * * * * 1 Minoan 9 Cycladic later types - ♦ Cycladic early types A B F A E Z HI K A Al A2 M N O n p YO MH IIIA Early Phase MH IIIB (early) Late Phase I • MH IIIB (late) LH IA ? Late Phase II LH IB Fig.