CHAPTER 3 THE EXPANSION OF A MYCENAEAN PALATIAL CENTER

IÈtÊtÈtÊrÈrÈtÈ

JOHN BENNET

HE PALACE oF NESToR stands roday arop the BACKGROUND: THE Englianos ridge, a powerful symbol to local PALACE OF NESTOR residents and tourists alike of 's rich prehistoric past. The processes by which it became a The destruction of the palace in circa 1200 BC pre- modern cultural symbol are not the topic of this chapter served not only a rich and complex archaeological site (see, e.9., Davis 1998; Lolos 1994). Rather, my goal is to but also a large archive of documents inscribed in the examine how the site came to dominate its environment Linear B script that recorded an early form of the Greek immediately before its destruction, about 1200 BC, as language (Chadwick 1987). A combination of these the paramount center in the southwestern Peloponnese, archaeological and documentary data sets has allowed a symbol of political, economic, and ritual power in us to reconstruct in extraordinary detail the operation the Navarino Bay region of southwestern . of this palatial center (Shelmerdine and Palaima 1984) To this end, I employ new data generated by the Pylos in the years immediately before its destruction, at tÏe Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP) to chart the end of the phase known as Late Helladic IIIB, and the growth of the site of Bronze Age Pylos from about extent of the polity over which the site exerted sorñe 2000 BC until its destruction. I then place this new, form ofpolitical control (Bennet 1995). more refined picture of the expansion of Pylos in the The excavations by Carl Blegen of the University wider context of settlement in its broader region, again of Cincinnati (Blegen and Rawson l9ó6; Blegen et using data generated by PRAP that clari!' the relative al. 1973;Lang 1969) revealed a complex of structures sizes of settlements in this area in the Middle and Late centered around a nÌorìumental room with a prominent Bronze Ages (circa 2000-1200 BC). Instead of re{ying central hearth ringed by wooden columns, a megaron, solely on relative site sizes to determine sociopolitical in which, it seems, the ruler (called in Mycenaean hierarchies, I also include analysis ofstrategies ofelite Greek the wanax) met with the elite and ca¡ried out display and emulation as exemplified in burials in the rituals. Around this central monumental room were region. Using these different strands of evidence, I sug- storerooms for agricultural products, chiefly olive gest a more precise time scale on which Pylos came to oil and wine. These were not all staples; many were dominate its region and outline some of the strategies exchange items. Perfumed oil was exported from Pylos the Pylian elite may have used to develop and secure to other sites within (and beyond) the Mycenaean world that dominance, (Shelmerdine 1985). The wine was apparently used in

29 30 ffi RETHINKING I\4YCENAEAN PALACES ffi

i

I rituals throughout the polit¡ as evidenced partly in From this central place, approximately 2000 km2 administrative documents (Palmer 1994) and partly in of territory was controlled (figure 3.1), extending easr tle presence of drinking cups-þlikes, in Mycenaean from Pylos to the foothills of the Täygetos mountain ceramic terminology-at all sites, including tÏe palace, ranges and nortl at least as far as Klparissia S{ilson where thousands were kept in storerooms adjacent to 197 7 :7 4, n. 32). The University of Minnesota Messenia the megaron. Worlshops and manufacruring facilities Expedition surveyed the whole region extensively in the were also in the immediate vicinity of the megaron 19ó0s (McDonald and Rapp 1972), and their data have (Shelmerdine I 985, 1987 :5 63-5 64). been used as tïe basis for reconstruction of the eco-

, Polity ' Boundary?

TAYGETOS Peristeria MTS.

MT. ITHOME O FUBTHER MÏ. AIGALEON PROVINCE r"np."n|, o Koutsouveri O Thouria Ordines,a rc-u-ko-¡o-to? Hora ¡ Pr"F \ O ?Jf?". \nnt^,-ouo, \ Traoanes Beylerbey O o O Nihoria ä Kòukoun.r" li-m¡-to a-ke-e Voidokilia \ tt. LYKODIMOS

District HITHER Boundary? 0 I skm PROVINCE

( s.s"- \ \:," """& e*î{îo"9 \ Y',, ".:.) ,.,*"""n þi¡{ câ

FIGITRE 3.1 Map oÊ the southwest Peloponnese, Greece, showing hypothetical boundary of the Pylian kingdom, its division into "Hither" and "Further" provinces, and signiÊcant sites. (Map drawn by J. Bennet and M: Galaty.) PYLOS 3l

about the political suuc- nomic and sociopolitical organizatiot't of the polity in This much is well known widely accepted among Aegean the period of the Linear B documents (e.g', Carothers ture, and it is relatively formed the background to 1992;Morris 1986). Once again, textual and archaeo- prehistorians. These data ina250 km2 area centeled on logical evidence combine to demonstrate the existence Þn¡pt recent fieldwork on the Englianos ridge (figure of two major disuicts within the polity in its final phase, the palatial stmctures (Davis Davis etal.1997;Zangget and topographic evidence suggests that the boundary 3.2, site 87) 1998; 1997). survey project aimed at complete betvi'een the two districts was a prominent mountâin et aI. The coverâge' but our prehistoric research is in range, the Aigaleon' The Linear B terminology for the diachronic wo districts-"this-side-of-Aigaleon" and "beyond- a unique position to answer these questions: How did the community immediately surrounding the palatial structures-often referred to as the "Lower'Jþw¡"-sxpand and change through time? settlement come to dominate Further provinces' respectively) (Bénnet 199 5, 1999a)' How did the Englianos its broader region?

bv PRAB plus Voidokoilia and sites in the Koukounara FIGuRx 3,2 Map of the pRAp survey area shorving the. location oF relevant sites studied region. The palace is site 87. (Map drawn byJ Bennet ) 32 ffi RETHINKING MYCENAEAN PALACES ffi

THE EXPANSIOI\ OF Settlement prior to 2000 BC, the end of the Early BRONZE AGE PYLOS Helladic phase, appears to have been minimal. The Englianos settl€ment seems to have expanded first fu a first stage in determining the extent of settlement within the Middle Helladic phase, circa 2000-1700 BC around the eicavated palace structures, survey teâms (see figure 3.3); our research suggests a maximum extent walked the entire Englianos ridge, enabling us to of 5.48 ha. Excavation adds litde of significance to this define those areas with the highest density of artifactual picture other tåan a few struchrres revealed beneath the material. From this phase of our research, the vicinity later palatial strucrures and in tess beyond their limits ofthe palace stands out quite clearly as a "hot spot" of (Blegen et al. 1973:3240). At the end of the Middle artifactual density on the ridge. Our second srage was Helladic phase, roughly contemporary with the well- total collection of artifacts on a 20 m grid defined by known Shaft Graves atMyc€nae, our study suggests an areas in which pedesrrian survey observed the highest increase in both the extent and the density of material. density of material. Artifacts were collecred from 468 In the following periods, known as Late Helladic I and grid squares, and these collections formed the basis for Late Helladic II (circa 1700-1500 BC), the settlemenr the graphics summarizing densities presented in figure had extended to about 7.08 ha, with a noticeable expan- 3.3. Approximately 5500 lines of data were generared in sion along the ridge to the northeasr. the course of study of this material, many representing This period is marked in the excavated record at Pylos more tlan one ceramic object. A total of 3 5 ,7 00 ceramic by the construction of elaborate funerary structures, artifacts were studied and dated in this manner. tlolos or "beehive" tombs (figure 3.4). The first of these,

ALL PREHISTORIC PERIODS

LATE HELLADTC r-il LATE HELLADTC ilt

FIGLTRE 3'3 Palace of Nestor Lower Town (PRAP 87) showing relative densities of material for; all pre historic periods; Middle Helladic (circa 2000-1700 (circa BC); Late Helladic I-ll I 700-ì 400 BC); Late Helladlc lll ( I 400-l 200 BC). 20 m grid. The four levels o[ shuding corr".pond to sÈerd densities (I-375,375-750,750-1500, and 1500+perha). (lllustration byJ Bennet Reprintedfroñr Davis e¡al. t997:429, nguätz.¡ PYLOS 33

Grave circle

Deriziotis Aloni 400 m from edge of hill ì

sites(TholosIV; GraveCi¡cle) (Adapted FIGSRE3.4TheEnglianosridge,showingthelocationofthePalaceofNestorandburial of Classics, University of Cincinnati ) from Blegen et al. 1973: nig. :0'L. Used *îh the permission of the Department 34 ffi RETHINKING MYCENAEAN PALACES ffi

called the Grave Circle (diameter approximately 5.5 m), W, although no longer in use as a funerary structure, was built in tïe late Middle Helladic to tïe southwest of remained as a prominent markel dominating the broad the later palace (Blegen et al. 1973:13Ç17ó). Then, in plaza that lay northeast of the palace citadel. Blegen's LH I, perhaps two generations late¡ Tholos IV (diam- excavations here revealed no architecture (Blegen et al. eter approximately 9.35 m) was built to its northeast 1973:6448), perhaps confirming that the ârea lay open, (Blegen etal.1973:95-114).It is also in this phase, the dominated on the southwest by the palatial stmctures late Middle Helladic to early Late Helladic, that a for- themselves and on the northeast by the prominent tification wall was built around the highest point of the dome of the tomb. setdement, defining the area later to be occupied by the At the beginning of LH IIIB (circa 1300 BC), the palatial stnrcnrres (Blegen et al. 1973:4-18). Although final palatial structures were constructed. It is in the there is little evidence for structures of this phase final phase of this palace, after a number of modifica- beneath the later palatial remains, it is significant thât tions to the structures that increased workshop space in the northeastern sector,of this circuit has an elaborate its immediate vicinity, added additional storage capacity, entranceway aligned directly towâfd Tholos fV By LH and restricted access (Shelmerdine 1987; Wright 1984), II there were further changes in the funerary stmctures that the administrative documents in Linear B belong. associated with the setdement: a new structure, Tholos Strictly LH IIIB material from surface collection cov- III (diameter 7.66-7.71m), was built about 900 m ered 4.6 ha in this phase, twice the area of strictly LIJ southwest of the palace on the ridge top (Blegen et al. IIIA material. Again, we need to be aware of the prob- 1973:73-95). The construction of this tomb may reflect ability that much of the generic LH III ceramic material an extension of habitation in the immediate vicinity of could belong to this later phase, and r¡'e should regard the palace, leaving no more room for funerary structures. the extent of the settlement as 12.4 ha at a minimum, The fact that a new location was chosen may, howeveq excluding the central buildings, which take up a furtÏer also suggest a social reasonr was this structure perhaps 2 ha. The total arça of the site at this period would have the tomb of a newly preeminent elite group? been in excess of 1't-15 ha. The next phase, LH IIIA (circa 1400-1300 BC), By LH IIIB, the fortification wall ringing the saw the first excavated remains of substantial structures citadel had gone out of use (Blegen et al. 1973:18). on t}re palace site, plausibly interpreted as a functional Geophysical investigations carried out âs part of PRAP's predecessor to the final palace (Kilian 1987:209, frgure overall research have turned up a number ofsubsurface 5; Blcgcn etal.1973:32-40). It is also probable that the anomalies to the west of the palatial strucfures, most earliest ¿dminisuative docutnents (a few fragmentary prominent among which is a óO-m-long lincar anomaly Linear B tablea) belong to this phase of the setdement (see Zangger et al. 1997:606-613). This anomaly (Palaima 1983). These criteria strongly suggest that the seems to reflect a broad structure (circa 2-2.5 m thick), site was fulfilling centralized administrative functions perhaps a retaining wall or fortification. Though it is ' by this date. Our surface collections suggest a maximal impossible to date the structure from the geophysical extent of setdement in LH IIIA of circa2.36 ha. It should data, it may represent a continuation of the late Middle be noted, however, that diagnostic artifacts of specifically Helladic/early Late Helladic fortification circuit, sug- LH IIIA, as opposed to generically LH IIIA-8, are rela- gesting that the wall had demarcated a larger fortified tively dif6cult to isolate. We should therefore regard this area than previously thought. Surface densities âppear size estimate very much as a minimum. A better indica- to drop offbeyond the anomaly, which may support t¡e tion of size is probably afforded by cônsidering all LH conclusion that it bounded tÏe settlement in this direc- III material, giving a total extent of D.4 ha, twiçe that tion. Until the structure can be examined by excavation, in the preceding LH I-II phase. howeveS the possibilities remain that it represents either By the end of the first part of LH IIIA, the Grave a retaining wall for construction or a fortification wall Circle to the southwest of tlle palace had gone out of belonging to a later phase of the palace. Nevertheless, use (Blegen etal.l973l55), and PRAP's artifact collec- we should not rush to the conclusion that Late Bronze tions in the vicinity suggest that this area was overrun Age Pylos was encircled by massive fortification walls by settlement. Tholos fV seems not to have been used like those at Mycenae and lfin¡ns. for burials after the end of LH IIIA (Blegen et al. The beginning of the LH IIIB period saw the con- 1973:108; Lolos 1987:188), at the time the latest palace tinuity of only one funerary stmcture in the immediate structures were constructed. It is possible that Tholos vicinity of the palace: Tholos III, nearly l,km distant PYLOS down tlre ridge. fusuming it was used by the ruling pala- tial elite for burials, we can imagine extensive funeral processions along the ridge as part ofthe public ritual ofburial there. It is also in this phase that the center at Pylos is likely to have incorporated the area ofeastern Messenia into the 2000 km'z polity (Bennet 1995). In the case of Nichoria, a site just over the boundary into the Further Province, its incorporation may have been marked by the construction of a new tholos tomb for the Pylos-sponsored elite (Bennet 1995:598-599; McDonald and Wilkie 1992:7 66-767; Shelmerdine 1981). The case of Nichoria has implications for the process of expansion that'Pylos must already have car- ALL PREHISTORIC MIDDLE HELLADIC ried out within its more immediate'region. PERIODS

STRATEGIES FOR EXPANSION

In the wider region of Pylos, PRAP carried out similarly detailed collection on a number of other Late Helladic sites. On the basis of these collections, we can deter- mine that only two sites appear to have come close to rivaling the palace in size and complexity: these are sites I1 (in our system), known as Beylerbey, and Kl, known as Ordines. Botlr were collected on a 20 m grid, like the palace. Beylerbey (figure 3.5) has extensive pre- historic material, extending over 6.7 ha. Its size before Middle Helladic was minimal, but it reached perhaps I.ATE HELI-ADIC ITO II LATE HELLADIC III l.64ha in that period, as opposed to 5.48 ha at Pylos' (PRAP densities of It grew in LH I-II þerhaps to 3.32 ha) and reached a FIGURE 3.5 Site of Beylerbey I I ), showing relative material [or: all prehistoric periods; Middle Helladic (circa 2000-1700 maximum size in LH III, only slightly larger at 3.52 ha. BC); Late Helladic l-ll (circa 1700-1400 BC); Late Helladic III (circa Although the site is significant in the Middle Helladic, 1400-1200 BC). 20 m grid. Levels of shading correspond to sherd densities (l-375,375-750, 750-1500, and 1500+ per ha). (lllustration by it was quickly outstripped by the palace in size. Another J. Bennet.) important feature of Beylerbey is that it lay close to and palace tombs were not the only an earþ tholos-I2 on the map (see figure 3'2), usu- The Osmanaga in this region, which is well known ally referred to as the Osmanaga tholos (diameter ones constructed (figure 3.ó; see Pelon 197ó:392403; approximately 6 m)-whose construction date is indis- for tholos tombs 1979).The second phase tinguishable archaeologically from that of the earliest Hope Simpson and Dickinson took place during LH funerary structure at the palace, the so-called Grave of tholos construction, however, at the palace, and tholos Circle (Lolos 1989). fusuming the tomb is associated L Tholos fV was constructed (diameter with Beylerbey-and there seem to be no rival.sites tombs were built at Voidokoilia +.93-5.03 1979:13I-132, their occupied at the same time as the tomb's construction- m; Hope Simpson and Dickinson and two at Routsi (1 then it is possible that, at the end of the Middle Helladic site D8; Lolos 1987:179-l8I), period, the palace and Beylerbey were potential rival and 2: diameter approximately 5.0 m; Hope Simpson centers in the region, each of considerable size and and Dickinson 1979:145-146, their site D54; Lolos each with its own elaborate burial structure' By the 1987:208-210). The third phase of tholos construction in end of LH I, however, the Osmanaga tholos had gone the palace region, in LH II, included Tholos III near t}re out of use, the palace had far outstripped Beylerbe¡ palace and the two tombs atTiagana (1: diameter 9.2-9.3 and a second,larger tholos tomb, Tholos fV had been m; 2: diameter 7 .l-7 .2 m; Hope Simpson and Dickinson constructed. 1979:132-133, their site Dl l; Lolos 1987:182-183). 36 RE'IHINKING MYCENAEAN PALACES ffi

iü2

CONSTRUCTION . EndMHtoLHI â T LHI \J\ o LHI Voidokoilia

K9 km

3'6 Map of the PRAP survey ârea LttTt showing location of tholos tombs within the area of thè Palace of Nestor and their sequence o[ construction. The three periods correspond to circá (enä 1700 BC ofMH-LH I), circa 1600 ec fiHlj, circa t500 BC (LH II). (lllustration byJ. Bennet.) "ra We might consider the construction of these tombs later stage of expansion by Pylos in the wider scale, as marking the landscape under palatial sponsorship beyond its immediate region. Almost all tholos tombs and perhaps reflecting the consolidation of palatial in the region of the palace had gone our of use by the control over the whole region by the end of LH II. It beginning of LH IIIB, except for the Kato Englianòs is interesting to note that no setdement can cleârly be tholos-Tholos III-the romb closesr ro rhe palace associated with the Voidokoilia tomb that lies on a small itselt and perhaps that at Voidokoilia, where LH IIIB headland. It is tempting to imagine that it is a funerary material is attesred (Lolos 1987:18l)-further evidence marker sponsored by the palace, marking its effecrive for the special status of the Voidokoilia tholos. control of the coastline here. The situation of the tomb It seems, however, that the nahrre of investment in is particularly striking: it was constructed in the center these funerary srrucrures changed with time. Initially, of an earlier hrmulus belonging to the Middle Helladic tholos tombs were not only demanding of resources period and itselfsituated over an earlier habitation site for construction, they also tended to contain objects (Korres 1990:5-8), enhancing its s)¡rnbolic significance of great intrinsic and cultural value. They served, in by laying claim to this earlier marker in the landscape. other words, as focal points for elite display to a wider is possible, It rherefore, to link the construction of community, perhaps displayin support of claims to rule tholos tombs as elite funerary structures to the emer- by those members of the elite flVright 1995a; compare gence of centers ar the Middle Helladic/Late Helladic Voutsaki 1995a for a parallel process in the northeast boundar¡ but then ro see their function changing Peloponnese). By the time mosr tholos tombs had gone through time to serve âs indicators of integration out of use in Messenia, those that continued in use had within the ambit of Pylos. The new LH IIIA2 tholos less valuable offerings, perhaps suggesting that they at Nichoria (McDonald and Wìlkie 1992:231-344) in were now more intimately linked to rhe ruling elite the Further Province would be another example at a and were not Сrnbols of display to a wider community. PYLO S 37

Their value may have lain more in their particular association with the ruling elite, and as affirmation that this association had deep historical roots. Tholos III near tlte palace, for example, may have been in use for over 200 years by the time of the final palace' The function of elite display at t1ìe community level in the later phases, perhaps not before LH IIIB, appeârs to have been taken over by public festivals involving the consumption of wine and foodstuffs acquired through palatial mobilization QÍllen 1984a; Piteros et al. 1990), as evidenced both in ceramic remains from the palace ALL PREHISTORIC MIDDLE HELI.ADIC PERIODS and in iconographic representâtions in wall paintings within the megaron (McÇallum 1987). Roughly comparable in size td Beylerbey is the site of Ordines (figure 3.7), in the north of the survey region. It is striking that Ordines reaches significant size only in LH III, when our collections suggest an area of 2.1ha, over half that of Beylerbey in the same period. In earlier periods, however, the site was much smaller-just over half a hectare (0.ó ha) in the Middle Helladic and almost a hectare (0.92 ha) in LH I-II' In this instance, a site appeârs to have grown within the period of operation of the palace, not a potential rival in the late Middle Helladic that the palace had overtaken. It is probably significant, therefore, that no tholos has LATE HELLADIC ITO II I-ATE HELLADIC III been identified in the vicinity of Ordines. Nevertheless, FIGURE 3.7 Site of Ordines (PRAP Kl ) showing relative densities of it does stand out âs one of the larger sites in the region material for: all prehistoric periods; Middle Helladic (circa 2000-1700 (circa BC); Late Helladic III (circa extent' per- BC); t¿te Hellaãic l-ll 1700-1400 at the time of the Pylos polity's maximum 1400-1200 BC). 20 m grid. Levels ofshadingcorrespond to sherd densities haps the next large site as one traveled north from the (l-375,375-750, 750-1500, and 1500+ per ha). (lllustration byJ. Bennet.) palace. Its situation, too, may be significant, because it was quite large, perhaps extending over 2'23 ha (figure lies immediately south of a prominent river valley in an 3.8). If the size of the settlement was in fact anything otherwise predominandy flat coastal plain. It may have like this order of magnitude, it would have been a been ideally situated to deal with minor settlements in significant Early Helladic site, larger than any known the coastal lowlands northwest of the palace site. to date in the area, while its location close to the coast As a final comparison, I also include informa- would match those of known Early Helladic sites, such tion from site 14, Romanou, one of the largest sites as that on the Voidokoilia headland and PRAP site I20, defined by PRAP in the region as having a prehistoric Nozaina (Davis etal.1997:417419).In LH III (figure component, although its prominence was in the post- 3.9), its extent might again have been as large as 2.5 prehistoric phases. Because of its size-its total extent ha, still smaller than its near neighbor Beylerbey, while was defined at circa 38 ha-we used subdivisions of in Middle Helladic and in LH I-II it was considerably the original tracts walked as the units of collection, not smaller: 0.3 ha and 0.5 ha, respectively. a standardized grid. Site size estimâtes are therefore somewhat less precise than those already discussed, and this is reflected in the diagrams, where numbers CONCLUSION of artifacts belonging to each particular period rather than densities are noted. Nevertheless, our collections The data presented here represent work in progress convincingly demonstrate the presence of a number in understanding the prehistoric phases of the region of smaller but significant prehistoric components. PRAP has studied. If we concentrate on the palace Prehistoric material congregates in the west-central and its vicinity, we can demonstrate that the site on area of the site, and the Early Helladic component the Englianos ridge had reached a considerable size ïrj

3B

FIGURE 3.8 The site of Romanou (PRAP t4) showing relative densities oF material for: Early Helladic (circa 2500-2000 BC) and Archaic ro Roman (circa 7008C-AD400) ThetwolevelsofshadingcorrespondtoartifacrcountsoÊl-l0and I I + per unit. Areas marked "ua" were not available Êor investigation. (illustration by J. Bennet.)

LATE HELLADIC III

FIGURE 3.9 Site oÊRomanou (PRAP 14) showing relative densities oFmaterial for: all prehistoric periods; Middle Helladic (circa 2000-1700 BC); Late (circa I Hel¡adic f-ll 700-l 400 BC); Late Helladic III (circa 1400-1200 BC). The two levels oÊ shading correspond ro artifacr counrs ol l-10 and I I + per unit. Areas marked "ua" were not available for investigation (lllustration by J Bennet.) PYLOS 39 by the end of the Middle Helladic period, rivaled only Acknowledgments. I would like to thank members of by Beylerbey to the south. It is surely significant that theMinnesoø fuchaeological Researches in the Western Beylerbey lay in a zone regarded early in the twentieth Peloponnese (MARWP) team, directed by Frederick century as distinct from that in which the palace la¡ Cooper and Mike Nelson, for assistance in surveying namely, the Navarino region or lowJying land around the grids for collections at the Palace of Nestor (87) and the Bay of Navarino, as opposed to the Kampos, the Beylerbey (1). Completion of the Palace of Nestor grid tableland extending from the Aigaleon ridge, of which and surveying grids at other sites were carried out by the Englianos ridge forms a fingerlike extension run- PRAP personnel, to whom I am also grateful, particu- ning from northeast to southwest. Up to a certain point, larly Sebastian Heath and David Stone. Major funding therefore, one could imagine the two sites emerging as for PRAP's fieldwork and publication was provided by independent centers. Other sites in the area were, on the National Endowment for the Humanities (grant no. the basis of size, of minor relevance in the late Middle RO -22 441 -92 ; RK-2 0 1 70-95), the National Geographic Helladic period. Society (grant no. 4798-92;5004-93;5227-9+), and the By the end of LH II, circa 1500 BC, the palace had Institute for Aegean Prehistory. Additional support probably extended its control over much of its imme- came from the Universities of Cincinnati, Illinois at diate area, as indicated by tholos tombs and strongly Chicago, Michigan, Wisconsin-Madison, and Tèxas at suggested by its relative size. We can assume that Austin, as well as from private donors. Beylerbey had become a subordinate site, although For comments and discussion on and relating to this probably one of some importance, to judge by its size. contribution, I am grateful toJack Davis, Paul Halstead, Some two hundred to three hundred yeârs lâter, by and Cynthia Shelmerdine. For study of the material the end of LH IIIB, Beylerbey retained its importance on which many of the conclusions are based, I am and other sites, such as Ordines, had come to promi- grateful to PRAP's prehistoric ceramics team: Cynthia nence (perhaps through direct involvement in palatial Shelmerdine, Sharo¡r R. Stocker, and Yannos Lolos. economic strategies). Sites like Beylerbey and Ordines Needless to say, none of the above can be held respon- are likely to have been the regional centers mentioned sible for the use to which I have put their advice. in the Linear B documents, sites that participated in and conuibuted to the Pylian elite's periodic displays of ritual consumption. The process of expansion docu- mented here at the microlevel for the area immediately around the palace site continued both in time (into LH III) and in space (to the north and east), as Pylos rose from a local paramount center to tÏe dominant center in this region of the southwestern Peloponnese. That, however, is another story already told on another occa- sion (Bennet 1995, 1999a),