Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2012 Second Order Centers and Regional Integration in the Late Bronze Age Aegean Sarah M. Liko

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

ARTS AND SCIENCES

SECOND ORDER CENTERS AND REGIONAL INTEGRATION

IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN

By

SARAH M. LIKO

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2012

Sarah M. Liko defended this dissertation on December 2, 2011.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Lynne A. Schepartz Professor Directing Dissertation

Daniel J. Pullen University Representative

Glen H. Doran Committee Member

Rochelle A. Marrinan Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ii

Dedicated to the memory of myΝgrandfather,ΝRichardΝAέΝεoore,Ν―θaw‖,ΝwhoΝfirstΝpiqued my interest in archaeology when I was just a little girl who liked to play in the dirt.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are several people I would like to acknowledge for the help they provided me in the completion of this research project. I am very thankful to my committee chairperson and advisor Dr. Lynne Schepartz for her guidance, insights, and patience. I also owe a great deal of gratitude to Dr. Daniel Pullen for his help in developing my research and his valuable feedback. Thank you to committee members Drs. Glen Doran and Rochelle Marrinan for their insightful critiques. I appreciate Drs. Cheryl Ward and William Parkinson for their assistance in developing my project. They have since moved on to other universities, but their guidance and teaching helped to develop me as a graduate student. I would also like to thank Dr. Aleydis Van de Moortel for mentoring me as an undergraduate and helping to develop my interest in the Aegean Bronze Age. Graduate school would have been much tougher without the support of my friends in the Department of Anthropology. Thank you to Alex and Tim Parsons, Ella Brooke Rose, Maureen Mahoney, Dan Seinfeld, Cyndi Bellacero, Michelle Markovics, Hanneke Hoekman-Sites, Guy and Ivy Hepp, Geoff Thomas, Josh Englehardt, Colette Berbesque, Julie Byrd, and Ryan Duggins. Thanks to my friends in Tallahassee, Deb Trusty, Bridget McDonnell, and Giovanna Munoz. I also greatly appreciate Jessica Lenden-Holt, her companionship in our undergraduate years, and our wonderful friendship that has grown over the past two decades. Special thanks go to myΝ―εonsterΝSquad‖Νfriends,ΝKatieΝandΝEduardoΝεiyar,ΝIanΝθawn,ΝandΝRachelΝKatz,ΝforΝtheirΝ advice and for our adventures. I want to give special thanks for all of the encouragement of my parents Richard and Marie Moore. I never would have made it this far without their support. My grandmother, Sara Moore (Maw), also deserves special gratitude for instilling me with an intense desire to learn and read. She and my late grandfather, Richard Moore (Paw), encouraged my curiosity in everything. My sister Laura is always there when I need her and our late-night conversations provided a nice respite from studying. Her ambition motivates me. My youngest sister Catie constantly reminds me of the importance of having big dreams and a big imagination. Finally, I owe the greatest thanks to my husband, Ermal, who was patient enough to put up with me while writing my dissertation and to listen to my streams of thought even when they made no sense to him. His constant encouragement saw me through the final stages of my research.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii LIST OF FIGURES ...... x ABSTRACT ...... xi

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Goals and Contributions ...... 2 1.2 Chapter Overview ...... 3

2. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS: MYCENAEAN SOCIO-POLITICAL ORGANIZATION ...... 5 2.1 Introduction ...... 5 2.2 Internal Dynamic of States ...... 5 2.3 Mycenaean Social Organization ...... 7 2.3.1 Mycenaean Polities as States ...... 7 2.3.2 Mycenaean Political Strategies ...... 10 2.3.3 Mycenaean Administrative Organization ...... 12 2.3.4 Mycenaean Settlement Hierarchies...... 14 2.4 Mycenaean Political Economies ...... 16 2.4.1 Wealth Finance ...... 16 2.4.2 Prestige Finance ...... 18 2.4.3 ―Two-Sector‖Νεodel ...... 20 2.5 Summary ...... 23

3. THE COMPOSITE MODEL OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION ...... 24 3.1 Introduction ...... 24 3.2 Socio-Political Organization and Regional Integration ...... 25 3.3 Models Addressing Regional Integration ...... 27 3.3.1 Models Citing Conflict and Coercion ...... 27 3.3.2 Models Citing Voluntaristic Support ...... 29 3.4 The Composite Model of Regional Integration ...... 31 3.4.1 Imposition Strategy ...... 32 3.4.2 Competition Strategy ...... 37 3.5 Summary ...... 41

4. AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF SECOND ORDER CENTERS ...... 43 4.1 Introduction ...... 43 4.2 Settlement Patterns...... 44 4.3 Textual Definition ...... 47 4.4 Proposed Archaeological Definition ...... 48 4.4.1 Political and Social Roles ...... 51 4.4.2 Administrative and Economic Roles ...... 54

v

4.5 Summary ...... 59

5. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING: THE PYLOS AND MYCENAE REGIONS ...... 60 5.1 Introduction ...... 60 5.2 Chronological Scope ...... 61 5.3 Pylos Region ...... 61 5.3.1 Defining a Boundary of the Region ...... 61 5.3.2 Political Geography ...... 63 5.3.3 Potential Second Order Centers ...... 65 5.4 Mycenae Region ...... 66 5.4.1 Defining a Boundary of the Region ...... 66 5.4.2 Political Geography ...... 69 5.4.3 Potential Second Order Centers ...... 72 5.5 Summary ...... 72

6. MYCENAEAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA ...... 74 6.1 Introduction ...... 74 6.2 Data Collection ...... 74 6.3 Pylos Region ...... 75 6.3.1 Primary Center: Pylos ...... 75 6.3.2 Individual Site Data ...... 79 6.4 Mycenae Region ...... 109 6.4.1 Primary Center: Mycenae ...... 109 6.4.2 Individual Site Data ...... 114 6.5 Summary ...... 125

7. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF SECOND ORDER CENTERS ...... 128 7.1 Introduction ...... 128 7.2 Mycenaean Data Analysis...... 129 7.2.1 Frequencies ...... 129 7.2.2 Tetrachoric Correlations ...... 140 7.3 SOCs and Regional Integration ...... 144 7.3.1 Mycenaean Sites and the SOC Archaeological Definition ...... 144 7.3.2 Mycenaean Sites and the Composite Model of Regional Integration...... 147 7.4 Summary ...... 154

8. TEST CASE: NORTH-CENTRAL NEOPALATIAL CRETE ...... 155 8.1 Introduction ...... 155 8.2. Minoan Neopalatial Period Social Organization ...... 158 8.3 North-Central Crete Site Data ...... 162 8.3.1 Primary Center: Knossos ...... 162 8.3.2 Individual Site Data for Potential SOCs ...... 168 8.4 Minoan Data Analysis...... 176 8.4.1 Minoan Frequencies ...... 177 8.4.2 Minoan Tetrachoric Correlations ...... 179 8.5 Minoan SOC Discussion ...... 181

vi

8.6 Summary ...... 183

9. CONCLUSIONS...... 185 9.1 Summary of Mycenaean Second Order Centers ...... 185 9.2 The Minoan Test Case ...... 188 9.3 Directions for Future Research ...... 189

REFERENCES CITED ...... 191

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 215

vii

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Greek Mainland Bronze Age Chronological Chart ...... 9

3.1 Expectations of the Imposition Strategy ...... 36

3.2 Expectations of the Competition Strategy ...... 41

5.1 Potential SOCs in the Pylos Region ...... 66

5.2 Potential SOCs in the Mycenae Region ...... 72

6.1 Distribution of Formalized Features and Functions in the Pylos Region ...... 126

6.2 Distribution of Formalized Features and Functions in the Mycenae Region ...... 127

7.1 Variable frequencies for all Mycenaean sites ...... 130

7.2 Variable frequencies for sites in the Pylos Region ...... 133

7.3 Variable counts for sites in the Mycenae Region ...... 137

7.4 Correlations of variables at all Mycenaean sites ...... 142

7.5 Correlations of variables at sites in the Pylos Region ...... 142

7.6 Correlations of variables at sites in the Mycenae Region ...... 143

7.7 Degree to which Pylian sites meet the SOC archaeological definition ...... 145

7.8 Distances from SOCs to Pylos ...... 146

7.9 Degree to which Mycenae region sites meet the SOC archaeological definition ...... 147

7.10 Expectations of the Competition Strategy ...... 148

7.11 Expectations of the Imposition Strategy ...... 148

7.12 SOCs in the Pylos and Mycenae regions ...... 149

8.1 Chronological chart for Bronze Age Crete ...... 157

8.2 Potential SOCs in North-Central Crete ...... 158

8.3 Distribution of Formalized Features and Functions at Minoan Sites ...... 176

viii

8.4 Variable frequencies for Minoan sites ...... 178

8.5 Comparison of variable frequencies at Minoan and Mycenaean sites ...... 178

8.6 Correlations of variables at Minoan sites ...... 180

8.7 Degree to which Minoan sites meet SOC archaeological definition ...... 181

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

5.1 Map of the Pylos Region ...... 62

5.2 List of district capitals from tablet Jn 829 ...... 64

5.3 Map of the Mycenae Region ...... 68

6.1 Site plan for palace complex at Pylos ...... 76

6.2 IklainaΝεegaronΝΓ ...... 87

6.3 Site of Thouria ...... 93

6.4 Nichoria Unit IV-4a ...... 108

6.5 Site plan for the citadel complex at Mycenae ...... 110

6.6 Midea megaron complex ...... 117

6.7 Tiryns upper citadel complex ...... 121

7.1 Distribution map of variables at sites in the Pylos region ...... 135

7.2 Distribution map of variables at sites in the Mycenae region ...... 139

8.1 Map showing the Pylos, Mycenae, and North-Central Crete regions ...... 155

8.2 North-Central Crete with Minoan villa sites ...... 156

8.3 Plan of a Minoan hall ...... 160

8.4 Plan of the Knossos Palace ...... 163

x

ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines strategies of regional integration from the perspective of second order centers (SOCs). These sites are defined in socio-political terms as the second tier within an administrative hierarchy of a regional system. The goals of this study are to develop an archaeological definition of SOCs and to use this information to model processes of regional integration. This work links our theoretical knowledge about the roles of SOCs in state-level societies to actual archaeological data, putting archaeological theory into practice. To evaluate regional integration from the perspective of these sites, it is necessary to formulate an archaeological definition of SOCs. The data collected for this study are used to develop and enhance this definition and to model processes of regional integration. This first goal of this study is achieved by performing an evaluation of potential second order centers in the Mycenaean regions of Pylos and Mycenae. The definition states that a SOC is (1) a settlement that (2) shares architectural forms, construction methods, and/or construction materials with a primary center, has (3) administrative control over economic activities (craft production), and (4) participates within a regional network as a node of trade. Several sites in each region meet the criteria set out by the SOC archaeological definition. In total, nine probable or possible SOCs were found in the Pylos region and seven in the Mycenae region. This research develops a model of regional integration, the Composite Model of Regional Integration, that is dynamic and consists of two strategies. The competition strategy is built on the idea that increasingly intensive rivalries between sites that are at similar sociopolitical levels leads to a situation in which the sites become linked together. Emergent elites at each site rely on the competitive system for their high statuses and as a conduit for prestige goods from intra- and inter-regional trade networks. In this way, competition between sites leads to a regional system of interconnected sites and elites that are reliant on the system and each other to maintain their positions. The imposition strategy follows a more conflict driven perspective, in which primary centers forcibly incorporate sites to act as regional subcenters. This study finds that both strategies were used in each Mycenaean region, and that there is a temporal component to their utilization. In general, the competition strategy is more clear in the Mycenae region, while the imposition strategy is more clear in the Pylos region. This

xi research has implications for archaeological research in multiple areas of the world. In order to create viable social, political, and economic models it is important to focus on the various elements of a polity. SOCs represent a critical part of overall administrative and economic systems within state-level societies. A detailed study of SOCs contributes to our knowledge of this particular class of settlements as well as to our understanding of state development.

xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Regional integration and its role in state formation is a complex issue in archaeological research. The processes that led to regional integration and how they relate to sociopolitical organization have been the focus of many theoretical works that consider the range of possibilities from direct military control to completely voluntary participation in regional networks. This study seeks to evaluate strategies of integration from the perspective of data collected at regional subcenters. A body of theory exists about the roles of second order centers (SOCs) in state-level societies; however, this is only nominally linked to actual archaeological data. These sites are defined in socio-political terms as the second tier within an administrative hierarchy of a regional system. A simplified description of a second-order center is a settlement with administrative capabilities that works under the direction of a primary center. The focus of this research is to fill the gap between our theoretical knowledge of this class of sites and the archaeological remains. In this way, it will be possible to put the archaeological theory into practice. Two specific goals of this study are to develop an archaeological definition of SOCs and to use this information to model processes of regional integration. The main set of data used in this study comes from Mycenaean sites because here we have unique textual information that can be used in conjunction with other archaeological data. Archaeological research in the Bronze Age Aegean, as well as other areas of the world, has typically focused on primary centers. These sites form the basis for the bulk of our knowledge of many cultures, including the Mycenaeans. A primary center is not always indicative of broader cultural patterns as it provides information mainly regarding the highest level of a society. Archaeological investigations limited mostly to primary centers result in a lack of information regarding other sectors of society, including SOCs that interacted with primary centers and with settlements in the surrounding countryside. A systematic evaluation of SOCs helps us to better understand the sociopolitical and economic organization of Mycenaean societies and provides information on regional expansion within the areas under study. This research has implications for archaeological research in multiple areas of the world. In order to create viable social, political, and economic models it is 1 important to focus on the various components of societies. SOCs represent a critical part of overall administrative and economic systems within state-level societies. A detailed study of SOCs contributes to our knowledge of this particular class of settlements as well as to our understanding of state development.

1.1. Goals and Contributions

The focus of this research is twofold: (1) to develop a definition of Second Order Centers based on archaeological criteria, and (2) to formulate a testable model of regional integration within emergent states. The archaeological definition of a SOC, proposed here, is based on architectural criteria, material remains associated with craft production, and evidence for participation in a regional system as a node within a trade network. The proposed Composite Model of Regional Integration includes two strategies used to achieve regional integration. In recent years, survey projects in the Aegean region, such as the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP) (Davis et al. 1997), the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (EKAS) (Tartaron et al. 2006), and the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP) (Wright et al. 1990), as well as several excavations at sites other than primary centers, have offered information on a broader sector of society. A detailed study of SOCs contributes to our understanding of state organization because this class of settlements represents a part of the overall administrative, economic, and religious systems within state-level societies. A systematic evaluation of SOCs broadens our current knowledge of the sociopolitical and economic organization of Mycenaean society and also provides information on the complexity of state development. By examining three areas of archaeological evidence at SOCs – architecture, craft production, and trade – this project considers how SOC settlements functioned within regional administrative systems. This examination of SOCs also has broader impacts on general archaeological research. Systematically investigating the archaeological remains from SOCs provides information that allows us to better understand secondary administrative centers in other state-level societies. One underlying question in this research is how we can identify SOCs archaeologically through patterns of characteristics at these sites, rather than solely through texts and written documents. Identifying a pattern of explicit archaeological criteria that occurs only at SOCs will be

2 beneficial to excavation and survey projects as a way to more quickly identify the position of a site within a regional hierarchy. Another goal of this study is to develop a model of regional integration. The Composite Model of Regional Integration is a dynamic model, taking into account diachronic and spatial variations within regions. This model is based on data collected from SOCs, and thus presents a different view of integration as it has normally been presented based on our understanding of primary centers. This study investigates how SOCs are brought into a sociopolitical system headed by a primary center. The Composite Model of Regional Integration, proposed here, combines two schools of thought on integration – theories based on conflict and voluntaristic theories – and integrates them as two strategies that can used in any one region. The imposition strategy is based more on conflict theories, and the competition model is more similar to voluntaristic theories and peer-polity systems (Renfrew 1972, 1975, 1986; Renfrew and Cherry 1986). In this model, these two strategies are not mutually exclusive. As shown here, both strategies were used within Mycenaean regions, and there is a temporal component to their utilization. Just as there can be oscillations between centralization and decentralization, there can also be a change in strategies used during processes of sociopolitical integration. The archaeological definition of SOCs and the Composite Model of Regional Integration provide generalized patterns that can be seen cross-culturally. It is important to remember that specific sets of factors contributed to the overall trends in various states, and that regional integration is a cyclical process. This study illustrates one aspect of the mechanisms and strategies associated with regional sociopolitical integration and expansion, but it does not focus on the contraction and decentralization that polities go through.

1.2. Chapter Overview

This dissertation is organized in the following manner. Chapter 2 provides a theoretical background of how Mycenaean states are organized. It discusses the political, administrative, and economic organization of Mycenaean states. This information is important for an understanding of the SOC data collected for this study.

Chapter 3 describes the proposed Composite Model of Regional Integration. It also explains the two strategies of this dynamic model –imposition and competition. Previous theoretical models of regional integration are also discussed. These include circumscription 3 theory, the complex interaction model, peer-polity interaction, factional competition, and the dual-processual model. Chapter 4 outlines the proposed archaeological definition of a SOC. Other ways in which SOCs have been defined are discussed. This chapter also specifies how the three lines of evidence used to develop the definition are related to the sociopolitical and economic roles of SOCs. Chapter 5 describes the archaeological setting of the two main regions of the study, Pylos and Mycenae. This includes the chronological scope of this study, regional boundaries, the political geography, and the potential SOCs under study. Chapter 6 provides the data set broken down by region. Archaeological remains of architectural features, craft specialization, and trade at each SOC are detailed. Chapter 7 is an analysis of the data from Chapter 6. It also describes the analytical methodology used in this study. Two aspects of the analysis are examining the frequencies of variables present at Mycenaean sites and using tetrachoric correlation to determine the co- variance of features and functions. This chapter also includes a discussion of the Mycenaean data in relation to the proposed SOC archaeological definition and the Composite Model of Regional Integration. Chapter 8 provides a test case based on data from north-central Neopalatial Crete. Data from six potential Minoan SOCs are described, analyzed, and discussed in terms of the SOC archaeological definition and the proposed integration model. Chapter 9 gives an overview of the results of this study and areas for future research.

4

CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS: MYCENAEAN SOCIO-POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

2.1. Introduction This chapter presents the theoretical background for the present study. It outlines the sociopolitical and economic organization of Mycenaean states; this information is later used to develop the Composite Model of SOC integration (Chapter 3) and the archaeological definition of SOCs (Chapter 4). This chapter also provides the theoretical considerations for understanding the Mycenae and Pylos regions discussed in Chapter 5, and the data in Chapter 6.

2.2. Internal Dynamics of States

Much research focuses onΝdefiningΝtheΝ―state‖ΝasΝaΝdevelopmentalΝsocialΝstageΝ(Fried 1960, Sahlins and Service 1960, Service 1962), but it is also important to address the variable ways in which state level societies are economically and politically organized. The present chapter emphasizes the internal structures of Mycenaean states as evidenced through textual and archaeological information. StatesΝhaveΝvariouslyΝbeenΝdefinedΝasΝ―complexΝadministrativeΝinstitutionsΝwithΝpolitical authority‖Ν(ζakassisΝβίί6μκ),ΝorΝasΝ―powerful, complex, permanently instituted system[s] of centralized political administrationΝ(ωherryΝ1λκ4μβγ)έ‖ΝThe key components in definitions of the state are complexity, centralized authority, power, hierarchical organization, and decision- making ability (Marcus and Feinman 1998, Nakassis 2006, Parkinson and Galaty 2007, Smith 2003, Wright 1995). The state is also a social setting for competition over power (Blanton 1998:140). Dimensions of power are often economic, social and political (Yoffee 2007:35). Power is a ―subtleΝforceΝpervadingΝtheΝwholeΝofΝsocialΝlife,ΝconstantlyΝenactedΝthroughΝsocial practicesΝandΝmoralΝnormsΝ(VoutsakiΝ1λλιμγ5)έ‖ ωomplexityΝ―denotesΝqualitiesΝofΝhierarchicalΝ differentiation and the intricacy and interdependency of their parts and relationships (Adams 2001:345).‖ Archaeologically complexity can be distinguished through patterns of inequality that suggest institutionalized hierarchies (Smith 1993:5-6). Evidence for inequality can include

5 variation in status, wealth, and power seen in burials, settlement sizes, domestic architecture, monumental architecture, and concentrations of prestige items (Adams 2001:346). The state is a system with diverse components that are functionally integrated. ωlaessen‘sΝ(1λκ5)ΝtreatmentΝofΝtheΝinternalΝdynamicsΝinΝearlyΝstatesΝaddressesΝfourΝ general categories in which variation exists in state-level societies: (1) societal format, (2) economic organization, (3) types of legitimation, and (4) degree of bureaucratic organization. SocietalΝformatΝrefersΝtoΝdemographicΝtraits,ΝsuchΝasΝtheΝnumberΝofΝpeopleΝwithinΝaΝstate‘sΝ territory, their spatial distribution, and how power is delegated in order to administer efficiently. Economic organization accounts for the various ways in which a centralized administration is funded and economically integrates its territory. Types of legitimation include coercion, ideological control, and prestige-based gift-exchange. The degree of bureaucratic organization refers to the number and structure of the levels within an administrative hierarchy. Societal format describes a society in terms of its population, the distribution of its population, and its infrastructure. These variables can be administrative obstacles when there is an uneven distribution of population over a territory or when the territorial size becomes larger than a centralized administration can effectively manage (Claessen 1985:366). Structural variation in states results from the utilization of different approaches to territorial subdivision and power delegation in order to maintain state functioning. Strategies include appointing administrative functionaries, establishing political and economic relationships with local elites, and/or resettling portions of the population. In addition, states can exert differing degrees of control over functionaries (Claessen 1985:366), and the efficacy of a centralized administration depends on maintaining relationships with, and power over, local and regional leaders. Economic organization varies based on the type of strategy of control employed by the state. Large-scale agricultural storage and redistribution, hallmarks of a staple-financed system, differs markedly from gift-exchange and a focus on the production of prestige items that are characteristics of a wealth-financed system. Weber (1978:56) calls attention to the coercive nature of states through the use of physical force, expanded upon by Bourdieu (1999:56) to also include symbolic strength. States control sources of production and distribution of certain types or classes of goods and maintain social integration through physical and symbolic power (Yoffee 2007:35).

6

Political actors within state level societies rely on creating and maintaining legitimacy. ClaessenΝ(1λκ1μ1)ΝdefinesΝlegitimacyΝasΝ―theΝsituationΝinΝwhichΝtheΝrulersΝasΝwellΝasΝtheΝruledΝ share the conviction that the existing division of power, and as a consequence of this the rules and regulations issued by the government, is right.‖ΝδegitimationΝoccurs through coercion, whether by threat of physical violence, ideological justification, or through the manipulation of economic networks. Legitimacy is also maintained through acts that simultaneously reinforce social integration and differentiation, such as feasting. Different strategies are used by individuals and groups within political systems to construct and maintain power. Blanton et al. (1996) propose a dual-processual theory in which there are two main patterns of political action: exclusionary and corporate. These two strategies often overlap to some degree within socio-political formations, and they represent a continuum of potential approaches to social, political, and economic control in which elements of both strategies can coexist. One form of political action is usually dominant over the other within a particular social system at any certain time (Blanton et al. 1996:2). The two strategies represent different ways in which individuals or groups can manage a society. Corporate strategy is based on group identity and group lineages, and power is often legitimized through ritual and ideological control (Blanton et al. 1996:6). The corporate strategy can be materialized through architectural features such as large spaces for communal gatherings and rituals, and also through sizeable storage facilities. Network strategy focuses on the ability of individuals to accumulate power, often through control of prestige-good exchange networks (Blanton et al. 1996:5). Archaeologically, in network-based societies we often see a focus on individuals through monumental tombs and the control of prestige goods. Parkinson and Galaty (2007) argue that Minoan states were more corporately organized, while Mycenaean states were more network - based.

2.3. Mycenaean Social Organization 2.3.1. Mycenaean Polities as States

Mycenaean states have been defined by Parkinson and Galaty (2007:30) as first- generation secondary-states. This category of states develops through competition between local groups and interaction with more mature state societies. In the Aegean, these mature states were Egypt and Near Eastern states. Mycenaean states developed rapidly after aspiring elite gained 7 political prestige through an increase in trade. Competing lineages on the mainland co-opted some features of the Minoan state, such as certain symbols of power, and used trade networks and control of prestige goods as a way to legitimize their authority. State development was not uniform throughout all Mycenaean territories, and this is one explanation for regional differences among Mycenaean states. The historical trajectories in each region were largely the result of local resources and conditions (Dabney and Wright 1990:48). A chronological chart of Mycenaean cultural periods is provided in Table 2.1. Mycenaean states utilized different methods for displaying socio-political power. For example, monumental tholos tombs in the Argolid represent social hierarchies during the LH period, although they were widespread and more indicative of kin groups during the MH-early LH periods in Messenia. Regional economies also differed to some extent, mainly in terms of which industries were a focus of palatial administrations, and to what degree those industries were centralized (Galaty and Parkinson 2007:7-9). Variation in socio-political and economic organization of Mycenaean states suggests that SOCs within each state also were somewhat different. Social hierarchies are archaeologically detected through the unequal arrangement of goods and built structures, such as tombs or houses. Vertical stratification is maintained through various symbols of legitimization, such as monumental architecture, and through sociopolitical manipulations (Yoffee 2007:32-33). Political actors attain and preserve political power through several social and economic dimensions: maintaining control over sources of production and distribution (Yoffee 2007:35), reinforcing notions of social integration through symbolic cognitive codes (Blanton et al. 1996:7) while fostering hierarchical distinctions, and imposing social incorporation through physical (Carneiro 1970, Weber 1978:56) or symbolic (Bordieu 1999:56) force. During most of the MH, there were no overt signs of social stratification. Social relations seemed to be embedded in kin relations (Voutsaki 1997). Social stratification is seen by the late MH-early LH periods through the differential use of grave types and the variation in amounts and kinds of grave goods (Graziadio 1991). Tumulus burials, as opposed to simple cist burials, represent an emerging elite during the MH period in the Argolid (Dabney and Wright 1990:49, Voutsaki 1997). This is followed by the construction of shaft graves at the end of the MH and the beginning of the LH. The richness and unique quality of the grave goods from the shaft graves at Mycenae is used to support the notion of an intensification and elaboration of social status for

8

Table 2.1 Greek Mainland Bronze Age Chronological Chart (after McDonald and Rapp 1972, table 1-1). The periods primarily under discussion in this work are shown in bold.

Mycenaean Approximate Historic Period Archaeological Period Absolute Date Early Helladic I 3100-2650 B.C.E. Early Bronze Age Early Helladic IIA 2650-2350 B.C.E. Early Helladic IIB 2350-2200 B.C.E. Early Helladic III 2200-2000 B.C.E. Middle Helladic I 2000-1800 B.C.E.

Middle Bronze Age Middle Helladic II 1800-1700 B.C.E. Middle Helladic III 1700-1650 B.C.E.

Late Helladic I 1650-1550 B.C.E. Late Helladic IIA 1550-1470 B.C.E.

Late Helladic IIB 1470-1400 B.C.E.

Late Bronze Age Late Helladic IIIA1 1400-1370 B.C.E. Late Helladic IIIA2 1370-1300 B.C.E. Late Helladic IIIB 1300-1190 B.C.E.

Late Helladic IIIC 1190-1050 B.C.E.

limited social groups with special access to wealth items (Dabney and Wright 1990:49). Changes during the MH III-LH I seem to represent shifts in the economy rather than growth in the production of elite goods (Voutsaki 1997:43). An intensification of production occurred mostly after the mortuary shifts, and it seems that greater production rates are correlated with the elite using certain goods to reinforce their status. As Mycenaean states grew, the production and distribution of prestige items were important factors associated with elite identity. Mycenaean socio-political development was linked to restricted access to particular trade networks, such as long-distance exchange, and to control the production of wealth items (Dabney and Wright 1990:50, Galaty and Parkinson 2007). During the MH III period, emergent elite utilized relationships with members of their own communities and with members of distant communities as a way to legitimize their status. Mycenaean state development relied on the intensification of, and greater control over, wealth- based displays such as prestige gift-exchange and feasting. During the early LH period, mortuary

9 activities solidified group identity but also demarcated hierarchical relationships through the use of specific tomb types, such as tholos tombs versus chamber tombs (Dabney and Wright 1990:50, Voutsaki 1997). Tholos tombs, especially by the LH III period in the Argolid, are viewed as a manifestation of elite aggrandizement and the accumulation of wealth and power for particular individuals and families (Thomas 1995:352). Mycenaean palaces were architectural symbols of the social hierarchy and the elevated position of the central administration (Kilian 1988:291). Palace complexes represented hierarchy through their size, construction materials and methods, and intertwined domestic, administrative, and economic functions (Dabney and Wright 1990, Kilian 1988:293). The megaron, as the core unit of palaces, represented a ruler ideology centered on a single king—the wanax (Kilian 1λκκμβλκ)έΝKilianΝ(1λκκμβλλ)ΝstatesΝthatΝtheΝεycenaeanΝpalacesΝcanΝbeΝconsideredΝ―aΝvastΝ embodimentΝofΝpersonalΝpropaganda‖ΝwhereΝimposing exteriors represent permanence and dependability, and interior iconography and elaborate architecture symbolize the qualities of an elite identity. Archaeological evidence, such as offering tables and miniature kylikes, from megara at Pylos (Blegen and Rawson 1966), Tiryns (Kilian 1981), and Mycenae (Wace 1949) suggest that the megaron was also a location for ritual activity. Parkinson and Galaty (2007) argue that the historical trajectories of secondary states influence their structure. The two factors thought to be important are (1) local social organization before and during state formation, and (2) the extent and type of interaction with neighboring states. Mycenaean states originated through competition between small elite kin groups, where managing factions and building alliances were important avenues for political power (Galaty and Parkinson 2007:20). Mycenaean states were in contact with Minoan states on Crete as well as more mature states around the eastern Mediterranean. These types of socio-political and economic activities were influential in the development of Mycenaean states based on network strategies.

2.3.2. Mycenaean Political Strategies

Mycenaean states were network-based, a strategy that is more likely to develop when smaller corporate groups are in direct contact with mature states (Parkinson and Galaty 2007:36. In network-based states (Blanton et al. 1996:4-5), personal prestige is emphasized and wealth exchange is commonly controlled by elites. Individuals are able to accumulate power that is

10 passed down by lineal patterns of inheritance and the importance of personal networks is emphasized. In networked-based states the specialized manufacture of status-related goods is often controlled by the elite groups. States that use network strategies are often small in scale (Blanton et al. 1996:5), like the Mycenaean states. The defining characteristics of networked states include a focus on wealth-exchange, lineal patterns of inheritance, and the elaboration of elite identities (Blanton et al. 1996, Galaty and Parkinson 2007). Networked states are similar to individualizing chiefdoms (Renfrew 1974, 2001) where elite individuals are characterized by personal possessions and elaborated residences. With the network strategy, political actors focus on obtaining and maintaining full control over objective sources of power, such as production and distribution of prestige items (Blanton et al. 1996:2-3). Network strategies are, therefore, wealth-based and rooted in the manipulation of particular classes of goods in order to create and preserve political power and individual prestige. Blanton et al. (1996:4) define the network strategy as a political-economic patternΝfocusedΝonΝcreatingΝandΝmaintainingΝ―individual-centeredΝexchangeΝrelationships‖έΝSocialΝ exchange relationships may be based on marriage alliances, long-distance trade, or the exchange of knowledge (Helms 1988). Socio-political hierarchies within a network-oriented system are related to the degree to which one participates in long-distance exchange networks and differential access to prestige (Blanton et al. 1996:4). Emergent elite work to monopolized exchange networks in order to attain higher levels of prestige. Blanton et al. (1996:4) suggest that as a socio-political system based on network strategies expands its territory, there are increasing frequencies of feasting, warfare, and prestige-good production—activities connected with competition for, and the manipulation of, local followers. A potential outcome of exclusionary manipulation is a prestige-good system, or an economic strategy based on the production, exchange, and consumption of valued items. Prestige goods are often difficult-to-obtain exotic goods or objects that require complex productive technologies (Blanton et al. 1996:5, Brumfiel and Earle 1987). Prestige-good systems are reinforced through reciprocal obligations. The exchange of wealth items enables the creation of power and prestige because the receiver is indebted to the gifter (Malinowski 1922, Mauss 1954, Gregory 1982). Wealth exchange creates a system of obligatory reciprocity, or a ―debtΝeconomy‖Ν (Gregory 1982:19) where the status of the individual participants is often more important than the physical characteristics of the objects being exchanged (Voutsaki 1997:37). Network

11 strategies emphasize competition, warfare, individual prestige, and wealth-based economic systems (Blanton et al. 1996:6, Renfrew 1974:82). Political actors within Mycenaean states reinforced relationships with other Mycenaean and non-Mycenaean elites through exchange networks. Participating in gift-exchange of prestige items, such as textiles and goods made of imported materials, alsoΝservedΝasΝaΝmethodΝforΝstrengtheningΝone‘sΝsocial,Νpolitical,ΝandΝ economic position (Galaty and Parkinson 2007:14).

2.3.3. Mycenaean Administrative Organization

Wright (1995:67) emphasizes the importanceΝofΝhierarchiesΝofΝ―differentiatedΝtiers‖Ν within the decision-making segment of Mycenaean states. The administrative hierarchy was composed of offices that functioned as specialized decision-makers. Administrators in Mycenaean states held positions that required varying levels of contact with outlying regional settlements, from the highly centralized position of the wanax or ruler to the decentralized position of the local chieftains (Palaima 2006:68). Administrative agents bridged the physical and economic gap between primary and secondary centers by acting as liaisons between the two. The administrative hierarchy within Mycenaean states can be reconstructed as follows from Linear B records, especially those from Pylos. The wa-na-ka (wanax) had the highest position in each Mycenaean state. Kilian (1988) surveys the role and position of the wanax from the archaeological record. The wanax was the head of a hierarchical system, and the position was associated with the political, economic, military, and religious spheres to some extent. The wanax held a temenos, which was a privileged landholding, owned a large plot of land, controlled groups of workers and material goods, and was exempt from paying taxes on his land (Nakassis 2006:51). One segment of the political role of the wanax is indicated from a tablet at Pylos where he appoints the da-mo-ko-ro, an official that acted as the head of each province of the Pylian state (Nakassis 2006:51). The position of the wanax likely held ritual significance, as indicated by tablets that list the wanax and deities together as recipients of offerings. Due to the nature of the Linear B tablets, which are mostly economic documents, it is difficult to determine whether the wanax served other roles, such as a military leader or lawmaker (Nakassis 2006:50). Kilian (1988:293) summarizes the wanax position as the head of a social hierarchy, head of a redistributive economy, a

12 coordinator of the landholding system, manager of labor and certain craft production, and central participant in ritual activities. The ra-wa-ke-ta (lawagetas) was an important official whose specific role within Mycenaean states is not well understood. Based on the etymology of lawagetas—―leaderΝofΝtheΝ people‖ (Nakassis 2006:55)—the position may have been a military commander. Other military personnel listed in the Linear B tablets are the e-qe-ta (hequetas) who mostly appear in military contexts (Nakassis 2006:57-60). It is evident that the lawagetas had important social status because he also held a temenos; only the wanax and lawagetas are recorded as having a temenos. The temenos of the lawagetas was, however, smaller than that of the wanax (Nakassis 2006:56). In addition, the lawagetas was not exempt from taxes. The size and type of landholding associated with the lawagetas suggests that he held a high status position. Several administrative positions within Mycenaean states were decentralized, or partially decentralized, because the individuals holding these offices worked as liaisons between primary center authorities and outlying regional settlements. The first of these are referred to as the collectors due to their roles within Mycenaean states. The collectors do not have a title, but are instead referred to by name in the Linear B tablets. Each collector managed particular economic affairs, such as the accumulation of wool within the Knossos territory (Halstead 1999, 2001). Nakassis (2006:64) suggests that the collectors were members of elite households who were close to the wanax and benefitted from their positions. A second set of decentralized offices are the ko-re-te (korete) and po-ro-ko-re-te (prokorete). The most evidence for these positions comes from Pylos, where the political geography and administrative hierarchy is best understood. The Pylian state had 16 administrative districts, and each had one korete (mayor) and one prokorete (vice-mayor). The koreteΝwasΝ―involvedΝinΝcoordinatingΝandΝmanagingΝexchangesΝbetweenΝpalatialΝauthorityΝandΝ particular administrative regions (Nakassis 2006:70).‖ Korete from each of the districts within the Pylos region were allocated worker oxen and feed and were also responsible for the delivery of temple bronze to the palace. Korete were landholders and also received skins from the palace. Each korete was responsibleΝforΝ―managingΝactivitiesΝinΝtheΝadministrativeΝdistrictsΝofΝtheΝpalace,Ν particularly monitoring regular exchanges such as taxation (Nakassis 2006:71).‖ Administrators at Mycenaean primary centers relied on korete to perform economic transactions at the local

13 level. The general function of the korete was to organize local economic activity for the palatial centers, and it is likely that they were appointed by the palatial elite (Nakassis 2006:75). The qa-si-re-u (basileus) was a local chieftain who operated at the village level within Mycenaean territories (Nakassis 2006, Palaima 2006). Linear B tablets mention qa-si-re-u in specific circumstances, such as bronze allocations (Palaima 2006:68), but overall these individuals are mostly absent from administrative records. Palaima suggests the relative absence of the qa-si-re-u from Linear B records indicates that the position was not within the chain of administrative control that was assigned by the central elite, such as the da-mo-ko-ro, ko-re-te-re, and po-ro-ko-re-te. Nakassis (2006:82) supports Palaima, noting that the qa-si-re-u was always indicated by a personal name in the Linear B tablets. The position of qa-si-re-u was likely a ―regionalΝchief‖Νnot appointed by the palace. The functions of the qa-si-re-u were associated primarily with craft production. Several scholars (Killen 1987:64-65, Nakassis 2006:86, Palaima 2001:155) suggest they acted as supervisors of work groups that were located in local communities. A clear administrative hierarchy is evident from the Linear B tablets. Various administrators acted to oversee particular industries or to manage economic activities. Some political actors, such as the korete and prokorete, held decentralized offices but were likely appointed and acted as representatives of the palace within district capitols. The settlements where these administrators worked are defined here as SOCs because of their socio-political and economic positions within regional settlement hierarchies.

2.3.4. Mycenaean Settlement Hierarchies

Linear B tablets from Pylos provide clear evidence for an administrative hierarchy with district capitals (Bennet 1995, 1999a, 1999b, 2008 [1998], Chadwick 1961) that here are referred to as SOCs. Sites of a second-order rank appear in standard lists that record contributions and allocations (Bennet 2008 [1998]). Other toponyms that appear in the Linear B tablets likely represent smaller sites at a tertiary level within the region. Many settlements of a smaller size have also been identified through archaeological survey (Cosmopoulos 2006). The archaeological delineation of levels of settlement sizes within Messenia, and to an extent in the Argolid, matches well with textual evidence from Linear B records.

14

Archaeological surveys within Mycenaean territories, especially in Messenia- the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition (UMME), PRAP, and the Iklaina Archaeological Project (IKAP)- have contributed to a more detailed and precise study of Mycenaean settlement patterns. The size of Pylos, the primary center of Messenia, was at least 20 hectares during the LH III period. Mycenae, the primary center of the Argive Plain and surrounding area, was somewhat larger at about 30 hectares (Bennet 2008 [1998]). These centers are much larger than other settlements within their regions, and their size partially reflects the power they were able to exert. The Pylian territory has a four-tier settlement hierarchy consisting of: (1) the Palace at Ano Englianos, (2) second-order centers such as Iklaina, (3) smaller villages that engaged in agriculture and some industrial activities, and (4) farmsteads or rural installations (Cosmopoulos 2006). Proposed SOCs in Messenia mostly range in size from about 2-5 hectares, such as Beylerbey and Ordines (Cosmopoulos 2006). Iklaina stands out as a large SOC in Messenia with a settlement size of about 12 hectares during the LH III period. Several settlements in and around the Argolid have material remains that suggest a similar socio-political system to that in Messenia. At Zygouries there is a possible storage building (Blegen 1928) filled with pottery that may have been used in manufacturing and storing perfumed oil (Thomas 1988, 1992). There is evidence at Tsoungiza for ritual feasting, represented as concentrations of animal bones and broken ceramics. Dabney et al. (2004) suggest the remains at Tsoungiza represent a local feast hosted by Mycenae to maintain affiliation between the rural population and the primary center. Local feasts and the collection of goods are both activities recorded in Linear B tablets at Pylos. Mortuary evidence also reflects settlement positions within a hierarchy. Tholos tombs at certain sites in the Argolid, such as Prosymna, Berbati, and Midea-Dendra, are symbolic of the heightened position of these settlements. A megaron at Midea (Walberg 2007) is also evidence for the administrative settlement hierarchy. The presence of a megaron is often viewed as evidence that a site is a primary center, but certain secondary centers- Midea, Tiryns, Nichoria, Mouriatada- have a megaron. Whether megara at second-order centers functioned in a different capacity than those at primary centers is a question that will be treated in the discussion section. Bintliff (1977) and Kilian (1988) each offer models of settlement patterns in the Argolid. Both are central-place models and assume that the economy of the Argolid during the LH period was primarily redistributive. While later studies have shown that Mycenaean state economies

15 were not based on the redistribution of agricultural goods, this assumption by Bintliff and Kilian does not greatly affect their suggested settlement hierarchal patterns. Both models are based on architecture, Linear B tablets, and tombs. Bintliff also considered natural resources, especially foodΝresourcesέΝTheΝmainΝdepartureΝbetweenΝBintliff‘sΝandΝKilian‘sΝmodelsΝisΝthatΝKilianΝ suggests that the Argolid was split into five small polities with the five centers of Mycenae, Argos, Midea, Tiryns, and Nauplion. As Sjöberg (2ίί4μ1γ)Νargues,ΝKilian‘sΝArgiveΝsettlementΝ hierarchy seems more like a decentralized system than the highly centralized region he implies. Bintliff recognizes four settlement tiers in the Argolid. He classifies Mycenae as a supercenter, and defines this tier as having palatial mansions, tholos tombs, chamber tombs, and Linear B archives. The next tier, called major centers, includes sites with one or two tholos tombs, numerous chamber tombs, and large-scale architecture for higher-ranked officials. Major centers were separated by a distance of one hour and were subordinate to the regional supercenter at Mycenae. Bintliff suggests that Prosymna, Argos, Berbati, Dendra-Midea, Tiryns, and Asine are all major centers. Third tier settlements have a fair number of chamber tombs and were small-scale villages, while fourth tier settlements have few or no chamber tombs and were farms or small hamlets. Although several settlements in the Argolid have similar archaeological remains – monumental architecture, storage facilities, workshops, and tholos and chamber tombs – these sites can be separated out on the basis of scale and by analyzing them diachronically. There are clearly shifts in the regional settlement hierarchy of the Argolid over time. Instead of viewing Argos, Berbati, Dendra-Midea, Prosymna, Nauplion, and even Tiryns at the same level as Mycenae, here they are categorized as potential Second Order Centers. This study extends the model of Bintliff (1977) by more closely analyzing SOCs and looking at the links between these settlements diachronically.

2.4. Mycenaean Political Economies 2.4.1. Wealth Finance

Staple and wealth finance are economic strategies used by states to mobilize material supportΝ(ϊ‘AltroyΝandΝEarleΝ1λκ5μ1κκ)έΝTheseΝtwoΝstrategiesΝexistΝatΝoppositeΝendsΝofΝaΝ continuum in which states may rely on the mobilization of staples and wealth items, but usually they focus more on one than the other (Brumfiel and Earle 1987, Earle 1978). Staple finance is

16 based on the intensification of a subsistence economy, where the state can require payments of common goods, often foodstuffs. Once collected these goods are often redistributed in order to support dependent labor, ritual and communal activities, and military exploits (Johnson and Earle 2000). On the other end of the continuum is wealth finance, which is based on the control of high-status goodsΝ(ϊ‘Altroy and Earle 1985). The state procures high-status raw materials and goods through long-distance trade. Technological innovations in craft production allow a greater control of productive capabilities by primary centers (Blanton et al. 1996). Whereas staple finance is based on the redistribution of subsistence items to fund certain actions by the populace, wealth finance relies on unequal social relationships and prestige goods to create and maintain elite identities. Under a wealth finance system, legitimization of power and prestige can be achieved through the strategy of gift-exchange (Gregory 1982, Mauss 1954, Voutsaki 1997). Gift-exchangeΝisΝbasedΝonΝreciprocalΝexchangesΝwithinΝ―distinctive and ranked spheres of exchange‖Ν(BohannanΝ1λ55, Voutsaki 1997:36). The transfer of goods between spheres is restricted to special circumstances, making gift-exchange an inherently exclusive practice (Voutsaki 1997). The flow of goods from one sphere to another is governed by restrictions, which creates an exclusionary relationship between those that exchange top-sphere goods and those that do not. Mauss (1966) argues that gift exchange is more than just trade; it is a strategy that enables the creation of power and prestige. Gifts are inalienable in that they are loaned rather than sold, therefore gift exchange is a system of cyclical reciprocity where debts must be repaid (Malinowski 1922, Mauss 1925). Gregory (1982) suggests that the gift economy in essence is a debt economy where prestige may be gained by acquiring debtors. A relationship of domination develops because the receiver is indebted to the giver. In other words, value in this type of system comes from the history of the object, in other words value is accumulated through the circulation of the item (Malinowski 1922). According to Voutsaki (1997:36), value in a gift- exchangeΝsystemΝisΝcreatedΝ―byΝandΝinΝtheΝprocessΝof‖Νexchange,ΝratherΝthanΝatΝtheΝmomentΝofΝ production. Power relationships emerge from gift-exchange systems because the owners of goods are obliged to reciprocate (Gregory 1982). Gift-exchange can also set up dependent relationships where lower ranking elite rely on higher ranking elite to perform transactions with them so that

17 they may accrue prestige. The use of items to legitimize hierarchical relationships reifies the elite status of the goods as well as the high status of the transactors. Grandiose displays, such as feasting, also validate systems of prestige. For those that have the means to control them, prestige goods provide an opportunity for the construction of social roles and identities. They are a medium for constructing and maintaining hierarchy within the social organization. The political importance of wealth comes from its role as an essential way in which to validate social status (Brumfiel and Earle 1987). The basis of Mycenaean wealth-finance was the production and distribution of prestige goods that could be used to affirm and negotiate social status (Halstead 1999). Galaty and Parkinson (2007) suggest that Mycenaean state economies were focused on the production of prestige items, but that the distribution of these also must have been regulated. Most wealth items likely circulated within upper elite spheres while some ―trickledΝdown‖ΝtoΝsecondaryΝelite. Mycenaean state economies were wealth-financed and based on gift-exchange (Galaty and Parkinson 2007). Linear B texts provide evidence of the palatial elite gifting high-status goods to lower ranking administrators (Nakassis 2006), some of whom were located at SOCs, in order to legitimize and maintain hierarchical relationships. Elites at SOCs accrued prestige through interactions such as receiving gifts and attending and hosting feasts. Staples were used in the Mycenaean economy to provide rations to craft workers and in feasting, but the main focus of the palatial system was on the creation and maintenance of prestige (Halstead 1992, 1999, Parkinson 1999, Nakassis 2010). Staple and wealth finance require different organizational tools, such as the ability to store large quantities of foodstuffs for staple finance, or the control of trade networks and craft specialists for wealth finance. We can recognize attributes such as these in the archaeological record. In Mycenaean societies,ΝtheΝroleΝofΝtheΝpalaceΝwasΝasΝtheΝ―primary producerΝofΝluxuryΝgoodsΝforΝretainingΝalliancesΝwithΝelitesΝatΝsecondaryΝandΝtertiaryΝcenters‖Ν (Parkinson 1999:85).

2.4.2. Prestige Finance

Nakassis (2010) describes the Pylian state as havingΝaΝ―prestigeΝeconomyέ‖ΝThisΝ classification accounts for the use of staples in feasting as well as status-related goods in gift- exchange to form symbolic capital. The palatial elite were able to justify their social rank through feasting and as providers of prestige goods and exotica. In creating symbolic capital, the

18 palatial elite could form dependent relationships between themselves and secondary elite, who relied on their connections to the palace for prestige. It was in the best interest of secondary elite to participate in the prestige economy in order to accrue and to maintain their elite status. Prestige goods in Mycenaean society were central to legitimating ideologies. In most societiesΝthereΝexistsΝ―inside‖ΝandΝ―outside‖ΝrealmsΝofΝactivityνΝbyΝcontrollingΝoutsideΝforcesΝ individuals can gain power (Helms 1993). The inside realm consist of human relationships with each other, while the outside realm is made up of cosmological constructions and the natural world. Long-distance trade and the production of special goods are methods by which individuals may manipulate the outside realm. Elite goods represent the ability to regulate the outside realm because they are either imported as finished goods from abroad or are imported as raw materials and produced at the palatial complexes. Crafting and long-distance trade are both mechanisms for creating values that legitimize elites (Helms 1993). Helms (1993:221) argues thatΝ―acquisitionalΝpolities‖ΝareΝableΝtoΝemphasizeΝtheirΝlegitimacyΝbyΝobtainingΝgoods from powerful outsiders. The Mycenaeans exchanged with the Near East and Egypt, their powerful Mediterranean neighbors, and this heightened their power. This idea is comparable to anthropological theories on gift exchange where Mycenaean palatial elites gained power by participating in gift exchange with established hierarchical societies. Conspicuous consumption is cited as an important line of evidence when discussing the legitimization of social structures (Voutsaki 1997). Conspicuous consumption includes the purposeful and formalized deposition of objects as votive offerings or grave goods or in their destructionέΝByΝdestroyingΝgoods,Ν―economicΝvalueΝisΝtransformedΝintoΝsocial value, wealth into prestige (Voutsaki 1997:37).‖ In conspicuous consumption, social differences are created while economic differences are leveled. Conspicuous consumption is a way of accumulating symbolic wealth and social power. Feasting is a method of conspicuous consumption in which staple items, such as agricultural products, are collected and distributed. Feasting promotes social cohesion under a palatial authority, and allowed Mycenaean states to use staple surpluses by converting them to symbolic prestige through the act of feasting (Nakassis 2010). Archaeological and textual evidence indicate that feasting took place at primary and secondary centers within the Argolid (Dabney et al. 2004) and Messenia (Nakassis 2010). Feasting was intricately tied to Mycenaean identity (Davis and Bennet 1999, Wright 2004a) and it served as a way in which to reinforce hierarchical relationships and social cohesion because it included a fairly broad

19 segment of society (Galaty and Parkinson 2007). Mycenaean states as prestige-based systems were based on the control of production and distribution of wealth good and the mobilization of staples for feasting. While not redistributive, Mycenaean state economies did rely to some extent on the collection and reallocation of staples to support workers in service to the palace and for feasting.

2.3.4. “Two Sector” Model

The traditional view of Mycenaean states was of an all-powerful, centralized, hierarchically structured institution and was due, in part, to comparisons with Near Eastern states (Nakassis 2006:9). More recent models (Halstead 1992) emphasize the de-centralized nature of political control over economic activities (Galaty and Parkinson 2007, Nakassis 2006). These modelsΝdistinguishΝaΝ―palatial‖ΝandΝ―non-palatial‖ΝsectorΝofΝεycenaeanΝstate economies. Nakassis (2006)ΝtermsΝthisΝtheΝ―Two-Sector‖ΝεodelέΝThere can exist multiple value systems within one society and there may be alternation between them (Gregory 1997). The palaces likely did not control every aspect of life, but instead selectively managed certain industries within the economy. Halstead (1992) argues that the Mycenaean textual and archaeological evidence do not match when it comes to agricultural and craft production. His argument is that palatial centers did not control all agricultural production because there is archaobotanical evidence for crops that were not recorded in Linear B tablets. He concludes that Mycenaean palaces did not exercise complete control over all economic activities. Nakassis (2006) critiques the diametric opposition of the ―palatial‖ andΝ―non-palatial‖ΝsectorsΝofΝtheΝεycenaeanΝeconomy,Ν contending that they do not represent actual Mycenaean categories and do not adequately explain Linear B records. It is instead more useful to frame discussions of Mycenaean economies in terms of centralization and decentralization. In the Mycenaean system, palatial and local economies were likely somewhat autonomous, however, more research needs to be directed towards the extent of palatial control over various aspects of the economy. Mycenaean primary centers exerted enough pressure on regions to assert their dominance over other sites and demote or sponsor settlements. The main source of palatial control was in the creation and exchange of symbolic capital through activities such as feasting and gift exchange. Local elites at SOCs participated in feasting and gift- exchange to some extent in order to reinforce their ties to elites at a primary center and to attain

20 prestige. Political actors at SOCs managed tax collection for items such as flax, bronze, and wool. The palatial administration also had control over particular foodstuffs, such as wine, olive oil, and some specific types of wheat (Halstead 1992). Thomas (1995)ΝarguesΝforΝ―lessΝextensive‖ΝcontrolΝbyΝprimaryΝcenters, and that palatial administrations were focused on a few aspects of the overall social and economic systems. She cites evidence from tablets, material remains, and settlement patterns to demonstrate the interplay between a centralized administration and local power. The palatial administration of Mycenaean states oversaw landholdings, personnel, taxation, and some industrial production (Shelmerdine 1999). It is debated to what extent agricultural and industrial production was centralized. Galaty and Parkinson (2007) assert that one problem with the idea of ―centralization‖ΝinΝεycenaeanΝstatesΝisΝthatΝtheΝterm is poorly defined—it is unclear what was centralized and how centralization was accomplished. Archaeological and textual evidence support the notion that not all economic activities, or even all aspects of one economic activity, were located centrally at primary centers (Galaty and Parkinson 2007, Small 1999). The decentralization of a particular agricultural or industrial activity does not confirm that it wasΝ―non-palatial‖Ν(ζakassisΝβίί6)έΝThereΝareΝmanyΝinstancesΝin the Linear B tablets where the palace was directly interested in productive activities taking place in locations removed from the center; these economic activities were decentralized, but still under palatial control in the form of management and often the provision of raw materials. A combination of interpretations of Linear B records and archaeological evidence allows assessments of which industries were centralized versus decentralized. Several industries in Messenia represent differing levels of centralization. These include the production of perfumed oil that was highly centralized (Shelmerdine 1999); bronze-working that was decentralized but controlled (Gillis 1997, Killen 2001); textile manufacture in which some activities were centralized and others were decentralized (Killen 1984); and the production of chariots which appears to have been partially decentralized with final assembly taking place within the palatial center (Schon 2007). However, complete control over all aspects of centralized industries would have been difficult, or impossible. Even industries that took place within primary centers were reliant upon exchanges that were not fully controlled (Galaty and Parkinson 2007). Other economic activities were likely outside the oversight of Mycenaean primary centers, such as pottery production (Galaty 1999) and stone tool production (Parkinson 1999). Nakassis (2006:13) argues against

21 two assumptions of Parkinson and Galaty,ΝthatΝ―(1)ΝtheΝabsenceΝofΝtextualΝevidenceΝforΝpalatialΝ control of a particular domain constitutes evidence for its absence and (2) the spatial decentralization of an economic activity is a signΝofΝweakΝpalatialΝcontrolέ‖ΝDecentralized production does not rule out centralized direction or authority. It is unclear to what extent administrators at Mycenaean primary centers also controlled the distribution and consumption of particular goods. Linear B tablets do not record the distribution of most prestige items (the giving of textiles is recorded in some tablets). Based on wealth-financed systems in which gift-exchange is a form of social exchange, it is likely that prestige goods remained in elite spheres of exchange (Galaty and Parkinson 2007). By looking at burials in the Argolid, Voutsaki (1998) determined that the deposition of prestige goods in graves became more restricted and by the LH IIIB period were found almost exclusively in elite tholos burials. She argues that this pattern was a result of gift-exchange among Mycenaean elites. It is unclear if the same pattern is evident in Messenia. Regional variation exists between Mycenaean states in the way in which industries were administered (Parkinson and Galaty 2007). More specialized stages of craft production tended to be concentrated at palatial centers (Shelmerdine 1999). At Mycenae there is evidence for industrial activities involving glass paste and the application of ivory detailing to furniture. At Pylos, archaeological evidence points to the manufacture of perfumed oil (Shelmerdine 1999) and the assembly of chariots. Chariot parts were likely produced within the Pylian territory and channeled to the center for final assembly. A similar scenario is a reasonable reconstruction for the production of furniture at Mycenae. Some craft industries took place entirely at locations separate from the center, such as the production of textiles in the Pylian state. The Pylos tablets refer to weaver women located at several settlements within the territory (Bennet 2008 [1998]). It is likely wool was disbursed to workers, which was the case in Mycenaean Thebes (Shelmerdine 1999). ItΝisΝmoreΝaccurateΝtoΝcharacterizeΝstatesΝasΝ―organizationsΝoperatingΝwithinΝaΝsocialΝ environmentΝthat,ΝforΝaΝvarietyΝofΝreasons,ΝtheyΝonlyΝpartiallyΝcontrol‖ (Galaty and Parkinson 1999:6). Palatial administrations did not have direct control of all economic industries, and directly supervised only those economic activities related to prestige goods (Shelmerdine 2006:84). Some industries were decentralized, but directed by palatial administrators who supplied raw materials. Mycenaean states did not directly manage agricultural production and

22 distribution other than foodstuffs exchanged in return for services and those staples mobilized for feasting (Halstead 1999, Killen 2008 [1998], Palmer 2002, Nakassis 2010). Palatial centers derived power from collecting resources, imposing taxes, and directing the production and distribution of prestige items (Shelmerdine 2006).

2.5. Summary

This chapter included discussion of the sociopolitical and economic organization of Mycenaean states. It serves as a theoretical background to the primary study regions that were used to develop the archaeological definition of SOCs and the Composite Model of Regional Integration. Mycenaean states were similar to each other in terms of sociopolitical organization, but the definition and model are applicable to states with different political and economic organization. ζakassisΝ(βίί6μ6)ΝdefinesΝtheΝstateΝasΝaΝ―complex,ΝcentralizedΝinstitution with administrative and social hierarchies that regulates access to resources and possesses a monopoly of legitimate forceΝwithinΝaΝgivenΝterritoryέ‖ Within states, leaders employ various political and economic strategies, creating variability within and between states. Approaches to establish and legitimate authority include physical force, gift-exchange, and ideological control (Parkinson and Galaty 2007:6). Political actors achieve legitimization through the manipulation of symbolism, particular items, and social exchange relationships. In such relationships, the exchange of certain goods,ΝsuchΝasΝprestigeΝgoods,Ν―forms social obligations, status, and power, but it also legitimates asΝitΝformsΝ(AdamsΝβίί1μγ5ί)έ‖ Mycenaean states were based on network strategies that emphasized the prestige and power of individuals. Their economies were wealth-financed and focused mainly on the production of prestige items and on feasting as methods to integrate wider regions while reinforcing social hierarchies. Archaeological and textual evidence suggests that these economies included centralized and decentralized industries, as well as some economic activities that fell outside palatial concern. SOCs filled particular niches within Mycenaean states as administrative sites that served as collection points for taxed goods, nodes of trade, areas for craft production, and locations for communal feasting.

23

CHAPTER 3

THE COMPOSITE MODEL OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION

3.1. Introduction

This chapter builds on our understanding of SOCs and how they interacted in regional networks by proposing a dynamic formulation, the Composite Model of Regional Integration for state level societies. Previous models of regional integration have been proposed, but these often present a top-down view of the process and focus on the actions of a primary center. In this study, I give attention to SOCs and focus on how those sites are fundamental to successful regional integration. Each component of the Composite Model addresses how processes of institutionalizing differentiation occur and the motivation behind them from the perspective of the primary center and SOC elites. The components of this model are: (1) the presence of multiple, comparable, sociopolitical entities, (2) the symbolic representation of central elites in material remains, (3) the establishment of SOCs and the development of new statuses, and (4) the role of SOCs in sociopolitical organization and regional integration. The Composite Model identifies sociopolitical and economic structures at SOCs that are local responses to primary center influence (Glatz 2009:129). Multiple sociopolitical units consist of factions at SOCs that compete and/or are coerced into participating in a larger regional system headed by a primary center. The symbolic representation of the primary center elites at SOCs is seen in architectural style and construction methods, elite goods, and raw materials procured through long-distance exchange. When found at SOCs, these are archaeological evidence indicative of interaction between a primary center and an SOC. The development of SOCs is an important step in regional integration because primary center elites relied on their administrators to maintain regional integration. The model includes two ways in which regional integration can occur – through competition and imposition – that are not mutually exclusive. Each can be used by the same primary center in different areas of a region or during different time periods. The Composite

24

Model is developed using data from two Mycenaean regions, but it is applicable to other state level societies with various forms of sociopolitical organization.

3.2. Socio-Political Organization and Regional Integration

Sociopolitical integration is a fluid process that is constantly subject to modification. Feinman (1998) suggests that different strategies of domination result in various forms of integration. Some of these are more stable than others. The Composite Model is based on the idea that regional systems are fluid and dynamic, and that two strategies, one based on imposition and one on competition, can be utilized by a primary center to facilitate regional integration. In addition, the Composite Model suggests that the form of sociopolitical organization does not necessarily imply the use of a certain strategy of integration. The same strategies are utilized in various types of societies, and different strategies are at times used within one state. Feinman cites two general trends that distinguish territorial from hegemonic states. The territorial strategy is understood from the perspective of the primary center and resultsΝinΝ―moreΝintensiveΝoccupationΝandΝdirectΝgovernmentalΝcontrolΝofΝtheΝperiphery,‖ΝwhileΝ the hegemonic strategy encompasses greater autonomy for outlying areas where peripheral elites are co-optedΝthroughΝvariousΝmeansΝsuchΝasΝ―exchangeΝandΝintermarriage,ΝmilitaryΝthreat,ΝfrontierΝ garrisons,ΝorΝoccasionalΝcampaigns‖Ν(όeinmanΝ1λλκμ1ίλ)έΝKinshipΝandΝfictiveΝkinshipΝareΝ methods of horizontal alliance building between elites, and these networks are supplemented by economic, ideological, political and military mechanisms of integration. RegionalΝintegrationΝisΝoftenΝnotΝaΝdirectΝprocessΝbutΝinsteadΝconsistsΝofΝ―re- establishment, re-negotiation, and re-definitionΝofΝdominanceΝrelationships‖Ν(ύlatzΝβίίλμ1βκ)έΝ The temporal component of integration is therefore important to consider when investigating the ways in which a primary center asserts dominance over an area, as relationships of sociopolitical actors in a region can shift due to resistance and negotiation. There is temporal and spatial variation in integration strategies, and the Composite Model is a dynamic model because it incorporates both temporal and spatial factors. A diachronic perspective is necessary to understand the processes necessary for the establishment of different strategies of integration and their subsequent maintenance and transformations. Spatial dimensions are also critical for a complete understanding of how strategies of integration varied according to geographic distance from a primary center. For example, Aztecs

25 employed different strategies of integration that were dependent on distance from a primary center (Feinman 1998). Feinman further asserts that archaic states, in general, exhibited variation in strategies of integration depending on location within a region. Wright (2004) argues for three models concerning the degree of integration within single regions based in-part on geographic distance. His Central Place Model can be applied mostly to sites immediately around a primary center where there is continuous occupation. In addition, the overall number of sites increases along with the growth of the center itself. Wright‘s Dependency Model refers to sites that would have had shifting importance according to changing alliances with the elite at a primary center. Therefore, the status of a SOC would be dependent upon the primary center. His Periphery Model refers to a step-wise increase in site numbers as a primary center expands its territory into peripheral areas. These studies suggest that distance from a primary center can be a factor in how integration occurs. Although states are diverse in terms of size and degree of integration, there are universal strategies of integration that were utilized. In order to recognize integration in the archaeological record, one must identify patterns of material remains associated with incorporation. These involve architectural features (such as temples, palaces, monuments, and public works) and objects that represent a common identity (Yoffee 2007). Because symbols of integration are valuable for establishing legitimacy, they are often co-opted and disembedded from low status groups. Strategies for integration are created and redefined, and the mechanisms by which these strategies function also fluctuate spatially and temporally (Baines and Yoffee 1998, 2000, Yoffee 2007). The three main dimensions of power are: the ability to control distribution of subsistence and prestige, the development and maintenance of the symbols of social integration, and the ability to impose compliance by force (Yoffee 2007). Each of these is utilized by primary center elites in order to attain and preserve control over larger regions. Through economic, social, and political control, regional integration occurs.

26

3.3. Models Addressing Regional Integration 3.3.1. Models Citing Conflict and Coercion ―όorce,ΝandΝnotΝenlightenedΝself-interest, is the mechanism by which political evolution has led, step by step, from autonomous villagesΝtoΝtheΝstateέ‖Ν(Carneiro 1970:734)

Conflict is frequently cited as a primary way by which a state expands its territory (Service 1962, Fried 1960, Carneiro 1970, 1978, 1981; Ferguson 1984; Johnson and Earle 1987). Integration through conflict is the result of a primary center seeking to expand its territory and utilizing force to do so. Carneiro‘sΝ(1λιίμιγγ)ΝdefinitionΝofΝtheΝstateΝasΝ―anΝautonomousΝpoliticalΝ unit...having a centralized government with the power to collect taxes, draft men for work or war,ΝandΝdecreeΝandΝenforceΝlaws‖ΝreflectsΝhisΝopinionΝonΝtheΝroleΝofΝcoercionΝinΝstateΝformation. He views warfare as the primary means by which polities become states. The process is principally one of aggregation under a single leader or settlement as a result of successful war campaigns. Force, conflict, and environmental circumscription are all cited by Carneiro (1970, 1978, 1981) as mechanisms of state formation and regional integration. Though he does not explicitly discuss SOCs, he does address the need for administrators both within, and outside, primary centers. These administrators are in charge of maintaining laws, collecting taxes, and mobilizing labor – tasks that facilitate and maintain regional integration. Environmental circumscription is a factor that stimulates warfare as a response to population growth and resource limitation (Carneiro 1970). Concurrent events create a situation in which subordination and social stratification develop. Webster (1975) argues that a problem withΝωarneiro‘sΝtheoryΝofΝcircumscriptionΝisΝthatΝitΝdoesΝnotΝadequatelyΝaddressΝtheΝfactΝthatΝ many primary states developed in areas where there was not circumscribed land. He states that sociopolitical integration occurs more often through political and economic subordination that becomes institutionalized. Rank is another social institution that Carneiro (1981) argues has its origins in warfare. The state is seen as an entity that has a monopoly on the use of force that entails the power to draft, to tax, and to enforce law. Those who argue that warfare is the mechanism of political evolution fail to account for the various sociopolitical coercive means that do not require direct military force, such as the manipulation of social status through access to objects that symbolize elite status.

27

The Composite Model addresses conflict and the use of force as components of both the competition and imposition strategies. Competitive exclusion is a part of the competition strategy, with social augmentation linked to successful competition. The imposition strategy follows some of the more traditional aspects of other models citing conflict as the primary motivator for regional expansion and integration. These aspects include the use of military force and political manipulation through elite control over subsistence and luxury goods. Warfare is not the sole cause of the development of the state, but warfare did have an effect in terms of regional expansion and integration (Trigger 1985, Webster 1975). Conflict is a limited and partially ineffective method for sociopolitical control. Trigger (1985) argues that the ability for early states to utilize force was limited and so it was only used when other methods of regulation were not effective. Political authorities made other strategies of integration possible, such as control over trade, craft specialization, and symbols of prestige. These methods (in addition to managerial control of, or influence over, agricultural ventures and some use of military force or threat) strengthened leadership hierarchies and the status of administrative classes at primary centers and SOCs. Primary centers were able to exert control over their territories using traditional forms of force, such as military threat, as well as more socially embedded modes of force. Central elites were able to co-opt integration throughout the system by providing the means to elite status- access to trade networks, raw materials, prestige goods, certain grave or architectural forms, and official titles. SOC emergent elites in part were coerced into taking part in the sociopolitical system in order to attain and then maintain their statuses. Primary centers exploited the ambitions of emergent SOC elites and coerced them into participating in the state. Second Order Center administrators then acted at least in part as representatives of the state/primary center, further contributing to regional integration by maintaining administrative control over particular areas. SOC elites also competed with emergent elites at other SOCs in order to protect their positions within the larger sociopolitical system. Strategies of force were utilized both early in the process of regional integration, during state emergence and early growth, and as a way to maintain integration. This is why a diachronic perspective is necessary to fully understand the process of regional integration. Primary center elite control over trade, technology, agricultural and/or craft production, labor and redistribution was important to consolidate sociopolitical hierarchies (Webster 1993).

28

Though conflict is not always the primary means for regional integration, the significance of warfareΝinΝintegrationΝprocessesΝshouldΝbeΝconsideredΝfurtherέΝWhileΝ―theΝuseΝofΝmilitaryΝforceΝ can be of crucial importance in stabilizing interregional exchange relations to the benefit of cores‖Ν(SchortmanΝandΝUrbanΝ1λλβμβ4κ), it is still important to explore other mechanisms for integration and to see how conflict with, and cooperation by, SOCs can be utilized in the same regions. The Composite Model does not assume that coercion and conflict were the primary basis for regional integration, but only that they were potential components of strategies used to achieve integration.

3.3.2. Models Citing Voluntaristic Support ―ϊespiteΝtheΝpresenceΝofΝcoercive mechanisms and the role...that they played in maintaining order in the early civilizations, the operation of every state depended upon the ability of its rulers to elicit a vast amount of voluntaristicΝsupportέ‖ (Trigger 1985:54)

Voluntary cooperation is a second potential avenue to regional integration, and it often resultsΝinΝtheΝgreatestΝeffectivenessΝofΝtheΝstateέΝωlaessenΝ(1λκ4μγ66)ΝarguesΝthatΝ―the efficacy of a central government depended to a considerable extent on the loyalty and cooperation of the local and regional leaders. It was they who really reached the people; the reach of the center was only indirect‖έΝVoluntaristicΝsupportΝincludesΝtheΝintentionalΝparticipationΝinΝaΝregionalΝsystem,Ν therefore perpetuating regional integration through economic, sociopolitical, and religious supportέΝηrdinaryΝpersonsΝandΝemergentΝelitesΝsupportΝtheΝstateΝbecauseΝitΝisΝaΝ―potential source of material rewards and social preferment (Trigger 1985:54).‖ Economic and sociopolitical persuasion is considered as both a coercive and a voluntaristic method of control because primary center elites use symbolic and tangible force, while SOC elites voluntarily participate in order to gain and maintain status. In addition, kinship ties and marriage alliances act as ways to hold together political networks and help achieve regional integration. Practical reasons to participate in a regional system headed by a primary center include a dependence on agricultural products and staple items – the exchange and production of which were organized by the state (Trigger 1985). Emergent SOC elites also voluntarily supported the state because they were given decision-making and regulatory powers that afforded them a higher status; primary centers often interfered in their activities to only a limited extent. SOC

29 elites were dependent upon the central authority in order to maintain their positions within the hierarchy, but primary center elites were also dependent upon the cooperation of administrators at SOCs and ordinary persons within the region to maintain the larger system. SOC elites sought to preserve their rank by performing activities directed to them by primary center elites because ―έέέtheΝexistenceΝofΝtheΝstateΝpromotedΝtheΝinternalΝrestructuringΝofΝtheseΝgroupsΝbyΝsupportingΝtheΝ development within them of hierarchical authority structures that could not exist without its ultimate support (Trigger 1985:54).‖ Claessen (1981, 1984, 1985) proposes the Complex Interaction Model that views interaction among social organization, economic factors, and ideological factors as the primary mover in sociopolitical reorganization and qualitative change. A logical solution for the difficulties of regional integration of the population in an emergent state is to delegate power to administrative functionaries at SOCs. Primary center elites used a variety of strategies for integrating SOCs, such as appointing existing local elites as administrative officials. Co-opting existing local elites into the larger regional system fostered voluntary participation. Primary centers often held differing degrees of control over administrators, and at times the central government had difficulty controlling local elites. These situations would have called for more conflict-driven strategies. The position of SOC elites and administrators mirrored those at primary centers, just as SOCs were reflections of primary centers but on a smaller scale. For Claessen (1984), the main factors that result in different types of mature states are the forms of legitimation, degrees of administrative organization, and the focus on economic versus ideological control. Many early states were loosely structured and did not have tight control over their entire territories, especially the peripheral areas. Economic control legitimizes the elites and spans from redistribution (in the form of public works and communal feasting) to gift-exchange and the manipulation of prestige. Control of trade networks is an integral component of economic power and regional integration because primary centers are able to monopolize raw materials and foreign items that are in demand. Objects acquired from long-distance exchange networks confer the opportunity for political control because they are viewed as valuable items. Primary center elites who control long-distance exchange networks are able to attract followers, make alliances, and maintain vertical alliances with SOC elites (Brumfiel 1994). Control of trade is one aspect that makes coalition building possible.

30

3.4. The Composite Model of Regional Integration

The Composite Model of Regional Integration incorporates aspects of conflict and voluntaristic support. It is developed from data for Mycenaean SOCs. These settlements were chosen as the basis for generating the model because there is textual information that can be used in conjunction with archaeological data. Linear B tablets offer a unique perspective into the inner economic workings of the Mycenaean polities and give insight into how SOCs functioned in their regions and in relation to a primary center. This makes it possible to develop a model of regional integration using economic aspects, craft production and trade, and a well-represented category of archaeological remains, namely architecture. Because we generally understand the parts of the economy that primary centers were concerned with, it is possible to use the archaeological record to determine how SOCs functioned within and outside those networks. The two strategies of the Composite Model are based in part on observable variation in the pattern of economic independence of SOCs. The second factor in understanding these strategies comes from the disparity between continuity in architectural phases and the use of special structures at some SOCs in conjunction with evidence for breaks or discontinuities in these aspects at other SOCs. This variation in material remains from SOCs in Mycenaean states is explained by the use of either the imposition or competition strategy of the Composite Model of Regional Integration. This is a dynamic model of regional integration within emergent states and includes two strategies that are not mutually exclusive. The first approach to SOC integration is based on top- down imposition by a primary center. The second approach is based on competition between SOCs within a region undergoing expansion. The Mycenaean archaeological data illustrate how the two outcomes of this theory-based model are represented on the ground as material remains. Both strategies can be used in the same region, as seen in the Mycenaean examples, and often with temporal and spatial variation. The Composite Model addresses this geographic and temporal variation. It takes a diachronic perspective using Mycenaean excavation and survey data and also addresses the spatial factors of integration. Primary centers often have different levels of control over sites within their regions, and these differences in control lead to variation across the landscape. The Composite Model takes this issue into account and considers geographic proximity as a significant factor in the process of regional integration. The model explains variation in material

31 remains at SOCs as a result of the strategy of integration that is itself related to temporal factors and the spatial distance from a primary center. Local site histories provide some insight into the interaction between SOCs and primary centers. Some SOCs expanded as the primary center grew, while others were promoted or demoted according to alliances, and still others gained SOC status as they were incorporated into the regional system. Secondary centers, though they may have had power outside palatial control, were not separate entities from primary centers. Part of the way in which they attained status was through participation in the regional system, and without that participation these states would not have functioned in the same ways. SOCs attained and maintained their statuses due to many circumstances including geographical location, alliances between elites, and/or productive capabilities. Primary center elites rely on vertical stratification to maintain their statuses and to co-opt aspiring elites at SOCs to reinforce the hierarchical system. Vertical stratification is maintained through various symbols of legitimization, like monumental architecture,ΝandΝthroughΝ―toolsΝofΝ repression‖,ΝsuchΝasΝeconomicΝcontrolΝ(YoffeeΝβίίιμγβ-33). Status differentiation is reflected archaeologically through the unequal arrangement of elite classes of goods, symbolic and/or monumental architecture, craft production, and access to trade networks. Specific roles, elite identities, and official symbols become attached to local administrators at SOCs who act as representatives of a primary center. Ironically, one step in the process of integration is the development of status differentiation. A primary concern in this study is to explain the mechanisms by which these differentiated factions were linked and integrated within a regional system.

3.4.1. Imposition Strategy

The first strategy of SOC integration, the imposition strategy, refers to situations in which a formerly independent settlement comes under the control of a primary center through conflict or socio-economic manipulation. The establishment of these settlements as SOCs is based on the needs of a primary center to have administrative outposts. Primary centers delegate administrative duties, such as the collection of goods or foodstuffs, cult functions, the hosting of feasts, or craft production, to SOCs (Killen 1985). Stronger primary centers are able to subjugate weaker settlements that are in turn integrated into the regional system. The imposition strategy is

32 based on a top-down expression of power over a particular region, or certain areas within a region. The imposition strategy results in a higher degree of centralization and greater amount of socio-economic and political control over these SOCs. The imposition strategy is built upon earlier models that cite conflict as a primary motive for regional integration (Service 1962, Fried 1960, Carneiro 1970, 1978, 1981; Ferguson 1984; Johnson and Earle 1987). Carneiro sees conflict as the root of internal political structures, with militaristic expansionism and warfare between small polities leading to socio-political circumstances in which domination occurs. Higher degrees of centralization and larger territories create the need for more complex administrative systems, including SOCs as a distinct level within a settlement hierarchy. Johnson and Earle (1987) view opportunities for economic control as a contributing factor in class formation and population control. The imposition strategy suggests that primary centers used coercion, in the form of economic control and/or the control over symbols of elite status as well as direct military force, as one way to achieve regional integration. The imposition strategy involves socio-political control of SOCs through military threat and/or economic control. Linear B tablets at Pylos provide evidence for economic coercion by means of control over items that symbolized elite status. The tablets list prestige items, such as textiles, sent to individuals at settlements within the region (Killen 1985, Nakassis 2006). Gift- giving in itself is not coercive, but it can be considered coercion when we consider that primary center elites monopolized control of prestige items and offered them to SOC elites in exchange for participation within the system. Elite goods also are found in chamber and tholos tombs at primary centers and some smaller sites. Each of these goods likely does not reflect an act of gift- giving between primary and secondary center elites, but rather local and inter-regional trade networks in which individuals at these site participated. There are, however, some items and raw materials that were under more strict control by primary centers. These commodities are uncommon outside of primary centers, and are sometimes listed on Linear B tablets. They include ivory, faience, lead, carnelian, and amber. Objects made of several of these materials (ivory, carnelian, and amber) would have only been brought into the Greek mainland through long-distance exchange networks, and are more suitable evidence than locally-found staple items to document primary-secondary center exchange. Linear B tablets from Pylos record the distribution of small bronze quantities in some detail, but research by Aprile (2010) and Sjöberg

33

(2004) demonstrates that metal objects, in general, are more widespread at Nichoria and Asine than would be expected if primary centers had strict control over all metals. This situation points to the conclusion that local trade networks also played a significant role in the economics of second order centers. It also informs us that the presence of metal items alone at SOCs is not evidence for direct trade with a primary center. It is difficult to determine the exact mechanism by which foreign items arrive at SOCs, and the presence of goods exchanged through long- distance trade is not necessarily evidence for the participation in these networks by individuals at a second order center. In many cases it is more likely that foreign objects and materials initially came to the Greek mainland through long-distance trade networks controlled by primary centers and then were distributed into the regions through local exchange and gift-giving. When it is possible to recognize gift-giving through the archaeological record, this behavior provides insight into imposition through social manipulation of status. Local elites formed a social class that was in part developed and manipulated by the primary elites. Gift- giving, as a form of social exchange, cultivated relationships between primary center elites and SOC elites (Mauss 1954). Evidence for the manipulation of SOC social status by a primary center is seen in Messenia, where the disuse of tholos tombs and the partial abandonment of one settlement, Peristeria, suggests that this SOC was demoted in favor of a newly established settlement, Elliniko, with a newly built tholos tomb (Bennet 1999a:148). There is a temporal component to the imposition strategy. It is suggested here that this strategy is utilized after a primary center has attained its central position in a region. A more mature primary center, seeking to expand its territory into geographically distant or inaccessible locales, uses conflict or socio-political manipulation to incorporate settlements. SOCs integrated under this strategy are located in peripheral areas that were brought into the region in later periods. It is expected that the settlements integrated into the region as SOCs often held prominence before their incorporation and/or they occupied a strategic location. There are physical manifestations of the imposition strategy that we can expect to find in the archaeological record. The most important expectation is that there is a clearly defined break or discontinuity in a practice or use pattern before and after integration. This is often revealed in the disuse of certain architectural types, such as the tholos tomb or megaron. Conversely and more uncommonly, there is evidence at some SOCs for the construction of these specialized structures where there were none before. In this case the construction and use of a particular

34 tomb type or building represents the new social status of individuals conferred on them by a primary center. In both instances, what is important is that we see a clear cut departure from previous architectural practices at the site. In some instances, primary centers relied on direct conflict in order to subjugate a settlement and integrate it into the region. In these cases it is anticipated that the architectural remains will show evidence of destruction followed by a different pattern of structure use. For example, there may be evidence for destruction by fire across the settlement, with the following phase consisting of the reuse of many buildings and construction of others but the abandonment of specific structures. Constructions that fall into disuse have symbolic or administrative importance, such as tholos tombs or megara,ΝassociatedΝwithΝtheΝsettlement‘sΝformerΝ independence before incorporation. Other differences in the architectural patterns after destruction can include a new settlement orientation, the building of more storage units (explained below), and construction of a large building. A newly constructed large building would take the place of previous administrative buildings. Similarly, previously used tholos tombs at a site go out of use after integration, but chamber tombs can take their place as the local elite burial form. The construction of more storage units is explained below. With craft production there is an expectation of a greater degree of economic centralization. The imposition strategy entails a more intensive occupation and direct control of peripheral SOCs. A primary center seeking to expand its territory will seek out areas that will benefit it. Settlements that the primary center integrates through the imposition strategy have strategic importance as they are located in areas of agricultural or defensive value. Linear B tablets from Mycenaean regions list materials that were used in the production of value-added goods. While some craft activity occurred at the primary centers themselves, such as perfumed oil production at Pylos, not all craft specialization was centrally located (Bennet 2008 [1998]; Killen 2001, Schon 2007, Shelmerdine 1999). In the Pylos tablets, raw materials are recorded as being extracted from the districts of each SOC (Bennet 2008 [1998]). For example, flax is listed as a material taxed from each district and flax was used to make textiles (Halstead 2001). Under the imposition strategy it is expected that there is a higher degree of economic centralization and control over these SOCs. SOCs would serve the function as holding places for materials and goods being sent to the primary center. Workshops are more infrequent at these SOCs after integration because these activities would be centralized at the primary center or at SOCs

35 geographically closer or with more socio-political ties to the primary center. Archaeological correlates of the imposition strategy related to craft production include storage areas, infrequent use or disuse of workshops, and evidence for administration such as seal stones, nodules, sealings, and/or inscribed pottery. Finished objects with a foreign provenance, such as Minoan signet rings or Egyptian plaques, are infrequently found at SOCs, but settlements integrated through the imposition strategy are more likely to have these types of objects because they are evidence for socio- political manipulation of the local elite status. A general increase in the presence of foreign goods is expected because the new connections with a primary center provide access to these objects. Items obtained through local exchange networks include objects that were not regulated by primary centers, such as obsidian, chert, local ceramics, and metals to some degree. Because these goods were outside the direct concern of the primary center it is expected that there would be no significant change in their frequency at SOCs before and after regional integration.

Table 3.1 Expectations of the Imposition Strategy Category Factor How it Changes at SOC Expected Material Remains architecture - special structures - clear break in use - disuse or appearance - building phases - direct conflict, violence - destruction layer on SOC by primary center preceding incorporation craft - greater centralization/ production control by primary center - workshops - less craft production - infrequent use or disuse - storage - more storage of - more storage units raw materials devoted to these items - administration - more administration - increase in seals, assoc. with raw materials nodules, inscribed pottery trade - greater centralization/ control by primary center - local - no significant change - long-distance - increase - relatively quick increase in # of prestige items

36

3.4.2. Competition Strategy

The second strategy of the Composite Model of Regional Integration involves the competition between SOCs within an expanding region. Under this strategy, a formerly independent settlement becomes integrated into a regional system through the process of intra- regional competition between powerful sites. Local leaders at these settlements voluntarily participate in the system headed by a primary center because of socio-political and economic advantages. The competition strategy results in a lower degree of centralization and control and more autonomy at individual SOCs. It is likely that social contracts such as marriage alliances (Nakassis 2006) further cemented relationships between local SOC elites and primary center elites, although this cannot be demonstrated through available material remains. The competition strategy is based on the desire of local leaders to be aligned with a primary center in order to attain higher status and prestige. Through these alliances they are able to enhance their authority over their immediate surroundings. The competition strategy is built uponΝBrumfiel‘sΝ(1λλ4)ΝmodelΝofΝfactionalΝcompetition and the peer polity interaction model developed by Renfrew (1986). Like these models, the competition strategy involves alliance building and rivalries between elite individuals or groups, however it differs in a significant way. Local leaders at SOCs were members of sociopolitical factions, defined by Brumfiel (1994:4) as ―structurallyΝandΝfunctionallyΝsimilar groups which, by virtue of their similarity, compete for resourcesΝandΝpositionsΝofΝpowerΝorΝprestige‖έΝThisΝstrategyΝperceivesΝcompetitionΝbetweenΝ emergent SOCs as a primary means of regional integration. Competition between settlements links them and forms bonds that become the basis for a regional hierarchical system. Through this process one center becomes stronger than the others, thus emerging as the primary center. Other strong settlements become SOCs, linked to one another through exchange networks and marriage alliances that were forged during the course of competition with each settlement trying to become more powerful. Competition between settlements formed the basis for regional integration, and also led to architectural elaboration, a greater amount of local and long-distance trade, and an increase in craft production. The competition strategy has temporal and geographical aspects. SOCs integrated through this strategy are located in areas that are closer geographically to the primary center. In general, these areas would have been incorporated into the region earlier than more distant locales. It is proposed that the competition strategy is more common earlier in the process of

37 regional integration when a primary center is just emerging, or during its early stages. There is more of a diachronic perspective to this strategy because it is based on the idea of competition over time resulting in formal and informal links between settlements that eventually results in regional integration. Through the competition strategy primary center elites are able to take advantage of the ambitions of SOC elites to maintain and expand regional integration. Competition between SOCs vying for position within expanding regional socio-political systems permits some settlements to attain higher status because of social or economic circumstances, such as geographical location, alliances between elites, and productive capabilities. The physical manifestations of the competition strategy in Mycenaean regions include the early use of elite architectural forms or methods at multiple settlements. There is also little or no significant shift in the patterns of building use at SOCs before and after integration. For example, at many SOCs in the Mycenae region, new tholos tombs are not built after regional integration, but the tholos tombs already at those settlements do not go out of use. Relatively large buildings using particular construction techniques, such as ashlar masonry, are also expected before and after integration. Like the symbolic architectural types previously mentioned, there tends to be continuity in the phases of these buildings. They do not go out of use after integration. These structures functioned as seats of local elites. Finds associated with these buildings include household assemblages as well as evidence for administration (Blegen and Rawson 1966, Fitzsimons 2006, Walberg 2007, Wace 1949). It is predicted that settlements integrated through the competition strategy will not show evidence for breaks in socio-political and economic continuity. Destruction levels do occur at these sites, but they are attributed to natural disasters, such as earthquakes, and not to conflict directed from a primary center. This can be difficult to discern, but this study is focused mainly on the settlement patterns before and after destruction levels. Socio-political continuity, evidenced by rebuilding and reuse, falls in line with the competition strategy, while disuse and/or significant shifts in patterns of use fit the imposition strategy. Economically, settlements integrated through the competition strategy have more autonomy in terms of craft production and trade than those integrated through the imposition strategy. In general, however, the degree of autonomy at Mycenaean SOCs does lessen over time, with a greater degree of centralization associated with more mature states. This is not necessarily a pattern expected in all state level societies. In addition, each SOC is unique and

38 some retain more economic independence than others. The independence of workshops outside a primary center is in part determined from Linear B tablets (Bennet 2008 [1998], Killen 2001, Schon 2007, Shelmerdine 1999). Spatial decentralization of economic activities in not necessarily indicative of weak or non-existent palatial control (Nakassis 2006:13). There is evidence that Mycenaean primary centers controlled economic activities throughout their territories; however, the tablets reinforce our theoretical understanding that primary centers focused on wealth exchange and prestige good manufacture. It is unlikely that utilitarian goods and staple items composed a significant portion of the economy controlled by the primary center. When we consider theoretical models of wealth finance along with the absence of such items in written records (outside those that were used to produce value-added goods) and the spatial decentralization of those economic activities, it becomes more likely that SOCs were in a position to control some industries. We can be reasonably confident that local pottery production and the manufacture of lithics were not centrally controlled. It has been demonstrated that primary centers were also consumers of products made at SOC workshops. Examples of this include the use of stirrup jars at Mycenae that were made at Berbati (French 1991), and coarse- wares found at Pylos that were produced at multiple workshops (Galaty 1999). Mycenaean primary centers were primarily economically concerned with prestige items and products for value-added goods, leaving an opening for SOCs to assert control over the distribution of more subsistence-related commodities and everyday domestic items. This included the trade of pottery, lithics, and metals (to some degree) as demonstrated by Aprile (2010) at Nichoria. It is also possible that SOCs participated in inter-regional exchange. The distribution of blade cores and flakes to finished tools supports the possibility that local networks in the Pylos region controlled the production and exchange of obsidian tools (Parkinson 1999). Recently, there has been increased work on the use of clay composition to source pottery. These studies contribute to our understanding of the local and long-distance exchange of ceramics, and can provide information about the roles of SOCs. Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) on pictorial kraters found in Cyprus links these vessels to Berbati (Mommsen and Maran 2000- 2001). It has been shown, therefore, that pottery produced at SOCs can be found in areas outside the Aegean, making it tempting to propose that SOCs participated directly in long-distance exchange networks. It is entirely possible, however, that while the pottery was produced at SOCs, its export was overseen by a primary center that had overseas connections. Ceramic study

39 is just one avenue of research that is revealing that the economic reality of Mycenaean states was more complicated than a simple dichotomy between industries that were controlled by primary centers and those that were outside their control. The economic roles of SOCs integrated through the competition strategy generally fall into three main categories: collectors of items taxed by a primary center, producers of goods exchanged through local networks outside of primary center control, and producers or collectors of goods exchanged through long-distance networks arranged by primary centers. SOCs integrated through the imposition strategy were mainly involved in only the first category due to a greater degree of primary center control. Differences in SOC economic autonomy are primarily in relation to the degree of confidence primary centers had in their relationships with SOCs; here it is assumed that the trust in social relationships with SOCs integrated through the competition strategy was greater than that with SOCs integrated through the conflict-based imposition strategy. Several categories of materials can be used to evaluate the economic autonomy of SOCs integrated through the competition strategy. The first category consists of a general increase or continuity in the number of workshops at a SOC. This includes independent workshops focused on the production of goods exchanged outside primary-center-controlled networks. Some workshops were also possibly semi-attached to primary centers; they manufactured products when requested and worked independently at other times. This is the most likely scenario for bronze-working in the Pylos region, where Linear B tablets reveal that bronze was allocated to smiths at SOCs (Bennet 2008 [1998], Chadwick 1961). Structures for storage, or those with storage areas, are also expected at these SOCs, although they are also anticipated at SOCs integrated through the imposition strategy. Items stored at these two groups of SOCs varied to some degree. Household storage of domestic goods and foodstuffs should be present at any settlement, but SOCs integrated through the competition strategy have a greater number of storage units for finished items rather than certain agricultural goods (such as flax or grapes) collected from their local areas. It is not always discernable from the archaeological record what was stored, but where possible these distinctions are noted. In general, no significant change in local or long-distance trade is expected over time at these SOCs because competition strategy is based on local elites exploiting exchange networks to attain higher status throughout the process of integration. A slight increase in the presence of long-distance trade items is possible as

40 competition intensifies and more powerful primary centers expand their exchange networks. Some SOCs controlled the distribution of staple items, like pottery, as evidenced by storage and distributional analyses (Galaty 1999, Parkinson 1999, April 2010).

Table 3.2 Expectations of the Competition Strategy

Category Factor How it Changes at SOCs Expected Material Remains architecture - special structures - continuity - small, or no shift in use - administrative - continuity, slight growth, - relatively large buildings, indicators or slight decrease specialized construction

craft production - workshops - increase - production of utilitarian goods - storage - increase - caches of finished items and raw materials trade - local - continuity - storage of staple items - long-distance - slight increase - prestige items

3.5. Summary

In order to understand the processes of regional integration, the Composite Model takes into account long-term settlement histories and spatial factors to investigate how and why certain SOCs became important. Long-term settlement histories are a significant factor in determining when local elite classes developed, the dissemination of certain architectural styles and methods, evidence for competition between settlements, and any shifts between sites that acted as nodes within trade networks. The imposition and competition strategies address the variable nature of the sociopolitical processes of integration. In Mycenaean states, these strategies of integration were often used in the same region with variation according to time period and geographic location.

This chapter has explained how the competition and imposition strategies can be utilized and how they are recognized through archaeological remains. The imposition strategy is most readily seen in marked breaks in socio-political and economic patterns at individual SOCs. In general, this strategy includes a higher degree of centralization and control over the SOC. This is

41 due to their somewhat tenuous relationships because the method of integration involves conflict and manipulation. The competition strategy is the result of sustained rivalries between multiple settlements within a region. Similar to peer polity interaction (Renfrew 1986), this competition results in architectural elaboration and an increase in long-distance and local exchange and craft production. Over time one primary center comes to dominate the other settlements and the other settlements become integrated as SOCs in a regional network, in part due to their reliance on one another for goods and to their social alliances. In general, competition results in relative continuity with a slight increase or decrease in specialized architecture and trade. An increase in craft production is expected because of the SOC economic independence in the management of the production of utilitarian goods. This independence is afforded to them based on their close ties and mutual confidence with a primary center. The next chapter presents a definition of SOCs based on archaeological criteria. It is important to define SOCs in order to fully understand how they functioned as critical components to regional systems. By identifying SOCs archaeologically, we are able to more thoroughly investigate the parts these sites played in regional integration and state development.

42

CHAPTER 4 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF SECOND ORDER CENTERS

4.1. Introduction

A main goal of the present study is to develop a definition of SOC sites based on common, unifying characteristics that distinguish them as a class of sites cross-culturally. A simplified description of a SOC is a settlement with administrative capabilities that works under the direction of a primary center. The archaeological definition of a secondary center offered in the present study is based on architectural criteria, material remains associated with craft production, and evidence for participation in a regional system as a node within a trade network. Each SOC, to some extent, had specialized architecture that we see expressed through building form and/or functions. Craft production at an SOC is evidence for its economic position within the surrounding countryside, as a site where goods were produced and distributed. In addition, SOCs could also act as locations where trade goods were collected and either redistributed to local settlements or sent on to a primary center. The archaeological criteria used to define a SOC provide evidence for social, political, and economic institutions (Flannery 1998, Flannery and Marcus 1976). In essence, SOCs resemble primary centers in terms of their functions and the archaeology correlated to those functions, however they differ in terms of scale. This proposed archaeological definition of SOCs is based on information collected at LBA Mycenaean sites on the Greek mainland, although I will demonstrate that the definition is applicable cross-culturally. A detailed study of SOCs contributes much to our understanding of state organization because this class of settlement represents a part of the overall administrative, economic, and sometimes religious systems within state-level societies. By examining the three areas of archaeological evidence at SOCs this study will consider how these settlements functioned within regional administrative systems. The importance of defining a SOC archaeologically is that it provides a set of evidence by which this class of sites can be identified from material remains. The proposed definition does not use restrictiveΝparameters,ΝsuchΝasΝ‗buildingsΝoverΝ1ίΝ m2‘,ΝΝbutΝinsteadΝitΝisΝsimilarΝtoΝόlannery‘sΝ(1λλκμ16)ΝidentificationΝofΝarchaicΝstatesΝasΝ―aΝsetΝofΝ archaeologicalΝcluesΝforΝidentifyingΝanΝanthropologicalΝandΝpoliticalΝphenomenon‖έΝ

43

4.2. Settlement Patterns

The socio-political roles of SOCs vary according to strategies of political and economic control exerted by primary centers over their respective territories. In general, SOCs function as administrative outposts within regions or districts, acting as bureaucratic representatives and intermediaries between a primary center and local towns and villages. There are a few types of activities that are broadly associated with the socio-political functions of SOCs. These include economic pursuits, such as craft production and exchange, administrative duties, and political functions. These activities function to legitimize the central elite at primary centers. Primary centers have many of the same functions as SOCs in terms of administration and craft production, and both classes of sites share certain architectural types. The first criterion of the definition stipulates that SOCs are settlements, as opposed to military outposts, cult sites, or purely administrative sites. This is an important criterion because it demonstrates that SOCs were integrated into a regional network at every level, even as locations where people resided. It also reflects the fact that many SOCs grew gradually over time from simple settlements to more important regional or areal administrative and economic centers. Primary centers also included settlements, yet there is a difference between primary centers and second-order centers with respect to the integration of administrative facilities within the community. At primary centers there is often a clear delineation between socio-political administrative buildings and areas for normal household activities – the town portion – through open spaces, walls, or monumentality. At SOCs administrative buildings are not always clearly separated from the town. Differences in the separation of town and administration represent the degree to which administration was a formalized activity at a site. Primary centers were associated with towns at Pylos and Mycenae. These areas wereΝreferredΝtoΝasΝ‗lowerΝtownsέ‘ In their final phase, Mycenaean primary centers were largely defined by their administrative duties, therefore, that area of the site was more prominent and set apart from dwellings. Second Order Centers can be detected archaeologically through studies of settlement patterns. A goal of this study is to identify other archaeological criteria by which SOCs can be identified as a specific class of sites, but in order to accomplish this there must be a starting point – the sites that I preliminarily classified as SOCs. The detection of settlement hierarchies or the division of settlements into ranks provides an opportunity to identify groupings of sites based mostly on settlement size. Settlement hierarchies can be recognized by patterned variation of size

44 and complexity of sites within a region (Wason 1994)έΝTheΝtermΝ‗verticalΝcomplexity‘ΝdescribesΝ situations in which settlements differ in composition according to their hierarchical level (Kowalewski 1990). For example, in the Valley of Oaxaca primary centers were the largest sites, had larger concentrations of public and ceremonial architecture, exotic goods, and craft production (Kowalewski 1990:49). SOCs could be distinguished by their size and some degree of public and ceremonial architecture and craft production, but they did not have evidence for long-distance exchange. Generally, societies with more centralized administrative systems will express greater vertical complexity (Wason 1994). Settlement patterns can reveal information about site hierarchies, and they also provide indirect evidence of the organizational properties of socioeconomic system in place at any given time. Willey (1953) suggested that settlement distributions were indicative of social practices and institutions, and that by studying regional patterns of site placement it was possible to deduce social interactions and control. Through his study, Willey acknowledged that settlements, and how they are distributed, are reflective of social processes. SOCs are often within the second-tier of sites in terms of size, and they are often distributed across the landscape purposefully. Trigger (1989:285) states that the distribution of settlements across a landscape is primarilyΝindicativeΝofΝ―theΝimpactΝofΝtrade,Νadministration, and regional defenseέ‖ When a primary center exerts control over a territory, it is able to influence or determine the strategic location of SOCs that can manage administrative, political, economic, and military tasks. An example of a primary center manipulating a regional settlement system is the Mycenaean center ofΝθylosΝthatΝencouragedΝtheΝgrowthΝofΝparticularΝsettlementsΝ―perhapsΝthroughΝ‗networked‘Ν management of various sources of secondary elite power, such as by controlling prestige goods and wife exchange (Galaty and Parkinson 2007:23).‖ Settlement hierarchies of archaic states tend to have at least four levels (Wright 1986, Wright and Johnson 1975). Archaic states with at least four tiers are found in the Near East (Wright and Johnson 1975), the Valley of Oaxaca (Marcus and Flannery 1996), the Maya Lowlands (Marcus 1983, 1993), and the north coast of Peru (Wilson 1995). Tiers are characterized by a particular range of settlement size at each level as well as the presence or absence of administrative structures (Flannery 1998, Marcus and Flannery 1996). For example, in the case of the Zapotec in the Valley of Oaxaca, the Tier 1 site was 416 ha and included a governmental palace, ceremonial plaza, multiple residential palaces, elite tombs, temples, ball

45 courts, and archives (Flannery 1998, Marcus and Flannery 1996). The six Tier 2 sites were all within 14-28 km from the primary center and had smaller versions of governmental palaces, fewer temples, fewer residential palaces and elite tombs, and only one ball court. Tier 3 settlements lacked all of the previous features except they had a single temple, and Tier 4 settlements had no evidence of public architecture (Flannery 1998, Marcus and Flannery 1996). The definition of a SOC presented in this study takes into account the pattern seen cross- culturally that second-level administrative sites have many similar features to primary centers, but scaled down. Generally, higher ranked settlements provided more goods and services and were more integral parts of regional socio-political systems. Settlement rank, as defined by Wason (1994), is any variation between sites that provides evidence for dominance. A settlement hierarchy is supportΝforΝtheΝpresenceΝofΝauthorityΝandΝtheΝ―centralization of certain activities (Wason 1994:128).‖ΝWebsterΝ(1λλί)Νdemonstrates that administrative and settlement hierarchies are highly correlated with each other, and that increased variation in settlement sizes escalates in keeping with administrative centralization. One method of studying regional settlement patterns and characterizing population distributions is by rank-size analysis (Drennan and Peterson 2004). The rank-size rule states that a primary center will be two times the size of a secondary center, three times the size of a tertiary center, and so on. The largest settlement is rank 1 and every other settlement is assigned a rank in subsequent order. Settlement size is graphed as a line plot, and the expected, log-normal results of the rank-size rule create a linear regression by which to compare actual observed settlement patterns based on how far they deviate from the predicted relationship. Drennan and Peterson (2004:534) make a good point in suggesting that we should not necessarily expect to find log- normality, and that it can be more beneficial to compare rank-size plots of settlement distributions in different regions or societies to each other. The comparison of rank-size curves to each other can demonstrate the relative concentration of settlements at various rank-size levels and variation between levels. Other models of studying settlement hierarchies propose different patterns. For example, central place theory suggests there will be clusters of settlements of similar size that create patterns of step-like plateaus. The importance of settlement pattern analysis is that it provides methods by which to identify sites of various ranks according to size

46 and population. SOC sites are expected to be among the second tier of settlements, one level removed from first order settlements.

4.3. Textual Definition

Many societies did not leave behind written records, but when they did it is possible to identify SOCs from texts. SOCs may be referred to with special terms or they may be associated with specific personnel or the production and allocation of goods. Evidence from written records, in addition to material remains and settlement patterns, reflects the socio-political system and the interactions between primary centers and local settlements (Thomas 1995). Mycenaean Linear B tablets from Pylos make references to specific personnel found at district capitals – the koreta and prokoreta, interpreted as mayor and vice-mayor (Bennet 1999b). The tablets also list agricultural and craft production that took place outside the primary center but with which the primary center was still concerned because these transactions and activities were recorded. Activities located outside the primary center were likely managed by administrative representatives located at SOCs. The Maya used emblem glyphs to identify settlements in their inscriptions. Emblem glyphs are a way to identify SOCs through their patterned use. The emblem glyph of Calakmul, a primary center, was mentioned in the inscriptions at sites that were subordinate to it. In the Calakmul region, Tier 3 centers also listed the emblem glyphs of the Tier 2 centers with which they were affiliated (Flannery 1998:18, Marcus 1973). Inscriptions in the Calakmul region show that settlement ranks can be discerned from recorded evidence. This example also supports the idea that not every site with its own name or specific emblem glyph is a Tier 1 site. Texts can also provide evidence for types of economic activities associated with SOCs. Craft production activities controlled by a primary center can be centralized or decentralized. Decentralized industries occur in locations outside the center itself. Texts may record those types of activities, especially in terms of materials allocated and rations provided to workers. For example, Linear B tablets reveal that bronze working was decentralized but controlled through a system of allocating raw materials (Galaty and Parkinson 2007:9). Other industries may be centralized but rely on decentralized systems to provide some materials. The Mycenaean perfumed oil industry at Pylos is an example of this type of circumstance. Perfumed oil was

47 created at the primary center, but herbs involved in the process were obtained from exchanges not controlled by the center. Texts are only helpful for identifying SOCs in limited situations. Many societies did not keep written records, or those records are not preserved, and for those that did we often do not have a full representation of their political aspects. Negative textual evidence is not effective because we cannot make assumptions based only on the fact that texts do not exist. In circumstances where texts are available and SOCs are mentioned, it is possible to identify their roles, the types of crafts produced, and possibly the personnel associated with particular settlements. These situations provide evidence regarding the functions and positions of SOCs within a society. However, it is difficult to project textual evidence onto archaeological remains unless those sites are named in situ. Written records can inform us that SOCs were a part of a regional socio-political system, but archaeological criteria for identifying SOCs on the ground need to be identified.

4.4. Proposed Archaeological Definition

The following three sections present a proposed archaeological definition for SOCs. This section discusses the basic components of the definition and some general considerations. SectionΝ4έ4έ1ΝpresentsΝtheΝarchaeologicalΝcorrelatesΝrelatedΝtoΝaΝSηω‘sΝpoliticalΝandΝsocialΝroles, andΝSectionΝ4έ4έβΝpresentsΝmaterialΝremainsΝthatΝcorrelateΝtoΝaΝSηω‘sΝadministrativeΝandΝ economic roles.

Second Order Centers often serve several functions within a regional network. They may be: administrative outposts, where bureaucrats manage and organize the collection, production, and allocation of goods; economic nodes of craft production and trade; political centers that represent a system headed by a primary center; defensive outposts; and locations for public activities and socio-political legitimation. This study takes into consideration three broad sets of material remains that serve as archaeological evidence for SOC functions – architecture, craft production, and trade. These types of remains convey information related to the administrative, economic, political, and social dimensions of a SOC. The archaeological definition of a second-order administrative center proposed here is based on four criteria. It must be (1) a settlement that (2) shares architectural forms, construction

48 methods, and/or construction materials with a primary center, has (3) administrative control of items of direct interest to the primary center as well as some degree of autonomy, and (4) directly participates within a regional network as a node of trade. Here, settlement is defined as a permanent residential community that includes domestic and public buildings. In summary, a SOC is a settlement that shares architectural features with a primary center and has both primary center-directed and autonomous administrative capabilities. An archaeological classification of a SOC provides convenient and uniform terminology that is based on the socio-political status of a settlement. Each SOC functions as a second-level administrative center within a region headed by a primary center. In terms of rank, SOCs are the second level down from the primary center. There are material manifestations of rank that provide evidence for the importance of particular sites. Though the archaeological record is static, we can use our observations of material remains to inferΝtheΝ―dynamicΝpast‖Ν(BinfordΝ1λκ1μβ5)έΝTheΝbasicΝapproachΝforΝinferringΝrankΝfromΝ archaeological data is based on the presence, quantity, and unequal distribution of certain items that evoke status, elitene rank, or wealth (Wason 1994). Artifacts may be classified as elite if they are rare, high-quality or elaborate, non-utilitarian, made of exotic or special materials, found within a particular context, or rare raw materials (Wason 1994). Here it is expected that rank at SOCs is manifested at the site level as well as the individual level. Mycenaean Linear B tablets reveal that there were special administrative individuals at SOCs, and it is expected that these people would have owned elite items and/or displayed their higher social ranks over the surrounding community. For this reason, the present study anticipates that the archaeological remains at SOCs should include some elite items. TheΝthreeΝlinesΝofΝevidenceΝusedΝtoΝbuildΝthisΝstudy‘sΝproposedΝarchaeologicalΝdefinition of a SOC can also provide insight into how SOCs were able to remain at their positions within a region. An important element for the functioning of an SOC is the ability to exert control over a localΝareaέΝθowerΝisΝseenΝ―asΝaΝsubtleΝforceΝpervading the whole of social life, constantly enacted throughΝsocialΝpracticesΝandΝmoralΝnormsΝ(VoutsakiΝ1λλιμγ5)έ‖ΝInΝthisΝsense,ΝpowerΝrelationshipsΝ are established between sites and at any site exerting or attempting to exert control over another. The constant acting out of power relations through every day practices reifies the dominant system and maintains the concept of elite status. Because SOCs are a part of the socio-political system, preserving power is a strategy to sustain their position in the hierarchy. Archaeologically

49 it is possible to recognize strategies of power: in architecture through elaborations, monumentality, and symbols; in craft production through the control of specialized goods that are often associated with elite identity and wealth; and with trade through access to, and the ability to monopolize, certain kinds of goods or raw materials. The types of archaeological remains that are associated with administrative and economic control are seen at more than one level of a regional administrative hierarchy. Primary centers shared architectural features with SOCs, had administrative functions, and participated in regional networks as nodes of trade. The main difference between primary centers and SOCs in terms of these three criteria of the proposed definition is in degree. While a SOC often shares architectural features or construction types with a primary center, architectural elaborations are much more common and ornate at primary centers. For example, the megaron at Midea had pebble floors with a layer of plaster (Walberg 2007:90), while the main megaron at Mycenae had a floor paved with gypsum (Fitzsimons 2006:245). Gypsum was a more difficult material to obtain and work as flooring than plaster. There can also be construction techniques or materials at primary centers that are not found at SOCs. A Mycenaean example is that ashlar masonry is only found at the primary centers of Mycenae, Pylos, Thebes, and Athens, with the exception of Tiryns, here a proposed SOC. Similar architectural types and methods are expected between primary centers and SOCs because of social processes such as impression, emulation, and competition. In terms of administration and trade, primary and secondary levels of sites participated in these activities. Primary centers clearly were involved in administration and trade, in particular long-distance trade, to a much higher degree than SOCs. State organization, for example staple- finance or wealth-finance, had an impact on the degree to which SOCs were involved in long- distance exchange. These differences include the strategies for mobilizing goods, what goods are being traded, where they are stored, and how they are allocated or exchanged locally. Variation exists, but the importance is that SOCs were involved in exchange systems as a node of trade. Mycenaean SOCs were administratively responsible only for a portion of a region (i.e., a district), and each individual SOC did not have long-distance interactions with multiple regions around the Mediterranean. It is evident that primary centers and SOCs share archaeological criteria, but there is a difference in degree between these classes of sites.

50

Variation in SOCs can also result from different strategies of regional integration. Some strategies, for example with territorial states, involve an intensive occupation and direct control of a broad area (ϊ‘AltroyΝ1λλβ,ΝόeinmanΝ1λλκ,ΝHassigΝ1λκ5,Ν1λκκ, Luttwak 1976). In these types of states, SOCs would play an integral role as intermediaries and SOC elites would have acted as representatives of the primary center. SOCs would be more common because each could only fully administer a relatively small subset of a territory (Feinman 1998). On the other hand, hegemonic states relied on co-opting local populations and local elite through social exchanges such as marriage alliances or through military threat. These two strategies are not mutually exclusive in that some states, such as the Aztec and Inka, utilized both depending on the location. Territorial strategies were used closer to primary centers, while hegemonic strategies were used at peripheries (Feinman 1998). The model of regional integration proposed in Chapter 3 also includes two strategies that can overlap within a single territory – the Imposition Strategy and the Competition Strategy. The implications for these strategies on SOCs are discussed in chapter 7.

4.4.1. Political and Social Roles

This section presents the archaeological correlates that were used to help formulate this study‘sΝSηωΝdefinitionέΝTheΝmaterialΝremains discussed in this section are related to SOCs political and social roles. Representations of elite status at SOCs are evidenced through the use of certain architectural styles, construction methods, and/or construction materials associated with primary centers. The built environment is a physical manifestation of culturally shared mental structures and processes (Lawrence and Low 1990). Architecture embodies political and religious ideologies, and it personifies social hierarchies (Maran 2006). Cultural variables, such as status, can be linked to built forms (Rapoport 1993)έΝTheΝbuiltΝenvironmentΝ―mirrorsΝsocialΝ andΝculturalΝnorms‖ΝandΝintoΝitΝbehavioralΝcuesΝareΝencodedΝ(εaranΝβίί6μ1β)έΝArchaeologically, the identification of shared architectural styles or methods provides an indication of social relations and political or economic strategies to express value, identity, or ideology. Central leadership can be inferred in planned constructions through the presence of iconography, certain architectural styles, and particular construction methods or materials (Wason 1994). In Mycenaean emergent states, we find the imitation of architectural features that are associated with primary centers at SOCs in the form of megara and tholos tombs.

51

Three levels of the built environment are typically studied: the structure, the site, and the region (Wason 1994:127). When analyzing the repetition of specific built forms, temporal and spatial dimensions are important. There may be a geographical limit to the imitation of certain forms of architecture that could be representative of regional integration or site status. The temporal dimension is important because the repetition of architecture at a secondary center could represent imitation of a primary center, suggesting the intention to emulate symbols of power. The temporal aspect should also be considered regarding settlement demotion or promotion by a primary center. Davis (1998:127-128) proposed that the megaron at Nichoria went out of use when the site became subordinate to Pylos. The megaron building at Nichoria, whether or not it was built in imitation of Pylos, had symbolic importance relating to the socio- political hierarchy; this was possibly viewed as a threat by the elite of the primary center. The use of primary center architectural styles at SOCs can serve as evidence for elite competition or emulation, but the function of built features is just as important as the form. Similarity in formal characteristics does not necessarily imply the same functions. For example, there is no archaeological evidence for domestic use of the megaron at Mycenae, while there is a domestic assemblage in the Midea megaron. The form of the megaron at each site is similar, but the function seems to differ. In addition to analyzing shared architectural features at primary and second-order centers, it is also important to investigate whether there are styles or methods of construction shared between SOCs. These can include uniformities in architectural style, construction materials, or construction techniques such as square footage and wall thickness. Buildings with a large interior area may represent storage facilities or aggrandizement by local elites. Wall thickness can be related to the construction of an upper story or roof style, but walls thicker than structurally necessary represent monumentality and the utilization of excess materials and labor. The ability to control construction materials and workers is indicative of administrative capabilities. Funerary architecture can also be used to understand socio-political processes at SOCs. Certain tomb types, such as the tholos in LH Greece, are associated with wealth and power. When these tomb types are located at SOCs, it is representative of the regional consolidation of elite symbols and of the social status held by at least some individuals at that settlement. Tholoi are not the only example of high status funerary architecture in LH Greece. Large, impressive chamber tombs found at some SOCs are also evidence for social hierarchy. In this study, tomb

52 types are taken as a subset of architecture. Funerary architecture represents an important manner of displaying elite identities, to assert ancestry, and to affirm power through the mobilization of labor forces (Wright 2006a). The social significance of space and architecture stems from the interaction between human activities and structures. The built environment can be designed in a way to act as a participant in social actions (Maran 2006). Architecture guides activities, but it is also shaped by behavior (Wright 2006b, Rapoport 1993). The relationships between systems of activities and architecture are mediated by culture, and people experience the built environment differently depending on their social perceptions (Wright 2006b). Rapoport (1993:9) identifies four aspects of activities pertinent to this point: nature of the activities, how they are carried out, how they are associated into systems, and their meanings. To some extent each of these can be identified through material remains and architecture because these represent social organization (Wright 2006b). Many structures are multifunctional, making the contrast between residential and public architecture less significant at times. In prehistory, residences often serve purposes other than shelter, including craft production. Cliff (1988:200-202) defines dwellingsΝasΝ―complexesΝofΝ architectural features that (a) individually symbolize the social status of the occupants, (b) collectively symbolize the social structure of the community of which they are a part, and (c) change in recognizable ways as the social structureΝofΝtheΝsocietyΝchangesέ‖ Domestic architecture can be used to infer status, and it is also affected by environmental circumstances, site history, and social factors. The latter include the general complexity of the society, community defensive needs, technical knowledge, and ideas of what a residence should be (Wason 1994). Variation in architectural plans at a site can indicate that some structures had different functions, and the material remains located within and around buildings also give us insight into the activities that were performed there. Several architectural criteria can serve as evidence for inequality, including variation in size, energy expenditure, scale and prominence, and production activities and storage (Wason 1994). The most important variable in terms of archaeology is size because it is often the best preserved factor. Architectural differentiation at a site is valuable information, and it can be informative about regional systems when patterned variation is considered.

53

Structures vary in several ways, including their plan, construction, and function. The plan of an architectural feature includes the number and arrangement of rooms and its dimensions and proportions. Aspects of construction that may differ include the quality and types of building materials, quality of manufacture and assembly, and finish. These factor into the effort and expense of building projects. Building materials can include locally available products, such as field stone or wood, and materials that are acquired from long-distance exchange. In addition, some materials require special skills or greater energy expenditure to work, such as ashlar vs. cyclopean masonry. Finish refers to the final quality of materials; for example, cut stones instead of rough field stones or the use of plaster on walls and floors. These aspects of construction – materials, quality, and finish – provide evidence for differential access to specialists and raw materials. Architecture is indicative of economic and social organization in the way that it varies within a settlement and across a region, and it can also provide evidence for human social relationships and specialized activities. By studying access patterns and divisions of space, it is possible to reconstruct the nature of exclusion and status within a society. Areas of restriction demonstrate the institutional endorsement and reinforcement of distinct status levels (Wason 1994). Wright (2006a:51) argues that it is important to examine construction techniques and architecturalΝstylesΝtoΝinferΝsocialΝpracticesΝbecauseΝtheΝbuiltΝenvironmentΝ―manifest[s]ΝsocialΝ relations, political economy,Νideology,ΝandΝbeliefΝsystemsέ‖ Analyzing architecture in terms of variation and regularities spatially across regions and temporally leads to the identification of patterns that can be explained through socio-political strategies and organization. Architecture is one of the main lines of evidence for defining SOCs because ―theΝremnantΝplacesΝofΝtheΝbuiltΝ environment of the past retain the structures of the primary forms of social relations that were important in the formation of social polities and their political economies (Wright 2006b:63).‖

4.4.2. Administrative and Economic Roles

This section discusses the archaeological correlates used in the present study to understand the administrative and economic roles of SOCs, specifically those related to craft production and trade. Archaeological evidence for craft production at second-order centers provides an indication of site function within the larger political and economic system. Part of

54 the archaeological definition of a SOC is that it has administrative control over an area or industry in which a primary center has direct interest. The function of SOCs included overseeing craft production that is archaeologically evidenced directly through workshops or indirectly through storage facilities. Craft production took place at SOCs or was delegated to local settlements within the area controlled by the center. Craft production, as a line of evidence, provides information on the function, variation, and autonomy of second-order centers. SOCs functioned as sites of production or collection points for goods of direct palatial interest, while simultaneously participating in independent economic ventures related to the production of goods not of direct palatial interest. The degree of autonomy varied between second-order centers, as well as the particular goods produced or collected. Mycenaean Linear B tablets provide evidence for site function in relation to craft production. There are references within the tablets from Pylos to 16-17 SOCs, called district capitals, each associated with specific products such as textiles, or raw materials such as bronze (Bennet 2008 [1998], Sainer 1976). Administrative documents referring to products or materials and workgroups located at particular settlements suggest that there were centers of production outside the primary center. It is evident that secondary centers functioned as sites for the production of certain goods, for community or local feasts, and points of collection for taxation items going to a primary center (Nakassis 2010). It is difficult to match settlements named in the Linear B tablets to archaeologically discovered sites, but written records reveal patterns related to the function of SOCs within the socio-political and economic organization of Mycenaean regions. Archaeologically it is possible to identify craft production through patterns of an unequal distribution of concentrations of certain types of artifacts, such as waste materials, tools, and finished products. SOCs served as sites for the manufacturing of goods and also as collection points for goods produced in the surrounding area. SOCs also participated in craft production not under the direct control of primary centers. There is evidence for multiple spheres of exchange (Bohannan 1955) at the regional level within Mycenaean emergent states. One sphere included goods directly or indirectly controlled by a primary center, and a second sphere involved goods not controlled by a primary center. Mycenaean primary centers exerted no or little control over the production and exchange of lithics (Shelmerdine 1997). Obsidian was not palatially controlled and there was direct unimpeded access to its source on Melos (Parkinson 1999). It was

55 embedded as a bulk commodity (Kardulias 1999) within the local sector of the economy. The distribution of cores versus blades demonstrates that the knowledge of making tools seems to have been restricted (Parkinson 1999). There are sites of centralized blade production, indicative of the kinds of independent economic activities in which Mycenaean SOCs were involved. Of the three components of an economic system – production, distribution, and consumption – the easiest to study is production (Costin 1991). The presence of an object does not necessarily tell us where it came from, nor if it was intended to be used at the site, but tools and workshop evidence can tell us what was being made. Industrial activities leave behind definite evidence (subject to interpretation, of course,) whereas the destination of an object or the intent behind its use is not always clear. Not all production is specialized, however. Costin (1991) distinguishes specialized from non-specialized production by the amount of time spent, the proportion of material produced, official titles for people or activities, and payment. The ability of a craftsman to focus on one specific craft requires several economic factors. There must be a demand for their product and there must be agricultural surplus in order for craftsmen to have time to specialize in producing goods. Craftsmen may work in one of two ways: independent, or attached (Costin 1991). Independent specialists produce crafts for the generalΝpublic,ΝoftenΝ‗onΝtheΝsideέ‘ΝΝAttachedΝspecialistsΝproduceΝgoodsΝthatΝtheΝpalaceΝisΝ interested in, and receive support and payment from the palace. When evidence of craft industries is found at palatial sites, the inevitable question is whether this was an attached, supported industry or not. For a palace to support a craft industry, there must be some gain involved. Peregrine (1λλ1μκ)ΝsuggestsΝthatΝspecializationΝisΝaΝpoliticalΝstrategyΝwhenΝ―elitesΝemployΝspecialistΝartisansΝ to produce exotic personal ornaments that the elites use, in turn, to further differentiate themselves from the rest of society.‖ Prestige goods are important for elite displays of wealth and power. By controlling the manufacture of prestige goods, elites are able to exert control over their distribution. Sponsoring the production of elite goods is an effective way to monopolize control of who is able to own symbols of prestige (Costin 1991). Control over production also can mean control over the technologies involved. A second element, trade, also gives us insight into the administrative and economic roles of SOCs. By analyzing the archaeological evidence for trade at SOCs it is possible to gather informationΝrelatedΝtoΝeachΝsettlement‘sΝroleΝwithinΝintra-regional and inter-regional networks.

56

The proposed archaeologically-basedΝdefinitionΝofΝaΝSηωΝincludesΝtheΝsettlement‘sΝparticipationΝ in a regional network as a node of trade. Archaeological patterns within settlements contribute to our understanding of the relationships between settlements that can serve as microcosms of larger social patterns. θolanyi‘sΝ(1λ5ιμβ66)ΝdefinitionΝofΝtradeΝisΝ―theΝmutual appropriative movement of goods between hands,‖ and it touches on the aspects of spatial distribution and human interactions (Renfrew 1975). Like examinations of craft production, trade studies provide evidence of the social and economic organizations within a society. One pragmatic reason for studying trade is that objects can be sourced in order to reconstruct distribution patterns (Renfrew 1975). Non-local goods are attributed to the existence of inter-regional exchange networks, and the distribution of various classes of goods between settlements can be attributed to different social units. Patterned distributions of foreign trade goods over the landscape can be used to describe the social, political, and economic organization of a society. An important element of exchange systems is that goods are circulated within distinctive and ranked spheres of exchange (Bohannan 1955). Mycenaean SOCs were involved in multiple spheres of exchange within their regions. Kardulias (1999) discusses the distinction between intra-regional and inter-regional exchange networks in the prehistoric Aegean, describing internal networks as operating in small regions where goods could be transported by land or through short coastal hops, while long distance networks linked the Mycenaeans and Minoans with societies outside the Aegean area. Patterns of interaction are observable through the distribution of non-local materials and goods. For example, at Pylos obsidian was part of the intra-regional exchange network. Blades were produced at a centralized location, Romanou, and distributed across the region (Parkinson 1999). Other goods, such as ivory, were a part of an inter-regional exchange network. Cross-culturally we see a pattern of primary center control over long-distance exchange networks. The production of goods from foreign materials and the exchange of foreign items or items created from non-local materials was manipulated by primary centers in Mycenaean emergent states, as a form of control. Due to their elevated state, elite individuals at SOCs were able to control or assist in the distribution of non-local goods, making SOC settlements nodes of trade networks. Trade implies economic organization, an administrative system, and social relations between groups of people. Administrations regulate the procurement and distribution of goods, including finished items and raw materials. Trade can be purely an economic activity, but it often

57 implies social acts and the exchange of information. Many exchanges take the form of gifts that have economic and social significance (Mauss 1954). SOCs serve as locations for material and information exchanges, as well as the administrative control of particular trade networks or types of goods (Renfrew 1975). Trade occurs at several levels: local (within a region), intermediary (between polities or states of the same culture), and long-distance (between societies). Local exchanges are the least likely to be controlled because they are often not profitable and locally available materials can be difficult to regulate. Intermediary trade includes exchanges to help cement social bonds, such as marriage alliances. Long-distance trade has the most potential to affect internal socio-political systems because information is often exchanged along with goods (Renfrew 1975). In addition, emulation may occur when a polity engages in external trade with a more highly organized society. Exotic goods can confer status on individuals that control supplies, and prestige conferred in goods develops from ascribed values. Trade between elites is typically reciprocal, while trade between elites and locals is often redistributive (Renfrew 1975). In many ways trade and craft production are linked as parts of the same socio-political processes. Craft production may be spurred on by the need to provide goods for exchange, in order to acquire raw material that were in turn used to create other goods (Sherratt and Sherratt 1991). Luxury items produced in craft specialization or acquired from long-distance exchange embodied concepts of value and power. These commodities were important for strategies of emergent elites for creating powerful identities through activities such as conspicuous consumption and display (Sherratt and Sherratt 1991). The value of goods from craft specialization and long-distance exchange lies in their use as tools for socio-political control (Brumfiel and Earle 1987). Craft production of luxury items and prestige goods occurred at SOCs, but it was monitored by primary centers. SOCs also had opportunities to engage in the organization of crafting activities outside of palatial interests, such as the production of utilitarian goods. Control of craft specialization and trade are elite strategies to maintain and increase political authority. Both of these activities link political and economic processes. In some cases, specialization is made possible through centralized direction because of the ability to obtain raw materials from abroad, providing rations to artisans, and/or creating demand. Ethnographically when craft production is more centralized, there is more labor devoted to creating personal adornments and items of legitimation (Wason 1994:108). Craft specialization and trade are

58 economic activities, but they also serve political means. Together with architecture, evidence for craft production and trade at SOCs can be used to reveal patterns of activities associated with this class of sites.

4.5. Summary

This chapter briefly discussed several ways in which Second Order Centers have been defined by previous studies. Some have used texts to discuss the attributes of SOCs (Bennet 1995, 2002; Chadwick 1972; Shelmerdine 1973), whereas others have outlined methods to determine the position of a site based on settlement patterns (Bintliff 1977, Flannery 1998, Marcus and Flannery 1996). SOCs are often recognized in regional archaeological investigations, and in some cases, such as the Zapotec of the Valley of Oaxaca (Flannery 1998, Kowalewski 1990, Marcus and Flannery 1996), investigators have outlined what types of archaeological remains are found at these second tier settlements. A goal of the present study is to offer a more generalized archaeological definition of SOCs that can be used cross-culturally to recognize this class of sites. This chapter presented a definition of SOCs based on archaeological criteria. It uses three broad sets of material remains- architecture, craft production, and trade. The archaeological definition of a SOC proposed here is based on four essential criteria. A Second Order Center must be (1) a settlement that (2) shares architectural forms, construction methods, and/or construction materials with a primary center, has (3) administrative control of items of direct interest to the primary center as well as some degree of autonomy, and (4) directly participates within a regional network as a node of trade. The latter section of this chapter enumerated specific archaeological remains that are used as evidence for the sociopolitical and economic dimensions of SOCs in the present study.

59

CHAPTER 5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING: THE PYLOS AND MYCENAE REGIONS

5.1. Introduction

This chapter describes the archaeological setting of the two main regions under study. Included here are the chronological scope of this study and the geographical and archaeological settings. This information serves the context for the data presented in Chapter 6. The current study investigates Mycenaean second order centers in the regions of Mycenae and Pylos during the LBA in order to gain an archaeological understanding of this class of settlements. The Mycenae region includes the Argive Plain, the Berbati-Limnes valley, and the southern Korinthia, while the Pylos region covers the area of Messenia. Each region has one primary center for which it is named. The two primary study regions were chosen based on the availability and quantity of survey and excavation reports and the potential for comparison of similar sets of information, such as the architectural data. The two regions also provide the largest numbers of potential Mycenaean SOCs. Attica, central Greece, and northern Greece have not been investigated as thoroughly, and the number of discovered sites in those regions may not be representative of the actual number of settlements during the LBA. The boundaries of each region are explicitly defined in order to determine the sites to investigate. In order to interpret the political and social organization of a region we must have an understanding of the networks of settlements that together with systems of roads, drainages, monuments, public works, and boundaries create a political landscape (Smith 2003). It is difficult to determine the boundaries that were recognized during the LBA. The lack of formal boundary indicators in LBA Greece can be contrasted with the Roman limes system that delimited many official borders of the Empire with walls, forts, ditches, and settlements (Isaac 1988). In LBA Greece, no formal boundary markers were used to indicate borders between regions. In addition, there are no texts from LBA Greece that refer to territorial boundaries. Compounding the problem of recognizing regional boundaries is the fact that not all areas between regions and within each region have been archaeologically investigated. As the true extent of each region is unknown, the boundaries of each primary study region are based

60 settlement data and information on primary center influence. Primary center influence at SOCs is identified by the degree to which elite classes of artifacts are present, evidence for feasting, evidence for particular economic activities, and certain architectural types or styles as discussed in chapters 2 and 3.

5.2. Chronological Scope

The chronological scope of this study is limited mostly to the LBA. Earlier MH periods will be discussed to some degree when necessary, as archaeological evidence from the later part of the MH is important for understanding the following LH periods. The LH I/II periods are treated somewhat similarly to the late MH period in that they provide a basis for understanding patterns seen in the LH III period. The early LH periods are discussed in more detail with regard to the Composite Model of Regional Integration. This is because these are the periods during which the processes of integration and centralization were taking place. To have a diachronic perspective comprising the beginnings and ends of the integration process, the late MH period and LH III period will also be discussed to some degree in the context of the model. TheΝδHΝIIIAΝandΝδHΝIIIBΝperiodsΝareΝregardedΝasΝtheΝ‗palatial‘Νperiod, and include the time during which the Mycenaean states had matured, and had their highest degree of integration and centralization. The LH III period is discussed in more detail for the SOC definition portion of this study, as that time represents when these sites held their sociopolitical positions as second tier settlements within each region. The post palatial LH IIIC period and following Early Iron Age (EIA) periods are outside the scope of this study.

5.3. Pylos Region

5.3.1. Defining a Boundary of the Region

The boundaries of the Pylos region (Figure 5.1) follow those established by the UMME large scale surface survey of Messenia. UMME based their regional boundaries on physiographic and historical factors. The western and southern boundaries were determined by the seacoast. The eastern boundary was formedΝbyΝtheΝTaygetosΝrangeΝbecauseΝitΝisΝaΝ―vastΝandΝformidableΝ barrier‖ΝthatΝhasΝbeenΝtheΝborderΝbetweenΝεesseniaΝandΝδaconiaΝforΝtheΝentiretyΝofΝύreekΝ

61

Figure 5.1 Map of the Pylos Region

recorded history (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1972:130). The northern limit of the Pylos region is less clear geographically, and therefore is basedΝonΝωhadwick‘sΝinterpretationΝofΝplaceΝ

62 names in the Linear B tablets (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1972). UMME uses the Alpheios valley as the northern boundary marker. Chadwick suggests that the territory north of the Nedha river was a buffer zone that was somewhat controlled by Pylos during the final phase of the center (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1972:130). As it stands, it cannot be proven that the territory north of the Nedha was a part of the Pylian region. The present study uses the Nedha river to mark the northern Pylian boundary, and the Taygetos mountains as the eastern boundary. The region is approximately 2000 sq km (Bennet 1995).

5.3.2. Political Geography

The political geography of the Pylos region during the LH III period is well known due to Linear B texts with standardized lists of district capitals. Linear B tablets from Pylos provide evidenceΝthatΝtheΝregionΝwasΝdividedΝintoΝtwoΝsections,ΝtheΝ‗HitherΝθrovince‘Ν(de-we-ro-a3-ko-ra- i-ja ) and the ‗όurtherΝθrovince‘Ν(pe-ra3-ko-ra-i-ja ) (Bennet 1985, 1995, 1999a, 1999b, 2002; Chadwick 1961). TheΝδinearΝBΝwordsΝforΝtheseΝprovincesΝtranslateΝasΝ―thisΝsideΝofΝAigaleon‖ΝandΝ ―beyondΝAigaleonέ‖ This phraseology illustratesΝaΝ―palace-centric‖ΝviewΝofΝtheΝpolityΝbecause the designation refers to these areas as being in the same general location as Pylos, the primary center, or located more afar from Pylos on the other side of the mountain range (Bennet

1995:588). The geographical feature dividing the polity was a3-ko-ra, the Aigaleon mountain range, which runs N-S. Each province had a capital; for the Hither Province (HP) the capital was pu-ro, or Pylos; and the capital of the Further Province (FP) was probably re-u-ko-to-ro, or Leuktron. The location of Leuktron has been argued to be different archaeological sites. Thouria was suggested to be the FP capital by Chadwick (1972) and Bennet (1995), and here this link is accepted.

The HP included the core of the Pylos region where the primary center, Pylos, was located. References to the FP in the tablets suggest that it was less stable than the HP (Bennet 1995, 1999a, 1999b). For example, in a number of separate lists of district capitals in the FP there are discrepancies in town names. Some town names were replaced by others, suggesting a less stable socio-political environment in the FP. The Pylian polity was further divided into 16 districts, each with a district capital here considered as a second order center. The HP had 9, while the FP had 7 or 8 districts. These are listed in the tablets in a standard geographical order, north to south in the HP and south to north 63 in the FP (Bennet 1995:591). Neither Pylos nor Leuktron were recorded in these lists, and this may constitute evidence that Leuktron held a similar position to Pylos. One tablet that includes all of the district capitals is Jn 829 (Figure 5.2). Knowing the Linear B names for these secondary centers allows for the reconstruction of some of their interactions with the primary center, such as receiving allocations of wine recorded in Vn 20 or contributing various products detailed in the Ma series (Killen 1984, Shelmerdine 1973). Tablet Jn 829 also shows that each of the district capitals had a ko-re-te and a po-ro-ko-re-te, who were administrative officials. Their titles are translated as governors or mayors and vice-governors/vice-mayors respectively (Nakassis 2006).

Jn 829 Thus will give the governors and the masters, and vice-governors and key-bearers and fig supervisors and digging supervisors, temple bronze as points for javelins and spears

li 4 pi-*82 ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 5 me-ta-pa ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 6 pe-to-no ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 7 pa-ki-ja-pi ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 8 a-pu2-we ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 9 a-ke-re-wa ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 10 ro-u-so ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 11 ka-ra-do-ro ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 12 ri-jo ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 13 ti-mi-to-a-ke-e ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 14 ra-wa-ra-ta2 ko-re-te, bronze 5.5 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, bronze 1.5 lbs li 15 sa-ma-ra ko-re-te, bronze 7.5 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, 1.5 lbs li 16 a-si-ja-ti-ja ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, 1.5 lbs li 17 e-ra-te-re-wa-pi ko-re-te, bronze 4 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, 1.5 lbs li 18 za-ma-e-wi-ja ko-re-te, bronze 7.5 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, 1.5 lbs li 19 e-re-i ko-re-te, bronze 7.5 lbs po-ro-ko-re-te, 1.5 lbs

Figure 5.2 List of district capitals from tablet Jn 829. The district capital names are shown in bold and listed first on each line. (After Bennet 1995:590, translation from Nakassis 2006:66).

The archaeological evidence from the Pylos region in the LH period shows a pattern consistentΝwithΝBennet‘sΝ(1λλ5,Ν1999b, 2008 [1998]) view that as the primary center expanded its territory and authority it incorporated sites that were already established. Of the SOCs

64 investigated only Elliniko seems to have been founded during the LH IIIB period. In the area directly surrounding the primary center, interpreted as the Palace of Nestor, most of the tholos tombs went out of use in the LH IIIA period. This is considered as evidence that the primary center had expanded to control that territory. While tholos tombs were widespread throughout Messenia in the late MH-early LH, by the LH IIIA2-B period most of these had gone out of use or had been replaced with new tholos tombs, as seen at Nichoria. Although several sites (such as Peristeria, Nichoria, and Elliniko) had megaron structures only one of these (Elliniko) seems to have been used during the LH IIIB period, or the final phase of the Ano Englianos palace (Bennet 1999b).

5.3.3. Potential Second Order Centers

The Linear B tablets list 16 place names that served as district capitals in the Pylos region. Due to their position in the administrative hierarchy these settlements can be considered as SOCs within the Pylian polity. While there has been discussion of the role of these towns as interpreted from the tablets (Bennet 2002, Shelmerdine 1973), there has not been a systematic comparison of the archaeological evidence for sites that are possible SOCs. Fifteen sites will be investigated in the Pylos region (Table 5.1). These are divided into two groups based on their geographical location. There is no attempt here to connect archaeological sites with Linear B place names. The main criterion used to initially select sites to study as potential SOCs was settlement size. Other features (tomb types, architectural elaboration, and site functions) were studied to determine if similar features are found at multiple sites, and to determine which of these initially selected sites fulfilled the archaeological definition of a SOC.

The first group of selected sites are located in the hypothetical Hither Province. These sites include: Ayios Christophoros, Beylerbey, Iklaina, Kalopsana, Koukounara, Kyparissia, Ordines, and Valta. Several of these settlements were prominent sites throughout the LH period, but local site histories reveal variations in status over time at some settlements. For example, Kalopsana was an important MH-LH II site, but it was largely abandoned by the end of the LH III period (Bennet 1995:600). The second group includes sites that are located in the hypothetical Further Province. This group includes the sites of Elliniko, Kondra (Dorion), Malthi, Nichoria, Pano Chorio, Peristeria, and Thouria.

65

Table 5.1 Potential SOCs in the Pylos Region Hither Province Further Province Ayios Christophoros Elliniko Beylerbey Kondra (Dorion) Iklaina Malthi Kalopsana Nichoria Koukounara Pano Chorio Kyparissia Peristeria Ordines Thouria Valta

Some of these have been connected with Linear B district capitals, such as Nichoria with ti-mi-to-a-ke-e and Iklaina with a-pu2. Thouria has also been suggested as the FP capital of Leuktron. Others, such as Beylerbey, Koukounara, Peristeria, Malthi, Mouriatada, and Ordines have not been clearly associated with a certain Linear B name, but they were prominent sites during the LH III period. The archaeological information for these sites comes mainly from surveys performed by UMME and PRAP. More detailed information is available from the long- term excavation at Nichoria (McDonald and Wilkie 1992) and Iklaina is currently being excavated (Cosmopoulos 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010).

5.4. Mycenae Region

5.4.1. Defining a Boundary of the Region

The Mycenae region includes the central area of the Argive Plain, the foothills around the Plain, the Berbati-Limnes valley, and the southern Korinthia (Figure 5.3). Eleven sites were initially selected as potential SOCs in this region (Table 5.2). The central area included the primary center, Mycenae, as well as several other important sites, including Tiryns and Dendra- Midea. Some portions of the outlying areas of the Mycenae region are not traditionally included within the Argolid. For example, Tsoungiza and Zygouries are in the southern Korinthia. The southern Korinthia is included within the Mycenae region here because there is clear

66 archaeological evidence for a Mycenae presence or influence at these sites. This is strikingly different from other areas of Korinthia (Pullen and Tartaron 2007). The southern border of the Mycenae region is defined by the Argolic Gulf. The western border extends north from the coast near Lerna past Argos, curving toward Mycenae. The northern border of the Mycenae region is north of Tsoungiza and Zygouries, and the eastern border runs east of Kasarma to the coast. Most of the sites included in the Mycenae region are located in the central portion of the region, on or immediately surrounding the Argive Plain: Dendra-Midea, Tiryns, Nafplion, Argos, Prosymna, and Asine. The Argive Plain is a coastal plain, triangular in shape, occupying an area of approximately 243 km2 (Jahns 1993:188). The plain is bordered by the Argolic Gulf to the south and by mountain ranges on the other three sides. These serve as natural boundaries, though there are several passes that connect the Argive Plain to surrounding areas. Due to its natural boundaries and social history the Argive Plain can been studied intra-regionally as one region separate from the rest of the Argolid (Sjöberg 2004, Wright 2004b). The Plain makes up the majority of the Mycenae region, but some of the surrounding areas have been added. Based on ceramic data it can be argued that several sites outside the Argive plain can be considered as a part of the sociopolitical network headed by Mycenae (Blegen 1928, Pullen and Tartaron 2007, Wright et al. 1990). This interaction sphere included the sites of Berbati, Aidonia, Tsoungiza, and Zygouries. Aidonia, Tsoungiza and Zygouries, are located in the southern Korinthia. The survey area of the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP) is added as an extension to the Argive Plain to complete the Mycenae region. The NVAP survey area includes the Nemaea Valley, parts of the Tretos Pass, the valley of Xerokambos-Tourkovrisi, the ancient acropolis of Phlius, the area near ancient Kleonai, and the area towards Mycenae (Cherry and Davis 2001: 148). Pullen andΝTartaronΝ(βίίι)ΝargueΝthatΝtheΝKorinthiaΝcanΝbestΝbeΝdefinedΝasΝaΝ―politicalΝperiphery‖ΝduringΝ the LBA. Mycenae had a presence in southern Korinthia, but there is no evidence that the primary center had control over the entire Korinthia. As early as the MH period Mycenae played a role in the southern Korinthia, and the resettlement of Tsoungiza and Zygouries after the MH period fits with the pattern of an increase in population density seen across the Argive Plain (Rutter 1993, Pullen and Tartaron 2007).

67

Figure 5.3 Map of the Mycenae Region

68

5.4.2. Political Geography

Our understanding of the political geography of the Mycenae region is based almost entirely on settlement and burial data. Unlike the situation for Pylos, where most of the information regarding the organization of the region is from Linear B tablets, the political geography of the Mycenae region during the LBA is less clear. There are a small number of Linear B tablets from sites in the Mycenae region. Only a few are known from Mycenae, Midea, and Tiryns. The archaeological information from settlements is also difficult to interpret due to the presence of larger sites with fortified citadels and architectural elaborations. These sites, Tiryns and Midea, are treated here as SOCs, though in many regards they more closely match the characteristics of a primary center. Although these settlements competed as emergent centers, they were surpassed by Mycenae by the LH III period (Cherry and Davis 2001, Sjöberg 2004, Voutsaki 1995). The archaeological evidence suggests that the sociopolitical organization and internal dynamics of the Mycenae region were more complex or contested than those of the Pylos region. Burial evidence, mostly in the form of mortuary architecture, provides the majority of our knowledge of sociopolitical developments in the Mycenae region during the late MH-LH II periods. The end of the MH and LH I periods represents the peak of the Shaft Graves at Mycenae. The uniqueness of these graves in the Argive Plain – the only other shaft graves on the Plain are at Lerna and these were robbed – as well as the grave goods contained within the grave circles demonstrates that Mycenae was an important site during this period (Voutsaki 1995). However, by the LH II period tholos tombs became more widespread across the Plain and are found at Mycenae, Prosymna, Berbati, Dendra, Kasarma, and Kokla (Voutsaki 1995). The presence of tholos tombs is considered symbolic of elite identity and evidence for an emergent elite at these sitesέΝTheΝ―moreΝevenΝdistribution‖ΝfellΝoffΝbyΝtheΝLH IIIA period; Voutsaki (1995:59) notes decreased numbers of tholos tombs at fewer sites. The tholos tomb type and material wealth evidenced through grave goods was restricted to Mycenae, Dendra-Midea, and possibly Tiryns. Chamber tombs became more common, and there was a hierarchy of chamber tombs. Most are not well constructed and do not have many grave goods, while there are a few elaborated tombs with more grave goods at sites like Prosymna, Dendra-Midea, and Asine (Voutsaki 1995). This pattern continued and heightened during the LH IIIB period. At that time there were no tholos tombs in use outside the primary center of Mycenae. In addition, elaborate

69 chamber tombs were also restricted to Mycenae. During the LH IIIB period, there was less emphasis on the deposition of wealth at Mycenae and a greater focus on architectural projects at the citadel, such as the Cyclopean fortification walls and the second phase of the megaron. Mortuary display was an important political and social strategy during the LH II period, but by the LH IIIB period a more rigid social hierarchy was in place. More tholos tombs were located at Mycenae during the LH II period, but the tombs were not restricted to the site. Because tholoi were symbols of power and displays of wealth, they represent some amount of resistance to the position of Mycenae or may indicate that Mycenae had no need to prevent the construction of tholoi at other settlements (Voutsaki 1995). During the LH III period, tholos tombs were restricted only to the primary center, which was representative of a greater social distance between elites and non-elites and of a centralization of power. The construction of elaborate tholos tombs as well as the massive fortification walls implies the mobilization of labor, specialized workers, access to raw materials, and access to food resources for workers. The road system within the Mycenae region provides some evidence of the political geography during the LH period. Roads allowed for quicker transportation of agricultural goods, information, and people, but they were also physical manifestationsΝofΝεycenae‘sΝpowerΝand growing control over the region (Hope Simpson 1998:245, Jansen 1997). Three of the four major routes lead north from Mycenae toward the southern Korinthia (Cherry and Davis 2001:143, Jansen 1997). The road networks suggest that Mycenae had a presence in, and possibly authority over, the Berbati-Limnes valley, the northern hinterlands of the Argive plain, and the southern Korinthia. Settlement patterns have been used to infer the early dominance of Mycenae over the Berbati-Limnes valley. Based on settlement and burial data it can be argued that the Argive Plain and surrounding areas were depopulated in the MH period. Toward the end of the MH period there was growth in site number (Cherry and Davis 2001) and some evidence for settlement hierarchies, such as the Grave Circles at Mycenae. The Berbati-Limnes survey results support this general pattern in the Mycenae region, with a depopulation during the MH period (Cherry and Davis 2001, Wells 1996), although some sites were occupied during this time. The late MH- early LH periods showed a slow recovery of the population, which included the construction of a tholos tomb. By the LH IIIA2-IIIB1 period there was intensive occupation of the valley, involving settlements located in areas of marginal natural resources and the construction of roads

70 and terraces (Cherry and Davis 2001). However, the earlier symbol of elite identity – the Berbati tholos tomb – went out of use by the LH III period and no other tholoi were constructed. Cherry and Davis (2001) cite this pattern of repopulation and intensive exploitation without signs of a localΝeliteΝasΝevidenceΝforΝεycenae‘sΝpoliticalΝauthorityΝoverΝtheΝvalleyέΝAΝsimilarΝsetΝofΝ settlement and burial data is found in the southern Korinthia, though currently no tholoi have been found in Nemea and only a couple early tholos tombs have been found in Korinthia (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, Cherry and Davis 2001). The archaeological patterns uncovered in the southern Korinthia and the Berbati-Limnes valley suggest that Mycenae had political and economic authority over these areas as early as the end of the LH II period. The areas would have provided agricultural products, land, and workers toΝtheΝemergentΝcenterέΝεycenae‘sΝdominanceΝoverΝtheΝArgiveΝθlainΝisΝmoreΝsubtle,ΝbasedΝmostlyΝ on architectural features, types of tomb construction, and evidence for workshops and the presence of exotic materials. Bintliff (1977) bases his reconstruction of the political geography of the Argive Plain on architectural complexity, tomb types, and Linear B texts. He concludes that Mycenae is a supercenter of redistribution, and that Tiryns, Dendra-Midea, Argos, Prosymna, and Berbati are first-grade settlements, or SOCs. A settlement hierarchy of the Argive Plain can be discerned by looking at the degree of architectural embellishment at sites (including decorative elements and types of construction materials) in conjunction with information from tomb types and grave goods, and settlement size. Rapoport (1969) suggests that houses in preindustrial societies do not often occur as numerous types but instead as various degrees of the same basic type. The settlement hierarchy of the Argive Plain consisted of at least three tiers, with each tier demonstrating less architectural complexity and visible wealth. Mycenae was the primary center, with political and economic authority over the southern Korinthia, Berbati-Limnes valley, and the Argive Plain.

71

5.4.3. Potential Second Order Centers

Eleven sites will be investigated in the Mycenae region (Table 5.2). These sites were chosen to investigate because of their large size, and are divided into three groups based on their location. The first group are sites on the Argive Plain and includes Argos, Asine, Dendra-Midea, Nauplion, Prosymna, and Tiryns. These sites are traditionally considered in the same region as Mycenae. The settlements here vary in geographic distance from Mycenae, with Prosymna being quite close and Asine located on the coast about 25 km away. The second group of sites consists of Berbati and Kasarma. Berbati is located in the foothills surrounding the Berbati-Limnes valley, a rich agricultural area. Kasarma is east of the Argive Plain, located along the route toward the site of Epidauros. Sites in the third group are the southern Korinthia settlements of Aidonia, Tsoungiza, and Zygouries.

Table 5.2 Potential SOCs in the Mycenae Region

Argive Plain Foothills Korinthia Argos Berbati Aidonia Asine Kasarma Tsoungiza Dendra-Midea Zygouries Nauplion Prosymna Tiryns

5.5. Summary

This chapter presented an overview of the two primary study regions of Mycenae and Pylos, and the chronological scope of the present study. This study focuses mainly on the LH periods, but it also includes some archaeological data from the late MH where it is important for chronological perspective. The extent and boundaries of the two regions were presented in this chapter. Mycenae includes the Argive Plain, Berbati-Limnes valley, and southern Korinthia, while the Pylos region covers the area of Messenia. Each region has one primary center for which it is named. The two primary study regions were chosen based on the availability and 72 quantity of survey and excavation reports and the potential for comparison of similar sets of information. This chapter also briefly discussed the political geography of each region and gave a preliminary account of the SOCs in each region and why they were chosen for this study. The data from each SOC are presented in Chapter 6.

73

CHAPTER 6

MYCENAEAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA

6.1. Introduction

This chapter presents the archaeological data on which this study is based. The chapter is divided into two main sections covering the Pylos region and then the Mycenae region. Each of these sections contains site data for the second order centers. These data are analyzed in the following chapter.

6.2. Data Collection

The discussion and analysis in the following chapters are based on published material. Archaeological data for this study were collected primarily from survey and excavation reports. Information was also obtained from secondary articles, yearly site reports, the PRAP online site gazetteer, Mycenaean Greece (Hope Simpson 1981), and A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979). Yearly reports for some sites were found in Archaeological Reports published by Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and the British School at Athens. These reports are brief summaries of field seasons and research conducted. Mycenaean Greece and A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age are publications that provide brief overviews of various sites.

Data were entered in three databases, one for each larger category of architecture, craft production, and trade. Variables related to architecture are time period, building type, building function, construction materials, construction methods, and building size. Variables related to craft production are objects, time periods, raw materials, provenience, object functions, and any specialized functions associated within the areas in which objects were found. Information collected regarding trade includes non-local objects, non-local raw materials, time periods, provenience, object/raw material sources, object functions, and any specialized functions associated within the areas in which objects were found. The data were recorded in Microsoft Excel databases that organize the sites according to region.

74

Many of the same archaeological remains are documented in surveys and excavations. These include pottery, stone tools, stone objects, and the remains of structures. However, through excavation researchers are able to understand the layout of a settlement as well as construction techniques. The advantage of the archaeological surveys is that a larger area can be explored and mapped. Researchers are then able to gain a better understanding of the extent of settlements and how they relate to each other. The total picture of the Pylos region is different than what we have for Mycenae because of these different sources of data collection. Because of large-scale regional surveys – UMME, PRAP, and IKAP – we have a more complete understanding of how Pylian sites are related to one another and the extent of the region. In the Mycenae region, we have a more complete view of specific sites because many have been excavated, but there are gaps in our understanding of how the sites related to each other within the regional system. Excavation data ultimately were more useful for this study because they give a fuller picture of each individual SOC. Survey data unfortunately only provided a superficial look at SOCs that have not been excavated. It was not possible in many cases to collect information regarding specific architectural criteria, and there is always the possibility that more material remains for craft specialization and long-distance trade have just not been found because they are underground. Although this research was somewhat hampered by an incomplete look at many SOCs, by consolidating data from excavations and surveys it was possible to make meaningful comparisons.

6.3. Pylos Region

6.3.1. Primary Center: Pylos

Introduction Pylos is located 3 km southwest of the modern village of Chora and 15 km north of the Classical and modern city of Pylos. It is located on the Englianos hilltop, and referred to by several names: Pylos, The Palace of Nestor, and Ano or Epano Englianos. The main administrative complex is located on top of the ridge. Pylos was occupied from the MH period to the Early Iron Age (EIA). The majority of structures date to the LH IIIA-IIIB periods, and this is the time during which it served as the primary center of a large region. The main architectural complex at Pylos was destroyed by fire at the end of the LH IIIB period.

75

Pylos is a set of buildings that were joined together as one walled-in compound during its final architectural phase (Figure 6.1). The complex consists of four main buildings: the Southwest Building, the Central Building, the Northeast Workshop, and the Wine Magazine. One hundred and five rooms are found within these four buildings. The Central Building includes a megaron, discussed below. An extensive lower town has been identified through trial excavations and archaeological surveys to the north, west, south, and southeast of the acropolis (Blegen et al. 1973). A tholos tomb is located just northeast of the acropolis and two others are associated with the site. Three chamber tomb cemeteries are also in the immediate vicinity of the main complex.

Figure 6.1 Site plan for palace complex at Pylos. The last major construction phase is shown in black lines, while the most recent phase is shown in dashed lines (after Aprile 2010, figure 4-1) 76

In addition to impressive architectural remains, Pylos has produced a large number of Linear B tablets. Approximately 1200 have been found. They were mostly concentrated in two rooms (Rooms 7 and 8) referred to as the archives. Other tablets were found scattered around the complex. All date to the final two years of occupation of the complex and were accidentally preserved through firing in the destructive burning of the palace at Pylos. These tablets have enabled investigators to partially reconstruct the Pylian regional economic system (Bendall 2007, Bennet 1985, 1995, Foster 1981, Killen 1985, Nakassis 2006, 2010, Palaima 2004, Palmer 1994). Economic activities at Pylos were focused on administering the production of status- charged items and goods that were produced for long-distance trade. The presence of workshops on the acropolis indicates that at least some of these goods were produced at Pylos itself, or at least that these goods underwent the final stages of production on site. These goods include perfumed olive oil (Rougemont 2010, Shelmerdine 1985) and military equipment. The tablets provide evidence that Pylos was also concerned with the production of linen and woolen textiles, as flocks of sheep and flax contributions from various towns in the region are recorded.

Pylos Site Data The megaron at Pylos is very similar in plan and size compared to those at Mycenae and Tiryns. It measures 23.8 m x 11.3 m, and consists of a porch, vestibule and main room all along a central axis (Werner 1993:107). Elaborative elements of the megaron include frescoes, painted floors, and decorative dadoes. The building materials included local limestone, porous limestone, mudbrick, plaster, paint, and wood. Construction techniques are a mudbrick superstructure on a rubble stone socle. Wood was used for doors, beams, and wall frames for a pier-wall construction technique (Nelson 2001). Ashlar masonry was used in earlier phases of the palace building, but only reused or left in place with the LH IIIB period palace (Nelson 2001). No new ashlar constructions were built during the last phase of the palace. The walls of the porch are 1.0 m - 1.20 m thick and covered in painted plaster. The bottom portion of the walls have limestone baseboards that were covered over by plaster in the later phase of the megaron. Dowel holes for wooden timbers are present in some stones (Blegen and Rawson 1966:67). Two column bases, each 0.68 m in diameter, are located on the porch along with a platform near the anta of the doorway into the vestibule (Blegen and Rawson

77

1966:67-68). The platform may have functioned as a guard post or incense burner (Blegen and Rawson 1966:73). The vestibule has a similar platform near the doorway into the main room. The floor of the porch is coated in several layers of plaster and painted with red decorated squares. The patterns within each square were difficult to indentify due to poor preservation, but some have concentric arcs, diamond shapes, and zigzags (Blegen and Rawson 1966:69). The threshold into the vestibule is 1.95 m x 0.93 m, and beside the doorway is an odd slot, the interpretation of which is unclear. The walls of the vestibule were constructed like those of the porch. The fresco scene on these walls depicts a procession with men, women, and a large bull (Lang 1969:193). One figure that appears larger than the others is interpreted as a priest or the wanax (Kilian 1988:294). The floor of the vestibule is paved with stucco and painted. The threshold block at the entrance into the main room is 1.90 m x 0.87-0.90 m and coated with plaster. The main room is 12.9 m x 11.2 m, slightly smaller than its counterpart at Mycenae. It has a central hearth, ca. 4.0 m in diameter, decorated with a flame motif (Blegen and Rawson 1966:85-6, Werner 1993:108). This is similar to the central hearth in the megaron at Mycenae. The hearth is surrounded by four columns, each ca. 0.5 m in diameter. The floor of the main room is covered in stucco and painted with vivid geometric patterns (Blegen and Rawson 1966:78). Red lines intersect creating squares and trapezoids. The area of the floor directly in front of the throne has a figural decoration of a large octopus (Blegen and Rawson 1966:84). The walls are also covered in plaster and painted. The frescoes include a reconstructed feasting scene with male figures sitting on stools and toasting. Other portions of the fresco have a lyre player and a white bird, a griffin, a lion, and possible fragments of a bull (Stocker and Davis 2004:190). The clearest function of the megaron at Pylos is ritual. To the right of the throne rim is a depression in the floor with two basins connected by a 2.0 m long channel. An offerings table with two miniature kylikes was also located near the throne. The channel and basins, offerings table, and kylike assemblage are all related to libations (Hägg 1998:105). Fresco scenes of processions and feasting are also cultic in nature. The main chamber motifs suggests that these activities took place inside the megaron. Finds from the building include a bronze knife, fragments of bronze, gold and silver, a gold pin, ivory fragments, and kylix stems (Blegen and Rawson 1966:74,76). Bronze, silver, and gold jewelry were found inside the throne rim, under where the throne would have sat (Blegen and Rawson 1966:88). The only evidence for administration at the megaron unit itself lies in its close proximity to the archives room. Linear B

78 tablets were found inside the megaron, but these probably fell from an upper story (Blegen and Rawson 1966). No architectural or archaeological remains suggest a domestic use. Court 47 served as a production area for perfumed oil, at least during the later phases of the complex (Rougemont 2010, Shelmerdine 1985). Tools used for manufacturing perfumed oil were found there and include chert, obsidian, and quartz tools; large storage pithoi; braziers; tripod vessels; scoops and dippers; basins; and stirrup jars. Stirrup jars were used to store and transport the finished perfumed oil. Court 47 also provided open air space for the manufacturing process, which would have involved the use of fire. The oil was stored in Rooms 23 and 24, behind the megaron. These rooms had large pithoi set into benches along the walls. The Northeast Workshop building, beside the main complex, was likely a site for the final production stages and/or repair of military equipment. Fifty-two clay sealings and sixty- four Linear B tablets were found in this building (Tegyey 1984). The clay sealings were attached to items that were entering or exiting the workshop as administrative tags to keep track of commodities. The Linear B tablets were records for the administrators at Pylos. Tablets from the Northeast Workshop record body armor, chariot wheels, chariot parts, and possibly harnesses for horses.

6.3.2. Individual Site Data

Hither Province

Ayios Christophoros

Ayios Christophoros is located on a broad saddle on the western edge of the Filiatra- Gargalianoi escarpment. It is about 2.4 km from the modern town of Filiatra, and the site is named for the chapel of Ayios Christophoros built there. The LH settlement is a large area, ca. 300 m north-south by 150 m, on the forward edge of the escarpment (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1969:135). The settlement is positioned to control the pass from the coastal plain inland and to oversee the coastal plain. Many good quality LH III period sherds were found at the site and some MH period sherds. LH period sherds were concentrated on a low knoll about 100 m south of the modern road to Christiani and on a terraced slope north of the road (Hope Simpson 1981:122).

79

Bennet (1995:594) tentatively identifies Ayios Christophoros as the district capital pe-to- no from the Linear B tablets at Pylos. His identification is based mostly on the geographical location of this large site. The area of the plain beneath the settlement is one of the most fertile areas of the Filiatra coast, and additionally the site was positioned to have good communication with the fertile interior plateau. Its size, 4.5 ha, suggests that the settlement at Ayios Christophoros was of importance during the LH IIIA2-IIIB periods (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:148).

Beylerbey

Beylerbey is on the northernmost of two knolls that form a long ridge, approximately 15 m above the coastal plain. The site is about 700 m south of the modern village of Koryfasio. The site measures ca. 200 m north-south by 150 m. There are good surface deposits of pottery BUT the site is badly eroded (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:130). The northern and eastern slopes are fairly steep, and the western slope is terraced. The pottery was mostly dated to the LH IIIB period, with some sherds from the LH II-IIIA periods. The site is strategically located on a ridge near a main transportation route. Beylerbey was an important MH period site. It reached its maximum size of 3.5 ha in the LH III period, but by that time it had been exceeded by the palace at Pylos. Pylos and Beylerbey may have been rival sites, as evidenced from tomb construction at both sites at the end of the MH period (Bennet 1999b:14). During the LH III period its size stayed about the same, but the amount of pottery decreased by almost two-thirds (Bennet and Shelmerdine 2001:137). Test excavations were performed at the site by Marinatos, who found very shallow deposits and little architecture. The site has been disturbed by plowing and other agricultural activities, and magnetometry and geological coring done by PRAP showed no significant deposits. The site was large, positioned overlooking a fertile coastal plain and along a main communication route, and was likely a center of settlement in the area. Tombs may have once been located in the saddle between the two knolls of the ridge, along the eastern slope of the northern knoll (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961:242). It was reported that a person living in the village of Koryphasion had a bronze sword that came from Beylerbey. Bennet (1999b:14) associates the site of Beylerbey with the tholos tomb at Osmanaga. The tholos tomb is located a few hundred meters north of the settlement. The tholos

80 was constructed at the end of the MH period, and was no longer in use by the LH I period. Its diameter is six m and it was built with unworked stones (Blegen 1954:158). The dromos was not lined with stones, similar to other early tholos tombs. The tomb was robbed and excavators found only pieces of bones and pottery fragments within it. Kourouniotis reconstructed several of the vessels, which were mostly of MH pots (Blegen 1954:162). Another nearby tholos tomb is located at Haratsari. It is also about six m in diameter. Modern cultivation on the eastern slope of the site exposed walls and probably graves, but these were not excavated (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961:242). Artifacts are most dense on the flat top of the knoll, but sherds were also found on the slopes of the ridge and in fields around it (PRAP). The most common pottery types are deep bowls and kylikes. Coarse ware vessels, jugs and jars, were also found. Small finds recovered at Beylerbey by PRAP include a LH IIIA-IIIB clay anthropomorphic figurine, a LH serpentine/green igneous sealstone, a LH steatite button or dress weight, a MH-LH quern, a MH-LH obsidian blade, and several chert flakes. The nearby site of Portes was likely a lithics manufacturing site. It was inhabited during the MH and LH period, with the most frequent vessels being low-stemmed bowls, long-stemmed kylikes, and deep bowls. McDonald and Hope Simpson (1961:242) report that a large number of obsidian and chert artifacts were found here, along with a hammer made of red stone, pounders, and rubbers.

Iklaina

Introduction The LH site is located at about 1.5 km west-northwest of modern Iklaina at the west end of a broad spur. This settlement is currently being investigated by the Iklaina Archaeological Project (IKAP). Trial excavations by S. Marinatos in 1954 revealed Cyclopean walls, a monumental structure, parts of a building constructed with large stones, and fresco fragments. Iklaina was not investigated again until IKAP began in 1998 as an intensive surface survey of the surrounding territory. The recent excavations at Iklaina began in 2006 and have taken place each year up through 2011. It is a large site, at least 200 m north-south by 150 m (3 ha), although the area where IKAP recovered LH IIIA-IIIB sherds extends over 12ha. The true size of the settlement itself is not yet clear. The site has a strategic position that overlooks a valley out to the

81

Ionian Sea, and there is intervisibility with the primary center at Pylos. Iklaina is located on a secondary land communication route and is situated approximately five km from the sea. Two collapsed tholos tombs at Gouvitses, about 0.5 km from the LH settlement (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:143) are potentially associated with the settlement at Iklaina. Two other tholos tombs are found at Routisi, a site near Iklaina.

Cosmopoulos (2006) suggests that Iklaina can be identified as the district capital a-pu2 mentioned in theΝδinearΝBΝtabletsΝatΝθylosέΝTheseΝtabletsΝgiveΝsomeΝinsightΝintoΝtheΝsite‘sΝpositionΝ in the regional hierarchy and the kinds of industries that may have been present. In the tablets Cn 608 and Vn 20 a-pu2 was allocated two hogs and 35 units of wine. In the Ma series, Ma 124 lists it in a taxation group with a-ke-re-wa and pa-ki-ja-na. Table An 427 documents five da-k-ro located at a-pu2; these may have been temple servants (Cosmopoulos 2006:217). Nine named bronzesmiths are located either at a-pu2 or within the district it manages, and seven of these are allocated bronze as documented in tablet Jn 693. One named bronzesmith, pu-ti-ja (Puthias), receives *189 on Qa 1294. *189 may be a ceremonial robe (Ventris and Chadwick 1973:485,

Cosmopoulos 2006:217) or a textile. Officials located at a-pu2 include a ko-re-te and po-ro-ko- re-te. These are responsible for contributing temple bronze to the palace in Jn 829, and the korete contributes 5P of gold as documented in tablet Jo 438. IKAP has greatly expanded our understanding of this settlement. In addition to uncovering important archaeological features (such as a Cyclopean terrace and building, and a megaron complex), there are significant finds. Items of special interest from Iklaina include several figural fresco fragments and a fragment of the earliest Linear B page tablet that are discussed below. According to the geophysical surveys, the western end of the plateau was probably the focus of the LH period settlement. The excavators are confident that this part of the site was an administrative building complex that was revealed through excavations (Cosmopoulos 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010). Most of the following data were collected from the annual IKAP excavation reports.

Iklaina Site Data A nearby site, Routsi, has two tholos tombs that may have been associated with the large Mycenaean settlement at Iklaina. Both tombs were constructed in the LH II period and were out of use by LH IIIA2. Tholos 1 included grave goods such as a LH III ivory pyxis with a

82 representation of a ship, a large bronze two-handled vessel, three large jars, and a seal depicting a griffin. Tholos 2 included a cylinder seal with a repeated man and griffin motif, an inlaid blade decorated with felines hunting, an ivory comb decorated with two felines attacking two ducks, a mirror and handle decorated with palm leaves, a bronze tripod, a gold Vapheio cup, and several swords (Marinatos and Hirmer 1973). The earliest architecture at Iklaina dates to the late MH period. These remains are located in the southern part of the excavation area. At least one structure with two rooms was in use during the later part of the MH period. This structure was destroyed by fire sometime during the MH III period. Pottery, burned animal bones (sheep/goats and pigs), an anchor ornament, and micro fragments of burned plaster were found in the destruction layer (Cosmopoulos 2008). A hearth with burned MH sherds, a small MH III storage jar, two biconical spindle whorls, chert flakes, fragments of a large storage vase, MH incised sherds, burned mudbricks, burned MH coarse ware sherds, and a pile of tumbled and burned stones from destroyed walls were found on top of a MH period floor. The remains from this structure suggest that this was a MH period domestic house that was destroyed by an intense fire at the end of the period. The Mycenaean settlement at Iklaina included several structures that were built over the course of at least four phases of construction. Here they are discussed chronologically starting with the first phase of occupation of the LH period. Unit A included at least three rooms and underwent two major architectural phases. This structure is oriented southwest-northeast as were other structures at the site that date to this period. During the first phase it consisted of one rectangular room, 3.10 m x 2.0 m, which was destroyed by fire. The stone foundations of room A1 were constructed in two different methods. Two foundations consist of large and medium-sized stones connected with mortar preserved up to three courses. These walls showed signs of burning on the stones. The other two foundations were made of four courses of large stones alternating with smaller flat stones connected with mortar. The floor of this room is made of pebbles and packed earth. A horse-shoe shaped structure is located in the southern part of this room. The structure is oriented approximately east-west, and is made of five courses of medium-sized stones connected with clay. It is 1 m long and 0.65-0.70 m high, and all of the stones of the structure are burned along with the portions of the two walls that are on either side of it. A large tripod jar sitting on top of a ring of four medium-sized stones was located beside the horseshoe-shaped structure. The surface of the jar

83 where it was touching the structure is burned. A second smaller tripod jar was found near a corner of the room. There is a destruction layer covering the first phase of Unit A that includes burned soil, cobbles, burned bones of sheep/goat, cattle, and pigs, and sherds of plain and coarse ware vessels that were mainly bowls and kylikes. The majority of these sherds date to the LH IIIA2/B period. In phase two of Unit A, two more rooms were added. The pottery associated with both phases is LH IIIA2-B. Room A2 was added to the east of room A1. It is rectangular and measures 2.36 m x 0.85 m. The construction techniques of room A2 are similar to those of room A1; the foundations were made up of four horizontal courses of large and medium sized stones alternating with smaller flat stones connected with clay, and the floor consisted of pebbles and packed earth. Room A3 is a small space measuring 1.03 m x 0.70 m that was probably used for storage. Unit B is a long rectangular building beside Unit A to the east that consists of two rooms. Like Unit A, the structure also has a southwest-northeast orientation. All the walls of Unit B had similar construction to those of Unit A. The length of one wall, wall , was exposed to a length of 13 m and continued into an unexcavated area, making this building quite large. The floor was also made of pebbles and packed earth. Room B2 has a bench against one wall. The bench is 0.40 m long x 0.26 m wide and constructed with five large flat stones. The pottery associated with the wall foundations of Unit B dates to the LH II/IIIA period, which suggests that this building was constructed in the early Mycenaean period. The pottery from inside Unit B consists mostly of LH IIIA1-IIIB sherds, including fragments of burned kylikes. Unit B remained in use until the final phase of the site. An extremely important find was made in a pit approximately one m deep adjacent to Unit B. Inside this pit were a large number of burned pottery sherds and a fragment of a Linear B page tablet. Because the tablet was recovered in a secondary context, it is dated by the latest sherds in the pit to the LH IIIA2 period. Skelton performed a phylogenetic analysis of the tablet, similar to her 2008 analysis, and suggests that this tablet is earlier than the main Pylos archive. The date of this tablet makes it the earliest Linear B tablet discovered thus far, and its location at a second order center is unique. The tablet is broken on the bottom, one side, and possibly at the top. The front side has a verb form that is linked to manufacturingέΝTheΝbackΝsideΝhasΝaΝman‘sΝ name followed by the number one and a fragmentary second line that probably has another

84 nameνΝthisΝcanΝbeΝreconstructedΝasΝaΝlistΝofΝmen‘sΝnamesΝbesideΝnumbersέΝIt is significant that it is a page tablet, which were previously only known at primary centers. This could suggest that Iklaina was a fully functioning center before being taken over by Pylos. According to Cosmopoulos (2011), this tablet either represents the very early stages of the Pylian regional administration, or an independent phase of written accounting at Iklaina. Unit S is the earliest building in the southern area of the site near the Cyclopean terrace. It is apsidal and dates to the LH I/II-LH IIIA1 period. A hearth is located in the middle of the main room of the unit, and a curved storage bin is attached to one wall. A bronze ring was located west of the unit and outside the curved wall. The Cyclopean Terrace is a rectangular area, 8 x 23 m, oriented southwest-northeast. It was constructed with large Cyclopean limestone blocks. About seven m of the central portion of the terrace was destroyed in the 1960s or 1970s by a bulldozer, and unfortunately there are no traces of the building that was originally on top of the terrace. The long side of the terrace is at least eight blocks thick, and the north exterior façade has three courses of blocks visible above ground. The north wall has two offsets, each 0.20-0.30 m thick. The first offset is 12 m from the northwest corner, and the second is 21 m from that corner. Cosmopoulos (2009) mentions that similar offsets in Cyclopean terraces are found at Pylos, Gla, and Tiryns. The west façade of the terrace has only one course visible above ground; each block in this wall measures about 0.60 x 0.80 m. About 14 m from the west end of the terrace is a layer of flagstones that spans the entire width of the terrace. This flagstone layer extends from the terrace over a flat area to the east. The level surface formed by this layer is approximately 12 x 8 m and it may have been a courtyard. The flagstone layer is 2 m higher than the original ground and probably represents the height of the Cyclopean terrace. A paved ramp at the northeast end of the terrace gave access to the flagstone level and to rooms to the south. The ramp is 5 m wide x 4 m long, and follows a gentle ascent. The function of the Cyclopean terrace was to extend north/northwest the level surface of the flat area. This level surface was then used for the construction of the Cyclopean Terrace Building (CT Building). At least five rooms of the CT Building are located on the flat area to the south of the Cyclopean terrace, but the portion of the building that sat on top of the terrace is not preserved. Three of these rooms are tentatively identified as Unit T. The original purpose of these small

85 rectangular rooms was probably storage, and the significant finds from this unit probably fell from above. These finds include 62 fragments of frescoes, some of which depict two female figures and one representation of a ship with at least two males figures. LH II-IIIA1 pottery is associated with the fresco fragments. Cosmopoulos (2010) argues that they originally came from rooms that extended over Unit T because of the spatial patterning of their find spots. Other finds from the CT Building include a clay offerings table and pottery that is mostly from the early Mycenaean period: fine kylikes, bowls, goblets, and storage vessels. The CT Building was clearly a very important building during the LH II-IIIA2 period. It was monumental and located on top of a Cyclopean terrace, it had a paved courtyard and ramp and was likely two-storied, and it contained a clay offerings table and high-quality figural frescoes. It is not implausible to suggest that the CT Building functioned as the location of local elites and perhaps had an administrative purpose. It is evidence of the high status of Iklaina during the LH period. The importance of the site continued after the destruction of this building with the new constructionΝofΝtheΝεegaronΝUnitΝΓέ Unit Y is 4.60 m northeast of Unit S and has two rooms. A stepped ramp with twelve large flat stones is located in the western part of room Y1. These steps lead from Unit S up to the terrace and into space Y2. The pottery from Unit Y is mostly late MH/early LH period. A large outdoor area is located east, south, and southeast of space Y2. It is likely that this space is an outdoor courtyard because no artifacts were found here and an artificial terrace was created to make the area flat. The floor of this courtyard consists of a layer of reddish clay. Units Y, X, Z, and the CT Building border the courtyard. During the 2011 excavation, IKAP uncovered a monumental building that they tentatively dated to the LH IIIA/IIIB. Building X, is about 15 m. long x 7 m. wide and has ashlar walls. It is in front of an extensive paved courtyard with massive drains (Cosmopoulos 2011). Building X likely had orthostate slabs on top of a socle of stones that were worked to be flat. No orthostate slabs were found in place, but one was reused as a drain cover in the same area. Orthostate slabs were also used in a paved area between Units X and Z. Unit Z also has unique construction techniques including ashlar blocks utilized as corner antae. One wall was excavated that does not belong to a building. It is approximately 35 m long and curves toward the Cyclopean Terrace. Cosmopoulos (2009) suggests that it may have served toΝdemarcateΝtheΝUnitΝΓΝportionΝofΝtheΝsettlementΝduringΝtheΝthirdΝphaseΝofΝtheΝsite.

86

Unit Γ, referred to by the excavators as Megaron ΓΝ, is a multi-room complex (Figure 6.2). The megaron portion of the complex is made up of three rectangular rooms and is oriented east-west. The walls of Unit Γ are made of up to three courses of small to medium-sized stones with chinking stones wedged between them. Two walls have conglomerate stones. Unit Γ had two main architectural phases. TheΝfirstΝphaseΝconsistsΝofΝtheΝcoreΝunitΝ(RoomsΝΓ1-γ)ΝandΝroomsΝ(Γ1ί-1β)έΝRoomsΝΓ1-3 are arranged on an east-westΝaxisέΝRoomsΝΓ1ίΝandΝ11ΝareΝalignedΝonΝtheΝsameΝaxisΝasΝtheΝmainΝ unit and are covered with rubble. Room Γ1 is the main room and includes an oval-shaped hearth, four round column bases, and a thin plaster floor. The stone column bases are located around the hearth. The entrance to room Γ1 was marked with a lintel stone 0.60 m x 0.40 m. The floor of this room consists of pebbles and packed earth.

Figure 6.2 Iklaina εegaronΝΓέΝTheΝfirstΝphaseΝisΝshownΝinΝblack,ΝandΝsecondΝphaseΝinΝgrayέΝ(afterΝ Cosmopoulos 2010, figure 20)

Numerous LH IIIA1-A2 sherds, including two rhyta and an animal figurine, were found on top of this surface. Early and late Mycenaean sherds, animal bones, and small stones were included in the fill under the floor. The second phase of Unit Γ includesΝtheΝadditionΝofΝroomsΝΓ4-9 and the division of the mainΝhearthΝroomΝ(Γγ)ΝintoΝthreeΝsmallerΝspacesέΝΓ4-ιΝwereΝlikelyΝstorageΝrooms,ΝandΝroomsΝΓκΝ and 9 may have served an industrial purpose because drains were constructed inside them. The drainsΝΝandΝαΝbeginΝinΝroomsΝΓκΝandΝΓλ,Νrespectively,ΝandΝleadΝintoΝtheΝlargerΝdrainΝαέΝRoomΝ Γ1 was subdivided into three rooms by two walls made up of two courses of stones. These walls were built over the first phase floor and two of the column bases. New rooms, Γ4-11, were also added onto the Unit Γ complex during its second phase. Rooms Γ5-7 are lined up along the north 87 of the megaron rooms Γ1-3. These small, rectangular rooms were probably used for storage. The floors had numerous sherds of LH IIIA2/IIIB pottery that included a large number of kylikes and deep bowls, fragments from pithoi, and coarse storage jars. Fragments of a rhyton, fragments of animal and human figurines, animal bones, and fragments of white plaster were also found in rooms Γ5-7. A large platter was found in situ on the floor of room Γ7. Rooms Γ8 and Γ9 were built to the north of the core rooms of the megaron unit. LH IIIA2 pottery and fragments of human figurines were found in these rooms. Unit Δ has three rooms. Room Δ1 is oblong-shaped and has a doorway that leads to a paved outdoor courtyard on the western side of the building. The walls of Unit Δ are constructed similarlyΝtoΝthoseΝofΝUnitΝΓΝand have medium-sized stones with chinking stones wedged between them. An area east of the structure, which may have been another room, contained large amounts of sherds mixed with fragments of white plaster and fragments of two human figurines. The pottery in this area included two bowls, a jar, and a cup together with a biconical clay spindle whorl. Most of the sherds dated to the LH IIIA1/IIIIA2 period. The area north of Unit Γ was covered in rubble and numerous sherds, mostly of kylikes, bowls, cups, and jars dating to the LH IIIA2/IIIB period. Unit E is a group of rooms located east of Unit B and southΝofΝUnitΝΓέΝAΝlargeΝdrain,Ν drainΝ,ΝbeginsΝinΝtheΝinteriorΝofΝroomΝE1ΝandΝfeedsΝintoΝdrainΝαέΝTheΝcombinationΝofΝtheΝdrainageΝ system and finds from inside Unit E suggest that this building has an industrial use (Cosmopoulos 2010). Room E3 is a small, rectangular room used for storage, and an open area is located to the west of room E2. The architectural phases of Iklaina can be broken into two general periods of occupation of the site. The first period dates to the LH II-LH IIIA2 early periods. The apsidal Unit S is the earliest building in the southern area of the site near the Cyclopean terrace. During the second architectural phase a stepped ramp was built on the east side of the Cyclopean terrace. Intensive building activity took place during the third phase of building in this area. Three monumental buildings and a large paved area were constructed. The buildings include the two- or three- storey CT Building constructed on the Cyclopean terrace, Unit X that was built with orthostate slabs, and Unit Z that had ashlar blocks. The CT Building retained its importance and remained in use through the final phase of occupation in this area of the site. The earlier period of occupation at Iklaina is not well understood in the northern part of the site because earlier walls

88 were built over in later phases and covered by the megaron unit. Units A and B were clearly in use during this period. The second main period of occupation at Iklaina dates from the late LH IIIA2-LH IIIB2 periods. During this period the orientation of buildings at Iklaina shifted from the southwest- northeast orientation of the earlier buildings to an east-west orientation. Cosmopoulos (2009, 2010) suggests that it is possible the organizational change at the site during this time represents a change in administration, and could be evidence that the site was taken over by the primary centerΝadministrationΝatΝθylosέΝTheΝmegaronΝcoreΝofΝUnitΝΓΝwasΝbuiltΝduringΝtheΝfirstΝphaseΝofΝ this period. Unit B continued in use during the earliest phase of this period. In the second phase ofΝthisΝperiodΝexpansionΝofΝUnitΝΓΝtookΝplaceέΝIncreasedΝbuildingΝactivityΝoccurredΝduringΝtheΝ finalΝphaseΝofΝtheΝsecondΝperiodΝofΝoccupationΝatΝIklainaέΝUnitΝBΝandΝUnitΝΓΝremainedΝinΝuse,ΝandΝ new structures were built to the south and east. In addition, drains were installed in some of these buildings, such as Unit E. The change in architectural organization and layout of Iklaina is dated to the late LH IIIA1/early LH IIIA2 period. Cosmopoulos (2010) suggests that it is possible that this reorganization of the settlement represents a shift in the political authority over the site. Iklaina may have been annexed by the Pylian state at this point, but it would mean a later date of incorporation than previously thought. The later buildings at the site seems to have had administrative and industrial functions. This would be in keeping with the duties of a SOC in the Pylian state. It is clear that Iklaina was a significant settlement during the LH period.

Kalopsana

Kalopsana is located on a high spur that extends east into a narrow valley along the lower slopes of Mt. Aigaleon. It is about 1 km south-southwest of the modern town of Metaxadha. The site has a good view over the Metaxadha valley to the east. The distribution of sherds suggests that the LH settlement covered the upper south and southeast terraces of the spur. This encompassed an area approximately 200 m northwest-southeast x 150 m or 3 ha (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:135). Surface survey by PRAP found that sherds extended over an area measuring 360 m north-south x 280 m or almost 7 ha thatincluded the northern and eastern slopes of the spur as well as the southern slope.

89

Pottery at the site dates to the MH, LH I-II, and LH IIIA periods, and most of the sherds are coarse wares. Pithoi fragments are common. Some fine ware sherds include fragments of a stemmed bowl and a LH III kylix. Finds from this site include two LH bronze double axes and a bronze sword that are now in the Chora Museum. Both of these were found in secondary contexts on the hill. Beads, chert flakes, and a loomweight were also found at the site (Davis et al 1996-2010). PRAP also found monumental terrace walls made of conglomerate blocks, some up to 1 m long. Other large pieces of conglomerate were found across the site. It is interesting to note that Kalopsana was intensely occupied in the MH and LH I-II period. There is almost no evidence of material from the LH III period.

Koukounara The LH site is located about 800 m northeast of the modern village of Koukounara. It is positioned on top of the Katarrachi hill, and the minimum extent of the site is 120 m north-south x 70 m, or 0.8 ha. The site extends onto the west and south slopes of the hill. Koukounara is located on a main communication land route. The ridge is naturally defended by a deep gorge on all sides except for a small area to the north. Remains suggest that Koukounara was inhabited from the MH period through the LH III period. The site was excavated by Marinatos. Large walls of undressed stone are located on the top of the hill. Surface pottery includes MH period coarse ware, LH I-II goblets, and LH II-III kylikesέΝAnΝ―apsidalΝmegaron"ΝisΝalsoΝnoted at the site (Hope Simpson 1981, McDonald and Rapp 1972:270). If ka-ra-do-ro, one of the HP district capitals from the Linear B tablets, can be translated as charadros,ΝorΝ‗gorge‘,ΝitΝmayΝbeΝpossibleΝtoΝlinkΝthatΝnameΝwithΝthisΝsiteΝ(εcϊonaldΝ and Hope Simpson 1961:244). Across the ravine in the Gouvalari area are two tholos tombs and a series of mounds containing small built tombs (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:140). Some of these mounds seem to be imitating tholos construction. Some tombs were constructed in the LH I period and were in use until the LH III B period. Gouvalari 1 had a diameter of 6.35 m and was in use from the LH I-IIIB period. Gouvalari 2 had a diameter of 5 m and was in use from the MH-LH IIIB (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:58). Both were probably built during the LH I period and continued in use until the LH IIIA2 period. Small finds from these tholos tombs include gold leaf, fragments

90 ofΝbronzeΝweaponsΝandΝvessels,ΝstoneΝprojectileΝpoints,ΝandΝplatesΝfromΝaΝboar‘sΝtuskΝhelmetΝ (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:140). At least four other tholos tombs are located around the LH settlement of Koukounara (Livaditi, Phyties 1 and 2, and Akona 2). These tholoi were all in use from the LH II-IIIA or IIIB period (Cavanagh and Mee 1998). One tomb had a cache of weapons. In general, use of the tholos tombs in this area ends in the LH IIIB period. The number of tombs found near the Koukounara site suggest that it was a large settlement with a fairly dense population.\

Ordines

Ordines is located 4 km south-southwest of modern Marathopolis on a low ridge about 50 m above sea level. The ridge provides impressive views over the coastal plain. The north end of the ridge drops sharply into the Lagkouvardos River, but the eastern portion has a gentle slope. PRAP found that the maximum dimensions of Ordines are 310 m northwest-southeast by 200 m. The coast is approximately 1 km from the site, and the beach closest to Ordines is partially sheltered on the southwest (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961:236). The site‘sΝgreatestΝextentΝwasΝreachedΝduringΝtheΝδHΝIIIΝperiod,Νwith evidence for steady growth from the EH period. Remains from the EH, MH, LH I-II, LH IIIA-IIIB, and later periods were found. LH III material extended over the whole site, but it was sparse in the northwest, while EH-MH pottery was only found in the northern area of the site (Davis et al 1996-2010). LH III shapes include kylikes, low-stemmed bowls, pithoi, and other coarse ware vessels. Ordines is one of only three sites (including Pylos) in the PRAP study area where Mycenaean period potsherds were found in triple digits. PRAP found several outcrops of bedrock along the east side of the ridge, and it was evident from straight vertical cuttings with returns at right angles that stone was quarried from this area. Small finds collected by PRAP include several LH period sandstone and limestone millstones/querns, a LH IIIA-IIIB clay spindle whorl, and many chert and obsidian flakes, cores, and blades.

Valta

This site is located on a high ridge called Kastraki approximately 200 m north of the modern village of Valta. There are two prominent knolls on the ridge and a saddle between them.

91

The maximum dimensions of the settlement on the ridge is 220 m northeast-southwest x 135 m, or 2.15 ha (Davis et al 1996-2010). Remains at the site indicate habitation during the MH, LH I- II, and LH IIIA-IIIB periods. The highest artifact densities are in the saddle between the knolls and on the slopes to the south of the saddle. The ridge provides good views over a fertile valley to the north, south, and east and the Langouvardos gorge to the west. In addition, the settlement has a strategic position on an interior route from the Valta area to the Filiatra area. A possible MH period tumulus is located on the northeast knoll of the ridge (Hope Simpson 1981). PRAP found no evidence for it, and instead it is suggested that LH III period burials were placed within a MH-LH II period settlement. A possible Mycenaean tholos tomb is in an area where PRAP found other graves. In surface survey, PRAP located a one m thick wall that runs at least 10 m long on the summit of the ridge. It is preserved to a height of three or four courses of small roughly worked blocks. A monumental tomb at the site was partially destroyed by a bulldozer; painted LH IIIA-B pottery and human bones were found in the tomb. Several stones arranged in an arch-shape about three m across suggest that this could have been a tholos tomb. Materials from all the tombs at the site date to LH IIIA-IIIB, while pottery from the rest of the site is from the MH-LH II period.

Further Province

Thouria (Ellinika) Introduction

The Ellinika ridge, which comprises the site, is approximately 1.8 km in length x 100 m in width and rises approximately 100 m above the plain (Figure 6.3). The site is located 13 km from the modern city of Kalamata. Material remains from Thouria suggest that the site was occupied in the EH II, MH, LH IIIA-B, Protogeometric (PG), Classical, and Hellenistic periods (Hope Simpson 1981:129, Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:163). Thouria was located through archaeological survey, and several excavations of tombs and the Classical period settlement have taken place. The site is located in a strategic position. The ridge is situated high above the eastern side of the Lower Pamisos valley, and it has good views to the north, east, and south. A large settlement on the ridge would be well-located to exert control over a large territory. The ridge is

92 also located on both north-south and east-west communication routes. An overland route from Laconia passes through the Taygetos Mountains and goes by the northern end of the acropolis. In addition to the fertile valley to the west of Thouria, two small springs and a river are found on and near the ridge. There was also a fortification wall at Thouria, but it may not date to the LH period.

Figure 6.3 Site of Thouria (after Hope Simpson 1966, figure 6)

The Mycenaean settlement covers the entire southern part of the Ellinika ridge and sherds were particularly dense on the western terraces just below the acropolis (Hope Simpson 1966:121). The LH settlement is at least 400 m north-south x 150 m or approximately 6 ha. The density of sherds below the Classical period settlement suggests that the LH settlement may have extended farther up the ridge, but it is now obscured by later period building activity. Numerous

93

LH IIIA2 and IIIB period fine ware and coarse ware sherds are found in the area of the ridge where the LH settlement is. The most common shapes are kylikes, deep bowls, pithoi, and kraters. A few obsidian flakes and wasters were also found in the area of the LH settlement (Hope Simpson 1957:259). The scale of the settlement is consistent with the size of the Mycenaean chamber tomb cemetery (Hope Simpson 1966:123). Thouria has been described as a ―largeΝandΝimportantΝδHΝsite‖ΝandΝaΝ―majorΝsettlement‖Ν(HopeΝSimpsonΝ1λκ1μ1βλ, Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:163, Koumouzelis 1996). These assertions are based almost entirely on the large size and monumental characteristics of the chamber tomb cemetery and the extent of the settlement (6 ha). At least 26 chamber tombs were cut into soft sandstone rock about 500 m south of Classical remains on the eastern flank of the ridge near the LH settlement (McDonald and Rapp 1972:288). All of the chamber tombs were robbed, probably in antiquity. Of the tombs investigated, all were well-constructed and most are large. Sixteen monumental chamber tombs in this area were excavated and the quality of the ceramics and finds indicates the elite status of individuals from the LH settlement (Koumouzelis 1996, Malapani personal communication). McDonald and Rapp (1972:288-289) report a tholos tomb on the lower slope approximately 600 m to the southwest of the LH settlement. Another tholos tomb that was excavated by A. Liagouras is located near Antheia. Other early tombs are located to the east of the Ellinika ridge across the Xeropotamos gorge (Rambach 2007). Bennet (2002) convincingly argues that Leuktron was the capital of the FP in the Pylian region. It would have been the main settlement within the FP, and it held a position similar to that of Pylos in the HP. It occurs 8-9 times in the Linear B tablets. Leuktron is associated with textile production work groups, stationed masons who could be sent to other locations, and flax taxation (Sainer 1976). Ten units of flax are taxed from Leuktron (Na 419). Female work groups and their children are recorded to be at Leuktron (Aa 89, Ad 290, Ad 308, Ad 326, Ad 668, Ad 669). It had the largest work group in the FP, and was behind only Pylos and ro-u-so in the HP. Along with 83 women, there were 106 children and 23 men with boys. Several ethnic titles are associated with these groups of people: a-ke-ti-ri-ja, a-ra-ka-te-ja, a*64-ja, ki-ma-ra, no-ri-wo- ko, and me-re-ti-ri-ja (Sainer 1976). Tablet An 35 lists Leuktron in juxtaposition to Pylos. It states that Pylos has two masons after sending three to me-te-to-de, and Leuktron has four masons after sending three to sa-ma-ra (Sainer 1976). Their co-occurrence could suggest that

94

Leuktron is similar in status to Pylos. Like Pylos, Leuktron is also absent from standardized lists of district capitals suggesting parallel positions. Thouria site data A tholos tomb is located about 300 m east of the modern highway near the modern village of Aitheia. The dromos of the tomb is lined with six courses of sawn limestone blocks (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961:250). The outer lintel block is missing, but two large slabs making up the vertical doorway jambs were found out of place. Early tombs are found on the eastern bank of the Xeropotamos gorge opposite the LH settlement to the east. The northernmost mound is ca. 10 m in diameter and 5 m high and has a clay capping. The second mound is found about 40 m to the south of the first mound. It is also ca. 10 m in diameter and about 4 m high. Two obsidian flakes, three ring bases from LH III deep bowls, two fragments of painted kylikes, and fragments of unpainted kylikes were found near the second mound (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961:250). These were excavated by Rambach (2007). One of the monumental chamber tombs from the cemetery on the eastern edge of the ridge near the LH settlement, Tsangli Tomb No. 4, has been published (Koumouzelis 1996). The majority of the pottery found inside the tomb dates to the LH IIIA1 period. Tsangli Tomb No. 4 has a long, narrow dromos, 10 m long and between 2.10-2.30 m wide. The stomion of the tomb measures 3.20 m x 1.25 m, and the front façade is 3 m high. The doorway was originally sealed by a stone wall, but it was dismantled several times over time. Sherds from various periods are found in the stomion area. The main chamber of the tomb is trapezoidal in shape and measures 6.40 m at its widest point near the entrance and 4.40 m long. It is covered by a gabled roof, and found within it are a bench and a shaft grave. The bench is 0.45 m high x 1 m wide and located along the northern wall of the chamber. Just in front of the bench are several shallow depressions that Koumouzelis suggests were to receive offerings. Pithoi sherds were also located near these depressions, and it seems plausible that pithoi were originally set into the depressions. A shaft grave was cut into the southwest side of the main chamber. It measures 2 m long by 1 m wide x 1.40 m deep and it was covered by a stone slab. The slab was in place, but the grave was disturbed in antiquity. Though robbed, several items were found in the grave: a round bronze mirror with a plain ivory handle similar to those from Pylos (Blegen 1973:158), a bronze knife, the shank of a bronze and silver ring, the high stem of a tinned kylix, several gold beads of papyrus and ivy leaf shapes, gold foil,

95 gold sequins, and a gold signet ring. The signet ring was decorated on the shank with tiny hollow bosses that were soldered on and the seal depicted a bull-leaping scene, which is a Minoan theme. This ring was well-worn, and is dated to the LH IIB period. It is possible that this ring is a Cretan import. A second small shaft is in the southeast corner of the main chamber, but it was empty except for a partial human skull. The main chamber of the Tsangli 4 tomb leads into a rectangular inner room that lies on the main axis of the tomb. Koumouzelis states that the placement of the side room on the main axis is unusual; this arrangement is also found in three chamber tombs at Mycenae (Wace 1948). This room is 3.30 m x 2.80 m and has a flat roof. Low benches or platforms line three sides, and shallow depressions are found on these structures. Bases and necks of large piriform jars and other large vases were located on and near the benches, suggesting that these vessels originally sat on the platforms. The most common pottery types from the tomb are piriform jars and kylikes. Inside the inner room on one platform were found fragments of a large piriform jar with scale pattern decoration; several sherds of kylikes were found under it. A group of tinned ware of various shapes was also located inside the tomb. These are unique and were only produced during the LH IIIA1 period (Immerwahr 1971). Immerwahr argues that this type of vessel was produced on the mainland (and was not Minoan). Similar vessels have been found in the Tomb of the Bronzes and the Tomb of the Ivory Pyxides in Athens (Immerwahr 1971:171-175). The Tsangli No. 4 chamber tomb is significant because it has distinctive architectural features that set it apart from most tombs of this type found elsewhere. At Thouria, however, this tomb is not so exceptional because most of the chamber tombs investigated there have a similar monumental appearance and architectural elaborations including benches, gabled roofs, shaft graves sometimes sealed by stone slabs, and some frescoes. Koumouzelis gives examples of other chamber tombs that have similar architectural features, and all of these are at significant Mycenaean settlements such as Mycenae, Midea, Asine, Athens, and Thebes, and are dated to the LH IIIA1 period. She suggests that these features mark the chamber tombs at Thouria as signifying differentiation in the social stratification of the settlement. In addition to the unique architecture, artifacts found inside Tsangli No. 4 suggest that the kinship group associated with this tomb held a high rank. They were possibly local leaders before or during the time when the area was being integrated into the Pylian region.

96

Kondra (Dorion)

The habitation site is on the summit and higher slopes of a large hill named Kondra. It is located near the modern town of Dorion, and a copious spring near the site supplies the modern town with water for irrigation. The Kondra hill is about 80 m above the plain and about 600 m x 500 m with a relatively flat upper area (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1969:139). The site occupied this flat area, which measures about 160 m by 110 m northeast-southwest. Pottery was also found on the slopes around the top of the hill. There are walls, possibly from fortifications, surrounding the flat area at the summit of the hill. The pottery includes MH or early LH shapes, such as stemmed goblets with high-swung handles, and LH III shapes that include kylikes, stemmed bowls, and deep bowls. Coarse wares are relatively abundant at the site; fragments of pithoi and large side-handled jars were found. Kondra is about 5 km from Malthi-Dorion and 4 km from Stylari, and these three sites form a triangle around the Soulima valley, effectively controlling this area. It is also located on a secondary land communication route (McDonald and Rapp 1972: 299). Kondra was likely as large or larger than Malthi-Dorion. The fortification wall, size, and location of this LH settlement suggest that it was of importance.

Kyparissia

The LH period site is located on a steep-sided ridge near the modern town of Kyparissia. The ridge is rocky and sheer at the north and connected by a saddle at the east and southeast to the Ayia Varvara mountains. It overlooks a coastal plain and has an impressive view to the north. The settlement on the summit measures ca. 150 m north-south x 50-80 m, but the site clearly extends across the southern slopes of the hill (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:149). Numerous LH period sherds were found at the bottom of the west-southwest slope. Obsidian and chert objects were also found at the site (McDonald and Rapp 1972:276). LH finds on the acropolis are concentrated on an upper terrace in the northern section of the site. Pottery recovered includes a fragment of a MH grey Minyan carinated goblet, a MH-LH I stemmed goblet, and fragments of kylikes. Much of the settlement is obscured by later mediaeval period habitation.

97

The position of Kyparissia is strategic because it occupies a narrow pass between the mountains and the sea that controls north-south land traffic. It is approximately one km from the sea, where there is a small harbor that provides protection from storms (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961:232). It is also located at the end of a major east-west land route through the mountains into the interior from the coast.

Malthi-Dorion

The LH site of Malthi is located about one km from the village of Vasiliko in the southwestern corner of the Soulima valley The site consists of a large, fortified acropolis with a lower town and two tholos tombs. Pottery from the acropolis dates the settlement from the LH II period to early IIIB period, although the earliest remains recovered at the site are from the MH period. Valmin (1930) recorded Neolithic pottery at Malthi, but his dating of these sherds was corrected to the local style of MH pottery in Messenia (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1969:141). Two tholos tombs are located just west of the Malthi acropolis. Both were set into the side of a hill and are dated to the early LH IIIB period. Valmin excavated these tholoi in 1926. Tholos I was robbed and contained mostly LH period sherds. It is 6.85 m in diameter and 5.80 m high. Tholos II was partially collapsed and also robbed. Small finds from Tholos II include gold and steatite ornaments and bronze weapon blades. Valmin also excavated the settlement of Malthi in 1927, 1929, 1933, and 1934, and uncovered the entire area within the fortification walls, the entire length of the walls and more than one hundred rooms (Davis and Alcock 1998:30). The area enclosed within the fortifications is ca. 140 m north-south x 80 m or about 1.5 ha. The site was probably founded late in the MH period or early in the LH period, and was in use through the LH III period (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:174). The fortification walls at Malthi have close parallels to those at Peristeria and the early fortifications at Pylos. The construction techniques of the fortification walls suggest they were built during the LH period (Darque 1980). Valmin described the central area of the settlement as having monumental architecture and workshops. Another large LH settlement, Malthi-Gouves, is located about 100 m west of the foot of the Malthi acropolis, and about 60 m from the tholos tombs. This settlement measures about ca. 200 m north-south x 150 m (3 ha), and is on top of a hill about 10-15 m in elevation. The pottery recovered here by Valmin was almost all LH III period and was from domestic assemblages

98

(McDonald and Hope Simpson 1969:141). This settlement is probably a habitation site attached to the acropolis at Malthi. Malthi, Kondra, and Stylari are all large settlements located around the edges of the Soulima valley. It is possible that these sites were of equal or nearly equal status during the LH period. Malthi is near the main route that connects the Soulima valley with the Stenyklaros plain (McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961: 234). It is a well-preserved site and shows evidence of having been an important settlement during the LH period. Malthi dominated the southwestern part of the Soulima valley, and it is located on a main land route that runs east-west through the valley.

Elliniko This site is located on a large hill about 1.5 km east of modern Mouriatadha. The hill is approximately seven km from the sea. The site occupies a commanding position as it is located strategically along the main east route and at the head of two southeast passes from the Kyparissia mountains to the coast of the Messenian Gulf (Hope Simpson 1981:134). The LH III period settlement is fortified, and extends over an area ca. 200 m north-south x 150 m. The pottery dates to the LH IIIB period. Marinatos excavated this site, which is heavily eroded. The settlement at Mouriatada was probably founded in the LH IIIB period (Bennet 2008 [1998]:129), at the time of the final phase of the Ano Englianos palace. Unfortunately, Elliniko has never been fully published, and information from it is limited. The remains of a Cyclopean-style fortification wall and tower were found. On the summit of the hill is a large building with many rooms that had a plaster floor and painted plaster walls (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:168). Another unique building is located near a tower of the fortification on the south slope. Four column basesΝareΝlocatedΝinΝtheΝbuilding‘sΝmainΝroomέΝ Marinatos describes the first building on the summit as the main megaron and the building on the southern slope as a temple. Other walls are exposed on the surface in all areas of the site except for the north. A tholos tomb, 4.8 m in diameter, is about 200 m to the northeast of the settlement on a hill. It was robbed, and a large amount of animal bones found there may be from later cult activity (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:168). The period of its construction could suggest

99 that it was used as a way to link the site to Pylos because by the end of LH IIIA many of the tholos tombs in Messenia had gone out of use.

Pano Chorio

Pano Chorio is a long flat-topped hill about 300 m east of the modern town of Kalyvia. The hill is connected by a thin ridge to higher hills to the east. The LH period settlement is located on the top and upper western slopes of the ridge. The settlement extends over an area approximately 180 m north-south x 120 m, or 2.2 ha (Hope Simpson 1981:140). Fine and coarse wares were found strewn across the site. The ridge provides views over the Upper Pamisos valley and its northeast extension. The site is located on a secondary route of land communication. A chamber tomb about 100 m south of the site was destroyed by road construction. Finds from within this tomb include a LH IIIB piriform jar, an alabastron, electrum beads, and some gold leaf fragments (Hope Simpson 1981:140). A collapsed tholos tomb is on the northwest slope of the hill above this destroyed tomb, approximately 200 m southwest of the settlement.

Peristeria

Peristeria is located on a ridge on the south bank of the Kyparissia river about 1.5 km from the modern village of Mirou. The northern part of the ridge is steep and rocky, but the site can be approached by a slope at the south. The LH period settlement extends over an area approximately 200 m north-south x 100 m. The site was first occupied in the MH period; remains include a tumulus with pithos burials. LH IIIA-IIIB material is widespread across the site. Remains of structures were found on all parts of the hill except the summit. There is evidence for one large LH I period building designated as the East House. A fortification wall stretches at least 30 m across the south slope, and it was constructed in a similar manner as the early LH period walls at Malthi and Pylos (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:167). Test excavations on the north side of the hill unearthed parts of an extensive LH III period building (Hope Simpson 1981:212). The earliest tombs at Peristeria are small, roughly square chamber tombs that date to the MH/LH transition period. One tomb has been compared to the shaft graves at Mycenae in its construction and grave goods (Bennet 2002:23). Several burials were inside the tomb as well as

100 flint projectile points, a gold cup, four gold bands inside a clay vase, twenty lily-shaped gold beads, and twenty-five gold rosettes (Catling 1977-78:32). An early LH period tholos-like tomb, 5.08 m in diameter, contained pithos burials and inhumations. Several tholos tombs are also located at Peristeria. The smallest, Tholos 3, is 6.9 m in diameter and dates to the LH I period (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:59). Gold cups and two vases were found inside. Tholos tombs 1 and 2, 12.1 m and 10.6 m in diameter respectively, included LH II pottery, gold jewelry, gold foil, and fragments of metal and stone vessels (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979). These two tombs were robbed, and there is no evidence that they were in use into the LH III period. A fourth tholos, in use from the LH I-IIIA1 period, contained multiple skeletons, a Vapheio cup, a four-handled cylindrical rhyton, and a beaked jug (Catling 1977-78:33, Cavanagh and Mee 1998). Other finds from the Mycenaean period tholos tombs are golden jewelry, three gold cups, gold horseshoes, spear points, a bronze sword, gold chariot wheels, a two-edged tool made of chert, and a golden owl similar to four owls found in Tholos Tomb IV at Pylos. Peristeria was an important site as evidenced from tholos tombs, grave goods, its size, and its strategic location. The settlement was occupied continuously from the LH I to LH IIIB. It may have been superseded by Mouriatada in the LH IIIB period.

Nichoria Introduction

Nichoria is located in the southwestern area of the Pylian region, on a ridge near a major crossroads (Shelmerdine 1981). Nichoria is 19 km east-southeast of Pylos, but the distance traveled between these sites is farther due to the range of mountains between them. The site is between the modern villages of Karpophora and Rizomilo, and it lies about 2.5 km from the coast of the Gulf of Messenia. The Nichoria ridge rises almost 100 m asl and its area is approximately 50,000 m2. Of this area, about 4600 m2 (9.2%) have been excavated. The University of Minnesota (MME) conducted excavations at Nichoria from 1969-1973. They defined four major periods of occupation at the site in the MH, LH, EIA, and Byzantine periods. The settlement reached its greatest size in the LH IIIA2 period (Bennet 2008 [1998]:127), just before the construction of the final phase of the center at Pylos. LH period Nichoria includes

101 several small houses, a structure where bronze working occurred, a megaron building, a paved road, and several tholos tombs. The excavations were divided into seven main areas. Area I is a cemetery that includes a tholos tomb and the LH I period Little Circle. Areas II, III, and IV include the majority of the LH structures. EH and MH period materials are found mostly in Area V, and Areas VI and VII contained LH materials. The excavators found that the LH period settlement at Nichoria had been badly eroded and affected by later building and agricultural activities. Erosion and plowing had affected the site such that many of the intact remains were found in pitted areas of the bedrock in patches. Most of the deposits contained mixed pottery, and these were often left out of analyses in the final publication (McDonald and Wilkie 1992). Aprile (2010) reanalyzed the stratigraphy of the LH IIIA and IIIB buildings at Nichoria and incorporated finds from these mixed deposits as long as they could be associated with a particular structure. Nichoria can be fairly confidently identified as the district capital ti-mi-to-a-ke-e from the Linear B tablets at Pylos (Shelmerdine 1981). It is the first FP town on the standard list of district capitals, suggesting that it was located near the border between the HP and FP. Personnel are accounted for at Nichoria. Officials at ti-mi-to-a-ke-e include a korete and prokorete (Jn 829, Jo 438), and o-ka officers. The korete is listed against 6P gold on tablet Jo 438. The o-ka commanded by e-ko-me-na-ta, Erchomenatas, were based at ti-mi-to-a-ke-e (An 661). In addition, thirty a2-ka-a2-ki-ri-jo u-ru-pi-ja-jo from there are sent to Nedon (An 661). Ma 123 records exemptions at this settlement for bronzesmiths. Primary center-owned flocks are supervised by named herders, some of whom are also bronzesmiths (Nakassis 2006). These flocks include two hundred sheep, sixty-six goats, and forty two pigs. The town is taxed fifty units of flax (Na 361), which is more than almost all other settlements in the FP. Thus from the Linear B tablets we see that Nichoria, as ti-mi-to-a-ke-e, was closely involved with the primary center, Pylos, especially as a major flax contributor, supervisor of primary center-owned flocks, and the location of several bronze smiths. Nichoria Site Data There is no clear evidence for fortification walls at Nichoria, although a portion of the settlement is bordered by a steep cliff that would not need fortifying. Several walls have been found at the northwest side of the site, and these could have been terrace walls or fortifications. There is a possible gate on the northern edge of the site (McDonald 1972:272).

102

Several tholos tombs were constructed at Nichoria throughout the use of the settlement. The tholos tombs are mostly to the west of the settlement while the chamber tombs are located to the northeast, east and south (McDonald 1972:219). The tholos tombs have been attributed to local rulers or prominent families (Shelmerdine 1981:322). That interpretation may be strengthened by the reconstructed main approach to the Nichoria ridge top, which probably led through the cemetery and around the LH IIIA2 period tholos tomb and the Little Circle. Many of the tombs were disturbed, but several still included grave goods and human remains. Most of the tholos tombs were probably built in the MH III-LH I period and later reused (Boyd 2002:163- 164). Area I is where MME excavated a tholos tomb. This area is at the northwest end of the site, and it would have been the main approach from the Vathirema ravine to the south. The tholos was built during the LH IIIA2 period into the hillside. It probably replaced an earlier tholos tomb that was used during the LH I – IIIA1 periods (Bennet 2008 [1998]:127). The construction of this tomb as a replacement for the earlier tomb may be evidence for the establishment of new rulers at the site. The final burial in this tomb probably dates to the LH IIIB2 period as evidenced from the pottery (Wilkie 1975:77). Many of the grave goods within the tomb were produced from exotic raw materials that were imported from outside the region. The walls of the tomb are constructed with roughly shaped limestone blocks. Chinking stones and clay were used between the blocks to fill the gaps. The upper walls were built with smaller stones. The vault of the tholos was collapsed, but several of the lintel blocks remained in their original positions over the stomion. The doorway was blocked after the initial burials, reopened and closed again for subsequent burials, and then reopened a third time when the tomb was robbed. Four pits were found inside the main chamber of the tholos. Of these, pits 1, 2, and 3 were grave pits. Pit 1 was lined with stones and roofed with four limestone slabs. Pottery from this pit dated mostly to the LH IIIA2 period. This pit was robbed, but the recovered items include bronze arrow plates, bronze tweezers, bronze rivet fragments, a bronze needle, bronze body armor fragments, a bronze wire loop, miscellaneous bronze fragments, a gold ferrule band, a lead wire, fragments of an amber bead, a bone pin, an agate sealstone, and a steatite conulus. Pit 2 was also roofed with limestone slabs and robbed. Pottery from this pit dates to the LH IIIA1-IIIB1 period, including two stirrup jars that could be imports and two globular flasks,

103 one of which is possibly an import. Metal finds from this pit are bronze arrow plates, bronze blade fragments, a bronze spearhead fragment, a bronze stud rivet, a bronze scale pan fragment, bronze vessel fragments, bronze body armor fragments, gold lily beads, a gold jug bead, a gold hollow spherical bead, gold foil rosettes, gold fragments with impressed decoration, a gold nail, silver vessel fragments, bronze rivets with gold foil caps, a bronze stud rivet with a silver plated head. Other finds include amethyst beads, a carnelian beads, a carnelian sealstone, two agate sealstones, glass beads, glass beehive-shaped ornament fragments, alabaster vase fragments, stone beads, a fragment of ivory, and a carved bone ring. Pit 3 included an undisturbed deposit of bronze vessels and other items. All of the vessels were deformed and some objects were intentionally damaged before burial, such as the bent sword. All of the following objects are bronze: an amphora, a hanging bowl, a spouted bowl, a spouted lekane, a piriform jug, a shallow two-handled bowl, a rim band fragment, a sword, razors, cleavers, and a mirror with an ivory handle. Pit 4 included several secondary burials and no diagnostic sherds. The other objects in the pit date stylistically to the LH I, LH II, and LH IIIA1 periods (Wilkie 1992). The sealstones were probably heirlooms because they were well worn and were of different dates, but they had similar iconography. Objects from this pit include gold beads with granulation, gold solid spherical beads, gold foil with impressed decoration, a gold foil fragment, gold foil caps for rivet heads, gold bead mounts, a gold pin head, gold heavy straps, gold wire, silver fragments, bronze blade fragments, bronze stud rivets, a bronze body armor fragment, a bronze stud rivet with a gold foil cap, a bronze stud rivet with a silver plated head, an agate sealstone, an agate prismatic bead with mount, carnelian sealstones, a carnelian spherical bead, an amethyst spherical bead, an amber bead fragment, a glass globular bead fragment, a glass minute flat discoid beads, a bone pin fragment, and a clay spindle whorl. The floor of the chamber had a mix of artifact and human remains. The pottery was from the LH I-IIB periods and the LH IIIA2-IIIB periods. Earlier vessels were likely heirlooms. LH III period shapes include stirrup jars, a square-sided alabastron, plain kylikes, carinated kylikes, and a cup. Other objects from the main chamber are gold large foil rosettes, gold small foil rosettes, gold foil with impressed decoration, gold lily bead, a gold cockle bead, gold hollow spherical beads, a gold bead collar, a gold volute with a bar, silver links enclosing bronze bits, silver fragments, bronze arrow plates, bronze stud rivets, a bronze stud rivet set in ivory, a

104 bronze knife and knife fragments, a bronze weapon fragment, bronze nails, bronze tweezers, a bronze scale pan and fragments, a bronze handle, bronze body armor fragments, bronze wire loop, a bronze stud rivet with solid gold heads, bronze stud rivets with gold foil caps, bronze stud rivets with silver plated heads, amber beads and bead fragments, amethyst beads, carnelian sealstones, a carnelian biconical bead, a carnelian spherical bead, rocky crystal pendants, rock crystal ring beads, a steatite conulus, an obsidian blade fragment, an alabaster vase fragment, a stone bucranium bead, glass beads, ivory small and large rosettes, an ivory plate, bone carved rings, and a bone handle. Area II of Nichoria is the northernmost part of the settlement, located at the northwest entrance to the site that leads past the LH III period tholos tomb in Area I. Domestic structures were found in this area. They were all small- to medium-sized and oriented around a central area that was possibly a paved courtyard. Each of these units had between two to four rooms. Pottery shapes from the houses include kylikes, deep bowls, kraters, piriform jars, angular alabastra, stemmed bowls, strap-handled bowls, cups, a tripod-pot, and pithoi. Small finds include clay spindle whorls, female and animal figurines, disks, a shed rubber, stone conuli, hematite pebbles, a limonite sphere, pestles, a stone cylinder, several chert flakes, an obsidian point, and a bone point. Metal finds are bronze sheets and sheet fragments, bronze rivets, small pellets of bronze, the bronze tip of a dagger, part of a bronze knife, fragments of a bronze needle, lead sheet scraps, and a lead clamp. One figurine fragment is unique as it seems to depict a rider or charioteer. Fragments of a moveable, segmented terracotta chimney, also a unique find, were unearthed in Unit II-3. The deposits from these structures seem to be purely domestic. Area III is east of Area II and extends down the slope to the southeast. Area III includes several houses lined up along a paved street, and from the pottery associated with the street it is likely that it was used mostly during the LH IIIB period (McDonald 1971:247-248). The houses flanking the street are dated to LH IIIA2-LH IIIB period. Unit III-2 is one of the best preserved houses at Nichoria. It has three rooms and the interior area was approximately 23 m2. The amount of stone tumble inside the structure suggests that it was originally two stories. Pottery from the floors of this unit includes pithos fragments, two bowls, a cup, a kylix, a jar, a saucer, and an angular bowl. Small finds located on the floors are two animal figurines, two female figurines, a conulus, two clay whorls, a loomweight, a limestone disk, chert points, two obsidian points, an obsidian flake, a steatite carved prism, and a

105 limonite sphere. Metal finds include a bronze billet, two bronze sheets, abronze projectile point. The following items were found just outside the structure: a steatite seal, animal figurine fragments, clay whorls, a stone peg-top pendant, a sandstone slab, a sandstone quern, a perforated bone disk, a bronze billet, a bronze bar, and a bronze rosette. The structure appears to have been cleaned out before it was abandoned, so these finds represent small items that were broken or went unnoticed. Unit III-2 provides a good model of the typical domestic structure at Nichoria. Unit III-4 is east of Unit III-2. Only one corner of this structure is preserved, along with portions of the floor. The floor of this unit was composed of hard packed earth with red and yellow patches of clay and some ashy spots. Finds include a clay spindle whorl, a sandstone slab, and thirteen lumps and bits of bronze waste. The post-abandonment fill over the floor held two terracotta animal figurines, a bronze pin, a bronze needle, a bronze bead, a bronze rivet, uncatalogued bits of bronze, and uncatalogued copper slag. In addition, Aprile (2010) notes BA items from the EIA debris over the structure, including a bronze spiral ring, a bronze billet, two bronze awls, a bronze chisel, and uncatalogued scraps of bronze. A greater concentration of bronze working remains and bronze objects was found in this unit, and it was proposed that it was a workshop for remelting and working bronze (McDonald and Wilkie 1992:398). The only other structure of note in Area III is Unit III-3 due to its unusual shape for the LH period. This unit is apsidal and likely dates to the LH IIIB period. Finds from this structure are two female figurines, an animal figurine, a worn conglomerate cobble, a clay bead, a clay spindle whorl, a siltstone slab, a copper bead, several fragments of bronze scrap and waste, and two bronze sheets (Aprile 2010). The Mycenaean road in Area III is defined on both sides by structures and retaining walls. It runs northwest-southeast through this part of the site, and is about three m wide. It was excavated to a length of 42 m, but it was clear to the excavators that it continued off a badly eroded section of the ridge. The road was constructed with hard packed earth mixed with stones and small, worn sherds. On the road surfaces were found an animal figurine, unidentified figurine fragment, a sandstone quern, a stone conulus, an obsidian flake, and a siltstone mold with indentions for three pin shafts and one pin head (Aprile 2010). The destruction fill over the road surface dates to the LH IIIB period. Three worn seals, animal figurines, clay spindle whorls,

106 conuli, an obsidian blade segment, a bronze chisel, a bronze punch, and a bronze vessel rim fragment were found in this destruction layer. Area IV is located on a saddle in the middle of the ridge near the west approach to the site. This area of the settlement was better preserved than the others and it was heavily investigated by the MME excavations. The project excavated approximately 1600 m2 in Area IV. Excavators suggested this was the core area of the settlement due to the settlement density and the presence of a megaron building. The other structures in Area IV seem to have been normal domestic buildings with mostly LH III period pottery and small finds such as clay spindle whorls, human and animal figurines (including one horse figurine), conuli, querns, objects and fragments of bronze, and bronze waste. Common pottery types include kylikes, pithoi, jugs, kraters, and bowls. Some of these units had storage areas, indicated by the presence of benches along walls associated with pithos fragments. Some units also likely had two storeys, such as Unit IV-7. Unit IV-11 is in the northwest quadrant of Area IV. It was not investigated completely. The last stage of use of this building was during the LH IIIB2 period. The size of this unit and the architectural remains found inside it suggest that it was not a domestic building. It is at least 13.7 m long and much larger than all the other buildings from the settlement except for the megaron. No floor level was found, but several slabs were set upright about 35 cm from the wall. The space between the slabs and the wall was paved. The excavators suggest that these structures were stone-lined storage bins. The only finds from inside Unit IV-11 are the slate slabs and a bronze billet. Unit IV-4a, the megaron, is a rectangular, axial, bipartite structure with two auxiliary rooms (Figure 6.4). Unit IV-4 had two earlier architectural phases, identified as Unit IV-4b and IV-4c. The megaron is ca. 12.5 x 5.8 m with 0.54 m thick walls (Aschenbrenner 1975:100). The final occupation of this building was LH IIIA1. The main room had a hearth with two columns, and these were aligned along the long axis of the building. The megaron does not appear to be monumentalized. The floor was packed earth and there is no evidence for plaster on the floor or walls. It is possible the megaron plan itself would have been considered symbolically important. Building materials include limestone, mudbrick, and wood. Construction methods consist of rubble foundations using medium stones in rough courses with smaller stones filling the gaps. The faces were roughly dressed and a mudbrick superstructure completed the walls.

107

The layout of Unit IV-4a consists of an anteroom and main room, with two additional rooms to the southeast. The entrance from the anteroom to the main room is axially aligned. The main megaron room is rectangular with a central hearth flanked by two columns. The hearth is roughly circular and consists of reddish earth (McDonald and Wilkie 1992:434). The columns have an average diameter of 0.32 m and are aligned along the long axis of the building

Figure 6.4 Nichoria Unit IV-4a (after McDonald and Wilkie 1992, figure 7-59)

(McDonald and Wilkie 1992:434). Other built features within the megaron include a possible bench or stairway in the southwest corner, a paved step from the anteroom into the main room, and a threshold of small flat stone slabs between the main room and anteroom. The remains of the bench or staircase include several flat stones parallel to the southern wall of the main building with two orthostate slabs marking the east end of the construction (McDonald and Wilkie 1992:434). Four to six courses of the rubble foundation are preserved in the walls of the megaron. The foundation consists of two faces of medium stones in rough courses with smaller stones filling the gaps (McDonald and Wilkie 1992:433). Small stones and earth filled the area between the faces, which were roughly dressed. No evidence of plaster was found. The four walls of the main megaron room are bonded, thus they were built at the same time. The floors of Unit IV-4a are of packed earth. Unit IV-4a probably had an upper storey, evidence for which includes fragments of a single vessel found in the main megaron room and an ancillary room, Room 3. 108

Several functions of Unit IV-4a are possible given the archaeological evidence. McDonald and Wilkie (1992:438,763-764) suggest that three shallow conical bowls found near the hearth were part of a ritual. Conical bowls were also found in the ritual area west of the megaron at Midea (Walberg 2007:197). The head and chest fragments of a figurine found near the hearth may also have ritual significance, but that purpose cannot be assigned given the evidence. A stone circle from an earlier structure under Room 4 also may have had a ritual purpose, as the earth near this structure contained a higher percentage of animal bones and charcoal. The platform may have been an altar. The cultic nature of the area from an earlier phase is not direct evidence for ritual use of the LH IIIA period building. There is no physical evidence for administration at Unit IV-4a, other than its proximity to Unit IV-11 that may have been a storage center as suggested by the presence of stone-lined bins (McDonald and Wilkie 1992:465). Other finds from the LH IIIA1 phase of this building include steatite and terracotta whorls, obsidian and chert blades and points, a stone rubber, utilitarian vessels, and three pieces of bronze that were possibly attached to architectural features (McDonald and Wilkie 1992:439). The most common pottery shapes within IV-4a were large storage vessels, especially kraters. The small finds from Unit IV-4a indicate a domestic function for the building. From architectural, burial, and artifactual evidence it appears that Nichoria was thriving in LH IIIA and that this dense population continued into LH IIIB. No tholos tombs were constructed after LH IIIA2, but the tholos excavated by MME continued in use until the end of the LH IIIB period.

6.4. Mycenae Region 6.4.1 Primary Center: Mycenae Introduction Mycenae is located about halfway between Argos and Corinth. Mycenae had a very strategic position, controlling a pass from the Isthmus into the Argolid, overlooking the fertile Argive plain, and located at a pass to the fertile Berbati-Limnes valley. Mycenae was first occupied in the Neolithic period, and the site grew throughout the EH, MH, and LH periods, though not continuously. The citadel is on a naturally defensible hill and in its final phase it had large Cyclopean fortification walls (Figure 6.5). Other architecture at the site includes a megaron, administrative buildings, workshops, religious buildings, and a few private dwellings. 109

The megaron complex at Mycenae is similar to those at Tiryns, Midea, and Pylos in that it consisted of a central megaron structure with adjacent rooms for storage, administrative, and possibly domestic purposes.

Figure 6.5 Site plan for the citadel complex at Mycenae (after Iakovides

This site is prosperous early on, evidenced by the MH-early LH period shaft graves. The tholos tombs were built during the LH II and LH IIIA1 periods (Cavanagh and Mee 1998). Bintliff (1977) argues that the construction of tholos tombs during the LH IIIB period, by which time they had gone out of use at other sites, is evidence for centralization of the region of Mycenae. The earliest evidence for a monumental building at Mycenae is the LH IIIA1 period, but there are few remnants of this building (Fitzsimons 2006). The site also attained a more monumental appearance in the LH IIIB period with the enlargement and extensions of the Cyclopean circuit wall and the addition of the Lion Gate. The citadel was destroyed at the end of

110 the LH IIIB period, although it was occupied to some extent during the LH IIIC period. The site continued in importance as a settlement and temple site into the Hellenistic period. The megaron at Mycenae is monumental in its appearance. It is a large building, ca. 23 m x 11.5m, located near the summit of the acropolis, and so occupying a prominent position. Frescoes, painted floors, gypsum pavings, and conglomerate thresholds and column bases are also decorative elaborations that contribute to the monumentality of the building. It is rectangular, axial, and has a tripartite division. Building materials consisted of limestone, conglomerate, porous limestone, gypsum, pebbles, mudbrick, plaster, paint, and wood. Construction methods include rubble walls with mudbrick superstructure, the reuse of ashlar blocks, plastered and painted floors, and horizontal timbering. The megaron at Mycenae consists of a porch, vestibule, and main room. The porch is paved with gypsum slabs (Fitzsimons 2006:245). The walls of the porch consist of rubble masonry laid on two ashlar courses. Horizontal timbers provided a frame for the rubble construction (Fitzsimons 2006:245). The walls of the porch are painted, as suggested by fragments of painted plaster. Two wooden columns were located where the porch met the Great Court. Each column sat on a conglomerate base, ca. 0.57 m in diameter. The entrance from the porch into the vestibule is marked by a sawn conglomerate threshold, ca. 1.80 m wide (Fitzsimons 2006:246). Two ashlar anta blocks mark the sides of the doorway. The floor of the vestibule had painted plaster, with red, blue and yellow zigzags in a grid pattern (Fitzsimons 2006:246). The edges of the floor were marked by a border of gypsum slabs. The walls of the vestibule were constructed with rubble masonry with a wooden framework. Plaster coated the walls, but there is no evidence for painted decoration (Fitzsimons 2006:246). The doorway from the vestibule to the main room had a conglomerate threshold, ca. 1.80 m wide. The dimensions of the main room are 12.96 m x 11.50 m. The floor was covered in painted plaster and had a border of gypsum slabs, like the vestibule, however the painted decoration was not preserved. The walls of the main room were constructed of rubble and were coveredΝwithΝpaintedΝplasterέΝόrescoΝscenesΝincludeΝ―martialΝactivitiesΝandΝarchitecturalΝsettings‖Ν (Fitzsimons 2006:247). The main room had a circular hearth, ca. 3.70 m in diameter. The hearth was constructed of poros blocks and covered in decorated plaster, with a flame motif similar to that at Pylos (Fitzsimons 2006:247). Four wooden columns surrounded the hearth, although only

111 three bases are preserved. The column bases were made of conglomerate, and each is ca. 0.57 m in diameter. There is little evidence for function of the Mycenae megaron. Linear B tablets suggest an administrative function for the site, but not for the megaron itself. There is an implicit association between primary centers and administration, but arguing that the megaron building itself had an administrative function may be a stretch. It has been suggested (Wright 1996:62) that processions to the megaron from the Cult Center were possible. The only evidence for activities within the megaron comes from the vestibule. Here an altar, offering table, and basin were located (Wright 1996:54). The altar is aligned with the hearth, which may be indirect evidence for ritual use of the space within the main room. There have not been many discoveries of Linear B tablets at Mycenae. This is a pattern repeated at all sites in the Mycenae region. It is possible that Mycenae had an archive similar to those at Pylos and Knossos, but that the tablets were not preserved or that they were disturbed by later rebuilding. It is also possible that the total number of tablets at Mycenae was smaller than at Pylos and Knossos, perhaps because of differences in administration. Most of the tablets from Mycenae were not found in situ. They are mostly found in LH IIIB1 contexts outside of the citadel (Sjöberg 2004). Mycenae Site Data The citadel walls at Mycenae belong to three phases. They were first constructed during the LH IIIA2, then extended to nearly double in size during the LH IIIB. The last phase was built at the end of the LH IIIB2 period (Sjöberg 2004:52). There is little architectural evidence remaining for the palace building itself. The first construction of this complex likely dates to the LH IIIA1, with a remodeling phase during the LH IIIA2 that coincided with the earliest citadel wall. There is evidence for fire damage possibly resulting from an earthquake at the end of the LH IIIB1 period. Intense building activity marked the second phase of the complex during the late LH IIIB1-LH IIIB2 period. During this phase, the fortification walls were extended and the Lion Gate was built. Many new buildings were constructed inside and outside the citadel. The last construction of tholos tombs at Mycenae is also dated to this period (Sjöberg 2004:52). A third remodeling and reconstruction phase occurred at the end of the LH IIIB2- LH IIIC period, after an earthquake damaged portions of the citadel. The main complex was restored, new houses were built, and some buildings were repaired and decorated (French 1998:4, Hope Simpson and

112

Dickinson 1979:29, Iakovidis 1983, Mylonas 1966:22-23, Schaar 1979:80-95, Sjöberg 2004:52, Wace et al. 1921-1923). The fortification walls were also extended to the northeast and enclosed access to a cistern was erected during the third construction phase. Many of the buildings inside and outside the citadel walls had economic and administrative functions. These structures include the West House, the House of the Shields, the House of the Oil Merchant, and the House of Sphinxes. Sjöberg (2004:53) calls these buildings ―appendagesΝtoΝtheΝpalatialΝadministration‖ΝbecauseΝtheΝactivitiesΝthatΝtookΝplaceΝthereΝwereΝ likely under the direction of the primary center elites. The architectural elaboration and size of these buildings are evidence for their elevated status (Tournavitou 1995). Most of the Linear B tablets from Mycenae were found in a few LH IIIB1 buildings that were destroyed at the end of the same period. These buildings include the House of the Oil Merchant and The House of the Shields; they are located outside the citadel walls. The presence of these tablets outside the walls of the citadel could reflect autonomous economic endeavors by independent workshops (Sjöberg 2004). Another possibility is that the area within the citadel had become too small to contain all the specialized production activities controlled by the primary center (Tournavitou 1995). The information from the tablets includes ration lists, lists of personnel, locally produced products, and the allocation and distribution of certain products (Bennett 2008 [1998], Chadwick 1963, Tournavitou 1995). Prestige objects and raw materials from long-distance trade, like ivory or faience, are not recorded. The tablets from the House of the Oil Merchant are related to allocations of oil to a textile worker and list men and women who received wool (Sjöberg 2004:53). The function of this building is reconstructed as regulating part of the wool industry (Tournavitou 1995). Individuals who performed work for the center may have been allocated wool. The House of the Oil Merchant would have been a point of interaction between the centralized economy and people working on behalf of this economy. The elites at Mycenae likely did not have complete control over all aspects of production; some parts of the craft production industries were decentralized. However, it is unwarranted to assume there was no primary center control or interest over production activities located outside the center itself. There was likely a combination of centralization and people outside the center working for it (Sjöberg 2004). One tablet was found in the House of the Shields that likely records cloth send to Thebes (Sjöberg 2004:54). Many finished objects of exotic raw materials were stored in this building.

113

Taken together, the textual and archaeological information suggest that this building was likely involved in long-distance exchange (Tournavitou 1995:288). This trade could have been directly controlled by the central administration, with raw materials allocated to them from the palace as we see recorded in some tablets found elsewhere at Mycenae, Pylos, and Knossos. It is also possible the individuals at the House of the Shields traded for the raw materials, made the products, and traded the products back to the palace (Sjöberg 2004:54). Finds in the South House are evidence for craft production in this building. Blue-glass was used for decorating furniture. Mycenae may have used the finished furniture as an exchange item for long-distance trade (Sjöberg 2004:54). Storage areas are located in the Citadel House, where fragmentary Linear B tablets were also found. The Petsas House also has large storage facilities and a substantial number of LH IIIA2 vessels. Several buildings have evidence for workshops, and many of these are also located outside the citadel walls. It is possible that these buildings were located outside the citadel because the area inside had become too crowded by the LH IIIB1 period (Tournavitou 1995). It is, however, not outside the realm of possibilities that the individuals in these houses outside the citadel were private entrepreneurs who traded with the palace for raw materials (Sjöberg 2004:55).

6.4.2. Individual Site Data

Argive Plain Argos

Argos is located on the Argive Plain. The prehistoric settlement here was likely at a plateau on a low, broad hill called the Aspis. This area is 200 m northeast-southwest by 150 m. Vollgraff (1904) reported that one of the two fortification walls here had a Cyclopean character, which would likely date it to the LH III period although he dated both walls to the MH period. Cyclopean blocks were found at the site, but these were all out of position or built into later walls (Hope Simpson 1981:24). MH period remains are the earliest on the Aspis, and were extremely widespread (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:43). The extent of the MH period settlement suggests that it was important during that time. Finds include two Middle Minoan (MM) I stone vase fragments.

114

There is little evidence of the LH period settlement, but Mycenaean occupation levels have been found over a widespread area. Most remains of the LH settlement are uncovered during modern construction projects. A LH III period well containing human and animal bones was found near the Aspis settlement. Fragments of frescoes were also found at the site. Building Odos Niobis 60 dates to the LH IIIA1 period and is made up of several rooms devoted to storage (Hiesel 1989:175-176). There are also chamber tombs at Argos dating from the LH period. The majority of these were found on the slopes of the Deiras hill, near the Aspis. The earliest dates to the LH IIA period. Few had elaborate finds, but some contained items of gold, including gold ornaments in the earliest chamber tomb here (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:45). Some of the chamber tombs continued in use into the LH IIIC period. One rectangular built tomb is located on the east slope of the Aspis. It dates to the LH II-IIIA period. Hope Simpson (1981:24) describes a stone- lined dromos asΝ―probably intended for importantΝtomb,ΝmaybeΝaΝtholos,‖ΝbutΝthisΝtombΝwasΝnotΝ completed and there is no evidence that it was a partially-built tholos tomb. Cavanagh and Mee (1998) do not note a tholos tomb at Argos.

Asine

Asine is located in a strategic position on a ridge on the coast and southwest of a fertile plain. The site covers several terraced slopes and a Lower Town. The site went through several occupational phases with the first occurring in the EH. The settlement was re-occupied in the MH when tumulus graves were built to the east of the site (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:49). By the end of the MH the settlement extended over an area of approximately 60,000 m2. The LH settlement is also quite extensive, stretching across the higher Barbouna area and down into the Lower Town. Several chamber tombs were built during this period; most of them are large and contain rich grave goods (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:49). The majority of the material from the chamber tombs dates to the LH IIIA and LH IIIC periods (Hope Simpson 1981). The LH IIIB period is not well-represented at the site, either in tombs or in the settlement. During that period the settlement went through a period of decline, but it made a steep recovery in the LH IIIC. Several large buildings were constructed during this period. Evidence for the LH I-IIIA settlement at Asine mostly consists of rectilinear buildings with stone foundations. Some of these structures have column bases, lime floors, or pebble

115 floors, but this is the most elaboration on the basic plan that is found. Several areas of the site were occupied during the LH II-IIIA periods (Levendis sector, Barbouna Hill, and Karmaniola area). Habitation decreased slightly through the LH IIIA2 period, and declined sharply in LH IIIB. There is no major architecture dating from the LH IIIB period at Asine, but pottery from this period is evidence that habitation continued on a smaller scale. Approximately 50 chamber tombs are associated with the settlement at Asine (Frodin and Persson 1938, Sjöberg 2004). These provide better evidence for the status of the site during the LH III period than does the settlement. Metal vessels are common grave goods in these tombs that are associated with pottery from the LH IIB-IIIB periods. Non-metal elite items include amber,Νivory,Νfaience,Νsteatite,ΝandΝboar‘sΝtusksέΝSomeΝmaterialsΝareΝevidenceΝforΝlong-distance exchange, such as an Egyptian carnelian amulet, tin, amber beads, and a Minoan ring (Sjöberg 2004:93). Several of these items were probably heirlooms. Goods found in the tombs are evidence for trade relations with other regions and demonstrate that at least some families at Asine were able to acquire imported goods made of high-quality materials. The quality and quantity of prestige and foreign items from the tombs are at the same level as those found at Mycenae (Sjöberg 2004:41).

Midea

Midea is located on a large hill in the eastern part of the Argive Plain, on a large hill. The south and west sides of the hill are rocky and steep, but the north and east sides have a more gradual slope. The north and east slopes have many terraces that are modern and prehistoric. Architectural remains at the site include Cyclopean fortification walls, two gates, bastions, a waterΝmanagementΝsystem,ΝandΝaΝmegaronέΝεidea‘sΝenclosedΝareaΝisΝββίΝmΝnorthwest by 160 m southeast, making it larger than Mycenae or Tiryns (Walberg 2007:1). The megaron at Midea is located on the Lower Terraces near the fortification wall (Figure 6.6). It is the only megaron in the Mycenae region with continuous LH IIIB and LH IIIC strata (Walberg 2007:195). The plan of the building changed from a typical megaron with a hearth surrounded by four columns in the LH IIIB period to a LH IIIC plan with a centrally aligned single row of columns. The megaron was larger than a typical domestic structure, but smaller than the megara at Mycenae and Pylos.

116

Figure 6.6 Midea megaron complex (after Walberg 2007, plan 3)

The megaron was first constructed in the LH IIIB period (Walberg 2007:197). The building measures 14 m x 8 m and has a somewhat typical megaron plan with a courtyard, porch, main room, and additional back rooms in its first phase. The vestibule area has a red plaster floor and the room is reached from a lower level by a staircase (Walberg 2007:64). The main room of the megaron measures 8 m x 5.75 m. The walls are constructed of local limestone, with occasional pieces of marly bedrock, conglomerate, and porous limestone. They have rubble foundations in different styles (Walberg 2007:89), but the faces of the walls are usually roughly hammer-dressed. Medium stones are used with smaller stones to fill in gaps and the interior spaces of the walls. Some walls have a pseudo header-stretcher construction, where stones bonded the faces of the wall by spanning its width (Walberg 2007:90). The superstructure of the megaron consisted of mudbrick, which was plastered and sometimes painted red, yellow, blue and/or black (Walberg 2007:90). Most of the floors of the megaron are plaster laid over pebbles, but some floors have paving slabs set over a level course of pebbles. In the second LH IIIB period phase the transverse wall separating the main room from the back rooms was removed and then replaced by a wall farther to the east (Walberg 2007:197).

117

The result was a larger main room. A hearth surrounded by four columns was also present during this phase. It is not clear whether these features were present in the earlier phase of the building. The back room was divided into two rooms, one rectangular and one roughly square. Projections were added to the northern wall of the megaron near the porch, creating a vestibule area. A platform and a smaller block were located in the vestibule, outside the entrance to the main room (Walberg 2007:197). Additional rooms flanked the megaron in the second phase, including several that may be aΝcultΝareaέΝEvidenceΝforΝritualΝuseΝinΝtheΝ―shrineΝarea‖ΝincludesΝaΝlargeΝelliptical hearth associated with a miniature tripod terracotta offerings table, a female figurine, a large terracotta stand, a fragment of a large female figure, and a stirrup jar decorated with birds, double axes and horns of consecration (Walberg 2007:197). Four rooms (XXIV, XIV, XVIII, and XX) were built during the second phase of the megaron inside an earlier courtyard. The construction of these rooms over an open area suggests the need for secluded or specialized space rather than a courtyard (Walberg 2007:197). Rooms XX and XVIII may have been ritual areas, suggested by finds of a circular platform in association with a rhyton, spouted conical bowls, miniature vessels, and the head of a terracotta snake (Walberg 2007:197). Rooms north of the megaron included an area where three nodules were found. These rooms (XV, XVI, VI, and VII) have plaster walls, and inside Room XVI is a bench covered in white plaster (Walberg 2007:69). Two nodules have Linear B inscriptions. A nodule from a room on the southwest slope has Linear B writing,ΝwhichΝreadsΝ―AsΝaΝcontributionΝtoΝtheΝmegaronΝήΝAisoniosΝgaveΝthisΝ(ϊemakopoulouΝetΝ al. 2002: 85-κι)έ‖ΝTheΝinscriptionΝisΝevidenceΝforΝadministrationΝatΝεidea,ΝthoughΝnotΝnecessarilyΝ within the megaron. Evidence for functions of the building include millstones, pounders, and animal bones from one of the back rooms (Room XI). This suggests it was an area for food preparation or storage of objects used in food preparation (Walberg 2007:65). During the second phase of the megaron there was more evidence for rituals within and around the building. A platform was built in the vestibule area, which may have served as an altar and had parallels from the porch of the megaron at Mycenae and the Room with The Fresco in the cult center at Mycenae. Additionally, several rooms were constructed within an earlier courtyard west of the megaron, and finds from these rooms suggests it was a cult area. The only possible evidence for feasting could be that the most common pottery shape was deep bowls. These constitute 48.7% of the

118 assemblage (Giering 2007:133). The deep bowl does not necessarily imply feasting because it could also be a utilitarian vessel. The next most common shapes were kraters (7.7% of the assemblage) and the globular stirrup jar (7.2% of the assemblage). There are few fragments of kylikes (2.5% of the assemblage), which may be argued as evidence against feasting. The area immediately north of the megaron has evidence for administration, including Linear B inscribed nodulesέΝTheΝ―ωontributionΝtoΝtheΝmegaron‖ΝnoduleΝisΝsecureΝevidenceΝforΝadministrationΝatΝ Midea. The cemetery at Dendra is associated with the settlement at Midea. This cemetery included many elaborate chamber tombs with depositions of prestige items and wealth. A tholos tomb was in use here from the LH IIB-IIIA1 period (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:58).

Nauplion

The LH settlement is located on the acropolis of Nauplion. The acropolis is about 500 m east-west by 200 m, although sherds do not extend over this entire area. Part of a Cyclopean wall is also located here (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:49). No architectural remains from the settlement have been excavated (Sjöberg 2004:75). LH period chamber tombs are found on the northeast slope of the Palamidi, the large ridge above the modern city. The chamber tomb cemetery is extensive and arranged in horizontal rows (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:48). At least fifty-eight of these tombs have been excavated. Some of these tombs contained jewelry, stone vases, and ivory objects, and most date to the LH IIIA-IIIB period. The number of chamber tombs suggests that the LH period settlement at Nauplion was quite large, but the lack of knowledge of the settlement is problematic.

Prosymna

Prosymna is located on the summit and slopes of a ridge on edge of the Argive Plain. The site is approximately 150 m northeast-southwest x 100 m. Habitation at the site began in the EH II and continued up until the late LH IIIB (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:38). A Temple of Hera dating to later periods destroyed most of the center of the Mycenaean settlement. The site was abandoned at the end of the LH IIIB (Sjöberg 2004).

119

A large chamber tomb cemetery with more than 50 tombs is associated with the site. The earliest graves date to the LH I and the latest to the LH IIIB. A tholos tomb is located about one km to the north of the chamber tomb cemetery. It has a diameter of 9.5 m, making it the largest tholos in the Argolid outside of Mycenae (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:38). The dromos of this tomb faces the road that led from Mycenae (Hope Simpson 1981:19). It was likely constructed during the LH II-IIIA1 period (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:58). All of the pottery from this tomb dates to the LH IIIA period, and the objects that were found include fragments of several stone and metal vessels and gold jewelry. A tholos tomb at Prosymna dates to the LH II- IIIA period (Cavanagh and Mee 1998). Many small houses are found at Prosymna, and they all date to the LH IIIB period. Mylonas Shear (1968:277) classifies them as the same type as those at Mycenae, but smaller and with less architectural elaboration. Traces of a fortification wall and gate are found at the site (Hope Simpson 1981:18).

Tiryns Tiryns is located on a long, oval rocky outcrop on the Argive Plain. The site is approximately 300 m north-south x 100 m (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:41). The acropolis is divided into upper, middle, and lower sections. The Upper Citadel is where the megaron complex is found (Figure 6.7). Evidence for habitation at the site extends from the EH II to the LH IIIC period and into the Iron Age. Occupation during the MH period was fairly sporadic, but involved use of several large structures. These are mostly known through test pits because they are found under the later LH III megaron complex. The site is fortified with large Cyclopean walls that were probably first built in LH IIIA2 (about the same time as the fortification walls at Mycenae). Tiryns had three major building phases. The first fortification walls were constructed in LH IIIA1, and the earliest megaron complex probably dates to the LH IIIA2 period. In LH IIIB1, the area of the citadel was almost doubled with an extension of the walls. There was also a large amount of building activity taking place within the settlement, with rooms being added on to existing structures (Sjöberg 2004:63). The end of LH IIIB1 was marked by destruction caused by

120

Figure 6.7 Tiryns upper citadel complex (after Schliemann 1886, pl. II)

an earthquake and fire. The third building phase came after this destruction, in the LH IIIB2, and during this time the Lower City, storage galleries, and access to cisterns were built. A natural event destroyed major portions of the site at the end of LH IIIB2 (Kilian 1979:404). A chamber tomb cemetery is located about 800 m east of Tiryns. They range in date from the LH IIA-IIIC. At least two tholos tombs are found here also. One tholos is large, with a diameter of 8.5 m, and dates to the LH III based on similar architectural features to tholoi at Mycenae (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:43). Functions identified at the site include storage, workshop production (mostly metalworking), and administration. Remains associated with metalworking include bronze bars, bronze slag, and a melt crucible dating to the LH IIIB1 (Sjöberg 2004:64). Five areas of the site have produced evidence for metalworking during the LH IIIB2 period. Two pottery kilns were located at the site, one from the LH IIIB2 and one the LH IIIC. Linear B tablets have been found

121 at Tiryns, but mostly out of context. One tablet mentions alum that was used in cloth production, and other tablets reference land tenure, oxen, personnel, and chariot wheels (Sjöberg 2004:64).

Foothills

Berbati

Berbati is located on a small hill overlooking the Berbati valley. Its position is strategic, occupying the main entrance into the valley from the south, the Kontoporeia pass to the northeast, and the route to Mycenae to the northwest (Hope Simpson 1981:19). The main periods of occupation at the site are the EH II, the MH, and the LH II-IIIB (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:39). AΝpotter‘sΝworkshopΝwasΝbuiltΝinΝtheΝearlyΝεycenaeanΝperiod,ΝandΝitΝwasΝ replaced by a larger building during the LH IIIA2-B period. The settlement was abandoned at the end of the LH IIIB. The pottery workshop dates to the LH II or early LH IIIA1 period. The complex consists of several rooms, a courtyard, the remains of a kiln, and a pottery dump (Schallin 2002:142). Pictorial pottery was a specialty of the workshop, and amphoroid and open kraters are the most common shapes with pictorial decoration (Schallin 2002). Many examples of this kind of krater have been found on Cyprus, which provides evidence for long-distance exchange for Berbati. A tholos tomb is located about one km northwest of the settlement. It has a diameter of eight m, and although it was robbed LH IIA-IIIA1 pottery and portions of a gold-rimmed silver cup were recovered (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979). Chamber tombs are found on the west side of the valley and mostly contain LH IIA-IIIB pottery.

Kasarma

Kasarma is the highest hill, ca. 280 m, along the route from Nauplion to Epidauros. It is near the modern village of Ayios Ioannis. MH and LH sherds are abundant on the summit and upper south slopes. The total extent of the site is at least 150 m north-south x 130 m (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:51). LH IIIA-IIIB ceramic shapes from the site include deep bowls and kylikes. No architectural remains from the settlement have been excavated (Sjöberg 2004:75). There are Cyclopean fortification walls at the site associated with Mycenaean pottery (Lord 1939).

122

One LH IIA period tholos tomb is located about 200 m east of the settlement (Cavanagh and Mee 1998). It has a diameter of 7.5 m and is badly preserved. Deep pits in the floor preserved intact burials. The dromos of this tholos tomb faces south, which is likely toward the direction of the Mycenaean road (Hope Simpson 1981:27). Cylinder seals dating to the LH I-II were found in this tomb. One is made of amethyst and depicts a human figure with a griffin and a lion (Younger and Betts 1979:277). The Kasarma bridge is about 700 m west of the settlement. It is constructed of typical Mycenaean architectural techniques in a Cyclopean style. Its width at the top is 5.55 m and the total height of its arch is 2.35 m. Originally there were walls on either side of the roadway here that formed a protective balustrade for the bridge (Hope Simpson 1981:27). The bridge is dated to the LH IIIA-B period (Balcer 1974:149). There are three other similar bridges in the area of Kasarma. This bridge is part of the LH period road system in this region, and this particular route led from the Argolid to Epidauros and the Saronic Gulf.

Korinthia

Aidonia

There is limited information from Aidonia. It is primarily known through its chamber tomb cemetery, and until fairly recently the settlement was not known. Twenty of the chamber tombs have been excavated, and the Aidonia Treasure that is exhibited in the National Museum in Athens probably originated in this cemetery based on stylistically similar gold work (Rutter 1993:97, Whitley 2002-2003:21). Three LH II gold rings, other LH II period finds of precious materials, and LH II-IIIB pottery and bronzes were recovered from the tombs (Rutter 1993:97). The settlement (Platana) was found through a survey project in the Basin of Phlius by the University of Heidelberg in 1999 (Pappi 1999). The site is located on a spur about 500 m northwest of the chamber tomb cemetery (Wright et al. 2008:649, Whitley 2002-2003:21). Many finds were found in addition to Cyclopean walls (Hachtmann forthcoming). The quality of the finds in the tombs, Cyclopean walls, and site size point to a settlement with an important role from the late MH-LH IIIA1. It is possible that Aidonia attained a higher status when the area was incorporated into the Mycenae territory (Bennet 2002, Wright 2008). The display of wealth in the chamber tomb cemetery (Kaza-Papageorgiou 1996, Krystalli-Votsi 1996) is evidence of the

123 elevated status of kin groups at the site. The archaeological remains suggest a decline in habitation at the site in LH IIIA2 (Hachtmann forthcoming).

Tsoungiza

Tsoungiza is located on a ridge that overlooks the Nemea Valley (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:67). The main periods of habitation at the site are the EH I-III and LH I-IIIB. It is large site, about 250 m x 300 m and covering 7.5 ha. The site was largely abandoned during the MH, and new structures were built at the beginning of the LH period. These were typical houses with deposits containing cooking ware, chert flakes, and other domestic items (Wright 1990:351).

Zygouries

Zygouries is located on a low mound near the modern village of Ayios Vasilios, about midway between Corinth and Mycenae (Blegen 1928). Its position is strategic because it is near the fertile Kleonai Valley and only about 1.5 miles from a route that leads to the Argive Plain. The site is approximately 170 m x 90 m, and it was inhabited without a break from the EH I- early LH IIIB (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979:66). During the LH IIIB period, the settlement spread from the mound to an area below the hill. LH IIIB period chamber tombs are located on a hill about 500 m to the west of the settlement. Small finds from the site include bronze knives, a bronze spear point, about 40 clay figurines,ΝanΝivoryΝknifeΝhandle,ΝaΝboar‘sΝtuskΝwithΝaΝstripΝcutΝaway,ΝcarnelianΝbeads,ΝanΝobsidianΝ point, and spindle whorls. The metal objects, ivory, obsidian, and carnelian beads are objects that must have been traded for or made from raw materials that came to Zygouries through exchange networks. Two sealstones found in Building B are evidence for administration at the site. The most important LH III building at the site is Building B that has been interpreted as a workshop and storage building for pottery (Blegen 1928), asΝtheΝ―basement of a local magnate‘sΝhouse (Hope SimpsonΝandΝϊickinsonΝ1λιλμ66),‖ΝandΝasΝstorageΝforΝvesselsΝusedΝinΝtheΝ perfumed oil industry (Thomas 1988, 1992). It is a large building (15 m x 11.5 m preserved) with a large amount of pottery. The walls are constructed with unworked stoned laid in clay, which suggests a heavy superstructure (Blegen 1928). Five rooms are preserved, but more probably existed. Architectural elaborations found in these rooms include stone thresholds, plaster covered walls, and clay floors. Rooms 12 and 13 had the greatest amount of pottery,

124 about 1100 vessels of 20 different shapes. The most represented shapes are unpainted deep bowls, kylikes (unpainted and painted), kraters, and saucers. There were relatively few painted vessels, and most would have been used in domestic contexts. All of these vessels date to the LH IIIB period. One room may have been used for industrial purposes because it has a large, open drain lined with a terracotta pipe along the wall, but there are no other remains associated with production. Evidence for an upper story includes the heavy construction of the walls, a possible stairway, and burnt debris (including painted plaster) that had fallen from above. The upper floor of the building was likely the domestic area. Blegen (1928:221-βββ)ΝarguesΝthatΝtheΝcomplexΝwasΝaΝpotter‘sΝshop,ΝandΝtheΝpreservedΝ basement levels were for the storage of pottery. However, there is no kiln or water supply at this structure, and its location is on a slope with little working space (Thomas 1988). Thomas (1988, 1992) reanalyzed the ceramics from this deposit and concluded that the finds likely represent the storage of vessels used in the manufacture, storage, and transport of perfumed oil. The manufacturing of this oil would have taken place at another area of the site, as there is no evidence for production in this building. A connection with the perfumed oil industry is important because this was a commodity in which Mycenae would have had direct interests for long-distance exchange.

6.5. Summary This chapter provided the data for each potential Mycenaean SOC. Summaries of the distributions of the features and functions from each region are provided in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 below. It is important to note that the sites that yielded the most variables are those that have been excavated. These variables are analyzed in the next chapter by looking at frequencies and tetrachoric correlations, and discussed in terms of the SOC archaeological definition and the Composite Model of Regional Integration.

125

Table 6.1 Distribution of Formalized Features and Functions in the Pylos Region Ay. Pylos Christ Bey Ikl Kalop Kou Ord Valta Thouria Kon Kyp Malthi Ellin Pano Perist Nich Strategic Loc xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Admin x - xx------x -- - x

Storage x - -xx- - - - x - - -- - x Craft Production x-xx--x-x--x---x

Trade x -xxxx-- x -x - -xx x Prestige Goods x--xxx--x-x--xxx Foreign Goods x-x-----x-x--x-x Metal Items x - -x-x-- x -- - -xxx

Tholos x - x- - x - x x - - x xx x x Chamber Tombs x-xx-xxxx----xxx

126

Table 6.2 Distribution of Formalized Features and Functions in the Mycenae Region

Mycenae Argos Asine Berbati Kasarma Midea Nauplion Prosymna Tiryns Aidonia Tsoungiza Zygouries Strategic Location xxxxxxxxxxx x

Administration x - - - x x - - x x - x

Storage x x - x - x - - x - x x Craft Production x-xx-x--x-x x

Trade x x x x - x x - x - - x

Prestige Goods xxxx-xx-xx- x

Foreign Goods x - x - - x x - x x x x

Metal Items x x x x - x x - x x x x

Tholos x --x x x - x x - - - Chamber Tombs xxxxxxxxxxx x

127

CHAPTER 7

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF SECOND ORDER CENTERS

7.1. Introduction

In this chapter, I analyze correlations among the variables to determine any patterns of the data from Mycenaean sites. There are several main objectives in this chapter. The first is to determine if there is a shared set of archaeological characteristics among Mycenaean SOCs. The second objective is to compare Mycenaean SOCs from the Pylos and Mycenae regions. The data from Chapter 6 are grouped into three major categories of variables for analysis: (1) site features (strategic location and site size over two ha), (2) architectural features (special buildings, tholos tombs, and chamber tombs), and (3) economic functions (administration, storage spaces, craft production, trade, and the presence of prestige items, foreign goods, and metal items). The analytical approach involves examining the distribution of SOC features and functions. I then examine the correlations between particular variables and evaluate how these relate to the archaeological definition of SOCs. The first section of this chapter considers the total frequencies of each variable across the sites as well as the total number of variables present at each site. The second section examines the statistical correlations between the variables at all sites and within each region. I used SYSTAT 13 statistical software to formulate tetrachoric correlations for the variables. In order to perform these analyses, it was necessary to code the data in a binary fashion. Hence all information is considered as presence/absence rather than quantities. Taphonomic processes and the nature of the archaeological record should be considered when discussing the presence or absence of features at a site. The analysis that follows must be based on what is currently known about each site, although some localities are not as extensively investigated as others. The twelve variables considered are strategic position, large site (over two ha), large or special building, tholos tomb(s), chamber tomb(s), administration, storage, craft production, trade, prestige goods, foreign items, and metal items. The period of use at each site is also included in the table, but this information is not factored into the analysis.

128

7.2. Mycenaean Data Analysis

7.2.1. Frequencies

This section provides presence/absence tables and frequencies for the 12 variables considered for each site. Data for all of the Mycenaean sites from both regions are given in Table 7.1. The most striking find, but perhaps not unexpected, is that all of the sites are located in strategic positions. These locations include, most commonly, ridge tops along main or secondary communication routes --often with unobstructed views and access to agriculturally fertile areas. Strategic position was not used to choose potential SOCs for this study, therefore the fact that 100% of the sites are located in a strategic position is important. Site location in a strategic position was not set out as part of the archaeological definition of SOCs, but this finding suggests it should be considered as one of the key factors that contributes to the categorization of a site as a SOC. There is considerable variability among the sites in terms of burial evidence. Over 75% of sites have at least one chamber tomb associated with them, and 58% have at least one tholos tomb. There is regional variation in the number of sites with tholos tombs that is analyzed below. There is also some regional variation in the presence of chamber tombs at sites, but the majority of sites are associated with this tomb type. Chamber tombs were a common tomb type in the LH, so this is not a surprising finding. The chamber tombs at these sites do tend to be more monumental in appearance of have higher quality goods than standard chamber tombs. There are only two instances (Malthi and Elliniko, both in the Pylos region) where sites have a tholos tomb but are not associated with chamber tombs. If we take this into account, then 85% of sites are associated with either tholoi or chambers tombs. A large or special building is found at 38% of sites; these include structures that have more architectural elaboration than other buildings within the settlement, buildings that are larger than normal domestic structures, and buildings with specialized functions.

129

Table 7.1 Variable frequencies for all Mycenaean sites. They are listed in the same order as they are numbered on the maps.

130

Further patterns emerge in the functions of sites. Out of the two regions 46% of sites have evidence for craft production on a scale larger than that expected for the household and 62% have evidence of trade documented by the presence of nonlocal materials or items. Evidence for storage above the household level was only found at 38% of sites. It was expected that more sites would have evidence for storage facilities because their function was thought to involve holding goods produced at the site or collected from the local area to be sent to the primary center. Only 31% of sites have archaeological remains that can be confidently associated with administration such as Linear B tablets, seals and sealings, or nodules. The presence at some sites of substantial evidence for craft production in single buildings, such as Building B at Berbati, could also be considered secondary evidence for administration because some individual or individuals must have organized the labor and the processes that went into producing and storing the vessels. These same individuals may have also played a role in the distribution of the finished pottery and the allocation of materials. However, for the purposes of this study only direct physical evidence through official records or endorsements was considered as administration. There is not much regional variation in terms of administration. Artifacts can be found in a diversity of contexts that may reflect different functions. Prestige goods, present at 62% of sites, were mostly found in tholos or chamber tombs and not in domestic settings in the settlements. Tombs were also the major locations of foreign items (50% of sites). There is some overlap between prestige goods and foreign items. Some utilitarian materials, such as obsidian, were included in the category of foreign items as they are clearly imported. Otherwise, utilitarian items mostly occurred in settlement contexts. Almost 60% of the sites have metal items. The most commonly occurring metal is bronze. There is also some overlap between prestige goods and metal items. For example, gold and silver jewelry and vessels are considered prestige goods and they are metal items. Bronze items could be utilitarian or elite depending on the form of the artifact. The largest amount of metal was found in burial contexts as grave goods because metal was presumably collected and reused and often not left behind in settlement contexts (Laffineur 1995:189). Examples of utilitarian metal items include tools, rivets, and raw materials or scraps.

131

Pylos Regional Pattern The following section discusses variation in the general patterns. The first region considered is Pylos. Variable frequencies in the Pylos region do not vary widely from the overall pattern found for all Mycenaean sites (Table 7.2). All Pylian sites are located in strategic positions. Chamber tombs are associated with 60% of sites, and 60% are associated with at least one tholos tomb. Less than 50% of these sites have both tomb types. Iklaina and Ordines are associated with chamber tombs, but no tholos tombs have been found at these sites. At Malthi and Elliniko, only tholos tombs have been found. Chamber and tholos tombs are found at the following seven sites: Beylerbey, Koukounara, Valta, Thouria, Pano Chorio, Peristeria, and Nichoria. As with the general pattern discussed above, the majority of Pylian sites (73%) are associated with elite tomb types, while large or special buildings were found at only 33% of sites. In terms of functions, sites in the Pylos region are similar to the overall Mycenaean pattern where trade (60%) and craft production (40%) are most common. Evidence for storage greater than the household level is found for 27% of the sites, compared to 26% overall at Mycenaean sites. As in the general pattern, evidence for administration is the least frequently observed variable. One important specific example of administration is the recent finding of a Linear B tablet at Iklaina. This shows that, as in the Mycenae region, Linear B is not restricted to the primary center. Prestige goods are found at 53% of Pylian sites with most finds occurring in burial contexts. Metal items were found at 32% of sites, but some localities have more metal objects than others. Sites with higher amounts of metal items recovered are those that were excavated, and metal objects tend to be found in burial contexts. Foreign items were found at 24% of Pylian sites. Overall, there is not a large departure in patterns found in the Pylos region from those found in general at all Mycenaean sites. Several of the sites in the Pylos region have evidence for at least 60% of the variables considered. There is an association between the extent of excavation and the number of variables with data represented . For example, Nichoria, a well-researched site, has evidence for 100% of the variables; it is a large site located in a strategic position with associated chamber and tholos tombs, a megaron, storage, prestige goods, foreign items, metal items, and evidence for administration, craft production, and trade. Iklaina is the site with the next highest percentage of features (83%). Excavations are ongoing at this site, but already three buildings that are large and

132

Table 7.2 Variable frequencies for sites in the Pylos Region. They are listed in the same order as they are numbered on the maps.

133

seem to have special purposes have been identified, and there is evidence for administration, craft production, storage and trade. Chamber tombs are located near Iklaina, but no tholos tomb has been found. Thouria has 75% of the variables represented, but lacks evidence for a large building, administration, and storage. Three other sites, Beylerbey, Pano Chorio, and Peristeria, have data for 67% of the variables. There is also a spatial component to the variation seen at Pylian sites. Figure 7.1 is a map of the Pylos region that illustrates the geographic distribution of the data. The clear pattern is that the sites with the highest number of data variables represented are geographically closer to the primary center, Pylos (N=16). Thouria is the only site located some distance from Pylos that has eight of the variables. This site has been suggested as the location of the FP capital, subordinate to Pylos but occupying a position above other SOCs in its province (Chadwick 1972, Bennet 1995). Nichoria is the only other site in the FP that has a large number of variables represented (11 of 11). It is closer to Pylos than other sites in its province, and the site was excavated extensively providing a great deal of settlement and tomb data. Sites in the HP on average have a larger number of individual variables, but there is not a large degree of difference between the HP and FP. The clearest spatial distinction is that sites closer to Pylos have more features in common with it than do sites that are further away. Architectural emulation, in conjunction with similar site functions to a primary center, is an indication that those sites are integrated into the regional system. The higher degree of similarity between Pylos and the sites closest to it provides evidence that these sites were integrated into the region. The relationship between emulation and the strategies of the Composite Model of Regional Integration is more complicated. That more emulation is found at sites closest to Pylos and at Nichoria and Thouria is likely related to close sociopolitical relationships between elites at these sites. Greater similarity in architectural features and functions of sites can be indicative of the processes of competitive conspicuous consumption that can lead to regional integration. This similarity can also be evidence for the process of imposition, with primary centers using symbolic architectural features as markers of territorial expansion. The key is to take a diachronic perspective to see how these factors changed over time. Similar growth among a group of sites over a period of time indicates competition, whereas rapid change and breaks in cultural continuity at a site suggest imposition.

134

Figure 7.1 Distribution map of variables at sites in the Pylos region. 1. Ayios Christophoros, 2. Beylerbey, 3. Iklaina, 4. Kalopsana, 5. Koukounara, 6. Ordines, 7. Valta, 8. Thouria, 9. Kondra, 10. Kyparissia, 11. Malthi, 12. Elliniko, 13. Pano Chorio, 14. Peristeria, 15. Nichoria, 16. Pylos

135

Mycenae Regional Patterns For some variables, sites in the Mycenae region diverge from the general pattern (Table 7.3). As with the Pylos region, 100% of sites are located in a strategic location. This fits with the general pattern discussed above. In terms of tomb types, 100% of sites in the Mycenae region are associated with chamber tombs, and 45% are associated with at least one tholos tomb. The percentage of sites with at least one tholos tomb is less than what we find in the Pylos region (60%), however there are differences between tholos tombs in these two regions in terms of architectural elaboration. Those in the Mycenae region are larger and have more refinements than those in Pylos. There is also temporal variation; tholos tombs are found earlier at sites in the Pylos region and many go out of use by the period of the first palace at Pylos. In the Mycenae region, tholos tombs mark a period of elite competition between sites, and they tended to fall into disuse later than those in the Pylos region (Voutsaki 1995, 1997, 1998). A noticeable difference in tombs is that while 60% of sites in the Pylos region are associated with chamber tombs, 100% of sites in the Mycenae region have chamber tombs. Large or special buildings are found at about the same percentage of Mycenae sites than in the Pylos region. Approximately 36% of the sites have a structure that is large or has a specialized purpose that sets it apart from other buildings in the settlement. There is a wider distribution of megara that are stylistically, and in terms of size, similar, to what we find at the primary centers of Mycenae and Pylos. The megaron buildings at Tiryns and Midea are large, impressive structures with architectural elaborations and decorative additions. Megaron-type buildings are also found at sites in the Pylos region, but they are not on the same scale as those at Tiryns and Midea. These differences will be examined later in the discussion. In terms of sites functions, 55% of Mycenae sites have evidence for trade in the form of foreign items, for craft production, and for storage above the level of the household. Following the general pattern found at all Mycenaean sites, administration characterizes 36% of sites. Linear B tablets have been found at Tiryns and Midea. Most of the prestige (73%) and metal (82%) items were recovered from burial contexts as grave goods. Thus, for most of the variables, there are not substantial distinctions between sites in the Pylos and Mycenae regions.

136

Table 7.3 Variable counts for sites in the Mycenae Region. They are listed in the same order as they are numbered on the maps.

137

Two sites in the Mycenae region, Midea and Tiryns, have 100% of the features, while 91% of them are found at Zygouries. Five of the eleven sites (54%) in this region have at least 50% of the features. These sites are Asine, Berbati, Midea, Nauplion, Tiryns, and Zygouries. Approximately 45% of sites in the Pylos region have at least 50% of the features. This is quite similar, although there is a slightly larger proportion of well-represented sites in the Mycenae region. This could reflect several possibilities. The first is that there are real differences between the SOCs in these two regions, and that features were distributed more widely in the Mycenae region. The second possibility is that differences reflect the archaeological history of the region and differences in the intensity of excavation. More sites in the Mycenae region have been extensively excavated– Asine, Berbati, Midea, Prosymna, Tiryns, and Zygouries. Only Nichoria and Malthi in the Pylos region have been excavated extensively, and the third excavation season was completed in 2011 at Iklaina. This creates a bias in the Mycenae region because there is a greater chance that evidence for the variables will be found at an excavated site than there is at a site known only through surface survey. There is also a bias regarding sites that are known primarily through tombs rather than settlements. In general, more moveable artifacts are found in tombs than in settlements. Sites for which there are no known tombs have less evidence for prestige goods, foreign items, and metal items, and consequently less evidence for trade. The third possibility is that this pattern represents a reality somewhere between these suggestions involving interregional variations and the nature of the archaeological record. There is some spatial variation in the distribution of variables in the Mycenae region. Figure 7.2 is a distribution map of the region that shows the concentration of specific features and functions at each site. There is not a clear distinction between sites closest to Mycenae (N=12) and those further away, as seen in the Pylos region. The lack of spatial variation is noteworthy because there is not a noticeable difference between sites on the Argive Plain and in southern Korinthia. Variables are more evenly distributed geographically around the region. This situation will be considered in conjunction with diachronic changes at sites in order to discuss the strategies of integration in the Mycenae region.

138

Figure 7.2 Distribution map of variables at sites in the Mycenae region. 1. Argos, 2. Asine, 3. Berbati, 4. Kasarma, 5. Midea, 6. Nauplion, 7. Prosymna, 8. Tiryns, 9. Aidonia, 10. Tsoungiza, 11. Zygouries, 12. Mycenae

139

7.2.2. Tetrachoric Correlations

Tetrachoric correlation is used to evaluate relationships between the variables (Tables 7.4-7.6). The tetrachoric correlation estimates the correlation between binary variables. Correlation coefficients (r) range from -1.00 to +1.00. The closer scores are to +1 or -1, the greater the relationship or correlation between variables. Scores between -0.50 and -1.00 and 0.50 and 1.00 are considered meaningfully correlated. This determination is based on the significance tests of tetrachoric coefficients (Guilford and Lyons 1942). They note that for a small population, a coefficient of at least 0.50 is necessary to determine a significant correlation. Scores between 0.50 and 1.00 are positively correlated, suggesting that the two variables are likely to be either present or absent together. Variables with scores between -0.50 and -1.00 are less likely to co-occur or to both be absent. Both positive and negative scores are considered here. Scores of 0 represent situations where one variable does not vary or two variables do not co-vary. This situation is observed several times in the correlation tables below because there is a small number of sites that does not allow the variables to vary widely (for example, if one feature does not vary, it cannot co-vary with other features). Although it cannot be figured into the tetrachoric correlation, when a variable is the same for all sites it is valuable information because it means that all of the sites either have the feature or they do not. Mycenaean Correlations For the total group of Mycenaean sites, strategic location has a correlation coefficient of 0 with all other features because it does not vary among sites. Large or special buildings are highly correlated with administration (0.725), storage (0.529), tholos tombs (0.771), craft production (0.567), and metal goods (0.556). Administration is correlated with storage (0.511), tholos tombs (0.657), craft production (0.803), and foreign items (0.528). Storage is correlated with metal items (0.567) and metal goods (0.556). Overall at Mycenaean sites, chamber tombs are correlated with several variables, including craft production (0.564), trade (0.516), prestige goods (0.516), and foreign items (0.617). Unsurprisingly, trade is highly correlated with foreign items (0.693) and metal items (0.817). There is a coefficient of 0 between trade and prestige goods because these do not vary among sites. Prestige goods, foreign items, and metal items are all highly correlated with each other, as is expected. There are no negative correlations above -0.196.

140

Pylos Correlations The patterns of correlations in the Pylos region do not deviate very much from the overall patterns seen at all Mycenaean sites. In general, there is less correlation between variables in this region because a smaller number of sites have several of the features. Large or special buildings are correlated with administration (0.658) and metal goods (0.647). Administration is correlated with storage (0.509), tholos tombs (r = 0.956), and craft production (0.987). Tholos tombs are correlated with chamber tombs (0.800) and do not co-vary with metal items, while chamber tombs are correlated with craft production (0.604), trade (0.647), and foreign items (0.604). Chamber tombs also do not co-vary with metal items. Trade is highly correlated with prestige goods (0.995) and does not co-vary with foreign or metal items. Prestige goods, foreign items, and metal items are all correlated with each other. There are no negative correlations above - 0.351. Mycenae Correlations In the Mycenae region, there are also patterns similar to those seen for all Mycenaean sites. Some correlations that are unique to this region are large buildings with tholos tombs (0.659), administration (0.821) and metal goods (0.944). Administration is correlated with tholos tombs (0.659). Storage is correlated with craft production (0.839). Craft production is correlated with trade (0.839). Chamber tombs have a correlation coefficient of 0 for all comparisons because they are found at all of the sites, and therefore do not vary. Metal items have a coefficient of 0 with tholos tombs and chamber tombs. As seen overall and in the Pylos region, trade is highly correlated with foreign items (0.839). Trade does not vary with prestige goods, and prestige goods, foreign items, and metal items do not vary among each other. Each of these comparisons has a coefficient of 0. There are no negative correlations above -0.424. More metal items are found in tomb rather than settlement contexts. There are fewer sites with metal items in tholos tombs than there are with metal items in chamber tombs. It is possible that because tholos tombs were more visible on the landscape they were more frequently robbed in antiquity. Another possibility is that they were known to contain more valuable objects in higher concentrations and so they were targeted more often than the chamber tombs. Intentional removal of valuable goods by family members from these tombs for reuse must also be considered.

141

Table 7.4 Correlations of variables at all Mycenaean sites. Important correlations are highlighted in bold.

StratPos LrgBld Admin Storage Tholos Chamber CraftProd Trade Prestige ForeignIt MetalGds StratPos 1.000 LrgBld 0 1.000 Admin 0 0.725 1.000 Storage 0 0.529 0.511 1.000 Tholos 0 0.771 0.657 -0.196 1.000 Chamber 0 0.103 0.323 0.103 0.449 1.000 CraftProd 0 0.567 0.803 0.567 0.264 0.564 1.000 Trade 0 0.481 0.312 0.481 0.196 0.516 0.402 1.000 Prestige 0 0.481 0.022 0.481 -0.059 0.516 0.156 0 1.000 ForeignIt 0 -0.100 0.528 0.250 -0.123 0.617 0.666 0.693 0.693 1.000 MetalGds 0 0.556 0.108 0.556 0.087 0 0.495 0.817 0.936 0.763 1.000

Table 7.5 Correlations of variables at sites in the Pylos Region. Important correlations are highlighted in bold.

StratPos LrgBld Admin Storage Tholos Chamber CraftProd Trade Prestige ForeignIt MetalGds StratPos 1.000 LrgBld 0 1.000 Admin 0 0.658 1.000 Storage 0 0.206 0.509 1.000 Tholos 0 0 0.956 -0.351 1.000 Chamber 0 0.179 0.321 -0.206 0.800 1.000 CraftProd 0 0.263 0.987 0.206 0.474 0.604 1.000 Trade 0 0.179 0.321 0.321 0.449 0.647 0.179 1.000 Prestige 0 0.342 -0.068 0.439 0.302 0.496 -0.087 0.995 1.000 ForeignIt 0 -0.179 0.658 0.206 0.474 0.604 0.647 0 0.716 1.000 MetalGds 0 0.647 0.206 0.206 0 0 0.263 0 0.987 0.647 1.000

142

Table 7.6 Correlations of variables at sites in the Mycenae Region. Important correlations are highlighted in bold.

StratPos LrgBld Admin Storage Tholos Chamber CraftProd Trade Prestige ForeignIt MetalGds StratPos 1.000 LrgBld 0 1.000 Admin 0 0.821 1.000 Storage 0 0 0.487 1.000 Tholos 0 0.659 0.659 0.157 1.000 Chamber 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 CraftProd 0 0 0.487 0.839 0.157 0 1.000 Trade 0 0 0.487 0.408 0.157 0 0.839 1.000 Prestige 0 0 0.067 0.424 -0.424 0 0.424 0 1.000 ForeignIt 0 0.487 0.487 -0.157 -0.408 0 0.408 0.839 0 1.000 MetalGds 0 0.944 -0.024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000

143

These results at Mycenaean sites help to inform our understanding of SOCs as a specific class of sites. Co-variance between features such as large buildings, administration, storage, craft production, and tholos tombs fits the expectations of the SOC archaeological definition. These sites were similar to primary centers in terms of basic features and functions, but had less decorative elements, architectural elaboration, and participated in craft production and trade at a smaller scale. Tholos tombs and symbolic architecture used in competitive emulation are further evidence for architectural similarity between individual SOCs and between these sites and primary centers. In general, the correlations presented here support the Second Order Center archaeological definition

7.3. SOCs and Regional Integration

This section uses the analysis above to draw conclusions about the utility of the SOC archaeological definition and to discuss strategies of regional integration. Each region will be discussed separately. The SOC definition will be discussed first, followed by an examination of how the data correspond with the strategies of the Composite Model of Regional Integration.

7.3.1. Mycenaean Sites and the SOC Archaeological Definition

Specific features of the SOC archaeological definition that are addressed include the degree of architectural similarity between sites and the evidence for administration, craft production, and trade. These are discussed in terms of the proposed archaeological definition of SOCs. This definition states that a second order center is a settlement sharing architectural features with a primary center that has administrative control over economic activities and participates within a regional network as a node of trade. Each of these aspects is discussed separately first and then the overall patterns are addressed. There is regional variation in terms of the degree to which sites meet the conditions of the SOC archaeological definition. Differences generally correspond with the patterns found above in the regional differentiation of variable frequencies. Table 7.7 illustrates the degree to which sites in the Pylos region meet the conditions of the SOC archaeological definition. The features presented in this table- classification as a settlement, architectural similarity, and the presence of administration, craft production, and trade- represent the aspects of the SOC definition. The determination of each of these is based on the frequency tables above. All of these sites were settlements, and so this aspect of the definition is not tested. Architectural similarity is based on

144

the presence of at least two of the following variables: a large or special building, tholos tomb(s), and chamber tombs. Administration, craft production, and trade are determined from these categories in the frequency tables. Beylerbey, Iklaina, and Nichoria have evidence for all of the aspects, supporting their classification as SOCs. Thouria only lacks evidence for administration and Malthi lacks evidence for trade. While they do not meet all of the conditions of the SOC definition, it is reasonable to suggest that these latter sites are highly likely to be SOCs. It is reasonable to suggest that administrative materials from Thouria have been, or may yet be discovered, but the excavations by the Greek Archaeological Service have not yet been published. Koukounara, Ordines, Pano Chorio, and Peristeria fulfill three out of the five conditions. Koukounara, Pano Chorio, and Peristeria do not have evidence for administration and craft production, and there is no evidence for administration or trade at Ordines. These are classified as possible SOCs. The data do not support identifying the remaining sites as SOCs because they only meet one or two of the conditions. This does not mean these sites were definitely not second order centers because none of these have been excavated, but it is not possibly to definitively classify them at present. In total, five of the fifteen sites can be fairly confidently classified as SOCs, four are identified as possible SOCs, and six cannot be called SOCs using the current dataset.

Table 7.7 Degree to which Pylian sites meet the SOC archaeological definition

Site Settlement ArchSim Admin CraftProd Trade Beyler yes yes yes yes yes Iklaina yes yes yes yes yes Koukou yes yes no no yes Malthi yes yes yes yes no Nichoria yes yes yes yes yes Ordines yes yes no yes no Pano yes yes no no yes Peristeria yes yes no no yes Thouria yes yes no yes yes AyChrist yes no no no no Elliniko yes yes no no no Kalopsana yes no no no yes Valta yes no no no no Kondra yes no no no no Kyparissia yes no no no yes 145

Spatial variation is also taken into account. Table 7.8 provides the distances from each of the probable or possible SOCs to the primary center at Pylos. Of the nine probable and possible SOCs, four are located less than 15 km from Pylos. All four of these sites are in the HP. Of the three sites that meet all of the criteria for SOCs, two (Beylerbey and Iklaina) are located in the HP at distances of 4-5 km from Pylos. The third, Nichoria, is about 20 km from Pylos. Four other sites that meet three or four of the criteria are located in the FP: Thouria, Malthi, Pano Chorio, and Peristeria. Thouria is in the southern portion of the FP, while the other sites are found in the northern area of the province. There is not a clear pattern of spatial variation here. Two of the three definite SOCs are found very close to Pylos, indicating a close sociopolitical relationship among these nearby sites. The results indicate that Nichoria and Thouria also had close ties with the primary center. The pattern of spatial variation in sites that meet the criteria of the SOC archaeological definition could also be the result of differential preservation and/or excavation at sites.

Table 7.8 Distances from SOCs to Pylos

SOC Approx. Dist. Site variables from Pylos Beylerbey 5 4.5 km Iklaina 5 4 km Nichoria 5 20 km Thouria 4 32 km Malthi 4 27 km Koukounara 3 8 km Ordines 3 13 km Pano Chorio 3 30 km Peristeria 3 26 km

The Mycenae region is not very dissimilar from the Pylos region. Table 7.9 illustrates the degree to which sites in the Mycenae region meet the conditions of the SOC archaeological definition. Three sites meet all of the criteria of the SOC regional definition: Midea, Tiryns, and Zygouries. Asine and Berbati only lack evidence for administration. While they do not meet all of the conditions of the SOC definition, it is reasonable to suggest that they are likely to be

146

SOCs. Kasarma and Nauplion both fulfill three of the five criteria. Kasarma lacks evidence for craft production and trade, and Nauplion does not have evidence for administration and craft production. These two sites are identified as possible SOCs. The results do not support identifying the remaining sites (Aidonia, Argos, Prosymna, and Tsoungiza) as SOCs because they only meet one or two of the conditions. In total, five of the eleven sites can be confidently classified as SOCs, two are identified as possible SOCs, and four cannot be determined to be second order centers using the current dataset. No spatial pattern can be discerned because variables are fairly evenly dispersed across the Mycenae region.

Table 7.9 Degree to which Mycenae region sites meet the SOC archaeological definition. Sites that meet the criteria are highlighted in bold.

Site Settlement ArchSim Admin CraftProd Trade Asine yes yes no yes yes Berbati yes yes no yes yes Kasarma yes yes yes no no Midea yes yes yes yes yes Nauplion yes yes no no yes Tiryns yes yes yes yes yes Zygouries yes yes yes yes yes Aidonia yes yes no no no Argos yes no no no no Prosymna yes yes no no no Tsoungiza yes no no no no

7.3.2. Mycenaean Sites and the Composite Model of Regional Integration

Mycenaean site data provide support for the archaeological definition of SOCs, with several sites in each region meeting the criteria. This section examines how the data correspond with the strategies of the Composite Model of Regional Integration. The expectations for the competition and imposition strategy are laid out in Tables 7.10 and 7.11. The main distinction between the expectations of these strategies is that the competition strategy results in an increase in economic activities and architectural elaboration at emergent centers throughout a region and continuity at sites after they are incorporated; breaks in cultural continuity result from the implementation of the imposition strategy. It is essential that a diachronic perspective be taken

147

when examining regional integration because only then can changing patterns of links between peer sites and variation in their statuses over time be recognized. Aggregating evidence from different periods can result in an incorrect reconstruction of power relations, and it does not allow for an investigation of the processes of regional integration. There is a high degree of similarity between SOCs and primary centers, but this alone does not tell us how integration took place.

Table 7.10 Expectations of the Competition Strategy

Category Factor How it Changes at SOCs Expected Material Remains Architecture - special structures - continuity - small, or no shift in use - administrative - continuity, slight growth, - relatively large buildings, indicators or slight decrease specialized construction Craft Production - workshops - increase - production of utilitarian goods - storage - increase - caches of finished items and raw materials Trade - local - continuity - storage of staple items - long-distance - slight increase - prestige items

Table 7.11 Expectations of the Imposition Strategy Category Factor How it Changes at SOC Expected Material Remains Architecture - special structures - clear break in use - disuse or appearance - building phases - direct conflict possible - destruction layer on SOCs preceding incorporation Craft Production - workshops - less craft production - infrequent use or disuse - storage - more storage of - more storage units raw materials devoted to these items - administration - more administration - increase in seals, assoc. with raw materials nodules, inscribed pottery

Trade - local - no significant change - long-distance - increase - relatively quick increase in # of prestige items

148

In general, the available data do not permit a detailed reconstruction of changes in craft production over time. This discussion is weighed toward architecture rather than moveable artifacts because there is more detailed evidence for architectural features. Only the 16 sites that were determined to be probable or possible SOCs will be discussed in this section (Table 7.12).

Table 7.12 SOCs in the Pylos and Mycenae regions

Pylos Mycenae Region Region Beylerbey Asine Iklaina Berbati Koukounara Kasarma Malthi Midea Nichoria Nauplion Ordines Tiryns Pano Chorio Zygouries Peristeria Thouria

Architectural similarity at the sites was determined through the presence of large or special buildings, tholos tombs, and chamber tombs. Iklaina, Nichoria, Koukounara, and Peristeria in the Pylos region and Midea, Tiryns, Zygouries, and Berbati in Mycenae had all three of these types of architecture. Several of the important buildings at these eight sites had megaron plans. The megaron at Tiryns was the same size and has the same level of decoration and elaboration as the megara at Mycenae and Pylos. Midea, Iklaina, and Peristeria also had canonical megara- rectangular buildings, divided into three parts, and axially aligned. The building at Nichoria is similar to a megaron, but it only had a bipartite division. It does, however, stand out from other structures in the settlement. Other important buildings at these sites include locations for large-scale pottery production or storage (Berbati and Zygouries) and large, impressive buildings for which we do not have indications of the full plan or function (for example, Iklaina‘sΝωyclopeanΝbuildingΝandΝthe elaborate construction at Koukounara). All the sites that do not have large or special buildings share similar tomb structures to the other sites. The similarities in themselves are evidence for regional integration because we see a region-wide

149

adoption and disuse of particular types or styles. These do not reveal which strategy of regional integration was utilized. It is necessary to look at changes over time at these sites to understand the patterns of integration.

Pylos Region- Breaks in Continuity

Some of the important buildings at Pylian SOCs show evidence for breaks in cultural continuity at the sites. A break in continuity is seen in buildings at Iklaina, Nichoria, and Peristeria. The Cyclopean Terrace Building at Iklaina went out of use in the LH IIIA2 period, and at about the same period construction started on a new monumental structure, Building X, but it was never completed. There is not a gap in habitation at the site at this point, and there is no archaeological evidence for why Building X was not completed. Another complex at the site dates from the LH IIIA-IIIB periods, with no signs of a gap in use. The situation at Iklaina is complicated because there is an uneven pattern of use and disuse. Two out of the three important buildings at the site went out of use or were not completed around the LH IIIA2 period, and this fits with predictions of the imposition strategy. Pylian takeover most probably caused a disturbance in cultural continuity at the site. The presence of a Linear B tablet dating to the same period is a further indication of links with Pylos at this time. The final use of the megaron at Nichoria was in the LH IIIA1 period. The building was destroyed, and no attempts were made to rebuild it. In addition, there are no structures constructed at the site to replace it. Several tholos and chamber tombs were constructed at Nichoria. Most were built in the MH III-LH I period and later reused (Boyd 2002:163-164). In the LH IIIA2 period a new tholos was built to replace an earlier tomb that was used during the LH I – IIIA1 periods (Bennet 2008 [1998]:127). The construction of this tomb as a replacement for the earlier tholos is evidence for a break in cultural continuity. The disuse of the megaron, in conjunction with the pattern of use of tholoi at the site provides support for the view that Nichoria was incorporated into the Pylos region through the imposition strategy. Peristeria shows a clear break in continuity. The destruction of the megaron at Peristeria and disuse of the tholoi coincides with the construction of a new tholos at the nearby site of Elliniko. The founding of Elliniko in the LH IIIB period coincides with the demotion of Peristeria (Bennet 2008 [1998]:129). This situation represents direct palatial involvement within

150

the region, where the primary center elites intervened in the sociopolitical status of individuals at Peristeria and sponsored those at Elliniko in their place. Other sites in the Pylos region were incorporated through the competition strategy. These settlements have evidence for sociopolitical competition with other sites in the region through architectural elaboration. Pylos and Beylerbey may have been rival sites, as evidenced from tomb construction at both sites at the end of the MH period (Bennet 1999b:14). During the LH IIIΝperiodΝBeylerbey‘sΝsizeΝstayedΝaboutΝtheΝsame,ΝbutΝtheΝamountΝofΝpotteryΝdecreasedΝ(BennetΝ and Shelmerdine 2001:137). This slight decrease in use of the site could represent integration into the region. By this point, Pylos had won out and the competition between sites led to a high degree of similarity in features and social and political links between individuals. Thouria, Malthi, Koukounara, and Ordines all have evidence for gradual settlement growth and increases in architectural elaboration and economic functions from the late MH or early LH through the LH III. There is nothing at these sites to suggest a sudden change in their sociopolitical positions. At Pano Chorio there is no evidence to support or reject either of the strategies of integration. The grave goods found in tholos and chamber tombs in the Pylos region represent materials from various areas that must have been obtained through trade relations. Although it is tempting to suggest that the presence of these goods in tombs before the proposed consolidation of the regions in LH IIIA2-B1 was due to elite lineages at various settlements having autonomous trade relations, this conclusion cannot be drawn from the data. The reality of the situation is that these objects probably represent initial external trade for raw materials and some finished products and secondary internal trade of high status items. What is clear is that the ability to participate in these trade networks was an important part of the elite identity for sociopolitical competition and emulation. Intraregional trade of prestige items is an important aspect of the competition strategy. In the Pylos region, it is clear that both strategies of integration were used. The competition strategy was more common, according to the data analyzed here. It is possible that Iklaina and Nichoria were also in competition with Pylos early on. However, this would not fall under the competition strategy because the way in which they were integrated into the region was through incorporation. There is a temporal component to the use of the different incorporation strategies. The imposition strategy was used during the LH IIIA1-2 period. Use of the competition strategy cannot be confined to any particular period; it occurred over a stretch of

151

time from the early LH up until Pylos had become the primary center around the early LH IIIA period. There does not seem to be a geographic pattern in the use of the strategies. Both are used at sites near Pylos and at sites located farther away in the HP and FP.

Mycenae Region

There is more evidence for the competition strategy in the Mycenae region than in the Pylos region. Berbati, Midea, Tiryns, and Zygouries did not have clear breaks in cultural continuity. Each of these sites experienced gradual growth and an increase in architectural elaboration and economic activities throughout the LH period. Tholos tombs are an avenue for competitive sociopolitical emulation in the LH IIA-IIIA1 periods. The number, elaboration, and monumentality of tombs at each site varies, but the presence of this tomb type signifies the elevated status of the site. Tholos tomb construction declines as a means for competition around the time that Mycenae had established itself as the primary center of the region. The end of this competition does not signal use of the imposition strategy; it does indicate that by this point the sites had become integrated into the larger region. The processes of competition and emulation create social and political links between sites, leading to their mutual participation in intraregional trade and feasting activities. Elites at these settlements would have relied on these networks to maintain their statuses. Zygouries has no evidence for continuity breaks that would be consistent with the imposition strategy, and these sites may have been outside the cultural sphere of the region early on. This site did experience growth from the MH and throughout the LH period, but it lacked some of the architectural features seen at sites on the Argive Plain. For example, no tholos tombs are found at the site, and this tomb type was a primary means of competitive emulation in the region. Zygouries does have associated chamber tombs, and roads clearly connect this area of Korinthia to Mycenae. It is possible that it was linked to Mycenae by as early as the MH, with the site resettled during this period and having similarities in their ceramics (Pullen and Tartaron 2007). If Mycenae played a major role in their resettlement and growth this could be evidence for the imposition strategy, but the situation is not entirely clear. The architectural similarity between Tiryns, Midea, and Mycenae is striking, and this has contributed to confusion of their status as either SOCs or as independent primary centers. This confusion is partially due to aggregating material remains from all periods of site use. Tiryns

152

only became a site that could be considered an equal to Mycenae during the LH IIIB. Mycenae was already established as the primary center in the region by the LH IIIA period. Midea never seems to reach the same level of elaboration as Tiryns and Mycenae, although the associated cemetery evidence from Dendra shows an elevated status of this site. The recent excavations at Iklaina in the Pylos region reveal a pattern that may prove to be more similar to the situation in the Mycenae region. These excavations are uncovering a large and important site with several impressive buildings, a Linear B page tablet, and multiple workshop areas. Previously, there was little evidence for sites in the region that were near Pylos in terms of the degree of architectural elaboration, prestige goods, and economic functions. This contrasts with the Mycenae region, where there are several well-known sites that approached Mycenae in these same aspects. As the evidence from Iklaina increases, it appears that this site would have been a formidable rival for Pylos early on, and that large, impressive second order centers can also be found in this region. The data at Asine reveal a pattern that corresponds to the predictions of the imposition strategy. Most of the material from the chamber tombs at the site dates to the LH IIIA and LH IIIC periods (Hope Simpson 1981). The LH IIIB period is not well represented at the site in tombs or in the settlement. During that period the site went through a period of decline in importance and in activity, but it made a steep recovery in the LH IIIC when several large buildings were constructed. There is not enough evidence from Kasarma and Nauplion to suggest how they were integrated into the region. The general pattern in the Mycenae region is comparable to that found in the Pylos region. Both strategies of integration were used. The temporal aspect of the use of these strategies is also similar, with the imposition strategy implemented after Mycenae had been established as the regional primary center. The competition strategy was used when the region was coalescing. There is a geographic pattern for incorporation that can be discerned in the Mycenae region. Most of the sites that were integrated through the competition strategy are located on the Argive Plain or near Mycenae, while the two sites integrated through the imposition strategy are located fairly long distances from the primary center.

153

7.5. Summary

In this chapter, I analyzed the Mycenaean variables using frequencies and statistical correlation. All of the Mycenaean sites were considered together to reveal general patterns in the data. Then each region was discussed separately to tease out interregional variation. While many of the variables were similarly expressed in both regions, some differences were observed. For example, sites in the Mycenae region had a greater number of the features represented than sites in the Pylos region. There are also differences in terms of elite tomb types, with chamber tombs found at 100% of sites in the Mycenae region and only 60% of sites in the Pylos region. Fewer regional differences are seen in the patterns of correlation of variables. Several sites in each region meet the criteria set out by the SOC archaeological definition. In total, there are nine probable or possible SOCs in the Pylos region and seven in the Mycenae region. These are all settlements and all have at least two of the following criteria: evidence for architectural elaboration similar to what is found at the primary centers, administration, economic activity through craft production, and participation in trade networks. There are regional similarities in the use of the competition and imposition strategies of integration. Both strategies are found in the Pylos and Mycenae regions, and their use varies over time in the same way. The competition strategy is used earlier in each region, and the imposition strategy is used after the primary center was established. Similar geographic patterns between the regions in terms of how the strategies are used are not discernable. In general, the competition strategy is more clearly evident in the Mycenae region, while the imposition strategy is more evident in the Pylos region. The following chapter examines north-central Minoan Crete as a test case for the SOC archaeological definition and the Composite Model of Regional Integration. The same types of analysis used in this chapter are also used to examine the Minoan sites.

154

CHAPTER 8

TEST CASE: NORTH-CENTRAL NEOPALATIAL CRETE

8.1. Introduction

During the Middle and Late Bronze Ages two successive societies composed of several states, the Minoans (ca. 1900-1425 BC) and the Mycenaeans (ca. 1700-1100), developed in the Aegean region. Minoan society was centered on the island of Crete, while Mycenaean society developed primarily on the Greek mainland (Figure 8.1). The two areas are in close geographical proximity to one another and there is much evidence for contact between these two societies (Korres 1983, Rutter and Zemer 1984), such as the adoption of certain Minoan symbolic features in Mycenaean contexts (Rutter 1993:789). Despite these connections, there are differences between these cultures in terms of sociopolitical and economic organization. Archaeologically

Figure 8.1 Map showing the Pylos, Mycenae, and North-Central Crete regions. 155

these differences can be seen in variation in the spatial organization and elaboration of primary centers, basic architectural features and construction techniques, iconography and symbolism, the use of monumental architecture, the organization of craft production, and the distribution of trade goods. The diversity of material remains has partly been attributed to the contrasting ways in which the Minoan and Mycenaean states were organized (Parkinson and Galaty 2007). The distribution of certain architectural features and specialized buildings creates a complex situation where the roles of some Minoan sites are not completely understood. Several sites in north-central Crete have central buildings with elite features (Figure 8.2). These buildings functioned as areas of administrative activity, industrial production, and points of collection for trade goods. The settlements are variously argued to be regional centers, local

Figure 8.2 North-Central Crete with Minoan villa sites. Inset is a map of Crete showing the study region (after Warren 2004, figures 11.1, 11.2).

156

centers, or independent sites, and the relationships among these localities are not well understood. In this chapter I use the criteria for SOCs to evaluate the roles of these sites in the Minoan polities. It is proposed here that state organization was not the primary factor in determining the political and economic organization of SOCs. Second order centers in all hierarchical state level societies fulfilled the same kinds of functions–as administrative and economic outposts for directingΝportionsΝofΝeachΝprimaryΝcenter‘sΝterritoryέΝTheΝtypeΝofΝregional integration, whether imposition or competition, has a greater effect than state organization on the way a SOC interacts with a primary center. Both strategies of the Composite Model of Regional Integration are applicable to Mycenaean and Neopalatial Minoan societies, and therefore we should expect to see similarities at SOCs in these cultures regardless of the form of state organization. This

Table 8.1 Chronological chart for Bronze Age Crete (after McEnroe 2010). The periods primarily under discussion in this study are shown in bold.

Minoan Approximate

Archaeological Period Absolute Date Early Minoan I 3650-3000 BC Prepalatial Early Minoan II 2900-2300 BC Early Minoan III 2300-2160 BC Middle Minoan IA 2160-1900 BC Protopalatial Middle Minoan IB 1900-1800 BC (Old Palace Period) Middle Minoan II 1800-1700 BC Middle Minoan IIIA 1700-1640 BC Neopalatial Middle Minoan IIIB 1640-1600 BC (New Palace Period) Late Minoan IA 1600-1480 BC Late Minoan IB 1480-1425 BC Late Minoan II 1425-1390 BC Postpalatial Late Minoan III A1 1390-1370 BC (Final Palace Period) Late Minoan III A2 1370-1340 BC Late Minoan III B 1340-1190 BC Late Minoan III C 1190-1170 BC

157

chapter first discusses Minoan sociopolitical and economic organization with an emphasis on north-central Crete during the Neopalatial period (Table 8.1). The next section provides individual site data for one primary center and six potential SOCs in north-central Crete (Table 8.2). The final section analyzes the data and examines patterns found at Minoan sites.

Table 8.2 Potential SOCs in North-Central Crete

Northeast of South of West of Knossos Knossos Knossos

Amnisos Archanes Sklavokambos

Nirou Khani Vathypetro Tylissos

8.2. Minoan Neopalatial Period Social Organization

Neopalatial Crete was composed of several states with large urban centers, architectural elaboration, and a writing system. Minoan political organization has been understood as consisting of heterarchical states with horizontal power relations playing the major role in sociopolitical relations. It is, however, clear that hierarchal divisions also existed, especially during the Neopalatial period when several sites across Crete had centralized and large, elaborate architectural complexes. The sociopolitical trends in the Neopalatial period seem to have been moving toward more hierarchical power relations (Adams 2004). The redistribution of agricultural goods is traditionally considered to have been a large part of Minoan economies, however recent studies have focused on the role that mobilization and accumulation of wealth played (Christakis 2011, Nakassis et al. 2011). Like the central buildings at Mycenaean primary centers, the main structures at Minoan primaryΝcentersΝareΝcalledΝ‗palacesέ‘ΝεinoanΝpalacesΝareΝdifferentΝfromΝotherΝbuildingsΝinΝfourΝ main ways: their size, architectural form, architectural elaboration, and functions (Adams 2004: 195). These buildings functioned as ritual and administrative centers (Platon 1983), as centers of production (Branigan 1983), and as redistribution centers for agricultural goods (Knappett and

158

Schoep 2000). This study shows that these differences are also true for Minoan SOCs; although the main structures at these Minoan sites have many of the same features, they do differ from the palaces in terms of scale. It also can be difficult to distinguish between elite goods and ritual goods at Minoan sites. For example, stone vessels can be for ritual libations, or they may be viewed as prestige items depending on the type of vessel and its context. The attempt to differentiate between these categories is not made here. Wiener (1987) argues that Minoan primary centers provided the organization and resources for long distance trade in order to acquire metals. Independent merchants were likely to have operated during the MM period, but it is unlikely that they were able to provide an adequate organizing force for regional or interregional trade (Wiener 1987:262). Directional trade controlled by these centers suggests that they had a centralized role in at least some aspects ofΝtheΝεinoanΝeconomyέΝBraniganΝ(1λκβ)ΝarguesΝagainstΝWiener‘sΝviewΝofΝεinoanΝprimaryΝ center controlled trade during the MM I-II periods. He uses the wide distribution of imports outside of primary centers on Crete as evidence for his position. It is possible that this distribution could be found even with long distance exchange controlled by primary centers; items could have been brought into Crete through primary centers and then distributed secondarily through local exchange networks. Minoan primary centers had much space devoted to storage of goods that could have been used in exchange. The development of Linear A as early as the MM IB period allowed for a more complex administrative system. It is generally more accepted that Minoan primary centers directed trade during the Neopalatial period, beginning in the MM III period. Branigan (1982) cites the Linear A tablets, increased Minoan trade within the Aegean, and the development of a prestige gift exchange between the Minoans and the Egyptians as evidence that primary centers played a significant role in long distance trade by this period. SOCs also would have had a role in local exchange networks. In support of this argument, many Minoan villa sites are found in strategically important locations controlling roads and passages into valleys (Pendlebury 1939, Watrous 1984). There are two general models of Minoan political geography during the Neopalatial period. The first is a hierarchical model in which Knossos controlled all of Crete. The second model explains power relations as more fluid with a few important sites. McEnroe (2010:100) describesΝtheΝpatternΝofΝarchitecturalΝemulationΝasΝtheΝresultΝofΝ―competitiveΝsocialΝclimbingΝ

159

instead of impositionΝbyΝaΝcentralΝauthorityέ‖ΝInΝhisΝmodel,ΝtheΝrelationshipΝbetweenΝSηωΝelitesΝ and the primary center elites was more complex and also subject to change, rather than being total political and economic domination. One line of evidence that supports his model is the wide distribution of Linear A tablets at a variety of sites. The situation is much different from the known distribution of Linear B tablets across Mycenaean sites, where tablets are found at only a few sites that are mostly primary centers. Thus it is possible that the administrative hierarchy of Minoan Crete was more complex or that Minoan SOCs had greater autonomy and control over certain aspects of the economy. BuildingsΝthatΝareΝconventionallyΝcalledΝ―villas‖ΝhaveΝanΝimportantΝroleΝinΝεinoan political economies. Minoan villa structures are unique from earlier buildings on Crete because they included new construction features (such as ashlar masonry and doorjamb bases) and rooms thatΝareΝidentifiedΝasΝ―palatial‖ΝroomΝtypesέΝTheseΝincludeΝpillar crypts, lustral basins, and Minoan halls (Driessen 1982:27). The Minoan hall is a large room divided into three sections– the hall, the forehall, and the light-well (Figure 8.3). The hall is the largest of these sections and it is separated from the forehall by pier-and-door partitions or several pillars; the fore-hall opens into the light-well through one or more columns. These three individual spaces form one large room unit, all aligned along a single axis with broad openings between them (Driessen 1982:29). Minoan halls that include all of these features in this typical orientation are found at House A and C at Tylissos and at Nirou Khani. They are found at all of the Minoan palace sites across Crete and are decorated more elaborately in palatial architecture than at villa buildings. Lustral

Figure 8.3 Plan of a Minoan hall (after Driessen 1982, figure 5) 160

basins are small, square rooms sunken into surrounding rooms and accessed by steps. These rooms probably functioned as locations for ritual purification or bathing, and also domestic purposes associated with bathrooms (Graham 1977:110). Graham argues that there was a greater range of functions for lustral basins at Minoan villas than at the palaces, where they were used only ritually. This studyΝproposesΝthatΝεinoanΝvillasΝshouldΝbeΝcategorizedΝasΝSηωsέΝTheΝtermΝ―villa‖Ν is problematic. First, it brings about different conceptions depending on the language speaker. For example, for English speakers a ―villa‖ is considered an elaborate country home. There are also difficulties in how the term has been used to refer to archaeological sites. Warren (2000:179) lists examples of several types of sites that have been variously called villas. The first type consists of settlements that have a main building with certain architectural features, such as a Minoan hall and a central court. However, some settlements are called villas even when the main building lacks these features. Amnisos, Nirou Khani, and Vathypetro fall into this category. Similar to Mycenaean SOCs, Minoan villas differ from primary centers mostly in terms of scale rather than in terms of major architectural features or functions. The second type of potential SOC includes settlements that have large or unusual houses. Tylissos falls into this group. The third category includes independent main buildings that are not located within settlements; an example of this type is Sklavokambos. The main buildings at sites that are potentially Minoan SOCs had the roles of organizing local agricultural production for their own needs as well as for requirements of the primary centers. Warren (2000:179) summarizes the political geography of Minoan Crete as several regional territories, each with a primary center, SOCs, sacred sites, ports, natural resources, and other types of sites. During the Neopalatial period, some researchers argue that Knossos controlled all of north and south central Crete. Others (Driessen 1999a, Wiener 1990) argue that there was political fragmentation in Neopalatial Crete with local centers exercising control over small territories. Wiener (1984:17) argues for aΝ―VersaillesΝeffect‖ΝwhereΝKnossianΝarchitectureΝ was imitated across Crete and the Aegean without there being political dependency. In this model, local leaders at villa sites adopted architectural features and styles that they perceived to be culturally superior.

161

Most of these ―villa‖Νstructures are not isolated buildings, but are part of larger settlementsέΝεinoanΝ―palatial‖ΝarchitectureΝfeaturesΝincludeΝashlarΝmasonry,Νfigural frescoes, pier-and-door partitions, storage magazines, the Minoan hall, lustral basins, courtyards, and light wells (McEnroe 2010:94). Minoan villa main buildings have many or all of these features. The main difference between these structures and the main complex at Knossos is in the size of the building itself and its various rooms and courtyards, the number of each of these features, and the amount of elaboration and decoration. In addition, the main building at Knossos has several shrines or ritual areas, and not all Minoan villa buildings have shrines. Several structures at Knossos that are smaller than the palace complex, but similar in terms of architectural features, add to the complexity of our understanding of Minoan political relations. These include the ―δittleΝθalace‖,ΝtheΝ―RoyalΝVilla‖,ΝandΝtheΝ―SouthΝHouse‖,ΝeachΝofΝwhichΝisΝsimilarΝinΝtermsΝofΝ architecture to SOC main buildings. Making changes to house forms is a way to strengthen or sever the implied social ties that underlie certain architectural features. For example, the addition of a Minoan hall to theΝ―SouthΝ House‖ΝatΝKnossosΝwasΝaΝwayΝtoΝalignΝthoseΝlivingΝatΝtheΝhouseΝwithΝtheΝpalace. Conversely, Driessen (1999b) argues that the intentional destruction of a Minoan hall at Palaikastro served to breakΝtiesΝwithΝKnossosΝbyΝerasingΝaΝpotentΝpoliticalΝsymbolέΝTheΝspreadΝofΝ―palatial‖Ν architectural features (ashlar masonry, Minoan halls, pier-and-door partitions, lustral basins, figural frescoes, light wells, courtyards, and pillar crypts) seems to have been concentrated in north-central Crete. Only a few houses at Knossos, Nirou Khani, and Tylissos have full suites of those features. The following section examines these architectural features and site functions at six Minoan villa sites to determine whether they fit the patterns found at Mycenaean SOCs.

8.3. North-Central Crete Site Data

8.3.1. Primary Center: Knossos

Knossos was the primary center in north-central Crete during the MM IB-LM IIIC periods (Figure 8.4). It is necessary to first give a description of the main architecture found at this site in order to understand similar structures found at villa sites that are potential Minoan SOCs. The following description of Knossos provides details on specific features and functions

162

that are found at the palace complex. Minoan villa sites, discussed below, have many or all of these same features and functions, providing evidence of connections between these settlements. Knossos was excavated by Evans from 1900-1931. He also coined the termΝ―εinoan‖ΝforΝ the civilization that built Knossos. The palace at Knossos has a complex occupational history, with many building phases, multifaceted structures, and uneven destruction levels. The building complex is about 13,000 sq. m. and consists of four wings surrounding a central court, along with a west court (Figure 8.4). Its size is much larger than the main buildings at villa sites, but many of the key architectural features from the palace are repeated at villas. During its final phase, Knossos was the site of a Mycenaean administration.

Figure 8.4 Plan of the Knossos Palace (after McEnroe 2010, figure 7.2)

Several functions are attributed to various areas of the complex, including domestic quarters, workshops, shrines and ritual rooms, storage, and gathering areas. The first palace was

163

built during the MM IB, but it is not well understood because later phases of construction were built directly on top of it. The West Court is suggested to have been used for public gatherings and was located at the main entrance into the building complex (Evans 1921-1935). Linear A tablets are evidence that the west side of the building was used for administrative purposes; it was also used for storage and cult activity. All of the Linear A tablets date to the Neopalatial period (Adams 2004:200). Many of the pithoi from the West Magazines also have Linear A inscribed on them (Boskamp 1996). The West Magazines, the Northeastern Magazines, and the Royal Magazines provided large scale storage space for agricultural goods (Christakis 1999). Loom weights are evidence that weaving also took place in the eastern side of the complex during the first palace period. The first phase of the building complex was destroyed at the end of the MM III period, likely as the result of an earthquake. It was rebuilt during the LM IA period, directly after this destruction. During the second architectural phase, the west side of the complex was used mostly for cult activity and as storage. The Throne Room is located on the west side of the complex. It is directly off the Central Court, with a small anteroom serving as an entrance. The seat, the ―throne‖,ΝinΝtheΝThroneΝRoomΝisΝalongΝaΝsideΝwallΝwithΝstoneΝbenchesΝonΝeitherΝsideΝofΝitΝ(EvansΝ 1921-1935). It is possible that the throne itself was a later Mycenaean addition to this room (Driessen 2003). The Throne Room is interpreted as having ceremonial importance. There are two entrances into the this room; one leads to storage rooms and the other to a set of nine rooms. A tripartite shrine is also located on the west side of the complex, facing the Central Court. The Snake Goddess Sanctuary is south of the Throne Room; the name of this area comes from several snake goddess figurines that were found here buried in cists in the grounds (Adams 2007). Along with ritual and ceremonial rooms, the western side of the complex also includes long, narrow storage rooms. Large storage jars were found in situ in many of these rooms. The second story above the storerooms was made up of large square rooms (Evans 1921-1935). The northern section of the building complex included an entrance from the outside that opened into the North Pillar Hall. Many Linear A tablets were found in this room, suggesting that it had an administrative function. Because it is located near an entrance to the complex it is possible that goods coming in were recorded and these records stored here. The northeast corner of the complex was badly damaged, but it is clear that there is a large number of storage rooms

164

here. Many of these rooms were filled in with destruction debris. A large number of clay cups were found here, perhaps stored for use in meals or feasting (Evans 1921-1935). The east side of the complex originally had four stories, and three of these are preserved. The floors are reached by the Grand Staircase, which was found preserved mostly in place. The north end of the eastern area included storerooms and rooms for craft production. One of the rooms of the upper floors is interpreted as having a ritual purpose through objects that fell to the ground floor. These items include a small three-pillar shrine, altars, horns of consecration, and a bronze locks of hair from a figure. The Grand Staircase descends down to two colonnaded landings and to the Hall of the Double Axes. Evans (1921-1935) interpreted this area as the royal residence, but others have argued that his interpretation is unlikely because of their location and lack of natural light. Castleden argues that this area was used for ritual purposes. The Hall of the Double Axes is an elaborated Minoan hall with eleven sets of double doors could be used to close off the inner space. This separation of spaces could have been used to demarcate public and privateΝritualέΝζearΝtheΝHallΝofΝtheΝϊoubleΝAxesΝisΝtheΝQueen‘sΝHall,ΝanotherΝεinoanΝhallέΝAΝ lustral basin adjoins this room. There are several deposits of prestige and ritual artifacts. These include the Temple Repositories and the Stone Vase Deposit in the west wing. The Treasury of the Shrine was found in the east wing, and it contained miniature gold-plated bronze double axes, gold-plated bronze curls, fragments of ivory figurines, aΝfaienceΝbull‘sΝhead,ΝmarineΝstyleΝpottery,ΝandΝaΝrockΝcrystalΝ bowl (Evans 1930:397-435). The frescoes of the Knossos palace include many figural scenes. Bull iconography is mostly restricted to the palace, possibly as a symbol of power (Hallager and Hallager 1995). Several of the frescoes depict gatherings of people, including the Grandstand Fresco, the Sacred Grove, and the Dance Fresco (Adams 2004). These frescoes have been used to reconstruct ways in which the Central and West Courts at Knossos would have been used (Hägg 1987, Marinatos 1987, Davis 1987). The palace includes seven Minoan Halls on the ground floor, and seven more halls have been reconstructed on upper floors (Graham 1979). They are distributed throughout the palace. There are a total of three lustral basins found in the building; two are near entrances and one is set in the Throne Room complex. There are twelve architectural features and functions found at Knossos that will be investigated at Minoan villa sites: presence of a large or special building, administration, storage,

165

craft production, trade, ritual areas or items, frescoes, ashlar masonry, a Minoan hall, a lustral basin, a pillar crypt, and a courtyard. Two other variables considered are whether the site is large (at least two ha) and located in a strategic location. These variables will be used to investigate the degree of intersite relationships and sociopolitical interdependencies. There is a high degree of shared features between Minoan villa sites and the primary center of Knossos. The following section provides archaeological data for each Minoan villa site. The data are analyzed by examining the frequencies of features at these sites and tetrachoric correlations between the variables, just as with the Mycenaean data analysis. This analysis and how it compares to Mycenaean SOCs is discussed below.

Urban Villas at Knossos TheΝ―δittleΝθalace‖ΝisΝlocatedΝcaέΝβγίΝmέΝnorthwestΝofΝtheΝmainΝbuildingΝcomplexΝandΝtheΝ two buildings are linked by the main road. On the west it connects by a bridge at the second story levelΝtoΝtheΝ―UnexploredΝεansion‖έΝTheΝ―δittleΝθalace‖ΝisΝa large structure at about 990 sq. m. It hasΝnearlyΝallΝtheΝ―palatial‖ΝarchitecturalΝfeatures,ΝsuchΝasΝashlarΝmasonry,Νpier-and-door partitions, a Minoan hall, lustral basin, light well, and pillar crypts (McEnroe 2010: 94). The structure also has decorative finishings, but it is lacking a central court. The Minoan hall is divided into two sections by pier-and-door partitions. Another pier-and-door partition separates the hall from a colonnaded veranda. The view from the terrace is of the Kairatos valley and the palace. A white plastered courtyard opens to the north of the Minoan Hall (Banou 2002). Adjacent to the west of the courtyard is a raised paved area with an ashlar curb; west of the paved area is an ashlar wall. South of the Minoan hall is a peristyle court with a three-stepped staircase at its south entrance. Three pillar crypts are located on the southern basement level of the building. The bathroom is located at the northwest end of the building, and just south of this room is a lustral basin. The scale of this structure is larger than similarly organized buildings; it is only surpassed byΝtheΝpalaceΝatΝKnossosέΝInΝtheΝ―δittleΝθalace‖ΝoneΝlightΝwellΝisΝaΝperistyleΝcourt,ΝtheΝεinoanΝ hall is doubled in plan with two main rooms and light wells on two sides, and the pillar crypt has two pillars (McEnroe 2010:95). The structure of the Minoan hall is similar to the Hall of the Double Axes at the main complex at Knossos. The upper story of this building had domestic

166

rooms. The ground floor, with the Minoan hall, would have provided a reception area accessible to outside visitors. AΝbridgeΝconnectsΝtheΝ―δittleΝθalace‖ΝtoΝtheΝ―UnexploredΝεansion‖ΝtoΝtheΝnortheastέΝThisΝ buildingΝlikelyΝservedΝasΝaΝstorageΝandΝworkshopΝannexΝtoΝtheΝ―δittleΝθalaceέ‖ΝIfΝtheseΝtwo buildings are seen as one complex they cover 1,450 sq. m., which is about half the size of the Zakros palace (McEnroe 2010:95). The building has a four-pillared hall, corridors, storage areas, and rooms for craft production. TheΝ―RoyalΝVilla‖ΝisΝcaέΝ15ίΝm. northeast of the main complex and is 18 x 10 m. It has a Minoan hall, a light well, a lustral basin, pier-and-door partitions, a pillar crypt, and a double staircase. This building had at least three stories. Its main entrance leads directly into a light well that opens into a Minoan hall, which makes up the central area of the ground level of the building. Its floor is paved with gypsum slabs and the walls are faced with gypsum veneer. A stone balustrade, 0.81 m high, is located at the west end of the hall. At the center of the balustrade is a staircase with a column on either side that helped to support the first floor ceiling (McEnroe 2010). A pedestalled stone lamp was found on the stairway. A pillar crypt is located north of the Minoan hall; its walls are constructed with courses of gypsum blocks. The ceiling of this room was supported by beams that were set into notches cut in the tops of the walls. The central pillar of the room is beside a channel and two basins cut into the floor. These may have been used for libation ceremonies. There are two stairways that lead from the pillar crypt to the second floor; one is at the northwest of the room and the other to the southwest. The southeast quadrant of the building has an arrangement of three rooms: a smallΝhall,ΝaΝ―closet‖,ΝandΝaΝ bathroom. To the south of this group of rooms is a narrow hall and a light well. This grouping is comparable to similar arrangements of rooms at the palaces at Phaistos, Mallia, Knossos. TheΝ―RoyalΝVilla‖ΝhasΝtheΝsameΝcharacteristic features, but it is also unique in some respects. For example, the organization of the rooms differ here. The Minoan hall and light well area is in the center of the building instead of to one side, and a pillar crypt and a stairway are to the north of this room complex. The lustral basin is to the south of the Minoan hall. The hall itself is a different form than found elsewhere, with its entrance through a light well and a second light well separated from the hall by a two-part balustrade. This balustrade feature is termed a ―ωhancelΝScreen‖ΝbyΝEvansΝ(1λβ1-1935), and there are only three examples from Minoan buildings, all at Knossos. The area separated by the balustrade is a narrow room that had a stone

167

seat set into a niche in its west wall. The building also has a unique three-part stairway that has no close parallels (McEnroe 2010:97). TheΝ―SouthΝHouse‖ΝisΝlocatedΝalongΝtheΝsouthernΝedgeΝofΝtheΝpalaceΝatΝKnossosέΝItΝwasΝ built in a series of constructions and underwent several modifications over its period of use. The ―palatial‖ΝfeaturesΝinΝthisΝstructureΝincludeΝaΝεinoanΝhall,ΝlustralΝbasin,ΝandΝlightΝwellέΝTheΝ northernΝandΝeasternΝwallsΝareΝconstructedΝofΝashlarΝmasonry,ΝanotherΝ―palatial‖ΝtechniqueέΝ Decorative finishings include painted plaster, gypsum slabs covering the lower walls of most rooms, and gypsum panels on the floors of some rooms (McEnroe 2010:96). In the basement of the building, some of the doorjambs were constructed of gypsum instead of wood. In addition, there were numerous wooden columns, stone pillars, and pier-and-door partitions. The amount of architectural elaborations in this structure would have required a high labor investment. A stairway, similar to the Grand Staircase at the palace of Knossos, was set beside a balustrade and column; it led up to a rooftop terrace and down to a pillar crypt (McEnroe 2010:96). There were two basement rooms used for storage; bronze tools were found in one of these rooms. The Minoan hall and light well were added during the LM IA period and the lustral basin was filled in (Driessen 1982). The building was destroyed in this same period and never reoccupied.

8.3.2. Individual Site Data for Potential SOCs

Amnisos

Amnisos is located about seven km east of Heraklion near the sea and at the foot of the Palaoichora hill. It was first inhabited during the MM period. The site was excavated from 1929- 1938 by Marinatos and from 1983-1985 the Archaeological Institute of the University of Heidelberg oversaw excavations under the direction of Schaefer. The site is large and covers approximately eight ha. TheΝmainΝbuildingΝatΝAmnisosΝisΝknownΝasΝtheΝ―HouseΝofΝtheΝδilies‖,ΝnamedΝafterΝ frescoes of red and white lilies that decorated the walls of the upper floor. This building is ca. 380-440 sq m with two stories. The structure went through two main building phases. It was first built at the beginning of the LM IA period. The first architectural phase ended after the house was damaged by an earthquake. The second building phase is marked by less impressive styles. For example, the builders used rubble to construct walls and rebuild rooms instead of the ashlar masonry used in the first phase. The function of some rooms may have changed from the first to 168

second phases of the building. For example, the lustral basin may have gone out of use during theΝsecondΝphaseέΝTheΝfinalΝdestructionΝofΝtheΝ―HouseΝofΝtheΝδilies‖ΝwasΝatΝtheΝendΝofΝtheΝδεΝIAΝ period. TheΝ―HouseΝofΝtheΝδilies‖ΝhasΝseveralΝarchitecturalΝfeaturesΝthatΝareΝconnectedΝtoΝ Knossian architecture, including ashlar masonry, a Minoan hall, frescoes, a lustral basin, storage areas, a ritual area, and a paved court. Other notable rooms or features include a kitchen, a bathroom, paved corridors, and staircases. There is no evidence here for administration, craft production, or trade.

Nirou Khani

Nirou Khani is located on the coast about 13 km east of Heraklion, near Amnisos. The site was excavated by Xanthoudides from 1918-1919 and reinvestigated by Platon after World War II. The site is large and located in a strategic position. The main structure here has a concentration of ritual artifacts, leading some to interpret it as the house of a religious functionary (Driessen 1982:47, Xanthoudides 1922:16), a distribution center for ritual items (Evans 1928:284), or a local center (Cadogen 1976:139-142). Although there is a large number of ritual items (e.g., libation tables, large bronze double axes, horns of consecration), there are no areas interpreted as having a ritual use (Adams 2006:16). The main building at Nirou Khani is large, approximately 550 sq m, with two stories and at least forty rooms. Many of the rooms are paved with stone slabs and several of these also have gypsum veneer paneled on the lower walls. The building has several features and functions similar to those found at Knossos. Architectural features include, frescoes, ashlar masonry, a Minoan hall, a lustral basin, storage areas, and two courtyards. A benched hall, similar to one at Archanes, is also found here. There is also evidence for administration and trade at Nirou Khani. No Linear A tablets have been found at the site. The arrangement of the Minoan hall is unique because it opens onto a court instead of being separated by a light-well. The hall is divided into two sections by pier-and-door partitions. Two columns separate the hall from the northern paved court. On the eastern paved court, fragmentsΝofΝaΝpairΝofΝstoneΝ―HornsΝofΝωonsecration‖ΝwereΝfoundΝmountedΝonΝanΝaltarνΝfragmentsΝ of a fresco decorated with sacral knots were found near the altar. Rooms on the north side of the building were used for the storage of foodstuffs. Pithoi and storage bins for grain are located in

169

this area. The south section of the building included storage areas for ritual items including altars, votive cups, and lamps. Forty tripod clay altars were stacked in Room 18 (Marinatos 1925-1926). Possible Minoan ship sheds were identified by Marinatos (1925-1926:146) near Nirou Khani. This structure was built into the bedrock along a small peninsula. The cutting for the building is over 46 m long and it was divided into three parallel spaces (Shaw and Shaw 1999:370). The presence of ships near Nirou Khani could be further evidence for trade at the site, however, we have no definite evidence that ships were located here or that they were used for long-distance trade. Archanes

Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki directed the recent excavations of the main building complex at Archanes. The site is large (ca. eight ha) and located in a strategic position. Its purposeΝisΝnotΝfullyΝunderstoodέΝEvansΝ(1λβκμ64)ΝsuggestedΝthatΝArchanesΝwasΝaΝ―summerΝ palaceέέέofΝtheΝθriestΝKings‖ΝfromΝKnossos,ΝbutΝthisΝinterpretationΝdoesΝnotΝaccountΝforΝtheΝ independent nature of the site (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, Warren 2002:202). Archanes is not at the same level as Knossos in terms of architectural elaboration, size, and prestige, but the archaeological remains here are evidence that it was a prominent site that could have functioned as a SOC. Cunningham and Driessen (βίί4μ1ίκ)ΝarguedΝthatΝitΝisΝ―tooΝrich,ΝtooΝ large, and too close to Knossos to function as a second-tier center distributing power from and sourcingΝgoodsΝtoΝKnossos,‖ΝbutΝitΝisΝarguedΝhereΝthatΝtheseΝfeaturesΝareΝsharedΝatΝotherΝεinoanΝ SOCs. Archanes has many features and functions in common with the palace at Knossos. The main building has a Minoan hall, frescoes, ashlar masonry, storage magazines, a lustral basin, a courtyard, and ritual areas and items. Functions attributed to the building include administration, craft production, and trade. There is also a benched hall similar to one room found at Nirou Khani (Adams 2006:12). Frescoes are found in several locations in the building with motifs of a woman wearing a flounced skirt, animals, and plants (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997). Evidence for trade includes the large number of prestige items: a marble vase, ivory rings, a gold sheet, silver earrings, a marble sword hilt, and stone vessels (Sakellarakis and Spouna- Sakellaraki 1997:86-69,98-102,106-110). There are also several raw materials with a foreign

170

provenance (ivory, jasper, and faience). Ritual items found at the site include figurines, horns of consecration, and libation tables (Adams 2006:15). Evidence for administration at Archanes includes Linear A tablets, seals, and sealings (Adams 2006:17, Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997:695-697). Some administrative materials are found in storage areas that contained pithoi and amphorae (Blackman 2001:126). Some of the ceramics were vitrified in the fire that destroyed the room. The fire must have burned very hot in order to vitrify the ceramics, suggesting that at least some of the vessels stored flammable liquid (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997). The excavators suggest that the small, cylindrical amphorae would have contained precious liquids (Blackman 2001:126). Calcified textiles were found inside some of the pithoi. Craft production areas are associated with the manufacture of prestige artifacts, similar to workshop areas at the Knossos palace (Adams 2006). Over twenty five buildings have been excavated at the cemetery at Archanes-Phourni. Many of these functioned as funerary buildings, and each has multiple architectural features. Most of these contained successive burials over several decades. Tholos Tomb B was in use for several generations; it was built during the early MM period and used until the LM III period. It has a complex architectural history, with several additions constructed over its long period of use. Tholos Tomb B was constructed on top of one older funerary building. The tomb is rectangular, split into twelve rooms, and has a tholos tomb at its center. In the first phase the tholos had two side chambers, one to the west and one to the east. The tholos floor was raised and a bench was built around the tholos wall after the first architectural phase. During the second building phase (MM IA) an entrance was added to the outside of the eastern chamber and the entrance to this chamber from inside the tholos was blocked. Additionally, the entrance to the western chamber from the tholos was blocked. A southwest chamber was built around a larnax, which held the remains of at least nineteen individuals including two children. Another chamber, southeast of the original western chamber, was added during the second building phase. This chamber is a pillar crypt with plastered walls decorated with frescoes. At the end of the second building phase the tomb complex had two stories; stairs located down a passage south of the pillar crypt provided access to the second floor. The room located on the second story is interpreted as having a funerary function because human remains had fallen from that room into the pillar crypt. Along with the human remains, a

171

silver pin with a Linear A inscription had fallen from above. Additional chambers were constructed northwest of the tholos tomb; one of these contained a disturbed burial and the other contained a larnax with two successive burials. Building 4 is located in the eastern part of the cemetery between Tholos Tombs A and B. It dates to the LM IA period. It is a rectangular structure building on different levels in two wings. The east wing is on a higher level than the west wing. It has an upper floor; finds from had fallen into the rooms below and consist of 46 loomweights, knives, a lead weight from a pair of scales, and a piece of bronze. These finds suggest that the top floor was used for craft production. The ground floor of the east wing has two rooms that also have an industrial purpose. Room 2 is a wine press and room 1 was used for wine storage. The west wing was not divided into rooms. The western area is interpreted as having ritual significance. It is a paved area with three column bases that was likely open along its western side. Finds from this space include a libation table, fragments of two bell-shaped figurines, and about 250 cups placed upright or upside down. It is argued that the industrial nature of the eastern wing of the building was to manufacture goods used in funerary rituals or as grave goods. Building 19 is the only apsidal funerary structure found thus far on Crete. It was in use from the MM IA- MM IB periods. The walls of the structure are very thick in order to support the upper structure that was roofed with a vault. The burials were accompanied by numerous and good quality offerings.

Vathypetro

Vathypetro is located five km south of Archanes near Mount Juktas. It is located on the main route from Knossos to the Mesara plain to the south. The site consists of a small settlement and a main building complex of about 888 sq. m. Marinatos excavated the site from 1949-1953 and again from 1955-1956. It can be categorized as a local center because of its size and economic activities (Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997). Driessen and Sakellarakis (1997:77) argue that the main building at Vathypetro had administrative (seal stones), ritual (tripartite shrine), residential, symbolic (impluvium hall), and storage functions in its first phase; during its second phase the complex became a site of domestic agricultural and industrial production. The main complex at Vathypetro consists of two buildings. The West Building was constructed first during the LM IA period and then badly damaged during the middle of this

172

period. After the destruction, it was rebuilt using lower quality construction methods (Driessen and Macdonald 1997:176). The second phase of the West Building was more restricted in its plan than the first phase (Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997:68). The East Building was constructed during the second phase. The final destruction of both buildings took place during the early LM IB period. The West Building was constructed with ashlar masonry and is similar in its structure to the main building at Nirou Khani. It has ashlar masonry, a light-well, a pillar crypt, storage magazines, and a court. There is no Minoan hall at Vathypetro, but the structure does include an impluvium hall (a space with four columns and a depression in the ground). Pithoi found in a pillared room are evidence for storage areas (Christakis 1999:158). A similar pillared storage room is found at the LM IB main building at Tylissos. Ritual use is interpreted for one area at Vathypetro where there is a stone bench surrounding a pit; inverted cups and layers of lime and pottery were found in the pit, and a basin was found on the top layer (Adams 2006:16, Gesell 1985:136). Horns of consecration were also discovered at the site on the courtyard. A tripartite shrine dates to the first phase of the building (Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997, Marinatos 1960). Tripartite shrines have only been found at Knossos and Vathypetro (Adams 2006). During the second phase, the plan of the West Building became more restricted. Walls were built to partially block off a wall closed off the columned entrance hall and to close off access to the shrine from the west. The hall was divided into two separate areas and possibly used for pottery production in phase two. Several large thresholds were also added to the western section during the second phase. One room with a paved floor, originally constructed with ashlar masonry, was used as a space for weaving and agricultural pressing in the second phase (Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997:75). The function of the East Building, built during the second phase, was production and cooking (Driessen and Sakellarakis 1997:68). Several fixtures and objects are evidence for the industrial character of the East Building. Olive presses were found in threeΝareasΝofΝtheΝbuildingέΝAdditionally,ΝaΝpotter‘sΝkilnΝisΝlocatedΝatΝtheΝsiteέΝAΝwineΝpressΝdatesΝ to a second phase. Items that are evidence for production include clay loomweights and a large number of storage pithoi. At these two buildings, considered as one complex, there are several examples of Minoan palatial features and functions. Ashlar masonry, ritual areas, a pillar crypt, storage areas, a courtyard, and frescoes were found in the West and East buildings. There is evidence for

173

administration, craft production, and trade. The site itself is large and located in a strategic position.

Tylissos

Tylissos is located about 15 km southwest of Heraklion. The site was excavated by Chatzidakis from 1902-1913, and excavations continued under Platon from 1953-1955 and Kanta in 1971. The site is large (four ha) and located on the best route leading west from Knossos, in an excellent position for participating in, or controlling, trade networks (Adams 2006). The occupational history of Tylissos spans from the EM II to the LM IIIA. Many structures had several building phases. The settlement was destroyed by fire in the LM IB period, reoccupied in the early LM IIIA period, and destroyed by fire again at the end of the LM III period. There are three large buildings at Tylissos, and two of these have multiple palatial features (Buildings A and C). Building A is about 590 sq. m and has a monumental entrance with two pillars. The southern part of the structure is the residential area; it includes a Minoan hall, a pillar crypt, a light-well, and a lustral basin (McEnroe 2010). Rooms in this part of the building have evidence for craft production (loomweights) and administration (clay sealings and Linear A tablets). Large bronze cauldrons and a bronze figurine were also found in this area. Storage areas with a large number of pithoi are found in the northern part of the structure (McEnroe 2010). The Minoan hall in Building A has a somewhat peculiar organization because the fore-hall is located on two sides of the light-well. Driessen (1982:34) argues that it was built this way to protect a room with cult objects from the elements. An assemblage of bronze tools and a copper ingot were found in this structure (Adams 2006:19, Evely 1993:8-10, Hazzidakis 1921:56). These items provide evidence for metalworking and participation in trade. BuildingΝωΝisΝaboutΝ44ίΝsqΝmΝandΝlocatedΝaboutΝ5ίΝmΝnorthΝofΝBuildingΝA‘sΝentranceέΝAsΝ in Building A, the Minoan hall is also somewhat unusual because it is located at the end of the structure. The building has 23 rooms, two floors, and three staircases. A possible shrine is located in the southern part of the building. The western area of the building contains storage rooms, where one pithos with Linear A inscriptions was found (McEnroe 2010). The domestic rooms are located in the northern part of Building C.

174

Like the other Minoan villa sites, Tylissos is a large site in a strategic location. It is unique because it has three large buildings, two of which share palatial features and functions. Buildings A and C include two Minoan halls, ashlar masonry, frescoes, storage areas, a possible ritual area, a lustral basin, and a pillar crypt. Functions associated with these buildings are administration, craft production, and trade.

Sklavokambos Sklavokambos, or Sklavokampos, is located a few km southwest of Tylissos. It is a large site in a strategic location. The main building (comprised of north and south wings) is about 440 sq m and was probably built in the early LM IB and destroyed by fire during this same period. It is similar in some architectural aspects to Vathypetro (Adams 2007:401). Sklavokambos was still thriving as a site when Vathypetro had somewhat declined in importance. For example, a columned hall was built at Sklavokambos during the same period when a similar room at Vathypetro was semi-blocked (Adams 2007). The main building at has several features and functions in common with the palace at Knossos. It has ashlar masonry, a courtyard, a ritual area with ritual items, and storage areas. Ashlar masonry is not found throughout the building as it is at other Minoan villa buildings; it is used primarily for door jambs (Adams 2006). The building does not have a Minoan hall, a lustral basin, or a pillar crypt. It does have an impluvium hall, like that at Vathypetro. Functions of the building include administration and trade. Sealings are evidence for administration at Sklavokambos. They had fallen down from an upper story along with a stone hammer and a cylindrical vessel. Symbols on the sealings link the site economically with settlements across Crete, including Zakros, Gournia, and Ayia Triada. RitualΝitemsΝ(aΝstoneΝrhytonΝandΝaΝclayΝbull‘sΝhead)ΝalsoΝmay have fallen from an upper story into the main room of the ground floor. A ritual area in the building consisted of a deep charcoal layer with inverted incense burners, miniature kotyles, and conical cups (Marinatos 1948:74,78- 79, Gesell 1985:135). Storage areas with pithoi are located in the northwest area of the building (Christakis 1999:138, Marinatos 1948:74-75). Adams (2007:401) suggests that the location of these storage rooms beside an open veranda would have provided a space for marketing of staple goods or for drying grain before storage. The north wing of the building was a separate unit on the ground

175

floor, strengthening the argument by Adams that it may have been a space for economic transactions. The southern area of the building was used for food preparation and consumption. Although Sklavokambos has several of the features and functions found at Knossos and other Minoan villa sites, it lacks some variables and the elaboration found at the other sites (such as frescoes and the extensive use of ashlar masonry). A summary of the distribution of the features and functions described above is provided in Table 8.3. These variables are analyzed below by looking at frequencies and tetrachoric correlations, as was done for the Mycenaean analysis.

Table 8.3 Distribution of Formalized Features and Functions at Minoan Sites

8.4. Minoan Data Analysis This section includes an analysis of the representation of 13 variables found at Minoan sites and a discussion of how their distributions compare to those found in Mycenaean regions.

176

The Minoan features consists of: (1) site features (time period and strategic location); (2) architectural features (storage space, ashlar masonry, frescoes, a Minoan hall, a lustral basin, a pillar crypt, a light-well, or a court); and functions (administration, craft production, ritual, and trade). The first section considers the total frequencies of each variable across the sites as well as the total number of variables present at each site. The second section examines the statistical correlations between the variables.

8.4.1. Minoan Frequencies

Presence/absence data and frequencies for the 13 variables are provided in Table 8.4. TheseΝsitesΝchosenΝforΝthisΝstudyΝhaveΝaΝ―villa‖ΝbuildingΝthatΝisΝlargeΝandΝhasΝspecialΝfunctionsέΝ The Minoan sites also have a high frequency of other shared characteristics. They meet the expectations set by the archaeological SOC definition by sharing these features and functions with each other and with the primary center, Knossos. All of the sites have the following features: a strategic position, large site size, storage areas, ashlar masonry, and ritual areas or items.. An additional six variables (frescoes, a Minoan hall, a lustral basin, a courtyard, an administrative function, and a trade function) are found at 83% of the sites. Of the 13 variables, 11 are found at least at 80% of the sites. Craft production is a function found at 50% of the sites, and the least represented variable, a pillar crypt, is found at 33%. There is a clear difference between the frequencies of variables at Minoan and Mycenaean sites. Out of the 11 Mycenaean variables, only one (strategic position) characterized 100% of the sites, and chamber tombs were found at about 77%. The Mycenae region is more similar to north-central Crete in terms of the degree to which sites share features and functions– three of the 11 variables were found at 80% or more of sites (strategic position, chamber tombs, and metal items). Five other variables (storage, craft production, prestige goods, foreign items, and evidence for trade) were found at about 55-73% of sites. Thus the overall contrast general pattern between Minoan and Mycenaean sites is that there is a greater similarity in architectural features and functions at Minoan sites (Table 8.5). Two Minoan variables are found at less than 80% of sites and only one at less than 50% of sites, whereas 10 variables are found at less than 80% of Mycenaean sites and four at less than 50% of sites. All of the Minoan sites have at least 60% of the variables. Vathypetro has 100% and Archanes and Tylissos have 92% of the features and functions. This further illustrates the high

177

Table 8.4 Variable frequencies for Minoan sites

Table 8.5 Comparison of variable frequencies at Minoan and Mycenaean sites (variables coded as numbers in the order from most to least represented)

178

degree of similarity among these sites. A little more than 50% of Mycenaean sites had at least 50% of the variables. In the Pylos region about 45% of sites had at least 50% of the variables, but in the Mycenae region it is approximately 70% of sites. The overall pattern is that Minoan sites in north-central Crete have the highest degree of shared features, and of the Mycenaean frequencies, the Mycenae region has the higher degree of similarity. It is again possible to suggest that there is an excavation bias affecting these results because all of the Minoan sites, and a majority of the sites in the Mycenae region, have been excavated thoroughly. In addition, settlements and tombs have been excavated at the Mycenae region sites. Most of the Pylian sites are known only through surface survey and/or excavation of tombs. The difference between the representation patterns at Minoan and Mycenaean sites does suggest that there is real variation that could be related to sociopolitical processes. It is suggested below that the Composite Model of Regional Integration can in part account for the variation.

8.4.2. Minoan Tetrachoric Correlations

Tetrachoric correlation was used to evaluate relationships between the Minoan variables. Table 8.6 provides the results. Most of the variables do not vary or co-vary, and therefore most of the scores are 0. Pillar crypts are only found at two Minoan sites, but the variable is still highly correlated (0.942) with administration, trade, frescoes, Minoan halls, and lustral basins. There does not seem to be a causal relationship between these variables. The correlation pattern is in accordance with the variable frequencies, where most sites have most of the variables. This result is again quite different from the variable correlations in the Mycenaean data where only one feature does not vary overall (strategic position). A few features and functions have a significant positive correlation (r > or = 0.500). These differences will be discussed below.

179

Table 8.6 Correlations of variables at Minoan sites. Important correlations are highlighted in bold.

StratPos LrgSite Admin Storage CraftProd Trade Ashlar Frescoes MinHall Lustral Pillar Court Ritual StratPos 1.000 LrgSite 0 1.000 Admin 0 0 1.000 Storage 0 0 0 1.000 CraftProd 0 0 0 0 1.000 Trade 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 Ashlar 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 Frescoes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 MinHall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 Lustral 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 Pillar 0 0 0.942 0 0 0.942 0 0.942 0.942 0.942 1.000 Court 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 Ritual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000

180

8.5. Minoan SOC Discussion

The archaeological definition of a second order center proposed in this study is based on four criteria. To meet the archaeological correlates of a SOC, a site must be a settlement that shares certain architectural characteristics with a primary center with administrative control over economic activities that also participates within a regional network as a node of trade. Table 8.7 illustrates the degree to which these Minoan sites meet the conditions of the SOC archaeological definition.

Table 8.7 Degree to which Minoan sites meet SOC archaeological definition. Probably SOCs are shown in bold.

Site Settlement ArchSim Admin CraftProd Trade Amnisos yes yes no no no Nirou Kh yes yes yes no yes Archanes yes yes yes yes yes Vathy yes yes yes yes yes Tylissos yes yes yes yes yes Sklavo yes yes yes no yes

Half of the Minoan sites (Archanes, Vathypetro, and Tylissos) fulfill all four parts of the SOC definition. They are settlements with a high degree of architectural similarity with each other and with Knossos. Each of these four sites has evidence for administration, craft production, and trade. Linear A tablets are found at Archanes and Tylissos, and seals and sealings are found at Vathypetro. The remaining sites (Nirou Khani and Sklavokambos) meet all of the conditions except they do not have evidence for craft production. This does not exclude them from being categorized at SOCs, however, because both sites have evidence for administration. Only Amnisos lacks two of the main functions of SOCs – administration and acting as a center for trade. It is not clear from the data that Amnisos was a SOC. It is argued here that Nirou Khani, Archanes, Vathypetro, Tylissos, and Sklavokambos were Minoan SOCs under the primary center Knossos. There are several factors that indicate these Minoan SOCs were integrated through the imposition strategy. There are no major breaks in continuity at these sites, but at each SOC the

181

central structure was built during the LM IA period. This is the same period of the second architectural phase at Knossos. Therefore, a major rebuilding phase at the Knossos palace coincides with the construction of important structures at several sites throughout the region. A formalized set of elite architecture (Minoan halls, lustral basins, and courtyards) was adopted at these SOCs. Their proximity to Knossos would preclude the possibility for each of these sites to be an independent local center, and the high degree of shared features and use of codified administrative tools implies that they were tied together through intersite relationships. The use of elite features at SOCs was endorsed by Knossos because this reinforced its identityΝasΝtheΝprimaryΝcenterέΝKnossos‘sΝinfluenceΝwasΝextendedΝintoΝaΝlargerΝareaΝofΝnorth- central Crete during the middle of the Neopalatial period. The strategic locations of the SOCs were convenient for the purpose of management by elites at Knossos because it is more practical for local administrative centers to be positioned along communication routes or near important geographical areas. Minoan SOCs in north-central Crete acted as nodes of administration, craft production, and trade in the Knossian region. These Minoan sites did not grow along with, or independently from, the palace at Knossos. They do not have long site histories that suggest a period of sociopolitical emulation and competition leading to an increasingly interconnected regional system. Instead, we find several sites where large, elaborate buildings were founded during the second phase of the complex at Knossos. These sites do not meet the expectations of the competition strategy. The pattern on Crete differs from the Mycenaean regions because the data suggest that only one of the strategies of the Composite Model of Regional Integration was used by Knossos. In the Pylian region and the Mycenae region, there is evidence for the utilization of both strategies within both regions, as discussed in the previous chapter. This variation in how the two strategies were used, or not used, by Minoan and Mycenaean primary centers does not necessarily imply a certain sociopolitical organization in these regions. A potential factor that should be explored is the effect that geographic distance from a primary center has on the strategy of integration. All of the Minoan SOCs are within 20 km of Knossos, while Mycenaean SOCs are spread across a much larger area. ThisΝstudyΝfollowsΝAdams‘sΝ(βίίι)ΝargumentΝthatΝζeopalatialΝωreteΝwasΝmoreΝ hierarchically organized than the heterarchical political structure of Protopalatial Crete. It is necessaryΝtoΝcontextualizeΝtheseΝlargeΝ―villa‖ΝcomplexesΝinΝtheirΝsettings,ΝwhetherΝinΝurbanΝorΝ

182

rural environments. Several of these buildings are found at Knossos, although on a much smaller scale than the palace, and at Tylissos there are three large buildings. Agency must be taken into account to understand the relationships between political actors in these various locations. It is possibleΝthatΝkinΝgroupsΝlivingΝinΝtheseΝbuildings,ΝwhetherΝurbanΝorΝruralΝ―villas‖,ΝhadΝmanyΝofΝ the same functions in terms of administering and controlling certain aspects of the economy. Although heterarchy does not emphasize individual leadership, there are still political actors that fulfill special sociopolitical and economic roles. The organizational structure of Neopalatial Crete as hierarchical or heterarchicalΝdoesΝaffectΝtheΝclassificationΝofΝaΝruralΝ―villa‖ΝasΝaΝsecondΝ orderΝcenterΝasΝopposedΝtoΝaΝ―House‖Ν(ϊriessenΝβί1ί,ΝSchoepΝβίίβ) It must be acknowledged that in a state with heterarchical political organization the presence of a second order center, which is inherently hierarchical, is unlikely. This does not prohibit the occurrence of sites that fulfilled similar sociopolitical functions within larger regions. Heterarchical organization does not preclude the presence of elite levels (Scheop and Knappett 2005:23). There still may be levels of dominance promoted by various groups rather thanΝaΝcentralΝauthorityΝ(SoarΝβίίλμβί)έΝInΝthisΝway,ΝtheΝclassificationΝofΝtheseΝsitesΝasΝ―secondΝ orderΝcenters‖ΝisΝbasedΝonΝatΝleastΝaΝsomewhatΝhierarchicallyΝorientedΝpolitical structure. Heterarchical organization would change our conception of these sites in terms of their overall positions within a region and relationships to each other.

8.6. Summary

This chapter evaluated a test case for the archaeological definition of a SOC and for the Composite Model of Regional Integration. Minoan SOCs were chosen for this test because the main difference between the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures was in terms of their sociopolitical and economic organization. This chapter provided the individual site data for several Minoan SOCs, an analysis of the data, and a discussion of the patterns of frequencies and correlations. In general, it was determined that Minoan SOCs showed a high degree of similarity in architectural features and functions. Most variables were present at most of the sites. This pattern differs from what was found in the previous chapter with Mycenaean sites. There is much more variability within and between Mycenaean regions than is found in north-central Neopalatial Crete. The data indicate that Minoan SOCs were integrated through the imposition strategy. This differs from Mycenaean SOCs because only one pattern was used in north-central Crete. Overall, the

183

Minoan data supported the utility of both the SOC archaeological definition and the Composite Model of Regional Integration.

184

CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSIONS

9.1. Summary of Mycenaean Second Order Centers

This dissertation examined strategies of regional integration from the perspective of second order centers. The focus has been on second order centers as a specific category of archaeological sites in order to understand patterns of inter-site relationships. To evaluate regional integration from the perspective of these sites, it was necessary to formulate an archaeological definition of SOCs. This part of the study linked our theoretical knowledge of SOCs with archaeological remains. The data collected in this study were then used to develop and enhance this definition and to model processes of regional integration. The first goal of this research was to develop an archaeological definition of SOCs. This is necessary because most of our knowledge of these important sites derives from theoretical models and arguments that focus on the role of primary centers. SOCs are viewed as lesser, or lower level, versions of primary centers, but they are mainly identified in contrast to a larger, archaeologically known capital or primary center. This goal was achieved by performing an evaluation of potential SOCs in two Mycenaean regions. Starting from the assumption that Mycenaean second order centers would be at least 2 ha in size, I chose several potential SOCs in each region. Systematically investigating the archaeological remains from SOCs provides information that allows us to characterize these sites archaeologically through patterns of material remains, rather than solely through texts and written documents. Specific features of the SOC archaeological definition that were addressed in this study included the degree of architectural similarity between sites and evidence for administration, craft production, and trade. The definition states that a SOC is a settlement that is architecturally similar to a primary center, with administrative control over economic activities, and that acts as a node of trade within a region. Several sites in each region meet the criteria set out by the SOC archaeological definition. In total, nine probable or possible SOCs were found in the Pylos region and seven in the Mycenae region. With the current dataset, Beylerbey, Iklaina, Koukounara, Malthi, Nichoria,

185

Ordines, Pano Chorio, Peristeria, and Thouria can be classified as Pylian second order centers. In the Mycenae region, Asine, Berbati, Kasarma, Midea, Nauplion, Tiryns, and Zygouries can be classified as second order centers. Other sites in the regions may have been SOCs, and there were very probably more in the Pylos region if the Linear B district capitals are correctly identified as secondary centers. With the current data it is not possible to definitively categorize the remaining sites in each region. Regional variation was found in terms of the degree to which sites meet the conditions of the SOC archaeological definition. There are more sites that can be classified as second order centers in the Pylos region, although both regions have three sites that meet all of the criteria. In addition, SOCs in the Mycenae region were spread more evenly across the landscape, while more SOCs were clustered around Pylos. This likely represents regional developmental trajectories. The Mycenaean data were then used to test and refine a theoretical model of regional integration. The Composite Model of Regional Integration, a dynamic model, is made up of two strategies that are not mutually exclusive. The competition strategy is built on the idea that increasingly intensive rivalries between sites that are at similar sociopolitical levels leads to a situation in which the sites become linked together. Emergent elites at each site rely on the competitive system for their high statuses and as a conduit for prestige goods from intra- and inter-regional trade networks. In this way, competition between sites leads to a regional system of interconnected sites and elites that are reliant on the system and each other to maintain their positions. Through this process, it is possible for one site to ―winΝout‖,ΝbecomingΝaΝregionalΝ primary center. This does not mean that the process of competition in the region has ended, but it does lead to greater centralization and tends to reaffirm the position of the primary center. This strategy is best illustrated in the Mycenae region, where competition is apparent in the patterns of archaeological remains at various sites. Berbati, Kasarma, Midea, and Tiryns, and Zygouries do not show clear breaks in continuity. However, not all of these sites appear to have been in competition with each other and with Mycenae. Tholos tombs are found at all of these sites except for Zygouries. These tombs served as an avenue for competitive sociopolitical emulation during the LH IIA-IIIA1 periods. The number, size, and elaboration of tholoi can be used as a general marker of site status during this period. Elaborated chamber tombs must also be taken into account.

186

Mycenae is a dominant site in the region from the late MH period, as evidence by the Shaft Graves. By the LH IIA period Midea is competitive with Mycenae in terms of burial architecture (tholos and elaborate chamber tombs) and deposition of wealth in the Dendra cemetery. The tholos tomb at Berbati is constructed in the LH IIB period, and no new tholoi are constructed at Midea during this period. Asine and Tiryns gradually elevate in status throughout the LH IIA-B periods. Due to various circumstances (site history, personal relationships, access to long-distance trade, physical location), Mycenae became the primary center of this region by about the LH IIIA1-2 period. Berbati was likely integrated into the Mycenae region fairly early in the LH IIIA period. Other sites, such as Tiryns and Midea, became SOCs, but were still in competition with Mycenae. In the LH IIIA1 period Mycenae is the only site in the region with new tholoi constructions, but the high statuses of Midea and Asine are evidenced by elaborate chamber tombs. Tiryns continues to gradually grow during this period. By the LH IIIA2 period, the venue for competitive sociopolitical emulation begins to shift to settlement architecture. Asine begins to decline in importance, and Midea holds its place. Tiryns becomes more competitive with Mycenae during the LH IIIA2 with a new tholos construction and the earliest constructions of the Cyclopean fortifications. Similar constructions take place at Mycenae during this period, however in terms of tomb architecture and the deposition of wealth Mycenae outcompeted Tiryns (Voutsaki 1995). The three most elaborate sites in the Mycenae region during the LH IIIB period are Mycenae, Midea, and Tiryns. The megaron at Midea is built in this period, later than those at Mycenae and Tiryns. Asine and Zygouries may have been annexed by Mycenae as part of the imposition strategy. Zygouries has no evidence for continuity breaks that would be consistent with the imposition strategy, but it is unlikely this site was in competition with sites on the Argive Plain. It may have been outside the cultural sphere of the region at that point in time. It had no tholos tomb, a primary means of competition on the Argive Plain during the early Mycenaean period. Asine does show a break in its culture history and experienced a decline in site prominence in the LH IIIA2 and LH IIIB periods, presumably when it was incorporated into the Mycenae region. The site recovered and became a prominent LH IIIC settlement. There is not enough archaeological evidence from Kasarma to suggest how it was incorporated into the Mycenae region.

187

In the Pylos region, there is more evidence for the imposition strategy. Iklaina, Nichoria, and Peristeria had clear breaks in their cultural continuity. At Nichoria, the megaron was abandoned in the early LH IIIA2 period, roughly coinciding with major constructions at the palace at Pylos. Nichoria likely acted as a local center during the LH I-IIIA1 periods. In addition to the break in continuity evidenced by the disuse and eventual destruction of the megaron, a new tholos tomb was built in the LH IIIA2-B period as a replacement of older tholoi at the site. Similarly, the destruction of the megaron at Peristeria and disuse of tholoi coincides with the construction of a new tholos at the nearby site of Elliniko that was a newly founded site. The best evidence for the imposition strategy in this region is seen at Iklaina. This site was clearly of great importance from at least the LH II period. The earliest structures are dated to the MH, but the first significant building (the Cyclopean Terrace Building) was likely constructed in the LH II period. Another monumental building, Building X, dates to the LH IIIA- B period. The CT Building was destroyed in the LH IIIA2 and Building X was never completed. TheΝentireΝorientationΝofΝtheΝsiteΝshiftedΝduringΝthisΝperiod,ΝandΝεegaronΝΓΝwasΝconstructedΝ immediately after. A LH IIIA2 Linear B page tablet was found adjacent to Unit B at Iklaina. It is an incredibly significant find because it is the earliest tablet thus found and it is the only page tablet found outside a Mycenaean palace. It is reasonable to suggest that this tablet represents early independent administration at the site. The situation at Iklaina is the clearest example of direct interference by Pylos. The general patterns in both Mycenaean regions are similar. Both strategies of integration were used in each region, and there temporal variation was found in the use of these strategies. The imposition strategy was implemented after Mycenae and Pylos had been established as the primary centers in their regions, and the competition strategy operated over a period of time during which inter-site relations in each region were coalescing.

9.2. The Minoan Test Case This study attempted to demonstrate how the archaeological definition of SOCs and Composite Model of Regional Integration are widely applicable to state-level societies, and that sociopolitical organization is only important insofar as the ways in which competition is enacted and how imposition is achieved (economically, ritually, militarily or some combination of these). The test case chosen for this study was a Minoan region, north-central Neopalatial Crete. While

188

differences did exist, the extent to which Neopalatial Minoan and LH Mycenaean states were dissimilar is not great. Certain types of buildings and features along with architectural elaboration were a venue for expressing hierarchy in both Mycenaean regions and the Minoan region under study. Because competitive emulation through architecture is found in all of these cases, it is not possible to state unequivocally that the competition strategy is a method of regional integration that can potentially be found in all state-level societies. Minoan second order centers showed a higher degree of similarity in architectural features and functions than most Mycenaean SOCs. Almost all of the sites had almost all of the variables. Only one site did not meet the criteria of the SOC archaeological definition. Much more variability was found within and between Mycenaean regions than was found in north- central Neopalatial Crete. The size of the regions or local trajectories could play a factor in this variation. The data indicated that Minoan SOCs were integrated through the imposition strategy because all of these sites were constructed at roughly the same time, coinciding with the second major architectural phase at the palace at Knossos. This situation differs from the pattern found in Mycenaean regions because only one strategy was used in north-central Crete. It must be considered that these sites were a part of a different sociopolitical situation within a heterarchically organized state. IfΝAdams‘Ν(βίίι)ΝargumentΝthatΝζeopalatialΝωreteΝwasΝmoreΝ hierarchically organized is accepted, but if these Minoan states were heterarchical then the classification of these sites as second order centers does not fit. The situation in Neopalatial north-central Crete should be investigated in more depth. Overall, the Minoan data supported the utility of both the SOC archaeological definition and the Composite Model of Regional Integration.

9.3. Directions for Future Research

There are multiple areas of future research in relation to SOCs that could be pursued. Several of the sites discussed in this study were still in use after the collapse of the Mycenaean states. Habitation continued at several sites in both regions without major breaks into the LH IIIC and Protogeometric periods and later in some cases. Some of these, such as Asine and Nichoria, held the same or greater levels of prominence following the LH IIIB period. These sites had prominent buildings in the LH IIIC (Asine) and PG (Asine and Nichoria) periods. Tracking the

189

shifts in importance of sites in the Pylos and Mycenae regions would present a more complete view of the processes of region-wide integration and centralization and those of decentralization. Political cycles have been explored here and in other regions, but not from the perspective of sites that were second order centers at some point in their histories. Following this emphasis on particular sites, another avenue for future research would be to archaeologically investigate SOCs that have not been thoroughly excavated. Another area of future research would be to test the SOC archaeological definition and the Composite Model of Regional Integration on state-level societies organized very differently from Mycenaean and Minoan states. How this model could be adjusted for heterarchical states and those based on staple finance is a question that should be investigated. In addition, it would also be constructive to test the definition and model in similar states in different types of environments (natural and cultural), such as the Maya. More comparisons with various state- level societies worldwide will strengthen the definition and model. This research has implications for archaeological research in multiple areas of the world. In order to create viable social, political, and economic models it is important to focus on the various elements of a polity. Second order centers represent a critical part of overall administrative and economic systems within state-level societies. A detailed study of SOCs contributes to our knowledge of this particular class of settlements as well as to our understanding of state development.

190

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, E. 2004 Power Relations in Minoan Palatial Towns: An Analysis of Neopalatial Knossos and Malia. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17(2):191-222.

2006 Social Strategies and Spatial Dynamics in Neopalatial Crete: An Analysis of the North-Central Area. American Journal of Archaeology 110:1-36.

2007 Approaching Monuments in the Prehistoric Built Environment: New Light on the Minoan Palaces. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26(4):359-394.

Adams, R.M. 2001 Complexity in Archaic States. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20(3):345-360.

Aprile, J.D. 2010 Pylos and Nichoria: A Case Study in Urban/Hinterland Political Economy, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.

Aschenbrenner, S. 1975 Excavations at Nichoria in Messenia: 1972-1973, Area IV Southeast (Unit IV-4). Hesperia 44(1):99-101.

Baines, J. and N. Yoffee 1998 Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. In Archaic States, edited by G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus, pp. 199-260. School of American Research Press, Sante Fe.

2000 Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth: Setting the Terms. In Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States, edited by J. Richards and M. Van Buren, pp. 13-20. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Balcer, J.M. 1974 The Mycenaean Dam at Tiryns. American Journal of Archaeology 78(2):141- 149).

Bendall, L.M. 2007 Economics of Religion in the Mycenaean World: Resources Dedicated to Religion in the Mycenaean Palace Economy. Oxford University School of Archaeology, Oxford.

Bennet, J. 1985 The Structure of the Linear B Administration at Knossos. American Journal of Archaeology 89:231-249.

191

1995 Space through Time: Diachronic Perspectives on the Spatial Organization of the Pylian State. In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, pp. 587-602. Université de Liège, Liège.

1999a The Mycenaean Conceptualization of Space or Pylian Geography (...Yet Again!). In Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten Des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg Vom 1.-5. Mai 1995, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller and O. Panagl, pp. 131-157. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien.

1999b Pylos: The Expansion of a Mycenaean Center. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea, edited by M. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson, pp. 9-18. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

2002 re-u-ko-to-ro za-we-te: Leuktron as a Secondary Capital in the Pylos Kingdom? In A-NA-QO-TA. Studies Presented to J. T. Killen (Minos 33-34), edited by J. Bennet and J. Driessen, pp. 371-375. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca.

2008 [1998] The Linear B Archives and the Kingdom of Nestor. In Sandy Pylos: An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino, edited by J. Davis and S. E. Alcock, pp. 111-133. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Bennet, J. and C. Shelmerdine 2001 Not the Palace of Nestor: The Development of the 'Lower Town' and Other Non- Palatial Settlements in LBA Messenia. In Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology), edited by K. Branigan, pp. 135-140. Academic Press, London and New York.

Binford, L.R. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.

Bintliff, J. (editor) 1977 Mycenaean Geography. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium, September 1976. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Blackman, D. 2001 Archaeology in Greece. Archaeological Reports:3-151.

Blanton, R. 1998 Beyond Centralization: Steps Toward a Theory of Egalitarian Behavior in Archaic States. In Archaic States, edited by G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus, pp. 135-172. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Blanton, R., G.M. Feinman, S.A. Kowalewski and P.N. Peregrine 1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37(1):1-14.

192

Blegen, C.W. 1928 Zygouries: A Prehistoric Settlement in the Valley of Cleonae. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

1937 Prosymna. The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1954 An Early Tholos Tomb in Western Messenia. Hesperia 23:158-162.

Blegen, C.W. and M. Rawson 1966 The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, vol. 1. The Buildings and Their Contents. Princeton University Press for the University of Cincinnati, Princeton.

Blegen, C.W., M. Rawson, W. Taylor and W. Donovan 1973 The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia III:Acropolis and Lower, Tholoi, Grave Circles and Chamber Tombs, Discoveries Outside the Citadel. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Bohannan, P. 1955 Some Principles of Exchange and Investment Among the Tiv of Central Nigeria. American Anthropologist 57:60-70.

Boskamp, A. 1996 Minoan Storage Capacities (1): Graffiti on Pithoi in the Palace Magazines at Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens 91:101-112.

Bourdieu, P. 1999 The Weight of the World. Polity, Cambridge.

Boyd, M.J. 2002 Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Mortuary Practices in the Southern and Western Peloponnese. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Branigan, K. 1982 Minoan Metallurgy and Cypriot Copper. In Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000-500 B.C., edited by J. D. Muhly, R. Maddin and V. Karageorghis. Department of Antiquities, Nicosia, Cyprus.

1983 Craft Specialization in Minoan Crete. In Minoan Society, edited by O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, pp. 38-50. Bristol Classical Press, Bristol.

Brumfiel, E.M. 1994 Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World: An Introduction. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox, pp. 3-13. Cambridge University Press,

193

Cambridge.

Brumfiel, E.M. and T.K. Earle 1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An Introduction. In Production, Exchange and Complex Societies, edited by E. M. Brumfield and T. K. Earle, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cadogan, G. 1976 The Palaces of Minoan Crete. Barrie and Jenkins, London.

Carneiro, R. 1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169:733-738.

1978 Political Expansion as an Expression of the Principle of Competitive Exclusion. In Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution, edited by R. Cohen and E. R. Service, pp. 205-233. Institute for the Study of Human Issues, Philadelphia.

1981 The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State. In The Transition to Statehood in the New World, edited by G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz, pp. 37–79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Catling, H.W. 1977-1978 Archaeology in Greece. Archaeological Reports 24:3-69.

Cavanagh, W.G. and C.B. Mee 1998 A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece. Paul Aströms Förlag, Jonsered.

Chadwick, J. 1961 The Two Provinces of Pylos. Minos 7:125-141.

1963 The Mycenae Tablets, Vol. III. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 52(7).

1972 The Mycenaean Documents. In The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment, edited by W. A. McDonald and J. G.R. Rapp, pp. 100-116. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Cherry, J.F. 1984 The Emergence of the State in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 30:18-48.

Cherry, J.F. and J.L. Davis 2001 ‗UnderΝtheΝSceptreΝofΝAgamemnon‘μΝTheΝViewΝfromΝtheΝHinterlandsΝofΝεycenae. In Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age [Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 4], edited by K. Branigan, pp. 51-71. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

194

Christakis, K.S. 1999 Pithoi and Food Storage in Neopalatial Crete: A Domestic Perspective. World Archaeology 31(1):1-20.

1999 Pithoi and Food Storage in Neopalatial Crete: A Domestic Perspective. World Archaeology 31(1):1-20.

2011 Redistribution and Political Economies in Bronze Age Crete. American Journal of Archaeology 115(2):197-205.

Claessen, H.J.M. 1981 Specific Features of the African Early State. In The Study of the State, edited by H. J. M. Claessen and P. Skalnik, pp. 59-86. Mouton Publishers, The Netherlands.

1984 The Internal Dynamics of the Early State. Current Anthropology 25:365–379.

1985 The Internal Dynamics of the Early State. Current Anthropology 25:365-379.

Cliff, M.B. 1988 Domestic Architecture and Origins of Complex Society at Cerros. In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, edited by R. R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, pp. 199-225. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Cosmopoulos, M. 2006 The Political Landscape of Mycenaean States: A-pu2 and the Hither Province of Pylos. American Journal of Archaeology 110(2):205-228.

2008 Excavation at Iklaina, 2008, Internet Report. University of Missouri-St. Louis.

2009 Iklaina Archaeological Project, 2009 Season, Internet Report.

2010 Iklaina Archaeological Project, 2010 Internet Report.

2011 Email communication on Iklaina 2011 season.

Costin, C.L. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 3, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 1-56. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

ϊ‘Altroy,ΝTέ 1992 Provincial Power in the Inka Empire. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

ϊ‘Altroy, T. and T.K. Earle 1985 State Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political Economy.

195

Current Anthropology 26:187-206.

Dabney, M., P. Halstead and P. Thomas 2004 Late Mycenaean Feasting on Tsoungiza at Ancient Nemea. In The Mycenaean Feast, edited by J. C. Wright, pp. 197-215.

Dabney, M.K. and J.C. Wright 1990 Mortuary Customs, Palatial Society and State Formation in the Aegean Area: A Comparative Study. In Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June, 1988, edited by R. Hägg and G. Nordquist, pp. 45-52. Svenska Institutet i Athen, Stockholm.

Darcque, P. 1980 δ‘ArchitectureΝϊomestiqueΝεycénienne,ΝÉcoleΝdesΝHautesΝÉtudesΝenΝSciencesΝ Sociales.

Davis, E.N. 1987 The Knossos Miniature Frescoes and the Function of the Central Courts. In The Function of the Minoan Palaces, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens (10–16 June 1984), edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, pp. 157-161. Svenska Institutet i Athen, Stockholm.

Davis, J.L. 1998 The Palace and Its Dependencies. In Sandy Pylos: An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino, edited by J. L. Davis and S. E. Alcock, pp. 53-68. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Davis, J.L. and S.E. Alcock (editors) 1998 Sandy Pylos: An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Davis, J.L., S.E. Alcock, J. Bennet, Y. Lolos, and C. Shelmerdine 1997 The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part I: Overview and the Archaeological Survey. Hesperia 66(3):391-494.

Davis, J.L., S.E. Alcock, J. Bennet, Y. Lolos, C. W. Shelmerdine, E. Zangger and S. Heath 1996-2010 The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project Internet Edition Site Gazetteer.

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], edited by R. Laffineur, pp. 105-120. Université de Liège, Liège.

Drennan, R.D. and C.E. Peterson

196

2004 Comparing Archaeological Settlement Systems with Rank-Size Graphs: A Measure of Shape and Statistical Confidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:533- 549.

Driessen, J. 1982 The Minoan Hall in Domestic Architecture on Crete: To be in Vogue in Late Minoan IA? Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia 21:27-92.

1999a The Dismantling of a Minoan Hall at Palaikastro. In Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), edited by P. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier. Université de Liège, Liège.

1999b The Archaeology of a Dream: The Reconstruction of Minoan Public Architecture. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12(1):121-127.

2003 The Court Compounds of Minoan Crete: Royal Palaces or Ceremonial Centers? Athena Review 3(3):57-61.

2004 The Central Court of the Palace at Knossos. In Knossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans's Excavation at Knossos, edited by G. Cadogan, E. Hatzaki and A. Vasilakis. The British School at Athens, London.

2010 Spirit of Place. Minoan Houses as Major Actors. In Political Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by D. Pullen, pp. 35-65. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Driessen, J. and J.A. Sakellarakis 1997 The Vathypetro Complex--Some Observations on Its Architectural History and Function. In The Function of the "Minoan Villa", edited by R. Hägg, pp. 63-77. Svenska Institutet i Athen, Stockholm.

Earle, T.K. 1978 Economic and Social Organization of a Complex Chiefdom: The Halelea District, Kaua'i, Hawaii (Anthropological Papers No. 63) University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.

Evans, A.J. 1921-1935 The Palace of Minos at Knossos. Macmillan, London.

1928 The Palace of Minos at Knossos, Vol. II. Macmillan, London.

1930 The Palace of Minos at Knossos, Vol. III. Macmillan and Co., London.

Evely, D.

197

1993 Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques. An Introduction. Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg.

Feinman, G.M. 1998 Scale and Social Organization: Perspectives on the Archaic State. In Archaic States, edited by G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus, pp. 95-133. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Feinman, G.M. and J. Marcus (editors) 1998 Archaic States. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Ferguson, R. (editor) 1984 Warfare, Culture, and Environment. FL. Academic Press, Orlando

Fitzsimons, R.D. 2006 Monuments of Power and the Power of Monuments: The Evolution of Elite Architectural Styles at Bronze Age Mycenae, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cincinnati.

Flannery, K. 1998 The Ground Plans of Archaic States. In Archaic States, edited by G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus, pp. 15-58. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Flannery, K. and J. Marcus 1976 Evolution of the Public Building in Formative Oaxaca. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 205- 221. Academic Press, New York.

Foster, M.L. 1981 The Flax Impost at Pylos and Mycenaean Landholding. Minos 17:67-121.

French, E.B. 1991 Tracing Exports of Mycenaean Pottery: The Manchester Contribution. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the Conference Held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989, edited by N. H. Gale, pp. 121-125. Paul Aströms Förlag, Jonsered.

1998 The Ups and Downs of Mycenae: 1250-1150BCE. In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to early Tenth Centuries BCE, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 2-5. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Fried, M.H. 1960 On the Evolution of Social Stratificiation and the State. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.

Frodin, O. and A.W. Persson 1938 Asine: Results of the Swedish Excavations, 1922-1930. Generalstabens

198

Litografiska Anstalts Förlag, Stockholm.

Galaty, M.L. 1999 Wealth Ceramics, Staple Ceramics: Pots and the Mycenaean Palaces. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea, edited by M. L. Galaty and W. Parkinson, pp. 49-59. University of California Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.

Galaty, M.L. and W.A. Parkinson (editors) 2007 Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. University of California Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Gesell, G.C. 1985 Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete. Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg.

Giering, K.L. 2007 The LH IIIB Shapes. In Midea: The Megaron Complex and Shrine Area, Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1994-1997, edited by G. Walberg, pp. 121-137. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia.

Gillis, C. 1997 The Smith in the Late Bronze Age--State Employee, Independent Artisan, or Both? In TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996 (Aegaeum 16), edited by R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt, pp. 505-513. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Glatz, C. 2009 Empire as Network: Spheres of Material Interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:127-141.

Graham, J.W. 1977 Bathrooms and Lustral Chambers. In Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory: Studies Presented to F. Schachermeyr on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, edited by K. H. Kinzl, pp. 110-125. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

1979 Further Notes on Minoan Palace Architecture: 1. West Magazine and Upper Halls at Knossos and Mallia, 2. Access to, and Use of, Minoan Palace Roofs. American Journal of Archaeology 83:49-69.

Graziadio, G. 1991 The Process of Social Stratification at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period: A Comparative Examination of the Evidence. American Journal of Archaeology 95 (3):403–440.

199

Gregory, C.A. 1982 Gifts and Commodities. Academic Press, London.

1997 Savage Money. Harwood, London.

Guilford, J.P. and T.C. Lyons 1942 On Determining the Reliability and Significance of a Tetrachoric Coefficient of Correlation. Psychometrika 7(4):243-249.

Hachtmann, V. Forthcoming Mycenaean Times in the Basin of Phlius. Conference: Corinthia and the Northeast Peloponnesus: Topography and History from Prehistoric Times until the End of Antiquity, Loutraki, 26-29 March 2009.

Hägg, R. 1987 On the Reconstruction of the West Facade of the Palace at Knossos. In The Function of the Minoan Palaces, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens (10–16 June 1984), edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos. Svenska Institutet i Athen, Stockholm.

1998 Ritual in Mycenaean Greece. In Ansichten Griechischer Rituale: Geburtstag- Symposium für Walter Burkert edited by F. Graf, pp. 99-113. Teubner, Stuttgart

Hallager, B.P. and E. Hallager 1995 The Knossian Bull--Political Propaganda in Neopalatial Crete? In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, pp. 547-556. Université de Liège, Liège.

Halstead, P. 1992 Agriculture in the Bronze Age Aegean: Towards a Model of Palatial Economy. In Agriculture in Ancient Greece, edited by B. Wells, pp. 105-116. Paul Aströms Förlag, Stockholm.

1999 Mycenaean Agriculture: The Nature of Palatial Intervention. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (43):211-212.

2001 Mycenaean Wheat, Flax and Sheep: Palatial Intervention in Farming and its Implications for Rural Society. In Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palaces States, edited by S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, pp. 38-50. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hassig, R. 1985 Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century Political Economy of the Valley of Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Hassig, R.

200

1988 Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Hazzidakis, J. 1921 Tylissos á l’Époque εinoenne. Paul Geuthner, Paris.

Helms, M.W. 1988 Ulysses’ Sailμ τn Ethnographic ηdyssey of θower, Knowledge, and Geographical Distance. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and Power. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Hiesel, G. 1989 Späthelladische Hausarchitektur. Studien zur Architekturgeschichte des Griechischen Festlandes in der Späten Bronzezeit, Ph.D. Dissertation, Mainz.

Hope Simpson, R. 1981 Mycenaean Greece. Noyes Press, Park Ridge, NJ.

1998 The Mycenaean Highways. Classical Views XLII(17):239-260.

Hope Simpson, R. and O.P.T.K. Dickinson 1979 A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age. Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg.

Iakovides, S. 1983 Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece. Brill, Leiden.

Immerwahr, S.A. 1971 The Neolithic and Bronze Ages. American School of Classica Studies at Athens, Athens.

Isaac, B. 1988 The Meaning of "Limes" and "Limitanei" in Ancient Sources. Journal of Roman Studies 78:125-147.

Jahns, S. 1993 On the Holocene Vegetation of the Argive Plain (Peloponnese, Southern Greece). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 2:187-203.

Jansen, A. 1997 Bronze Age Highways at Mycenae. Echos du Monde Classique 41:1-16.

Johnson, A. and T.K. Earle 2000 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State,

201

Second Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Kardulias, P.N. 1999 Multiple Levels in the Aegean Bronze Age World-System. In World-Systems Theory in Practice, edited by P. N. Kardulias, pp. 179-202. Rowman & Littlefield, New York.

Kaza-Papageorgiou, D. 1996 ΑπΝηΝαααΝουΝυηαοΝροαουΝΑηοΝ1λικ-1980. In Ο Θηαό ω Αηοω, edited by K. Demakopoulou, pp. 37-67. Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Athens. Kilian, K. 1979 Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1977. Archaologischer Anzeiger 1:379-447.

1981 Zeugnisse Mykenischer Kultausübung in Tiryns. In Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, pp. 49-58, Stockholm.

1988 The Emergence of Wanax Ideology in the Mycenaean Palaces. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7:291-302.

Killen, J. 1984 The Textile Industries at Pylos and Knossos. In Pylos Comes Alive: Industry and Administration in a Mycenaean Palace, edited by C. W. Shelmerdine and T. G. Palaima, pp. 49-63. Archaeological Institute of America, New York.

1985 The Linear B Tablets and the Mycenaean Economy In Linear B: A 1984 Survey: Proceedings of the Mycenaean Colloquium of the VIIIth Congress of the International Federation of the Societies of Classical Studies (Dublin, 27 August-1st September 1984), edited by A. M. Davies and Y. Duhoux, pp. 241-305. Peeters Publishers, Leuven.

1987 Bronzeworking at Knossos and Pylos. Hermathena 143:61-72.

2001 Religion at Pylos: The Evidence of the Fn Tablets. In Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Age [Aegaeum 22], edited by R. Laffineur and R. Hägg, pp. 435-443. Université de Liège, Liège.

Knappett, C. and I. Schoep 2000 Continuity and Change in Minoan Palatial Power. Antiquity 74:365-371.

Korres, G.S. 1983 The Relations between Crete and Messenia in the Late Middle Helladic and Early Late Helladic Period. In The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, pp. 141-152. Swedish Institute in Athens, Stockholm.

Koumouzelis, M. 1996 A Monumental Chamber Tomb at Ellinika, Messenia. In Atti e Memorie del

202

Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia; Roma-Napoli, 14-20 Ottobre 1991, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale, Rome.

Kowalewski, S. A. 1990 The Evolution of Complexity in the Valley of Oaxaca. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:39-58.

Krystalli-Votsi, K. 1996 ΗΝαααΝουΝυηαοΝροαουΝΝΑηοέΝInΝΟ Θηαό ω Αηοω, edited by in K. Demakopoulou, pp. 21-31. Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Athens.

Laffineur, R. 1995 Craftsmen and Craftsmanship in Mycenaean Greece: For a Multimedia Approach. In Politea: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10- 13 April, 1994, edited by R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, pp. 189-199. University of Texas at Austin, Austin.

Lang, M. 1969 The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, Vol. 2. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Lawrence, D. L. and S. M. Low 1990 The Built Environment and Spatial Form. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:453-505.

Lord, L.E. 1939 Watchtowers and Fortresses in Argolis. American Journal of Archaeology 43(1):78-84

Luttwak, E. 1976 The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century AD to the Third. Johns Hopkins Paperbacks, Baltimore.

Malinowski, B. 1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights.

Maran, J. 2006 Architecture, Power and Social Practice: An Introduction. In Constructing Power: Architecture, Ideology, and Social Practice, edited by J. Maran, C. Juwig, H. Schwengel and U. Thaler, pp. 9-14. LIT, Hamburg.

Marcus, J. 1973 Territorial Organization of the Lowland Classic Maya. Science 180(4089):911-

203

916.

1983 Lowland Maya Archaeology at the Crossroads. American Antiquity 48(3):454- 488.

1993 Ancient Maya Political Organization. In Lowland Maya Civlization in the Eight Century A.D., edited by J. Sabloff and J. S. Henderson, pp. 111-183. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.

Marcus, J. and G.M. Feinman 1998 Introduction. In Archaic States, pp. 2-13. SAR Press.

Marcus, J. and K.V. Flannery 1996 Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico's Oaxaca Valley. Thames and Hudson, London.

Marinatos, N. 1987 Public Festivals in the West Courts of the Palaces. In The Function of the Minoan Palaces, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens (10–16 June 1984), edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos. Svenska Institutet i Athen, Stockholm.

Marinatos, S. 1925-1926 ΑαααΝρουΝΧΝΚρηέΝPraktika:141-147.

1948 ToΝεΝαροΝΣαοπουέΝΑαοογ Εη 1939-1941:69- 96.

1960 Crete and Mycenae. Translated by J. Boardman. Thames and Hudson, London.

Marinatos, S. and M. Hirmer 1973 Crete and Mycenae. H.N. Abrams, New York.

Mauss, M. 1954 The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Cohen & West, London.

McDonald, W.A. 1971 The 1970 Campaign at Nichoria in Messenia (Abstract). In 72nd General Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. American Journal of Archaeology, New York, NY.

1972 Excavations at Nichoria in Messenia: 1969-71. Hesperia 41(2):218-273.

McDonald, W.A. and R. Hope Simpson 1961 Prehistoric Habitation in Southwestern Peloponnese. American Journal of

204

Archaeology 65(3):221-260.

1964 Further Exploration in Southwestern Peloponnese: 1962-1963. American Journal of Archaeology 68(3):229-245.

1969 Further Explorations in Southwestern Peloponnese: 1964-1968. American Journal of Archaeology 73(2):123-177.

1972 Archaeological Explorations and Register. In The Minnesota Messenia Expedition, edited by W. A. McDonald and J. G.R. Rapp, pp. 117-147, 264-309. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

McDonald, W.A. and G.R. Rapp, Jr. 1972 Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Environment. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

McDonald, W.A. and N.C. Wilkie (editors) 1992 Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece, Volume II, The Bronze Age Occupation. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

McEnroe, J.C. 2010 Architecture of Minoan Crete: Constructing Identity in the Aegean Bronze Age. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Mommsen, H. and J. Maran 2000-2001 Production Places of Some Mycenaean Pictorial Vessels: The Contribution of Chemical Pottery Analysis. Opuscula Atheniensia 25-26:95-106.

Mylonas, G. E. 1966 Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Mylonas Shear, I. 1968 Mycenaean Domestic Architecture Volumes I-III, Ph.D. Dissertation. Bryn Mawr College.

Nakassis, D. 2006 The Individual and the Mycenaean State: Agency and Prosopography in the Linear B Texts from Pylos, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.

2010 Reevaluating Staple and Wealth Finance at Mycenaean Pylos. In Political Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by D. J. Pullen, pp. 127-148. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Nakassis, D., W.A. Parkinson and M.L. Galaty 2011 Redistributive Economies from a Theoretical and Cross-Cultural Perspective.

205

American Journal of Archaeology 115(2):177-184.

Nelson, M.C. 2001 The Architecture of Epano Englianos, Greece, Ph.D. thesis. University of Toronto.

Palaima, T.G. 2001 The Modalities of Economic Control at Pylos. Ktema 26:151-159.

2004 Sacrificial Feasting in the Linear B Documents. In The Mycenaean Feast, edited by J. C. Wright, pp. 97-126.

Palaima, T.G. 2006 From Wanax to Basileus, edited by I. Lemos and I. Deger-Jalkotzy. University of Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh

Palmer, R. 1994 Wine in the Mycenaean Economy. University of Texas Press, Austin.

2002 Models in Linear B Landholding: An Analysis of Methodology. In ANA-QO-TA: Studies Presented to J.T. Killen (Minos 33-34 [1998-1999]), edited by J. Bennet and J. Driessen, pp. 223-250. University of Salamanca, Salamanca.

Pappi, E. 1999 Aidonia Nemeas, Thesi Platana. Archaiologikon Deltion 54.

Parkinson, W.A. 1999 Chipping Away at the Mycenaean Economy: Obsidian Exchange, Linear B, and Palatial Control in Late Bronze Age Messenia. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea, edited by M. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson, pp. 73-85. University of California Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Parkinson, W.A. and M.L. Galaty 2007 Secondary States in Perspective: An Integrated Approach to State Formation in the Prehistoric Aegean. American Anthropologist 109(1):113-129. Pendlebury, J.D. 1939 The Archaeology of Crete. Methuen and Co. Ltd, London.

Peregrine, P.N. 1991 Some Political Aspects of Craft Specialization. World Archaeology 23:1-11.

Platon, N. 1983 The Minoan Palaces: Centres of Organization of a Theocratic, Social, and Political System. In Minoan Society, edited by O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, pp. 273- 276. Bristol Classical Press, Bristol.

206

Polanyi, K. 1957 The Economy as Instituted Process. In Trade and Market in the Early Empires, edited by K. Polanyi, C. M. Arensberg and H. W. Pearson, pp. 243-270. Collier Macmillan, London.

Pullen, D.J. and T.F. Tartaron 2007 Where‘sΝtheΝθalace?ΝTheΝAbsenceΝofΝStateΝόormationΝinΝtheΝδateΝBronzeΝAgeΝ Corinthia. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II Revised and Expanded Second Edition, edited by M. L. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson, pp. 146-158. University of California, Los Angeles.

Rambach, J. 2007 Investigations of Two MH I Burial Mounds at Messenian Kastroulia (Near Ellinika, Ancient Thouria). In Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at Salzburg October 31st-November 2nd, 2004, edited by F. Felten, W. Gauss, R. Smetana. pp. 137-150. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna.

Rapoport, A. 1969 House Form and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

1993 Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, edited by S. Kent, pp. 9-20. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Renfew, C. 1972 The Emergence of Civilisation. Methuen, London.

1974 Beyond a Subsistence Economy: The Evolution of Social Organization in Prehistoric Europe. In Reconstructing Complex Societies, Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 20, edited by C. B. Moore, pp. 69-85. American Schools of Oriental Research, Cambridge, MA.

1975 Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and Communication. In Ancient Civilization and Trade, edited by J. Sabloff and C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 3– 59. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1986 Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J. Cherry, pp. 1-18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2001 Commodification and Institution in Group-Oriented and Individualizing Societies. In The Origin of Human Social Institutions, edited by W. G. Runciman, pp. 93-117. British Academy, London.

Renfrew, C. and J.F. Cherry (editors)

207

1986 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Rougemont, F. 2010 Les Parfums Myceniens: Le Temoignage des Textes en Lineaire B. Dossiers d'Archeologie 337.

Rutter, J.B. 1993 Review of Aegean Prehistory II: The Prepalatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland. American Journal of Archaeology 97(4):745-797.

Rutter, J.B. and C.W. Zerner 1984 Early Hellado-Minoan Contacts. In The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, pp. 75-83. Paul Åströms Förlag, Stockholm.

Sahlins, M.D. and E.R. Service (editors) 1960 Evolution and Culture. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Sainer, A.P. 1976 An Index of the Place Names at Pylos. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 17:17-63.

Sakellarakis, Y. and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997 Archanes: Minoan Crete in a New Light. Ammos, Athens.

Schaar, K. 1979 An Interpretation of the Palace Plan at Mycenae, Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University

Schallin, A.-L. 2002 Pots for Sale: The Late Helladic IIIA and IIIB Ceramic Production at Berbati. In New Research on Old Material from Asine and Berbati: In Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Swedish Institute at Athens, edited by B. Wells, pp. 141-155. Paul Åström's Förlag, Jonsered.

Schliemann, H. 1886 Tiryns. The Prehistoric Palace of the Kings of Tiryns. The Results of the Latest Excavations. John Murray, London.

Schoep, I. 2002 The State of the Minoan Palaces or the Minoan Palace-State? In Monuments of Minos. Rethinking the Minoan Palaces, edited by J. Driessen, I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, pp. 15-33. University of Liège, Liège.

Schoep, I. and C. Knappett 2005 Dual Emergence: Evolving Heterarchy, Exploding Hierarchy. In The Emergence

208

of Civilisation Revisited, edited by J. Barrett and P. Halstead, pp. 21-37. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Schon, R. 2007 Chariots, Industry, and Elite Power at Pylos. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea edited by M. L. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson, pp. 133- 145. University of California Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.

Schortman, E.M. and P.A. Urban 2004 Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(2):185-226.

Service, E.R. 1962 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. Random House.

Shaw, J.W. and M.C. Shaw 1999 A Proposal for Bronze Age Ship-Sheds in Crete. In Tropis V, 5th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, edited by H. Tzalas, pp. 369-382. Hellenic Institute for the Preservation of Nautical Tradition.

Shelmerdine, C.W. 1973 The Pylos Ma Tablets Reconsidered. American Journal of Archaeology 77(3):261-275.

1981 Nichoria in Context: A Major Town in the Pylos Kingdom. American Journal of Archaeology 85(3):319-325.

1985 The Perfume Industry of Mycenaean Pylos. Paul Aströms Förlag, Göteborg.

1997 Review of Aegean Prehistory VI: The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland. American Journal of Archaeology 101:537–585.

1999 Administration in the Mycenaean Palaces: Where's the Chief? In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea, edited by M. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson, pp. 19-24. University of California Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.

2006 Mycenaean Palatial Administration. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I. S. Lemos, pp. 73-99. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Sherratt, A. and S. Sherratt 1991 From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, Papers Presented at the Conference held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989, edited by N. H. Gale, pp. 351-386. Paul Aströms Förlag, Jonsered.

209

Sjöberg, B.L. 2004 Asine and the Argolid in the Late Helladic III Period. A Socio-Economic Study. BAR International Series 1225. Archeopress, Oxford.

Skelton, C. 2008 Methods of Using Phylogenetic Systematics to Reconstruct the History of the Linear B Script. Archaeometry 50(1):158-176.

Small, D. 1999 Mycenaean Polities: States or Estates? In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea, edited by M. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson, pp. 43-47. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Smith, A.T. 2003 The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Smith, M.E. 1993 Houses and the Settlement Hierarchy in Late Postclassic Morelos: A Comparison of Archaeology and Ethnohistory. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies of the Household, Compound, and Residence, edited by R. S. Santley and K. G. Hirth, pp. 191-206. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Soar, K. 2009 Old Bulls, New Tricks: The Reinvention of a Minoan Tradition. In The Past in the Past: The Significance of Memory and Tradition in the Transmission of Culture, edited by M. Georgiades and C. Gallou, pp. 16-27. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Stocker, S.R. and J.L. Davis 2004 Animal Sacrifice, Archives, and Feasting at the Palace of Nestor In The Mycenaean Feast edited by J. C. Wright, pp. 179-195.

Tartaron, T.F., T.E. Gregory, D.J. Pullen, J.S. Noller, R.M. Rothaus, J.L. Rife, L. Diacopoulos, R.L. Schon, W. Caraher, D. Pettegrew, and D. Nakassis 2006 The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey: Integrated Methods for a Dynamic Landscape. Hesperia 75(4):453-523.

Tegyey, I. 1984 The Northeast Workshop at Pylos. In Pylos Compes Alives: Industry and Administration in a Mycenaean Palace, edited by C. W. Shelmerdine and T. G. Palaima, pp. 65-79. Fordham University, New York.

Thomas, C. G. 1995 The Components of Political Identity in Mycenaean Greece. In Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener As He Enters His 65th

210

Year, pp. 349-354. University of Liège, Liège.

Thomas, P.M. 1988 A Mycenaean Perfumed Oil Workshop at Zygouries, abstract. American Journal of Archaeology 92:254.

1992 LH IIIB:1 Pottery from Tsoungiza and Zygouries, Ph.D. dissertation. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Tournavitou, I. 1995 The "Ivory Houses" at Mycenae. British School at Athens, London.

Trigger, B. 1985 Generalized Coercion and Inequality: The Basis of State Power in the Early Civilizations. In Development and Decline: The Evolution of Sociopolitical Organization, edited by H. J. M. Claessen, P. v. d. Velde and M. E. Smith, pp. 46-61.

1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Valmin, M. 1930 Études Topographiques sur la εess nie τncienne. Lindstrom, Lund.

Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick 1973 Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vollgraff, C.W. 1904 Fouilles d'Argos. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 27:364-399.

Voutsaki, S. 1995 Social and Political Processes in the Mycenaean Argolid: The Evidence from the Mortuary Practices. In POLITEIA: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age [Aegaeum 12], edited by R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, pp. 55-66. Université de Liège, Liège.

Voutsaki, S. 1997 The Creation of Value and Prestige in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Journal of European Archaeology 10:34-52.

Voutsaki, S. 1998 Mortuary Evidence, Symbolic Meanings and Social Change: A Comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean Period. In Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age [Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1], edited by K. Branigan, pp. 41-58. Sheffield University Press, Sheffield.

Wace, A.J.B.

211

1948 Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Wace, A.J.B., W. Lamb and L.B. Holland 1921-23 The Palace Annual of the British School at Athens 25 147-282.

Walberg, G. 2007 Midea: The Megaron Complex and Shrine Area, Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1994-1997. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia.

Warren, P.M. 2000 Minoan Political Structure. Review of The Function of theΝ‗εinoanΝVilla‘έΝThe Classical Review 50(1):178-180.

2002 Political Structure in Neopalatial Crete. In Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces, edited by J. Driessen, I. Schoep and R. Laffineur. University of Texas, Austin.

Wason, P.K. 1994 The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Watrous, L.V. 1984 Ayia Triada: A New Perspective on the Minoan Villa. American Journal of Archaeology 88:123-134.

Weber, M. 1978. In Economy and Society, edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Webster, D. 1975 Warfare and the Evolution of the State: A Reconsideration. American Antiquity 40(4):464-470.

Webster, G.S. 1990 Labor Control and Emergent Stratification in Prehistoric Europe. Current Anthropology 31(4):337-366.

Wells, B. 1996 The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988-1990. Svenska Institutet i Athens, Sweden.

Werner, K. 1993 The Megaron during the Aegean and Anatolian Bronze Age: A Study of Occurrence, Shape, Architectural Adaptation, and Function. Paul Aströms Förlag, Jonsered.

212

Whitley, J. 2002-2003 Archaeology in Greece 2002-2003. Archaeological Reports 49:1-88.

Wiener, M. 1987 Trade and Rule in Palatial Crete. In The Function of the Minoan Palaces, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens (10–16 June 1984), edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, pp. 261–268. Svenska Institutet i Athen, Stockholm.

1990 The Isles of Crete? The Minoan Thalassocracy Revisited, Vol. 1. In Thera and the Aegean World III. Proceedings of the Third International Contgress, Santorini, Greece, 6-9 September, 1989, edited by D. A. Hardy, C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis and P. M. Warren, pp. 128-161. Thera Foundation, London.

Wilkie, N.C. 1975 A Tholos Tomb at Nichoria: Its Construction and Use, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota Minneapolis.

1992 The MME Tholos Tomb. In Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Volume II. The Bronze Age Occupation, edited by W. A. McDonald and N. C. Wilkie, pp. 231-344. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Willey, G.R. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Peru In Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 155, Washington, D.C.

Wilson, D.J. 1995 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Casma Valley, North Coast of Peru: Preliminary Results to Date. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 23:189-227.

Wright, H.T. 1986 Susiana Hinterlands during the Era of Primary State Formation. In Archaeological Perspectives on Western Iran, edited by F. Hole. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Wright, H.T. and G.A. Johnson 1975 Population, Exchange and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran. American Anthropologist 77:267-289.

Wright, J.C. 1995 From Chief to King in Mycenaean Greece. In The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean, edited by P. Rehak, pp. 63-80. Université de Liège, Liège.

1996 The Spatial Configuration of Belief: The Archaeology of Mycenaean Religion. In Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, edited by S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne, pp. 37-78. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

213

2004a A Survey of Evidence for Feasting in Mycenaean Society. In The Mycenaean Feast (Hesperia 73.2), edited by J. C. Wright, pp. 13-58. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

2004b Comparative Settlement Patterns during the Bronze Age in the Northeastern Peloponnesos, Greece. In Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, edited by S. E. Alcock and J. F. Cherry, pp. 114-131. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2006a The Formation of the Mycenaean Palace. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I. Lemos, pp. 7-52. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

2006b The Social Production of Space and the Architectural Reproduction of Society in the Bronze Age Aegean during the 2nd millennium BCE. In Constructing Power (International Symposium, Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolleg, Heidelberg, 30 June – 2 July 2005, Heidelberg), edited by J. Maran, U. Thaler and C. Uwig, pp. 49-74. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, Heidelberg.

2008 Chamber Tombs, Family, and State in Mycenaean Greece. In DIOSKOUROI Studies Presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the Anniversary of Their 30-year Joint Contribution to Aegean Archaeology, edited by C. Gallou M. Georgiadis G. M. Muskett, pp. 144-153. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Wright, J.C., J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis, E. Mantzourani, S.B. Sutton, and R.F. Sutton Jr. 1990 The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project a Preliminary Report. Hesperia 59(4):579-659.

Xanthoudidis, S. 1922 ΝαροΝρουέΝΑαοογ Εη:1-25.

Yoffee, N. 2007 Peering into the Palimpsest. In Negotiating the Past in the Past, edited by N. Yoffee, pp. 1-9. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Younger, J.G. and J.H. Betts 1979 Eight Sealstones and a Sealing from the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos. The Annual of the British School at Athens 74:271-278.

214

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

I grew up in upper East Tennessee and spent much of my childhood years outdoors enjoying nature and expanding my curiosity about the world. I was first introduced to archaeology as a little girl by my grandfather, who would take me to observe small excavations around the area. He taught me about pottery, lithics, and excavation methods. My childhood was spent very happily with my family. I attended Happy Valley High School and graduated as a valedictorian in 2001. When I began my undergraduate career at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville I already knew that I would major in Anthropology. I was awarded the Bicentennial Scholarship from 2001-2005. I split my time and interests between the departments of Anthropology and Classics. I found that I was especially fascinated with Aegean archaeology. My undergraduate mentor, Dr. Aleydis Van de Moortel, helped me to develop my research interests and advised me in my undergraduate senior honors thesis, An Analysis of Protogeometric Period Apsidal Buildings. I participated in the Mitrou Archaeological Project from 2004-2006, first as a field student and later as a trench assistant and supervisor. I was able to participate in this project partially through the support of the Haines-Morris Scholarship for Study in Greece. The project was invaluable to me as I gained excavation experience, learned hands on about the Aegean Bronze Age, was able to travel to important archaeological sites across Greece, and picked up a little Greek. I also made contacts and friends. While participating in MAP in 2006 I met my husband Ermal in Tragana, Greece. I began my graduate studies at Florida State University in 2005 under Cheryl Ward and Bill Parkinson. I was given a graduate student assistantship from 2005-2011, working as a teaching assistant to several professors. I earned my Masters of Art degree in 2007. From 2009- present I have taught Introduction to Physical Anthropology, Peoples of the World, and Introduction to Cultural Anthropology at Tallahassee Community College. Lynne Schepartz became my advisor in 2010, and I completed my research on second order centers and regional integration under her counsel in 2011. I was awarded my Ph.D. in the spring of 2012.

215