MANUSCRIT ACCEPTAT The South-eastern Aegean Mercourios Georgiadis Lemos, I.; Kotsonas, A. (eds.), A Companion to the Archaeology of Early Llibre Greece and the Mediterranean. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2020 ISBN 978-1-118-77019-1 Disponible Data de publicació 2020 en línia Per citar aquest document: Mercourios Georgiadis, "The Southeastern Aegean" a Lemos, I.; Kotsonas, A. (eds.), A Companion to the Archaeology of Early Greece and the Mediterranean, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, p. 985-1006. Aquest arxiu PDF conté el manuscrit acceptat per a la seva publicació. The South-eastern Aegean Keywords: South-eastern Aegean, Rhodes, Kos, burials, graves, pottery, sanctuary, cremation, inhumation, past Introduction The area of the South-eastern Aegean is defined here as the region known today as the Dodecanese and parts of Anatolia on the opposite coast, like the Halicarnassos peninsula. This area of the Aegean had been under the Minoan cultural influence from as early as the Middle Bronze Age in terms of its material culture and architecture (Georgiadis 2003). The South-eastern Aegean has yielded many remains of the LH III and the EIA, whilst it possesses a strategic position in the Aegean Sea in relation to its contacts and interactions with the Eastern Mediterranean. The traditional forms of explanation for culturalACCEPTAT development and change in this region have focused on migration and the presence of newcomers. In fact, this has been a common denominator in the understanding of the Southern-eastern Aegean equally for the Late Helladic III period and the Early Iron Age. The thorough and up-to-date presentation of the different cultural aspects and periods from this area will demonstrate the regional character and the idiosyncrasies that are visible already from the LH III phase. The rich local cultural assemblages provide the basis for assessing the shared and divergent cultural elements on a regional level. Thus, the role of the local population can be highlighted through their practices and preferences, identifiable in the archaeological record through an idiosyncratic flair. Furthermore, the available data from this area allow a better understanding of how these communities responded to the various social, economic and political challenges the LH III and EIA phases posed. In this context, the character of cultural influence from outsideMANUSCRIT this region can be viewed and understood. At the same time the active participation of the South-eastern Aegean within the exchange networks that were developed in the Aegean and the broader Eastern Mediterranean during the LH III and EIA will be presented and assessed. 1 The LH IIIA-B period (14th and 13th centuries BC) The LH III period is well-represented mainly through the numerous tombs and cemeteries found across this region. The first chamber tombs appeared in the South-eastern Aegean during the LH IIB and IIIA1 phase, following the shapes and the burial practices attested in mainland Greece (Mee 1982; Benzi 1992; Georgiadis 2003). The importance of the new tradition marked two changes in the local cultural practices. The first was spatial in the sense that the earliest cemeteries i.e. Ialysos in Rhodes and Eleona and Langada in Kos were founded in new burial locations not used before. This practice appears to suggest a break with the past and the establishment of a new burial tradition, which is recovered in all Mycenaean cemeteries of this region. The second was the form of the tomb; multiple rather than single as in the previous periods. The emphasis in this new period was on the family and kin group rather than the achievements of the individual during their lifetime. This aspect meant that there was a radical reshuffling of the socio-political order of each settlement, as seen from the progressive adoption of the new burial style in the whole region. The explanation offered for these new cultural elements had been that newcomers from the Greek mainland, the Argolid in particular, brought the Mycenaean culture to this ACCEPTATregion when the earliest chamber tombs appeared in the LH IIB/IIIA1 phase (Georgiadis 2003, 68, 73). However, the same hypothesis has been proposed for the appearance of chamber and tholos tombs in the Cyclades, Crete and the South-eastern Aegean in the same period. This would rely on an influx of people from a single mainland region, which is not supported by the available evidence. Thus, it is more pertinent to propose that there was an important cultural influence from the Greek mainland rather than the migration of people out of the Argolid into the rest of the Aegean islands in order to explain the appearance of the chamber tombs. This hypothesis can be supported in the case of the South-eastern Aegean by the development of distinct local characteristics that the Mycenaean elements had in this region (Georgiadis 2003). The new burial practices are found across the South-Eastern Aegean by the LH IIIA2, from which period numerous cemeteries have been identified in Karpathos, Rhodes, Kos, Astypalaia,MANUSCRIT Kalymnos, as well as the site of Müskebi on the Anatolian coast opposite Kos (Mee 1982; Dietz 1984; Melas 1985; Benzi 1992; Özgünel 1996; Karantzali 2001; Georgiadis 2003). The number of cemeteries, tombs and offerings within allow a better assessment of each island and the region as a whole. Already in this period a local idiosyncrasy can be recognised in the burial practices and a new tradition was formed (Georgiadis 2003). The tombs within a cemetery had the same orientation, looking towards 2 specific landscape elements. In Rhodes, it was the valley and a close by stream, while in Kos, towards the valley and the sea. This suggests different types of symbolism; for Rhodes a protection and fertility of the arable land of the valley nourished by water brought from streams, for Kos the fertility of the land and perhaps protection from the sea (Georgiadis 2003, 47-48). Their symbolic significance is related to the burial rituals and beliefs that elevated the status of the deceased to an anonymous guardian ancestor (Georgiadis 2003, 107). Symbolically the ancestor would be reactivated since he or she could protect and fertilise the land of his descendants/kin members or of the whole community. This was achieved through the regular and widespread practice of the secondary burial, which predominates in all cemeteries with the exception of Ialysos, and was more commonly attested than in the Greek mainland (Georgiadis 2003, 79-80). There are several objects deposited in the tombs that strongly suggest social differentiation within the local society. This was expressed through the deposition of weapons, metal jewellery, metal vessels, semi-precious stones, exotica from Syria-Palestine and Egypt, and items of lesser value such as tinned ceramics. The mortuary context was a multilevel arena of symbolism underlining the individual, their wealth, which also reflected on their family/kin group during the burial and a shortACCEPTAT period after. However, in a later phase the deceased ritually became an anonymous ancestor protecting the whole community and to whom the claims of land and belonging could be arbitrated on behalf of their family/kin group. There are a few cases (the two tholos tombs in Kos and the shaft and cist graves at Ialysos) that structural differentiation in tomb types may also have been used as status indicators for the deceased within. In the case of the tholoi, the family/kin group was also highlighted, whilst in single graves individuality and personal achievements were emphasised. The same picture can be seen in the LH IIIB period except there is a divergence in the islands of this area. In Rhodes there is a general decrease in the number of cemeteries as well as the active tombs and internments within. This decline is followed by the deposition of lesser quality objects to accompany the deceased to the underworld. In Kos there is a quite differentMANUSCRIT image, with a steady increase of tombs, burials, and their offerings. The lack of uniformity in the South-eastern Aegean argues for diverse social, economic and possibly political conditions among these islands. A special reference should be made to the appearance of cremations within chamber tombs during this period. They are very few in number and their contexts are not always clear, but the earliest seem to appear in the LH 3 IIIA2 phase in Karpathos. Perhaps this is the first part of the Mycenaean world that adopted this tradition, possibly an influence from Anatolian practices (Georgiadis 2003, 60). Most of the available settlement evidence comes from excavations conducted at the two largest sites of this region, which appear to be the social, economic and political capitals of Rhodes and Kos respectively. The first is at Trianda in Rhodes, which yielded mainly sherds of LH IIIA and B phases as well as a number of unconnected walls belonging to this period (Mee 1982; Benzi 1988; Karantzali 2003, 514-5; 2005, 143). Unfortunately, erosion processes in this area aided by possible flooding event(s) have largely destroyed most of the Mycenaean strata of the settlement (Karantzali 2003, 515-6; 2005, 142-3), in contrast to the better preserved lower ones that belonged to the Minoan period. The second is Serrayia in Kos where the whole LH III pottery sequence has been recovered at the settlement (Morricone 1972-3). The almost unbroken re-building of this part of the settlement in later phases has not allowed a good understanding of individual buildings or the detailed stratigraphy of the whole site. The presence of a fortification wall of Mycenaean period has been identified in the north-western edge of Serrayia, protecting the settlement (Skerlou 2001-4a, 298-9). The same trend can be seen in the contemporary walls erected in some of the Cycladic islands.