UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI August 16, 2006 Date:___________________ Julie Hruby I, _________________________________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Doctor of Philosophy in: Classics It is entitled: Feasting and Ceramics: A View from the Palace of Nestor at Pylos This work and its defense approved by: Chair: Jack___ _L._ Davis__________________________ Gisela____ _W_alberg_________________________ L_ynne___ _A._ Schepartz_________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ Feasting and Ceramics: A View from the Palace of Nestor at Pylos A dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences 2006 by Julie A. Hruby A.B. Duke University, 1996 M.A. University of Cincinnati, 2001 Committee Chair: Jack L. Davis, Ph.D. Gisela Walberg, Ph.D. Lynne Schepartz, Ph.D. ABSTRACT A life-cycle or object biographical approach is used to approach an assemblage of nearly 6,700 vessels from the pantries (rooms 18-22) of the Mycenaean Palace of Nestor at Pylos. The stratigraphy of the location where they were found is reconstructed, allowing for the redating of a small shrine in room 18 from the LH IIIB destruction to a later period. It is argued that the palace remained largely intact in the immediate aftermath of, and despite, the fire that ended its useful life. The system by which the vessels had been shelved is reconstructed. On the bases of this reconstruction, Linear B evidence, and metrical data collected from the vessels, the vessel taxonomy of the Mycenaeans is recreated. It is argued that the assemblage was intended for use at a palatially sponsored feast or feasts. Such feasts were held approximately monthly and would have been held throughout the Messenian landscape. The quantities of food and drink allocated to them suggest that many of these feasts must have been broadly inclusive in nature, though inequalities do appear to have been displayed through differential access to service and through qualitative differences in foods. Because this function was essential to the maintenance of elite legitimacy, the palace became a consumer of large quantities of pottery. The process by which this pottery was produced is described, and the relationship between the palace and the potter is explored. ii iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with any project of this scope, the author could not have accomplished what she did without the support, both practical and moral, of a vast number of people. In particular, I would like to thank my committee: Jack Davis, for profitable discussions about pottery and the palace of Nestor, for access to the Pylos material, and for careful reading of and comments on drafts; Gisela Walberg, for her moral support and her willingness to share her knowledge of pottery with me; and Lynne Schepartz, who kindly agreed to remain on my committee, even as the proportion of the dissertation dedicated to physical anthropology declined precipitously. Copious thanks must go to Shari Stocker; as the director of HARP (the Hora Apotheke Reorganization Project), she introduced me to the abundance of pottery from rooms 18-22 of the Palace of Nestor and to the sensible manner in which it is now stored. Without her work, gaining physical access to the material would have been a challenging and time-consuming process, perhaps impossible. As a friend, her moral and practical support have been unwavering. A number of people provided practical support and advice in Greece in the summer and fall of 2002 and the summer of 2003. The guards at the Hora Museum were truly lovely company, endlessly patient with my halting Greek, in addition to providing practical support and even snacks; Freya Evanson, Hariklia Brekoulaki, Andreas Karydas, Heinrich Hall, and all the folks at the Hotel Phillip in Pylos bestowed too many kindnesses to count. Paul Halstead and Valassia Isaakidou were most welcome company iv and provided fruitful discussions as well as daily transportation from Hora to Pylos for over a month. Many other scholars offered information, ideas, and productive conversations; notable among these are Cynthia Shelmerdine, Kim Shelton, Bill Alexander, Ruth Palmer, Yannis Hamilakis, Jerry Rutter, Jim Newhard, Eleni Hasaki, Billur Tekkök, Brian Rose, Mike Galaty, Tom Strasser, and John Younger. The librarians at the University of Cincinnati’s Burnham Classics library deserve all good things; Jean Wellington, Mike Braunlin, Jacquie Riley, and David Ball have gone to great lengths to help me find obscure sources. E. Tucker Blackburn taught me to navigate the archives of the Pylos excavation, a skill that proved essential to this undertaking. I could not have reached this point without the moral support, practical suggestions, and occasional nagging of my “Dissertation Discussion Group” at UC: Carrie Galsworthy, Carol Hershenson, Shari Stocker, Joanne Murphy, Kathleen Quinn, Susan Wise, Evi Gorogianni, and Jim Newhard. My particular thanks go to Carol Hershenson for her help in making the feasting chapter intelligible and with finding bibliography. Many other current and former UC students have shared their ideas and encouragement, including Kalliopi Efkleidou, Jeff Kramer, Sarah Dieterle, Jen Glaubius, Erin Lopp, Hüseyin Öztürk, and Aaron Wolpert. Many thanks, as well, to the members of the Departments of Religion, Philosophy, and Classics and the Department of History at Wright State University for their encouragement and advice; Bruce Laforce, Jeannie Marchand, Linda Farmer, Woodie McCree, and Mark Verman have been especially kind and encouraging. Too many colleagues, friends and family members to mention have provided encouragement; v many thanks to my extended family; my parents, Mary and George; and my sister Laura. I have boundless gratitude for Jay, Janet, and Brinda Chatterjee, who so frequently fed me and let me work in their dining room, and for Eric Chatterjee, who has gracefully tolerated my high levels of stress, impatience, and late hours spent working, and who inked many of my drawings. The University of Cincinnati Department of Classics has supported me through this process with a Louise Taft Semple fellowship, for which I am most grateful. All archival photos from the Pylos excavations are here reproduced with the permission of the Department of Classics of the University of Cincinnati. Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to the memory of Paul Rehak, whose kindness and enthusiasm will not be forgotten. vi CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv CONTENTS vii LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ix Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter 2 THE SEQUENCE OF SOIL, POTTERY, AND SMALL FIND DEPOSITION 20 Chapter 3 GENERAL STORAGE SYSTEM AND STRUCTURES 46 Chapter 4 STORAGE AND ANCIENT TYPOLOGY 71 Chapter 5 USE: FEASTING AND CLASS-DIFFERENTIATED CUISINE 103 Chapter 6 PRODUCTION METHODS AND PRODUCER 178 Chapter 7 CONCLUSIONS 224 REFERENCES 235 Appendix I MUNSELL VALUES OF SOIL 268 Appendix II POTTERY DEPOSITION PATTERNS BY TYPE 270 Appendix III FOODS AVAILABLE FOR MYCENAEAN CUISINE 287 Appendix IV CONCORDANCE OF ROOM NUMBERS 298 vii TABLES 3.1. Pottery quantities per area, by room. 49 4.1. Rawson’s classification system. 82 4.2. Matrix of dissimilar pot types. 83 4.3. Revised vessel typology. 86 6.1. C.V. values for Chinese Wan Bowls. 214 6.2. C.V. values for Spanish pitchers. 214 6.3. C.V. values for standard bowls from rooms 20-22. 216 6.4. C.V. values for teacups from rooms 20-22. 216 6.5. C.V. values for flat-based dippers from rooms 20-22. 216 6.6. C.V. values for standard kylikes from rooms 18-20. 217 6.7. C.V. values for large kylikes from rooms 18, 20. 217 viii ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1.1. The palace of Nestor. Archival slide. 1 Figure 1.2. The palace of Nestor key plan, by J. Travlos. 2 Figure 1.3. Relationships among stages in the lifecycles of objects. J. A. Hruby. 11 Figure 2.1. Map of mud brick buildings mentioned in text. J. A. Hruby. 27 Figure 2.2. Building 3 on map. Note fallen roof. J. A. Hruby. 28 Figure 2.3. Building 1 (see map for location). J. A. Hruby. 29 Figure 2.4. Closer view of building 1. J. A. Hruby. 29 Figure 2.5. Building 2, with soot. J. A. Hruby. 30 Figure 2.6. Building 2, overview. J. A. Hruby. 30 Figure 2.7. Building 2, burning and collapse. J. A. Hruby. 30 Figure 2.8. Lid on floor in corner of room 24. Archival photo P.55.71. 33 Figure 2.9. Table of offerings at southeast end of room 18. Archival photo P.52.7. 38 Figure 2.10. Plan of room 18 based on that in Rawson 1953, p. 110. 38 Figure 2.11. Sketch, southeast end of room 18. Mylonas 1952, p. 24. 39 Figure 2.12. Composite section of room 18, facing southeast. 41 Figure 2.13. Table of offerings from throne room. Archival photo P.52.F19.26 42 Figure 2.14. Dipper bases from southeast end, room 18. J. A. Hruby. 42 Figure 2.15. Broken dipper bowl. J. A. Hruby. 43 Figure 2.16. Intact dipper bowl. J. A. Hruby. 43 Figure 3.1. Vessels shelved by type in Hora museum apotheke, 1955. Archival 47 photo P.55.110. ix Figure 3.2. Pantry plan with post holes, locations of densely deposited pottery. 48 Figure 3.3. Heap of kylikes from the south corner of room 19. Archival photo P.53.32. 50 Figure 3.4. Vertically stacked kylikes. 51 Figure 3.5. Conceptualization of rows of pots along the walls of room 19. 53 Figure 3.6. Horizontally crossed kylikes, from above. 55 Figure 3.7.