Philippa-Touchais 2011, Cycles of collapse in Greek prehistory.pdf

Introduction

In a recent volume in honour of C. Ren-frew, bringing together a series of papers on so-cial archaeology, J. Whitley has published an in-teresting paper, from which I have in fact bor-rowed part of my title (Whitley 2004). In this paper Whitley raises the crucial question of social evolution, which should not be equat-ed with a linear progressive development from simple social forms to complex ones. Social ev-olution is inescapably multi-linear and, accord-ing to the author, in Greece the advance of civi-lisation was not uninterrupted. On the basis of this fact Whitley uses two examples from Greek pre- protohistory, the House of Tiles at Lerna and the Heron at Lekandi, representing as essentially the same social models, to illustrate how cycles of collapse mark processes difer-ent in each case towards new forms of com-plexity: in the irst case the palace states of LBA and in the second the poleis of the later Iron Age. On the basis of the above examples, he also

maintains that the Greek EIA is the perfect ana-logue for the Early Helladic period.

hough I have some doubts as to how suc-cessful this parallelism is, mostly because of the diferences in scale between the two exam-ples (concerning the quantitative, qualitative and contextual diferences of their parallels, their systems complexity and the consequenc-es resulting from their collapse), I fully agree with the whole train of thought and the point of view also argued by other scholars that in prehistoric and historic Greece there are more than one cyclical periods of complex societies which seem to have reverted to simpler social forms (Whitley 2004, 194; Bintlif 1982, 107). I also agree that their comparison should help in elucidating key points in our understanding of social evolution and the emergence of political complexity (Whitley 2004, 194).

In this paper I will attempt another paral-lelism which, in my opinion, also reveals the non linear evolution and the sequence: collapse of a complex system / appearance of a simpler form - evolution / new complex system out-come. he comparison will concentrate on the early Middle Helladic and the Early Iron Age, periods which represent low complex systems that might have prevailed respectively ater the collapse of the proto-urban EH societies and the LH palatial system.

his comparison is not a new one. Sever-al scholars have already mentioned similarities in the practices and/or the material culture of these two periods. Most of them noticed a re-

Anna Philippa-Touchais

CYCLES OF COLLAPSE IN GREEK PREHISTORY: REASSESSING

SOCIAL CHANGE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MIDDLE HELLADIC

AND THE EARLY IRON AGE

I would like to express my profound gratitude to Prof. A. Snodgrass who, several years ago, initially through his writings suggested me the idea to address this issue and later, through discussion, encouraged me to continue the study. In its original form, this paper was irst given at a seminar in the University of Edinburgh (1998) and later at the conference Lighten our darkness: cultural trans-formations at the beginning of the irst millennium BC from the Alps to Anatolia organised by the University of Birmingham (K. Wardle), January 2000.

ANNA PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS32

semblance in their burial practices, namely in the adoption of the single cist burial, the con-tracted position of the deceased, the scarci-ty of grave-goods, and the increasing number of intramural burials (Desborough 1964, 37; 1972, 108, 266; Deshayes 1966, 240-242, 249-250; Styrenius 1967, 161-163; Snodgrass 1971, 180-184, 186-187, 384; 2006, 161-162; Hooker 1977, 178-179; more recently Dickinson 1983; Mee Cavanagh 1984, 45-64). Resemblances in the architecture have also been noticed, par-ticularly in the presence of small, unfortiied settlements, the abandonment of monumen-tal buildings and the appearance of long apsi-dal houses (Coldstream 1977, 304; Snodgrass 1971, 383-384; 2006, 162). he most complete and accurate description of the similarities be-tween these two periods was however given by A. Snodgrass (Snodgrass 1971, 383-386; 2006), who also stressed further correspondences in the material culture of the two eras: in pottery, the dark-on-light decoration with geometric patterns, the scarcity of ine wares and the close analogies in fabric and shapes of the coarser hand-made and incised wares; a decline in met-allurgy and the resort to more primitive easi-ly accessible raw materials for implements, the near disappearance of luxury artefacts, and i-nally the privation and isolation1 of both peri-ods all manifestations of a general fall in pop-ulation and in living standards.

It is noteworthy that most of the scholars who noticed these similarities were particular-ly interested in EIA; consequently, they tried to explain this phenomenon from the perspec-tive of that era. Most of the given explanations concerning the resemblance with or the possi-ble reappearance of older practices in EIA re-volve around the question of the cultural con-tinuity (or discontinuity) between Bronze and EIA. here have been two main explanatory

1. Although in the foreword of the second edition of his Dark Age of Greece (Snodgrass 2000, xxxi), Snodgrass stresses that there would have been less emphasis on iso-lation, but even greater on continuity from the past, espe-cially from the pre-Mycenaean age.

tendencies. According to the irst, which stress-es the innovative character of EIA and cultural discontinuity with Late Bronze Age, the simi-larities are accidental (Desborough 1972, 275). According to the second, which on the contrary underlines continuity from the pre-Mycenaean (Middle Helladic) times, the similarities consti-tute revivals of earlier (more primitive) prac-tices caused by cultural reversion (Snodgrass 1971, 186-187, 385; more speciically on conti-nuity see Snodgrass [1971] 2000, xxvi).

One of the main reasons why the approach to this phenomenon has fallen out of favour is be-cause both explanatory tendencies involve, more or less, ethnic issues (Dickinson 1983, 67; Mee Cavanagh 1984, 45-64). As we all know, the irst interpretation, which seems the more outdat-ed, links changes in the material culture of the EIA with the appearance of new ethnic groups (Desborough 1972, 106-111). According to the second explanation the reappearance of older (MH) practices in the EIA suggests the coming to the forefront of the essentially Helladic ele-ment (the substratum), which during the Myc-enaean times was in some way on the sidelines (Deshayes 1966, 240-242, 249-250; Snodgrass 1971, 186-187, 385; 2006, 161, 169). Later how-ever, Snodgrass reined his hypothesis, arguing that the changes at the beginning of the EIA can be seen as regressive adaptations or as the result of a collective response either to new needs or to changed conditions (Snodgrass 1987, 187-188). Whatever the accuracy of this latter hypothesis, I think that its perspective introduced notions such as the profound change in circumstances or the adaptive accommodation to unfavoura-ble conditions that have advanced consider-ably the discussion on this topic.

My attempt to re-discuss the analogy be-tween the Middle Helladic and the Early Iron Age has a double aim: to shed new light on this phenomenon from the perspective of both eras, and try to reassess its signiicance in terms of socio-political organisation. To do this, I shall be concentrating on 1) a brief examination of selected archaeological evidence, namely analy-

CYCLES OF COLLAPSE IN GREEK PREHISTORY 33

sis of MH and EIA habitation and burial space, and 2) theoretical analysis concerning the spe-ciic type of evidence.

The Evidence

he examination of the evidence from both periods cannot be exhaustive in the frame of the present paper. Regarding the architec-ture the analysis will concentrate on the layout of settlements; as to burial practices, the exami-nation will focus on the location of the tombs in relation to houses, therefore on the existence or not of organised cemeteries2. Underlying the choice of these speciic data is the idea that they most clearly relect social organisation, as we will see in more detail below. Finally, only some examples of MH and EIA settlements will be examined, speciically those ofering evidence that can illuminate our discussion.

1. he Evidence from the Middle Helladic

period

At Asine in the Argolid, the well-known plan of the MH Lower Town of Kastraki, with dense blocks of buildings separated by a narrow street, belongs to the latest phases of the settle-ment, whereas during earlier MH phases hous-es were rarer and more dispersed on the slope of the hill (Frdin Persson 1938, 68-74 [hous-es A-E], 88, 93-95; Nordquist 1987, 69-84). Re-mains of two MH buildings excavated on lower part of the Barbouna slope, opposite to Kastra-ki, seem to belong to the late part of the period as well (Nordquist 1987, 85-86).

A large number of tombs (more than 100) of children and adults, dating to all MH phas-es, were found among the settlement remains of

2. A synthesis on MH graves, namely on their loca-tion within the settlement, in extramural cemeteries or in burial plots -among the houses, adjacent to them or out in the ields-, can be found in the valuable book by Cavanagh Mee (Cavanagh Mee 1998, 23-26).

the Lower Town (Frdin Persson 1938, 115-128; Nordquist 1987, 95-98, 128-134; 1996, 19-38; Cavanagh Mee 1998, 24). In the Barbou-na area, some burials have been found among the building remains while some others seem to constitute an extramural cemetery (Nordquist 1987, 98-99, 135-136). Excavations on the East foot of the acropolis uncovered part of a tumu-lus containing 3 graves, with 17 others outside. According to the excavator, the use of the tu-mulus started during the MH II, providing evi-dence for a MH cemetery used in parallel out-side the habitation area (Dietz 1980; Nordquist 1987, 99-100, 134-135).

At Lerna, the layout of the early MH set-tlement is not well known; yet we know there were several large, free standing houses, some of apsidal plan (Zerner 1978). An impressive number of over 200 burials of children and adults, dating to all phases, have been found among these houses (Blackburn 1970). No evi-dence for an organised MH cemetery has been found as yet.

On the MH settlement of the Aspis hill at Argos, three main phases of occupation have been identiied3. he earliest one, known only by fragmentary walls, was supposed to be sparsely occupied. In the second phase the set-tlement becomes more densely inhabited with houses of diferent plan and size; a solid enclo-sure was probably built at the beginning of this phase, aimed at fortifying the settlement for the irst time. In the inal phase, the settlement ac-quired a more coherent layout delimited by an impressive and continuous series of rectangular buildings around its edge, successive concentric retaining walls, and very probably by an exteri-or circuit wall [Philippa-Touchais 2010; Philip-pa-Touchais Touchais 2006, 716-721; Whit-ley, AR 52 (2006), 31-33].

Within the SE sector of the settlement 13 tombs of children and adults came to light, dat-ing mostly to the early Aspis phases (Philippa-

3. Aspis II, III and IV, dating respectively to MHI-II, MHIIIA and MHIIIB-LHI (Touchais 1998, 76).


Touchais 2003). None of them dates to the i-nal MH Aspis phase, during which an exten-sive cemetery was in use at the foot of the hill (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980; Papadimitriou N. 2001, 20; Papadimitriou A. 2010). During re-cent work on the eastern sector of the settle-ment, which had been excavated at the begin-ning of the 20th c. (Vollgraf 1906), three new burials came to light, dated very probably to MHI-II or at the latest to MH IIIA. his dis-covery provides evidence that burials were not concentrated in one sector of the settlement but rather dispersed over several areas; it also conirms that no burials date to the latest MH occupation phase of the site (Morgan, AR 54, 2008, 25-27).

At Eutresis in Boeotia, according to the ex-cavator, the MH occupation went through three main architectural phases (Goldman 1931, 31-60)4. However, a more recent study, based mainly on the re-examination of the architec-tural evidence, assumed the existence of at least ive MH architectural phases (Philippa-Touchais 2006, 689-703; 2010). It seems that the earliest MH settlement was rather sparsely inhabited, whilst already from the second phase onwards the settlement gradually acquires a densely or-ganised plan with two distinctive quarters, each one with speciic morphological characteristics and very possibly diferent functions: a proba-ble residential quarter on top of the hill, with larger houses organised around a square, and perhaps a more industrial quarter with smaller houses containing ovens, vaulted pits and large pithoi, laid out on both sides of a central street (Philippa-Touchais 2006, 610; 2010).

Some 22 burials belonging to adults and children were found inside or between the houses, on deserted areas of the settlement or on lanes (Goldman 1930, 221-226). As their dating is unclear, it is diicult to reconstruct their distribution through time. However, the

4. For a re-examination of the chronological phas-ing of Eutresis, based on the study of pottery, see Maran 1992, 302-309.

rather limited number of graves in compari-son to the high number of houses suggests that intramural was not the only burial practice, or that it was not used throughout the period; an organised cemetery must have existed nearby, by the end of the period.

At Kirrha, located in the bay of Itea (Phocis), ive MH phases were discerned by the excavators on the magoula of Xeropigado (Dor et al. 1960, 29-33). During the earlier phases the remains were very fragmentary and with-out any apparent architectural cohesion, where-as during the later ones the settlement acquired its deinite form (Dor et al. 1960, 35-42). Ac-cording to a recent re-examination of the archi-tectural evidence, the habitation area includ-ed oblong, freestanding houses and large open enclosures, delimited by loosely constructed walls, used probably as stockyards for livestock (Philippa-Touchais 2010).

Fity-nine graves of adults and children have been excavated inside the Bronze Age set-tlement, 40 of them dated to the MH (Dor et al. 1960, 43-64, 115-124). In sector D, 17 MH graves, dating mainly to the latest MH phase according to the excavators (see also Dickin-son 1983, 62), were apparently dispersed with-in the enclosures or in open areas. In sector A, a group of six large cist graves5 containing val-uable grave goods and attributed to the local elite (Dor et al. 1960, 59-63) was clustered in an open space, probably a passageway.

2. Evidence from the Early Iron Age

At Asine, remains of the EIA settlement have been excavated in two areas: scanty ves-tiges in the Lower Town of Kastraki (Frdin Persson 1938, 64, 81-82, 89-90, 312) and build-ings better preserved to the east of Kastraki, in the Karmaniola plot (Dietz 1982, 60-62; Wells 1983; see also Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 68-70,

5. Dating no later than LH II according to Dickinson (Dickinson 1983, 62).


98; Lemos 2002, 136-138). It therefore appears that the EIA settlement was not concentrated within a speciic area, but rather was dispersed in diferent areas. Architectural evidence sug-gests the coexistence of apsidal or oval and rec-tangular houses, freestanding and mostly vary-ing in orientation.

In the Lower Town of Kastraki forty-six PG graves (mostly of children) were found among the scanty settlement remains (Frdin Pers-son 1938, 129-139, 144-145, 422-431), whereas on the plain east of the acropolis (Karmanio-la plot) eight PG burials of children and adults were found among the remains of the houses (Wells 1976; 1983, 31, 90, 122-123; Dietz 1982, 43-53; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 70; 2007-2008, 377-378; Lemos 2002, 158-159).

he site of Asine presents a characteristic example of a cemetery shiting over time. he number of tombs per period found within the architectural remains of the Lower Town is very eloquent: 106 date to the MH, 11 to the LH and 46 to the PG period (Frdin Persson 1938, 142-145). hese numbers clearly show that in MH most people were buried inside the settle-ment, in the LH a majority of burials took place in the necropolis of Barbouna, with only a few inside the town, whereas the relatively numer-ous burials of the PG period suggest that they might correspond to one of the clusters of hous-es of the PG occupation.

At Tiryns, the EIA occupation evidence is meagre. PG settlement remains have been lo-cated in the western part of the Lower Acropo-lis (probable construction of new isolated hous-es or reuse of rooms that had not been com-pletely destroyed next to the rampart and near the tunnels), as well as at several points around the acropolis such as part of an apsidal house and some circular and apsidal structures to the west, outside the enceinte (Papadimitriou 1998, 120; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 98). Due to the fragmentary condition of the settlement re-mains, it is not possible to reconstruct the ex-tent and organisation of the occupation. Yet the evidence does suggest that the settlement of the

EIA must have consisted of small, dispersed groups that gradually expanded through time (Papadimitriou 1998, 125; 2006, 545; Lemos 2002, 139).

Forty-three PG graves with grave goods, organised in small groups, have been excavated all around the acropolis and directly adjacent to the houses. he location of the graves next to the settlement space seems to underline the in-dependent character of the clusters of houses, which can be interpreted as farms (Hgg 1974, 82-84; Papadimitriou 1998, 119-120, 125; 2003; 2006, 545; Lemos 2002, 159-160).

In Argos, EIA settlement remains have been excavated in the central zone of the lower town as well as in the southern and south-east-ern areas, covering a more extensive perimeter than in the previous SM period. Occupation was therefore dispersed, with several nuclei of habitation. Yet, the principal nuclei of the PG occupation appear to be situated in the south-ern quarter of the modern town, at the foot of the Larissa. here is nothing to indicate, howev-er, the existence of an organised urban complex or some early kind of synoikismos; all indica-tions rather point to a set of scattered habitation units, according to a scheme not very diferent from that witnessed at Tiryns (Hgg 1974, 18-30, 89; Touchais Divari-Valakou 1998, 14; Pa-padimitriou 2006, 545; Lemos 2002, 138).

In the PG period, groups of single inhu-mation burials, belonging to either children or adults, have been found at several points in the town, grouped around habitation quar-ters. True cemeteries appeared during Geomet-ric times, in the northern, eastern and south-ern parts of the town, although burials within the settlement continued (Courbin 1974; Hgg 1974; Foley 1988, 24-25, 39; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 106-107; Touchais Divari-Valakou 1998, 14-15; Lemos 2002, 157-158). It is interesting that the intramural inhumations include both children and adults, since Argos was one of the rare sites where there was no diferentiation ei-ther in the location or the type of child burial (Snodgrass 1971, 153; Courbin 1974, 149).


In Mycenae, scanty PG settlement remains have been identiied inside and around the cit-adel, whereas several graves of children and adults discovered in the same area seem to con-irm that the site was occupied during this pe-riod but probably on a smaller scale compared with other PG sites in the Argolid (Hgg 1974, 66-67; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 67-68; Lemos 2002, 160). Just ater the PG period, people started to carry out burial in the surrounding lower town.

At Corinth, according to the excavator by the end of the PG period scattered inhab-itation had already taken root in areas later to be encircled by the fortiication walls (Wil-liams II 1984, 11). By the LG period urban or-ganization is taking root, seen archaeologically in a new burial practice family burial plots, in association with the houses in the centre of the city, are being eliminated in favour of large group burial grounds away from the urban ar-eas (Williams II 1984, 19). he great change in the burial patterns from family plots with-in the areas of inhabitation to group burials in more isolated cemetery areas indicates inter-est in community organization, or at least in the power of some authority who acts in terms of priorities of the community over and above those of the individual or family (Williams II 1984, 15; see also Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 319-320; Morgan 1999, 471; Lemos 2002, 161).

In Athens, PG settlement remains were very scanty and, as mentioned by Lemos (Le-mos 2002, 135), in some extent, the history of the site in this period can be reconstructed through its cemeteries. It seems very probable, however, that occupation was made up of clus-ters of scattered houses closely associated with burial plots found around the Acropolis (Mor-ris 1987, 62-65).

In the Athenian agora, through the known shiting of burials in connection with the set-tlement space, one can follow the slow forma-tion of the civic centre of the town. According to Morris (1987, 62-69), in the SM and early PG periods it is likely that child graves were

located close to the settlements, perhaps within the groups of houses or even under the house loors, while larger adult cemeteries were situ-ated in reserved areas between the foci of settle-ment Around the end of the PG, child plots began to disappear, and adult plots began to replace them within the settlement areas. he same pattern continued in MG and only in LG more reserved cemeteries were coming into being in areas which were still used for buri-als in the ith and fourth centuries BC. he re-moval of burials from the Agora area was not accomplished before 700 BC (see also Whitley 1991, 61-64; Lemos 2002, 152-154; 2006, 512-517; on the occupation of the agora by pottery workshop, see Papadopoulos 2003).

At horikos, several EG-LG rectangular houses have been excavated on the lower slopes of Velatouri hill. It has been assumed that some of them served as workshops for metalworking (Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 254). A hundred and ity PG and LG graves were laid out around and above the houses; they were cist graves and jar burials, mainly of children (Mussche 1974, 29; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 147).

Excavations at Eretria give a fragmen-tary picture of the EIA settlement, although it is clear that this was particularly extensive. he oldest houses, dating to the MG II (2nd quar-ter of the eighth century), were found by the harbour in the southern quarter, which was the most densely inhabited. Most of the houses of this period had curved foundations, which have been attributed to apsidal or oval forms (Kahil 1983; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 102-105; 2006).

Apart from a tomb of the mid-ninth cen-tury, all the other burials date to the eighth cen-tury and many of them have been found within the extensive cemetery by the sea. Smaller buri-al grounds, with pithos-burials, cremations but also inhumations, have been excavated all over the inhabited area, next to the foundations of the houses. It is worth noting that all these buri-als are of infants or children (Kahil 1983; Blan-din 2000, 134-146; 2007a; 2007b, 195-113; Ma-zarakis Ainian 2007-2008, 373-376).


More evidence on EIA settlements with or without intramural burials can be found in a recent paper by A. Mazarakis Ainian (Maza- rakis Ainian 2007-2008), addressing the ques-tion of burial amongst the living in EIA Greece. Analysing settlement and burial in a whole se-ries of EIA sites, from Epirus to Crete and Asia Minor, the author observes a geographical di-versity in the distribution of intramural buri-als: it seems that this practice was more prom-inent in East Central Greece, from hessaly down to Attica and the NE Peloponnese (e.g. Volos, Mitrou, Viglatouri in Euboea, Asine) (Mazarakis Ainian 2007-2008, 385). But the most interesting point in this paper, in my opin-ion, is the new approach to EIA intramural burials, examined in connection with the settle-ment layout. he patterns emerging from this settlement-burial connection, as well as Maza- rakis suggested interpretation, will be dis-cussed below.

Discussion

From the above brief examination of se-lected archaeological evidence, important simi-larities between the two periods under consid-eration do in fact emerge: at the beginning of both periods the settlement layout seems rath-er loose, lacking uniformity and any appar-ent coherence, and is characterised by quite strong variation in shape, size and orientation of buildings; as regards burial practices, nota-bly the location of graves, one observes signii-cant numbers of individual burials inside settle-ments and very few organised cemeteries.

hese similarities have, in my opinion, a common reference mark, which is the percep-tion and use of space: the fact that there is no clear spatial diferentiation between domestic, burial and, in some cases, production areas in-dicates a low specialisation in the use of space (see also Mazarakis Ainian 2007-2008, 387). Besides, the coexistence of multifunctional ar-eas suggests a strong interaction between them.

his perspective possibly advances our under-standing of the pattern emerging from the evi-dence: intramural burials seem to it best into a loosely organised settlement, which is not seg-mented into speciic sectors of use. On the other hand it is not surprising that a strongly struc-tured settlement may not contain intramu-ral burials (Philippa-Touchais 2003). Mazarakis study leads to a similar conclusion. he author notes variation in the pattern of EIA settlements related to the presence or absence of intramu-ral burials: in communities organised in sev-eral small family clans, burials were accepted within or in close proximity to the space of the living, whereas in densely nucleated settlements it appears that all burials were strictly excluded (Mazarakis Ainian 2007-2008, 388-389). In MH it is clear that the loose settlement pattern pre-vails during the early phases, while more high-ly structured or nucleated settlements linked to organised cemeteries do not appear before the second half of the period. In EIA this sequence seems to follow a similar development; however, the two patterns may also appear synchronically (Mazarakis Ainian 2007-2008, 386-391).

Coming to the possible interpretation(s) of the observed variation in the pattern of spa-tial organisation. Mazarakis Ainian (Mazarakis Ainian 2007-2008, 389) very perceptively ob-serves that the EIA nucleated settlements with organised cemeteries, corresponding to more coherent, closed and oten competitive com-munities, were unable to face new challenges (and therefore failed to develop into poleis); on the contrary, the loosely organised settlements with intramural burials were more favour-able to population growth and open to chang-es both in social and political spheres (and for this they inally acquired polis status). However, when turning to the causes of formation of these diferent settlement/social models, less success-fully, in my opinion, he argues that the loose settlement pattern could be associated with pastoral and thus unstable communities (apsi-dal houses), less attached to the land, and giving little importance towards well-deined physical


territorial boundaries (Mazarakis Ainian 2007-2008, 391, see also Gounaris 2007, and in this volume). I think that an emphasis on the agro-pastoral not simply pastoral6 (Cherry 1988) subsistence strategy might be quite accurate not only for the beginning of the EIA but also for that of the MH (Bintlif 1982). Although there may be a connection between such an economy system and a loose spatial organisation, I will not agree, however, that the latter pattern might be related to unstable communities giving little importance towards well-deined physical ter-ritorial boundaries. On the contrary, as argued by Wright (Wright 2004, 74) animal herding may be understood as deining the outer geog-raphy of [transegalitarian and chiely] societies, while agriculture deines the inner one and in this manner is marked out a physical, political economic, social and cosmic geography within which the community operates7. In any case, it seems clear that the subsistence strategy by it-self constitutes one of the parameters of inter-pretation and does not enable us to reconstruct complex processes such as social change or so-cio-political formation. herefore, questions re-lated to these latter processes and which might better elucidate the dynamics that caused, at the beginning of both periods, the emphasis on the prevailing spatial pattern, still remain open. My tentative interpretation will have thus a more social perspective.

It is not a new idea that there is a tight, di-alectical connection between settlement layout and social organisation. he form and layout of buildings as the material expression of the perception of space relect on the one hand so-cial behaviour (codes of communication, sym-bols, concepts and rules), and on the other hand social diferentiation (hierarchy, socio-political stratiication, economic specialisation). Fur-

6. he production and consumption of animals is an activity that binds animal husbandry and agriculture (Halstead 1996, 21, 33-36).

7. See also the diagram (Wright 2004, 75) illustrat-ing the economic and social activities that take place with-in such a landscape.

thermore, it has been repeatedly argued that mortuary practices and mortuary ritual also re-lect at least to some degree structural com-plexity. Based on the analysis of MH settlement and burial space, I have argued elsewhere that the loose spatial organisation might correspond to a social space authorising a multiplicity of choices and decisions, and therefore to socie-ties without strict communal rules and institu-tions, and very probably more open to heter-ogeneity (Philippa-Touchais 2003; 2006). his apparent low level of formalisation and institu-tionalisation implies societies without complex hierarchical forms of social organisation. In addition, the lack of spatial segmentation into speciic sectors of use might also suggest com-munities with little social diferentiation and complexity societies with a more diferenti-ated social structure tend to use more segment-ed activity areas (Kent 1990, 128). On the other hand, the study of mortuary practices, mainly the absence of elaboration and wealth in graves and grave goods a feature which is common to the MH and EIA mortuary record led sev-eral scholars to stress the dominant role of kin-ship and descent in the discussion about social structure and social relations of both periods (Nordquist 1987, 45; Cavanagh Mee 1998, 34; Voutsaki 1997, 41; 2005, 137; Morris 1987, 52-54, 87-93; Whitley 1991, 64-67).

Consequently, on the basis of the review of spatial features in the two periods under con-sideration, as well as the possible signiicance(s) of these features, one can conclude that both the early MH and the EIA are characterised by a low degree of social complexity as well as kinship and descent determining social relations. Com-ing to the socio-political system emerging from the evidence (spatial and social) of both peri-ods, I argue that it might be considered as sim-ple (see also Dickinson 2006, 242), compared with more complex systems where the architec-tural and social spaces are more standardised, elaborate, restrictive and exclusive. his sim-ple system might have similarities with Ren-frews group-oriented chiefdoms (Renfrew


1974, 74-79 and most recently 2001), as well as with societies related by a corporate solidarity based on interdependence between subgroups (Blanton et al. 1996, 6). he inclusive corpo-rate strategy emphasizes staple food produc-tion, communal ritual and reduced consump-tion of prestige items; besides, the control of power is rather shared across diferent groups of society and not monopolised by prestigious leaders (Blanton et al. 1996, more recently Fein-man 2000, see also Parkinson Galaty 2007).

By simple I do not mean, however, a sys-tem that is devoid of any complexity. On the contrary, even from the beginning of both peri-ods elements of social diferentiation and com-petition can indeed be distinguished, mainly in the context of exchange and consumption of valuable goods. I believe therefore that vary-ing types of power strategy may coexist to some degree in the political dynamics of the pre-sumed simple system, as of all social forma-tions (Blanton et al. 1996, 2). In the same di-rection, Wright has recently maintained that, in the atermath of the EBA collapse, societies on the Greek mainland were at best transegalitarian (neither egalitarian nor politically stratiied, Hayden 1995) and operated as multi-centric economies (Wright 2004, 68). Yet, these communities mask very powerful forces work-ing to establish inequalities of wealth, resources inluence and power. It is not surprising there-fore that the role played by individuals trying to diferentiate themselves from each other was pivotal for the rise of socio-political complexity (Wright 2004, 69-70). Coming to the EIA polit-ical organisation, recent views seem to outline a nearly similar scheme. According to Whitley what does seem clear is that the [EIA] political organisation can hardly have been complex. A society composed of household or kin groups of more-or-less equal size its more comforta-bly with what American anthropologists have termed a ranked society rather than a stratiied one. hat is, there would certainly have been inequalities of wealth and status, but such in-equalities had not become a permanent fea-

ture of the social hierarchy. Hierarchies existed, but shited constantly, and status was achieved rather than being ascribed (Whitley 2001, 89). Finally, there is no doubt of the existence of substantial variation between the two anal-ogous socio-political systems, as there might have been substantial regional variation within the structural organisation of each one of them.

he fundamental changes at all levels at the beginning of both periods might have brought about a reconsideration of value sys-tems and behaviour codes; thus they might also be relected in the symbolic ield, namely in art. I propose that the observed persistence in geometric patterns on pottery of both peri-ods might perhaps express the emerging ambi-ance of socio-political instability and ideolog-ical heterogeneity, where social relations and identities were under a new negotiation. Rit-ual emphasising cosmological principles may not be excluded either. But most probably the emphasis on geometric patterns could be con-nected with the little concern with individual prestige or wealth-based policies. In fact, it has been proposed that igurative representations and more speciically representations of pre-eminent persons are consistent with the indi-vidualising emphasis of the network strategy (versus corporate) and its public gloriication (Blanton et al. 1996, 8). he absence of igura-tive representations may also be associated with Renfrews faceless and anonymous individu-als in group-oriented chiefdoms (Renfrew 1974, 79). Finally, according to a more specu-lative assumption geometric patterns might ex-press a kind of search for the lost order or the lost equilibrium of a neater and more glorious past. In that case the pictorial decoration, ap-pearing in later phases of both periods, could correspond to the regained order and symme-try or, paraphrasing Hodder, to the dominated and tamed disorder (Hodder 1990, 39).

To return to the traditional question the signiicance of the reappearance of older (MH) practices during the EIA I feel that this question is rather misleading and should be put


diferently. It is essential to emphasise that the discussion addressed here is not about practic-es characteristic of one speciic period reap-pearing in another, but rather about practic-es appearing/emerging under speciic condi-tions in (at least two) diferent periods, within a deined area (the Aegean). hus, the issue may well not be the cultural origin or ethnic identity of the speciic practices or patterns, but rather what they may relect in terms of the econom-ic strategies, socio-political structures and so-cial behaviour (the conditions) of both periods, or even of other periods when similar patterns may occur8. I therefore believe that, at the be-ginning of the MH and EIA, the formation of a socio-political, economic and symbolic mod-el of an analogous simple structure could not be accidental. Without taking a deterministic stand, yet bearing in mind that histories are re-peated and polities alternate following cyclical paths (or dynamic cycles, Marcus 1998, 92), I argue that this formation could in fact result from similar causes, that it could be a conse-quence of the collapse of the previous, more complex systems the proto-urban EHII in one case and the LH palatial in the other. hese pre-sumed simple, probably corporate forms very soon evolved towards more complex polities through varied trajectories. For, as convincingly argued by Whitley (Whitley 2004, 200), difer-ent processes as well as diferent starting points must in large part result in diferent outcomes.

To sum up, I have tried to point out in this paper that speciic settlement or burial pat-terns appearing with some emphasis at the be-ginning of both the MH and the EIA are by no means to be exclusively associated with cultur-al features and even less with ethnic groups- but rather with the emergence of analogue sub-sistence strategies, socio-political systems and

8. As I have mentioned elsewhere (Philippa-Touchais 2003), in proto Byzantine hessaloniki the abandonment of the extramural cemeteries and the appearance of bur-ials within the habitation space has been explained as re-sulting from social insecurity and the demise of the old in-stitutions (Marki 2006, 47-48, 237-238).

ideologies. hese systems might be character-ised by a rural economy, a low degree of social complexity, a non-centralised political control, and an emphasis on kinship and descent rela-tions. I also proposed that it was probably the collapse of the previous more complex systems and the reversion to simpler ones that explain to a great extent the phenomenon of structur-al similarities at the beginning of both periods.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alden, M.J., 2000. he prehistoric cemetery: Pre-Mycenaean and Early Mycenaean graves, in W.D. Taylour E.B. French K.A. Wardle (eds.), Well Built Mycenae 7, Oxford.

Bintlif, J.L., 1982. Settlement patterns, land tenure and social structure: a diachronic model, in C. Renfrew & S. Shennan (eds.), Ranking, resource and exchange, Cam-bridge, 106-111.

Blackburn, E.T., 1970. Middle Helladic graves and burial customs with special reference to Lerna in the Argolid, Ann Arbor.

Blandin, B., 2000. Une tombe du IXe sicle av. J.-C. rtrie, AntK 43, 134146.

Blandin, B., 2007a. Les pratiques funraires dErtrie lpoque gomtrique. Eretria: fouilles et recherches XVII, Gollion.

Blandin, B., 2007b. propos des spultures en vase d rtrie, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), Oropos and Euboea in the Early Iron Age. Acts of an International Round Table, University of hessaly, June 18-20, 2004, Vo-los, 195-211.

Blanton, R.E. Feinman, G.M. Kowalewski S.A. Peregrine, P.N., 1996. A Dual-proc-essual theory for the evolution of Mesoa-merica civilization, Current Anthropology 37 (1), 1-14.

Cavanagh, W. Mee, C., 1998. A private place: death in prehistoric Greece, Jonsered.

Cherry, J., 1998. Pastoralism and the role of an-imals in the pre- and protohistoric econ-omies of the Aegean, in C.R. Whittaker


(ed.), Pastoral economies in Classical Antiq-uity, Cambridge, 6-34.

Coldstream, J.N., 1977. Geometric Greece, Lon-don.

Courbin, P., 1974. Tombes gomtriques dArgos, I (1952-1958), Paris.

Crielaard, J.P., 2007. Eretrias west cemetery re-visited: burial plots, social structure and settlement organisation during the eighth and seventh centuries BC, in A. Maza-rakis Ainian (ed.), Oropos and Euboea in the Early Iron Age. Acts of an Internation-al Round Table, University of hessaly, June 18-20, 2004, Volos, 169-194.

Desborough, V.R.dA., 1964. he last Mycenae-ans and their successors: an archaeological survey c. 1200 - c. 1000 BC, Oxford.

Desborough, V.R.dA., 1972. he Greek Dark Ag-es, London.

Deshayes, J., 1966. Argos. Les fouilles de la Dei-ras, Paris.

Dickinson, O.T.P.K., 1983. Cist graves and chamber tombs, BSA 78, 55-67.

Dickinson, O.T.P.K., 2006. he Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: continuity and change between the twelth and eighth cen-turies BC, London, New York.

Dietz, S., 1980. Asine II: Results of the excava-tions east of the acropolis 1970-1974, fasc. 2: he Middle Helladic cemetery. he Mid-dle Helladic and Early Mycenaean deposits, Stockholm.

Dietz, S., 1982. Asine II. Results of the excava-tions East of the Acropolis 1970-1974. Fasc. 1: General stratigraphical analysis and ar-chitectural remains, Stockholm.

Dor, L. Jannoray, J. van Efenterre, H. & M., 1960. Kirrha. tude de prhistoire phoci-dienne, Paris.

Feinman, G.M., 2000. Dual-processual theory and social formations in the southwest, in B.J. Mills (ed.) Alternative leadership strat-egies in the Prehispanic southwest, Tuscon, 207-224.

Foley, A., 1988. he Argolid 800-600 BC: An ar-chaeological survey, Gteborg.

Frdin, O. Persson, A., 1938. Asine: results of the Swedish excavations 1922-1930, Stockholm.

Goldman, H., 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, Cambridge, MA.

Gounaris, A., 2007. Curvilinear versus rectan-gular? A contribution to the interpreta-tion of evolution in architectural forms in Greece during the Protogeometric - Geo-metric - Archaic periods, based on a study of the constructions at Oropos, in A. Ma-zarakis Ainian (ed.), Oropos and Euboea in the Early Iron Age. Acts of an Internation-al Round Table, University of hessaly, June 18-20, 2004, Volos, 77-123.

Hgg, R., 1974. Die Grber der Argolis in submy-kenischer, protogeometrischer und geome-trischer Zeit 1, Uppsala.

Halstead, P., 1996. Pastoralism or household herding? Problems of Sscale and special-ization in Early Greek animal husbandry, WorldArch 28, 20-42.

Hayden, B., 1995. Pathways to power: Principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities, in T.D. Price & G.M. Feinman (eds.), Founda-tions of social inequality, New York, 15-87.

Hodder, I., 1990. he Domestication of Europe, Oxford.

Hooker, J.T., 1977. Mycenaean Greece, London.Kahil, L., 1983. rtrie lpoque gomtrique,

ASAtene, 59 N.S. 48, 1981 (1983), 165-173.Kent, S., 1990. A cross-cultural study of segmen-

tation, architecture, and the use of space, in S. Kent (ed.), Domestic architecture and the use of space. An interdisciplinary cross-cul-tural study, Cambridge, 127-152.

Lemos, I.S., 2002. he Protogeometric Aegean. he Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC, Oxford.

Lemos, I.S., 2006. Athens and Lekandi: a tale of two sites, in S. Deger-Jalkotzy & I.S. Lemos (eds.), Ancient Greece: from the Mycenae-an Palaces to the Age of Homer, Edinburgh, 505-530.

Maran, J., 1992. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in hessalien III: Die mittlere Bronzezeit, Bonn.


Marki, E., 2006. H - - , hessaloniki.

Marcus, J., 1998. he peaks and valleys of an-cient states: An extension of the dynam-ic model, in G.M. Feinman & J. Marcus (eds.), Archaic states, Santa Fe, 59-94.

Mazarakis Ainian, A., 1997. From rulers dwell-ings to temples. Architecture, religion and society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 B.C.), SIMA 121, Jonsered.

Mazarakis Ainian, A., 2006. -. , - , 1, 955-977.

Mazarakis Ainian, A., 2007. Endon skapte. he tale of an excavation, in A. Mazarakis Aini- an (ed.), Oropos and Euboea in the Ear-ly Iron Age. Acts of an International Round Table, University of hessaly, June 18-20, 2004, Volos, 2159.

Mazarakis Ainian, A., 2007-2008. Buried among the living in Early Iron Age Greece: some thoughts, in G. Bartoloni & M.G. Benedettini (eds.), Sepolti tra i vivi, Buried among the living, Evidenza ed interpretazi-one di contesti funerary in abitato, Roma, 26-29 Aprile 2006, Roma, 365-398.

Mee, C. Cavanagh, W.G., 1984. Mycenaean tombs as evidence for social and political organisation, OJA 3(3), 45-64.

Morgan, C., 1999. Isthmia VIII: he Late Bronze Age settlement and the Early Iron Age sanc-tuary, Princeton.

Morris, I., 1987. Burial and ancient society. he rise of the Greek city-state, Cambridge.

Mussche, H.F., 1974. horikos, a guide to the ex-cavations, Bruxelles.

Nordquist, G.C., 1987. A Middle Helladic vil-lage. Asine in the Argolid, Uppsala.

Nordquist, G.C., 1996. New information on old graves, in R. Hagg G.C. Nordquist B. Wells (eds.), Asine III: Supplementary stud-ies on the Swedish excavations 1922-1930, Stockholm, 19-38.

Papadimitriou, A., 1998. H .

- , in A. Pariente & G. Tou-chais (eds.), Argos et lArgolide. Topographie et urbanisme. Actes de la Table ronde inter-nationale, Athnes-Argos, 28/4-1/5/1990. Recherches franco-hellniques 3, Athnes, 117-130.

Papadimitriou, A., 2003. . , in A. Vlachopou-los & K. Birtacha (eds.), . - . , Athens, 713-728.

Papadimitriou, A., 2006. he Early Iron Age in the Argolid, in S. Deger-Jalkotzy & I.S. Lemos (eds.), Ancient Greece: from the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, Edinburgh, 531-547.

Papadimitriou, A., 2010 (in press). - , in A. Philippa-Touchais G.Touchais S.Vou-tsaki J.Wright (eds.), Mesohelladika, he Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. Actes du colloque international organis par lcole Franaise dAthnes, lAmerican School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athnes, 8-12 mars 2006, Athens.

Papadimitriou, N., 2001. Built chamber tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age date in main-land Greece and the islands, Oxford.

Papadopoulos, J.K., 2003. Ceramicus Redivivus: he Early Iron Age potters ield in the area of the Classical Athenian agora, Princeton.

Parkinson W.A. Galaty, M.L., 2007. Secondary states in perspective: An integrated approach to state formation in the prehistoric Aegean, American Anthropologist 109 (1), 113-129.

Philippa-Touchais, A., 2003 (forthcoming). Les tombes intra muros de lHM la lumire des fouilles de lAspis dArgos, in A. Bana-ka-Dimaki & H.D. Mulliez (eds.), Sur les pas de Wilhelm Vollgraf. Cent ans dactivits archologiques Argos, Actes du Colloque international organis par la IVe phorie des antiquits prhistoriques et classiques


et lcole franaise dAthnes, Athnes, 25-28 septembre 2003, Recherches franco-hell-niques 4, Athens.

Philippa-Touchais, A., 2006. H . - , 1, 689-703.

Philippa-Touchais, A. Touchais, G., 2006. As-pis. Travaux de lcole franaise dAthnes en 2005, BCH 130, 714-721.

Philippa-Touchais, A., 2010 (in press). Settle-ment planning and social organization in Middle Helladic period, in A. Philip-pa-Touchais G.Touchais S.Voutsaki J. Wright (eds.). Mesohelladika, he Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. Actes du colloque international organis par lcole Franaise dAthnes, lAmerican School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athnes, 8-12 mars 2006, Athens.

Protonotariou-Deilaki, E., 1980. , Athens.

Renfrew, C., 1974. Beyond a subsistence econ-omy: the evolution of social organization in prehistoric Europe, in C.B. Moore (ed.), Reconstructing complex societies, BASOR Suppl. 20, Cambridge MA, 69-95.

Renfrew, C., 2001. Commodiication and insti-tution in group-oriented and individualiz-ing societies, in W.G. Runciman (ed.), he origin of human social institutions, London, 93-117.

Rutter, J.B., 1992. Cultural novelties in the post-palatial Aegean world: indices of vitali-ty or decline?, in W.A. Ward & M.S. Jou-kowsky (eds.), he crisis years: the 12th cen-tury BC from beyond the Danube to the Ti-gris, Dubuque, 61-78.

Snodgrass, A.M., 1971 [2nd edition 2000]. he Dark Age of Greece: An archaeological sur-vey of the eleventh to the eighth centuries BC, Edinburgh.

Snodgrass, A.M., 1987. he Early Iron of Greece, in An archaeology of Greece: he present state and future scope of a discipline, Ber-keley, 170-210.

Snodgrass, A.M., 2006. he rejection of Myce-naean culture and the oriental connection, in Archaeology and the emergence of Greece. Collected papers 1965-2002, Ithaka, 158-172.

Styrenius, C.G., 1967. Submycenaean studies: examination of inds from mainland Greece with a chapter on Attic Protogeometric graves, Lund.

Tainter, J.A., 1988. he Collapse of complex soci-eties, Cambridge.

Touchais, G., 1998. Argos lpoque msohel-ladique: un habitat ou des habitats?, in A. Pariente & G. Touchais (eds.), Argos et lAr-golide. Topographie et urbanisme. Actes de la Table ronde internationale, Athnes-Ar-gos, 28/4-1/5/1990. Recherches franco-hell-niques 3, Athnes, 71-84.

Touchais, G. Divari-Valakou, N., 1998. Argos du Nolithique lpoque gomtrique: synthse des donnes archologiques, in A. Pariente & G. Touchais (eds.), Argos et lAr-golide. Topographie et urbanisme. Actes de la Table ronde internationale, Athnes-Ar-gos, 28/4-1/5/1990. Recherches franco-hell-niques 3, Athnes, 9-21.

Vollgraf, W., 1906. Fouilles dArgos. B. Les ta-blissements prhistoriques de lAspis, BCH 30, 5-45.

Voutsaki, S., 1999. Mortuary display, pres-tige and identity in the Shat Grave era, in I. Kilian (ed.), Eliten in der Bronzezeit, Mainz, 103-117.

Voutsaki, S., 2005. Social and cultural change in the Middle Helladic period: presenta-tion of a new project, in A.Dakouri-Hild & S.Sherratt (eds.), Autochthon. Papers pre-sented to O.T.P.K.Dickinson on the occasion of his retirement, Oxford, 134-143.

Wells, B., 1976. Asine II: Results of the excava-tions, east of the acropolis, 1970-1974, Fasc. 4: he Protogeometric period. Part 1: he tombs, Stockholm.

Wells, B., 1983. Asine II: Results of the excava-tions east of the acropolis 1970-1974, Fasc. 4: he Protogeometric period. Part 2: An anal-ysis of the settlement, Stockholm.


Whitley, J., 1991. Style and society in Dark Age Greece: he changing face of a pre-literate society 1100-700 BC, Cambridge.

Whitley, J., 1991b. Social diversity in Dark Age Greece, BSA 86, 341-365.

Whitley, J., 2001. he Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Cambridge.

Whitley, J., 2004. Cycles of collapse in Greek prehistory: the House of the Tiles at Lerna and the Heron at Lekandi, in J.Cher-ry C.Scarre S.Shennan (eds.), Explain-ing social change: Studies in honour of Colin Renfrew, Cambridge, 193-201.

Williams, C.K. II, 1984. he early urbanization of Corinth, ASAtene 60, 9-20.

Wright, J., 2001. Factionalism and the origins of leadership and identity in Mycenaean So-ciety, BICS 45, 182.

Wright, J., 2004. he emergence of leader-ship and the origins of civilisation in the Aegean, in J.C. Barrett & P. Halstead (eds.), he emergence of civilisation revisited. Shef-ield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 6, Shef-ield, 64-89.

Yofee, N. Cowgill G.L. (eds.), 1988. he col-lapse of ancient states and civilisations, Tuc-son.

Zerner, C., 1978. he beginning of the Middle Helladic period at Lerna, Ann Arbor.

Documents

Philippa-Touchais 2011, Cycles of collapse in Greek prehistory.pdf