Greece in the Early Iron Age: Mobility, Commodities, Polities, and Literacy

18 Pages·0.909 MB·English

by  Papadopoulos J.K.

10 GREECE IN THE EARLY IRON AGE:
MOBILITY, COMMODITIES, POLITIES,
AND LITERACY
JOHN K. PAPADOPOULOS
Abstract redei ned the way we view the period, beginning with
the seminal work of Snodgrass (e.g., 2006), and contin-
This chapter confronts the systemic divide in modern scholar-
uing with the contributions of de Polignac (1984), Morris
ship that separates Aegean prehistory from Classical archaeol-
(1 987) , and many others.
ogy and considers its ramii cations. In so doing, the problems of
I begin by sketching an overview of early Iron Age Greece,
periodization, absolute chronology, and regionality are tackled.
and in the process I point to three critical issues that have
It advocates an approach that follows an historical continuum,
plagued its study: (1) the epistemological divide between
allowing social and political experiments in the Bronze Age
Aegean prehistory and Classical archaeology (Snodgrass
their inl uence on the early Iron Age. It also advocates looking at
[ 2006 : vi] prefers the dichotomy between ‘archaeology’ and
Greece holistically, not just from predetermined cores, whether
‘Classical archaeology’); (2) the problem of periodization,
Mycenaean palaces or Archaic city-state s , and sug ests that
which can be taken together with absolute chronology ; and
some of the most important developments in political struc-
(3) the issue of regionalism within Greece. By pointing to
ture occurred in the tribal, clan-based areas of the Greek world,
these problems, I also suggest ways to move forward.
often regarded as the fringes. The core of the chapter focuses on
F rom this starting point, I discuss four critical develop-
several critical developments in Iron Age Greece that were to
ments in the history of Greece during the early Iron Age.
have an impact on the Mediterranean. Among these were over-
These are not monolithic, nor are they static. Above all they
seas travel and settlement, as well as the quest for metals. The
are interrelated and easily collapse into one another; they
latter is not seen simply against the backdrop of technological
are not juxtaposed. The i rst emerges precisely in this period
innovations or the vicissitudes of supply, but rather involves a
of experimentation and follows a pattern already estab-
real search for structuring commodities of value that ultimately
lished in the Bronze Age. The contrast between palatial and
led to an economic system of exchange not limited to elites. The
non-palatial Greece in the Bronze Age mirrors the contrast,
culmination is the invention of coinage . The other great inno-
in the early Iron Age, between the Greek p olis , on the one
vation represents no less of a revolution: literacy . It is not just
hand, and the p olis- less tribal states based on kinship, on the
the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet or of a technology of
other (see Hall 2 007a: 49–53, on p olis and ethnos ) . Although
writing that is important, but the introduction of alphabetic
this contrast becomes most marked in the Archaic period
writing to the unique cultural context of Iron Age Greece. For
and later, its origins are i rmly rooted in the early Iron Age
the i rst time in world history, writing was not limited to a
and the collapse of Mycenaean palatial society.
scribal class serving a ruling elite, but instead served as a tool
that could be exploited by anyone.
Figure 10.1. f acing page . Map of Greece showing principal early
Introduction Iron Age sites (prepared by John K. Papadopoulos and Christine
Johnston).
Since the overviews in the 1970s by Snodgrass (1 971) ,
Site List: 1. Korkyra, 2. Kalpaki, 3. Liatovouni, 4. Vitsa,
Desborough ( 1972 ), and Coldstream ( 1977 ), the early Iron
5. Dodona, 6. Polis, 7. Aetos, 8. Same, 9. Astakos,
Age of Greece has seen a great deal of scholarly activity.
10. Agrinion, 11. Palaiomanina, 12. Gavalou, 13. Kalydon,
Much of this has been fueled by new discoveries (sum-
14. Kryoneri, 15. Derveni, 16. Aigeira, 17. Ano Mazaraki,
marized in Dickinson 2006). The map ( Figure 10.1) lists
18. Asani, 19. Aigion, 20. Batra, 21. Chalandritsa, 22. Pharai,
many of the principal sites with important remains from
23. Valmantoura, 24. Katarrates, 25. Phlamboura,
the period between ca. 1200–700 BC. Coupled with new
26. Elis, 27. Keramidia, 28. Agrapidochori, 29. Lasteika,
discoveries are new perspectives that have shaped and
178
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online from within the IP domain of the University of California on Sun Feb 01 20:18:46 GMT 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.014
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015
195
M A C E D O N I A
196 197 Thasos
198 206
194
193
192 199
2 34 190 188191 189 201200202 205220043 207
E P I R U S 185 186187
1 180181 182 183
Korkyra 5 184
179 111777687 T H E S S1 6A4 1L615 6Y1766116609170172 208
175 163162168 173 174 209 210 211
867ItAhaKkAeR9NAN26I1 3 A21217921803A04343 48314 E1133I2 3 M3L3T54424 2032 IE292 3O10ASS64442563 SC 23LE21A474 7 HN1 29IR45 I811A A5 8AC5 1I1 45 75AA19570535 68D611051115 1111568I5651742 99A1L51 955 4A11P 11 8 5C51H61752 1 693 6O0CCCCCCCCCCCCC 26O1 83 281OOOOOOOOOOOOO 0N14126 112K 6152RRRRRRRRRRRRR1 4 14252I8130A6 8IIIIIIIIIIIII2 1156 I1NNNNNNNNNNNNNA36 3 R111S662882TTTTTTTTTTTT87 5913461G516B2HHHHHHHHHHHHH32617 01O81 IIIIIIIIIIIIIO61121AAAAAAAAAAAA 193378L311306 121 I3I1 1 73DO37488171 75T0778368 19I717 18027A017709789A1481194140i33A21g999434Ti901n9649117T4120a410311I45945C596184A17011611900410921801140450215E0 U2 25B715S14 i9KOpC2he7 I0an 1 Ao5 3sYS k 2y2 5 6r62C9o6225s 7 2 6LA82 R5n2 28 6h5d 029e TPrA6no6eae2 sn ri6 a7oo 2 DssD6P1es l oa sr 2 6aE5 N aSCx hoL2is6e2o36ss24b2252o4s 223 S2222a12mKosal2y1m52223n22123012o429324s2143C4221o3s22221A12226829634 22522I26423323 2714O40I21 4 25OL282 3I 62 NS40 2 3I7 A L 2 3Y8C 2 D1 A7 2 3 I9 R A I A
Melos
247 D O D E C A N E S E 248
272 249
254
Kythera57 250 225531 RHODES
252
273
C274 R27 5E27 6T E 277227227888910282228824382586282288922759849292192392209962293272099098303130302043305303607330089313110312313
1
7
9
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online from within the IP domain of the University of California on Sun Feb 01 20:18:46 GMT 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.014
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015
John K. Papadopoulos
Figure 10.1. Site List (continued).
30. Salamoni, 31. Ayios Andreas, 32. Olympia, 33. Samikon, 173. Argalasti, 174. Theotokou, 175. Domolkos; Neo
34. Gryllos, 35. Rizes, 36. Malthi, 37. Tsoukaleika, Monastiri, 176. Pharsala, 177. Plaikastro, 178. Ktouri,
38. Ordines, 39. Volimedia, 40. Ano Englianos, 179. Karditsa, 180. Phiki, 181. Trikkala, 182. Krannon,
41. Beylerbey, 42. Pylos, 43. Traganes, 44. Koryphasion & 183. Argissa, 184. Nea Lefki, 185. Larisa, 186. Marmariani,
Osmanaga, 45. Koukounara, 46. Kaphirio, 47. Nichoria, 187. Chasambali, 188. Argyroupoli, 189. Homolion,
48. Antheia & Aithaia, 49. Volimnos, 50. Pellana, 51. Sparta, 190. Elasson; Chyretiai, 191. Retziouni, 192. Dion,
52. Amyklai, 53. Kardamyli, 54. Mavrovani, 55. Geraki, 193. Methone, 194. Vergina, 195. Tsaousitsu, 196. Kastanas,
56. Epidauros Limera, 57. Kato Leivadi, 58. Asea, 59. Tegea, 197. Assiros, 198. Thessaloniki, 199. Olynthos, 200. Sani,
60. Mantinea, 61. Lerna, 62. Argos, 63. Mycenae, 64. Berbati, 201. Cape Poseidi, 202. Mende, 203. Torone, 204. Koukos,
65. Tiryns, 66. Nauplion, 67. Asine, 68. Vista, 69. Halieis, 205. Lagomandra, 206. Kastri, 207. Troy, 208. Methymna,
70. Kranidhi, 71. Hermione, 72. Sambariza, 73. Troezen, 209. Antissa, 210. Pyrrha, 211. Mytilene, 212. Pitane,
74. Kalauria, 75. Megalochori; Methana, 76. Kounoupitsa, 213. Myrina, 214. Kyme, 215. Phokaia, 216. Buruncuk,
77. Oga, 78. Loutra, 79. Phlius, 80. Kleonai, 81. Vellow, 217. Sardis, 218. Smyrna, 219. Klazomenai, 220. Teos,
82. Corinth, 83. Athikai, 84. Isthmia, 85. Perachora, 221. Mardagan, 222. Erythrai, 223. Chios, 224. Kato Phana,
86. Ayia Theodoroi, 87. Megara, 88. Salamis, 89. Aigina, 225. Emporio, 226. Kolophon, 227. Klaros, 228. Ephesos,
90. Aphaia, 91. Eleusis, 92. Athens, 93. Palai Kokkinia, 229. Pygela, 230. Panionion, 231. Melia, 232. Pythagoreion,
94. Phaleron & Mounychia, 95. Mt. Hymettos, 96. Aliki, 233. Heraion, 234. Miletos, 235. Didyma, 236. Teichioussa,
97. Anavyssos, 98. Vari, 99. Merenda, 100. Thorikos, 237. Iasos, 238. Sinuri, 239. Stratonike, 240. Halikarnassos,
101. Laurion, 102. Spata, 103. Menidi, 104. Marathon, 241. Dirmil, 242. Asarlik, 243. Kalymnos, 244. Kos
105. Liossia, 106. Skala Oropou, 107. Panakton, 108. Thebes, Astypalai, 245. Kos Meropis, 246. Seraglio, 247. Astypalaia,
109. Rhitsona, 110. Paralimni, 111. Haliartos, 112. Askra, 248. Ialysos, 249. Kamiros, 250. Siana, 251. Exochi,
113. Mali, 114. Medeon, 115. Khirra, 116. Galayidion, 252. Tzingana, 253. Lindos, 254. Maliona, 255. Ayia Irini,
117. Itea, 118. Delphi, 119. Amphissa, 120. Vranesi, 256. Ypsili, 257. Zagora, 258. Amanakiou, 259. Kardiani,
121. Orchomenos, 122. Mavroneri, 123. Amphikteia, 260. Ktikados, 261. Exobourgo, 262. Galessas,
124. Ayios Athanasios; Modi, 125. Elateia, 126. Kalapodi, 263. Donousa, 264. Minoa, 265. Naxia, 266. Delion,
127. Hyampolis, 128. Agnanti, 129. Ai-Georgis, 267. Paros, 268. Despotiko, 269. Kastro, 270. Hellenikos,
130. Megaplatanos, 131. Livanates; Kynos, 132. Atlanti, 271. Melos, 272. Thera, 273. Modi, 274. Vryses, 275. Khania,
133. Kastraki, 134. Mitrou & Tragana Lokridos, 135. Likhas, 276. Aptara, 277. Khamalevri, 278. Eleutherna, 279. Ayia
136. Yialtra, 137. Oreoi, 138. Rovies, 139. Kerinthos, Triada, 280. Phaistos, 281. Kommos, 282. Kourtes,
140. Psakhna, 141. Theologos, 142. Chalkis, 143. Nea 283. Gortyn, 284. Prinias, 285. Stavrakia, 286. Phoinikia,
Lampsakos, 144. Lefkandi, 145. Phylla, 146. Eretria, 287. Arkhanes, 288. Knossos, 289. Atsalenio, 290. Anopolis,
147. Magoula, 148. Amarynthos, 149. Plakari, 150. Avlonari, 291. Juktas, 292. Episkopi Pediados, 293. Ayia Paraskeve,
151. Oxylithos, 152. Kyme, 153. Skyros Cemetery, 294. Ligortino, 295. Rhytion, 296. Arkades, 297. Psychro,
154. Parliani, 155. Perivoli, 156. Ypati, 157. Arkhani, 298. Kritsa, 299. Karphi, 300. Mallia, 301. Milatos,
158. Bikiorema, 159. Lamia, 160. Stylis, 161. Pteleon, 302. Anaylokhos, 303. Dreros, 304. Vrokastro,
162. Halos, 163. Phthiotic Thebes, 164. Yelestino; Pherai, 305. Halasmenos, 306. Katalimata, 307. Kavousi,
165. Aerinos, 166. Sesklo, 167. Kapakli, 168. Megali 308. Adhromyloi, 309. Piskokephalo, 310. Vronda,
Velanidia, 169. Iolkos, 170. Volos, 171. Lestiani, 172. Maleai, 311. Praisos, 312. Kato
The second important development is Greeks leav- (Bronze Age, Iron Age). But I want to move beyond the
ing Greece, well articulated in Purcell’s ( 1990) model of issue of technological innovation , especially the reasons
mobility and l uid boundaries. This movement has impor- behind the adoption and use of iron, or the vicissitudes
tant ramii cations for Mediterranean history. Greek over- of supply or the mechanics of regional networks for the
seas mobility and settlement has to be seen together with procurement of metals. Rather, I focus on what I see as
similar movements by other Mediterranean peoples, espe- a real search for structuring commodities of value that
cially the Phoenician s (S. Morris 1992), because this move- ultimately leads to an economic system of exchange that
ment acts as a catalyst for all sorts of developments in the is not limited to elites. Iron and bronze play a signii cant
Mediterranean. role, but just as important, perhaps more so, is the often-
My third issue harks back to the second: it is the quest for overlooked metal of the early Iron Age: silver. The culmi-
metals, the very commodities that dei ne our periodization nation of this development is the invention of coinage , an
180
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online from within the IP domain of the University of California on Sun Feb 01 20:18:46 GMT 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.014
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015
Greece in the Early Iron Age: Mobility Commodities, Polities, and Literacy
innovation with global consequences. Although coinage signii es the beginning of something distinctly ‘Greek’
i rst occurs in the context of Lydia and east Greece during or ‘Hellenic,’ although the decipherment of Linear B
the course of the later seventh century BC, and takes of should have revolutionized the teaching of early Greek
to breathtaking heights among the Greek city-states in the history (S. Morris 2007 : 59–60). For Aegean prehistorians,
sixth century BC, the search for structured commodities the destruction of the great Bronze Age palaces and the
of value goes back to the early Iron Age. advent of iron (Wertime and Muhly 1 980) represent a con-
The fourth great early Iron Age innovation represents venient, if artii cial, stopping point. In many ways, this
no less of a revolution: literacy . It is not just the adoption divide mirrors a more fundamental one articulated by
of the Phoenician alphabet or of a technology of writing Renfrew ( 1980 ), one that spirals back to the educational
that is important, but rather the introduction of alphabetic underpinnings of the West (e.g., Morris 1994 ; Marchand
writing to the unique cultural context of early Iron Age 1 996) , with the additional divides of ‘history and prehis-
Greece. tory’ and ‘history and archaeology’ brought to the fore by
From this, it will be clear that I stray from conventional Morris ( 1994 : 14–15).
chronological coni nes, casting a constant glance back to T he fact that an era designated as a ‘dark age ’ is ush-
the Bronze Age, as well as a look forward to the sixth cen- ered in by a technological innovation as evidently singu-
tury BC and beyond. I do so in an attempt to break down the lar as the widespread use of iron in the Greek mainland
divide – the ‘iron curtain’ – between Aegean prehistory and is, in itself, important. But why iron, and why now?
Classical archaeology, and to see history as a continuum. For a time, the so-called ‘circulation model’ prevailed
(Snodgrass 1989 ), whereby in the eleventh and tenth cen-
Sketching the Greek Early Iron Age turies BC copper and tin, together with scrap bronze ,
were in short supply. This straightforward economic fac-
The Emergence of Iron and a Scholarly tor led to the adoption of iron, and is in keeping with
the historical accounts of the troubled times in the east-
Systemic Divide
ern Mediterranean after 1200 BC. Others, most notably
Conventionally, the early Iron Age in Greece extends from Morris ( 1989 ), contended that the supply and demand of
the demise of Mycenaean culture (traditionally sometime bronze were not the issue, but rather that iron had sud-
after 1200 BC: Desborough 1 964; Dickinson 2006: 58–61) denly acquired a new prestige that made it the metal of
to the rise of Archaic Greece (ca. 700 BC: Snodgrass 1980; choice for deposition in graves; this, in turn, gave rise to
Hall 2007b ; Shapiro 2 007) . Part of this period has attracted the ‘deposition model.’
the pejorative term ‘dark age ’ (Papadopoulos 1996) . For There is, however, much to commend both models. For
some scholars, the dark age encompasses the entire era of example, early Iron Age burials, such as the celebrated
illiteracy, whereas others allocate it a shorter time span, ‘warrior grave’ in the Athenian Agora published by Blegen
specii cally the earlier part of the period, viewing the later (1 952) (F igure 10.2a and b) – equipped with a panoply of
early Iron Age, or Geometric period, as a time of recov- iron weapons (F igure 10.3 ) – can serve as a ‘poster boy’ for
ery. There is a good deal of consensus that the eighth cen- the deposition model (the burial contained the cremated
tury BC heralds a virtual ‘renaissance’ in Aegean culture remains of an adult male aged 35–45 years at death).
(Snodgrass 1 977; Hägg 1983) , although this may obscure Similarly, Snodgrass ’s economic arguments are cogent, not
as much as it reveals (Langdon 2008: 292–97). least that the apparent intensity of the drive to improve
In traditional scholarship, the early Iron Age has formed the hardness of iron , both in Greece and Cyprus , points
something of an interlude between two comparatively to economic necessity as a driving force, placing ‘practi-
well-explored cultural phases: the earlier, Mycenaean, cal considerations above prestige, function above display’
characterized by a syllabic script (Linear B ) used to record (Snodgrass 2 006: 127). Moreover, iron ore, in its various
numerous, centrally administered, transactions; the later forms, occurs too widely in Greece for it to be controlled
corresponding to the adoption and adaptation, by the or rationed, as the deposition model requires. Another
Greeks, of the Phoenician (or Aramaic) alphabet some- point stressed by Snodgrass ( 2006: 127) is the evidence
time in the eighth century BC (Sass 2 005) . The study of of Hesiod (W orks and Days, 492–94), where ironworking
the period between these two proto-literary poles is col- in the smithy was not only a public activity, but evidently
ored by the fact that it is viewed as both a beginning and commonplace. Photos-Jones (pers. comm.) would go fur-
an end of two scholarly traditions (Classical archaeology ther, arguing that ironworking had become a more or less
and Aegean prehistory) , thus forming an epistemologi- domestic activity, something that was part and parcel of a
cal divide. For Classical archaeologists, the early Iron Age successful subsistence strategy .
181
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online from within the IP domain of the University of California on Sun Feb 01 20:18:46 GMT 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.014
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015
John K. Papadopoulos
Figure 10.2. A thenian Agora Tomb 13 (Deposit D 16:4). Athenian trench-and-hole urn cremation, after Blegen (1 952 : 280, i gs 1 and 2).
(a) Plan and section (east–west); (b) section (north–south). Courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Against this backdrop, I prefer a third model, one that metals traded and circulated in the exchange systems that
combines the essential elements of both circulation and emerged in the early Iron Age, as the evidence of Homer
deposition, and one that harks back to continuity of practice attests (Morris and Powell 1997). For instance, in the
across the Bronze/Iron Age divide. Indeed, circulation and Odyssey (1.180–85, cf. 1.105, 417), the ‘oar-loving Taphians’
deposition of critical commodities are processes that are sail across the wine-dark sea to the land of men of strange
complementary and interdependent. In the same way that speech in order to trade shining iron for copper. Their spe-
bronze , together with gold and silver , was deposited in the cii c target was Temessa , on the Tyrrhenian coast of south
rich burials of the Greek Bronze Age (e.g., shaft graves of Italy (Papadopoulos 2 001: 447). The collected deeds of the
Mycenae ), so too was bronze, together with iron , and some- Taphian pirates, and of their individual princes, such as
times gold and silver, deposited in the wealthy burials of Iron Mentes, read like a virtual primer for a new breed of Late
Age Greece, not least those of the Athenian Kerameikos Bronze and early Iron Age entrepreneur. In addition to trad-
and Agora (Langdon 2008: 130–43), Lefkandi (Popham e t al . ing metals, they were involved in the exchange of another
1979 –80), and Knossos (Coldstream and Catling 1996 ). valuable commodity: human slaves . In O dyssey (14.449–52),
In the same way that copper and tin , together with so Odysseus’s swineherd Eumaios was able to buy Mesaulios
many other commodities, were circulated in the inter- from the Taphians, and in the O dyssey (15.427–29), the same
national markets of the Late Bronze Age, to which Taphians seized from Sidon a Phoenician girl, the daugh-
the Uluburun shipwreck bears elegant witness (Pulak ter of Arybas. Elsewhere (O dyssey 16.425–30), the Taphians
1998; 2001; 2008; see also Sherratt 2 000) , so too were raid the Thresprotians. The adventures of these western
182
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online from within the IP domain of the University of California on Sun Feb 01 20:18:46 GMT 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.014
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015
Greece in the Early Iron Age: Mobility Commodities, Polities, and Literacy
Figure 10.3. Iron weapons and other objects from Tomb 13, after Blegen (1 952 : 281, i g. 3), including a ‘killed’ sword, iron
spearheads and iron knives, a battle-axe, iron snal e bits, an iron hasp, in addition to various other fragmentary iron objects. Courtesy
of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Greeks span the eastern and central Mediterranean, from or Naue Type II, was fashioned in such a way that one
the Levantine coast to the shores of the Tyrrhenian Sea, could both cut and thrust with them (Snodgrass 1 967:
and bear witness to the reality of long-distance exchange 28–29; Desborough 1 972: 308; Molloy 2 005; 2010: 421–
of commodities, people, and ideas in the early Iron Age. 22). Snodgrass notes that this was a new and more ei -
Deposition of commodities in early Iron Age tombs, cient type of sword, developed in bronze during the Late
however, is only part of the story. Some scholars have Bronze Age, standardized and mass-produced to a degree
emphasized the economics of dedications at Greek sanc- not before achieved in Greece, distributed over an extraor-
tuaries (Snodgrass 1989– 90), others the importance of dinarily wide range of space and time, and one that lived
sanctuaries in the deposition and public display of valued on, translated into iron, well after the Bronze Age. Indeed,
commodities and exotica, including diplomatic gifts, or for- after the eleventh century BC, this type is usually found in
eign prizes for victors, whether in sanctuaries or at funeral iron, such as the example from the Athenian warrior grave
games, or as goods accumulated by wandering heroes (de (F igure 10.3 ). Here, there is continuity across the iron cur-
Polignac 1984; Langdon 1 987) . Another scenario sees gift- tain in terms of type but not material.
exchanges between rulers directly with deities, not always The same is true for other types of objects that are now
between elites (Muscarella 1989) . Indeed, prominent rul- manufactured in both bronze and iron, including i bulae
ers of later periods, such as Midas or Kroisos , lavished gifts and dress pins, which were worn and circulated in life,
on sanctuaries such as Delphi and Ephesos . Such behavior and often deposited with the dead. The important point
arguably took more valuable commodities out of circula- is that although iron is now increasingly used for all sorts
tion than did the deposition of material in tombs. of things, bronze does not disappear: it was still a valued
The transition from bronze to iron is most visible in the commodity, both circulated and intentionally deposited. In
sphere where it mattered most: warfare . For example, a new certain contexts, such as sanctuaries , bronze dedications
type of sword , long referred to as the G rif zungenschwert far outnumber iron votives (e.g., Voyatzis 1990 ).
183
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online from within the IP domain of the University of California on Sun Feb 01 20:18:46 GMT 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.014
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015
John K. Papadopoulos
The transition from the Bronze to early Iron Age did which deals with Greek pottery in the southern Levant
not involve a full-scale transition from bronze to iron. from the Protogeometic period to the beginning of the
Perhaps the best way of moving beyond the problems Persian period. The earliest post–Bronze Age imported
posed by the epistemological divide between Aegean pre- Greek pot to the Levant is now the small fragment of an
history and Classical archaeology is to the tackle the issue Argive ‘Submycenaean’ one-handled cup rather than s ky-
of periodization, together with that of absolute chronol- phos from Tell es-Sai /Gath in Philistia (Maeir e t al. 2009 ).
ogy. Periodization matters. We cannot do without it, but In addition, a number of contexts, mostly tombs, espe-
we need to be careful how we construct it (Morris 1997; cially in Crete , the Dodecanese, and Cyprus , have yielded
Papadopoulos e t al. 2011). large groups of pottery of various Greek and Cypriot
local styles that has permitted the cross-linking of Greek
and Cypriot material (e.g., tomb A1K1 in Orthi Petra at
Periodization and Absolute Chronology
Eleutherna ; Kotsonas 2 008 ); in turn, evidence for Near
The relative chronology of the early Iron Age is based on Eastern imports to the Aegean, particularly Crete, has been
painted pottery, the most abundantly preserved item of growing steadily (Hof man 1997 ). Although potentially sig-
material culture that has been subjected to closest scrutiny nii cant, the quantity of Egyptian objects, particularly items
(Desborough 1952 ; 1972 ; Lemos 2002 ; Coldstream 2009 ). inscribed with regnal dates of pharaohs and found in good
The period as a whole has been linked strongly to the vari- contexts with Greek material, is limited (Skon-Jedele 1994) .
ous successive pottery styles of the Aegean early Iron Age: Despite the problems, the essential lines of Aegean abso-
‘Final Mycenaean’ or ‘Submycenaean,’ Protogeometric lute chronology during the later Bronze and early Iron
(Desborough 1952; Lemos 2002) , and Geometric Age are i xed with reasonable clarity, despite a number of
(Coldstream 2009) . Pottery style, however, is a misleading concerted challenges (e.g., James e t al. 1991 , whose down-
indicator of social change, and the vicissitudes of ceramic dating the end of the Bronze Age to ca. 950 BC cannot be
history should never be confused with social, political, or maintained because of both radiocarbon dates and dendro-
economic developments. For many scholars, the minutiae chronology). A recent dendrodate from Assiros Toumba ,
of ceramic development often take precedence over more proposing that the beginning of Protogeometric should be
critical economic, social, and political developments. 1120 BC (Newton et al. 2 003: 185), has been shown to be a
The translation of relative chronology into absolute victim of the ‘old wood’ ef ect: it cannot be used for abso-
terms continues to exercise scholars and has generated a lute chronology (Weninger and Jung 2009: 374–80).
good deal of controversy and revision. The l attening out of A more ambitious attempt to synchronize the Greek
the radiocarbon calibration curve between ca. 800–400 BC, dates with Italian and Swiss dates has provided interest-
and the lack of substantial timber samples for dendrochro- ing results (Weninger and Jung 2009; see also Bartoloni
nology , have left the absolute chronology of the Aegean and Delpino 2005; Jung 2006; Papadopoulos et al. 2011).
early Iron Age dependent on more traditional approaches, Good dendrochronological dates from the lakeside settle-
relying on synchronisms with the various cultures of the ments on the shores of the Swiss and southern German
Mediterranean and beyond. The establishment of the abso- lakes (e.g., Hauterive-Champréveyres at Lake Neuchâtel)
lute chronology is largely based on contexts where artifacts, provide important eleventh-century BC t ermini post quem .
usually pottery, can be connected with recorded historical These dates, however, cannot at present be linked directly
events. The only such events in the Greek world are the to the Aegean, and the only recourse is to triangulate via
foundation dates, extracted from Thucydides and later Italy (Weninger and Jung 2009: 389–93). Despite dii culties,
authors, of Greek settlements in Sicily and south Italy. The Weninger and Jung (2 009: 416, i g. 14) propose that Late
validity of these dates and their historicity has been ques- Helladic IIIC be dated to 1100–1095/80, Submycenaean
tioned (Hall 2008); they are limited to the closing stages of to 1085/80–1070/40 BC, and Early Protogeometric to
the period (mid-eighth century BC and later), and there is 1070/40–1000 BC. This chronology – the earlier stages of
no guarantee that pottery found at particular sites coincides which are also synchronized with material and events at
with the literary foundation dates for those colonies. the Syrian coastal sites of Ugarit and Tell Kazel , as well as
In the east, early Iron Age Greek pottery is more abun- Amurru and the Medinet Habu inscriptions of Ramesses
dant in stratii ed contexts at various sites in north Syria , III in Egypt – is in broad agreement with the conven-
Cilicia, and Palestine (especially Al Mina , Tell Sukas , tional chronology, particularly for the earliest stages of the
Tabbat-al-Hammam , Tarsus , Tell Abu Hawam , Megiddo , Aegean early Iron Age.
and Samaria ), but the historical interpretation of these I n order to put the absolute chronology of the Aegean
contexts has led to disagreement (Forsberg 1 995; Fantalkin on a i rm footing, some have recommended a concerted
2001) . The most comprehensive overview of Greek pot- research program directed at establishing a Holocene
tery in the east is Fantalkin’s (2 008) PhD dissertation, radiocarbon-age calibration based on a continuous
184
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online from within the IP domain of the University of California on Sun Feb 01 20:18:46 GMT 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.014
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015
Greece in the Early Iron Age: Mobility Commodities, Polities, and Literacy
sequence of annual samples. Others have recommended may have been misplaced (Forsberg 1 995 ), then there is
a program aimed at dating human bone collagen from little left to anchor the terminal date of Late Geometric
Mycenaean and early Iron Age burials from dif erent parts in absolute time. As we have seen, radiocarbon cannot
of the Greek world . If recent work on dating i red ceram- come to the rescue due to the l attening of the calibra-
ics using rehydroxylation kinetics proves to be as accurate tion curve.
as it currently appears to be (Wilson et al. 2009 ), then the If the Late Geometric period is assigned more abso-
future promises a powerful and nondestructive avenue lute time by extending its terminal date into the seventh
for establishing the absolute chronology of all periods of century BC, then graves and population would not be so
Greek archaeology independent of radiocarbon dating heavily concentrated in the second half of the eighth cen-
(for the most recent overview of radiocarbon dates in the tury, and the seventh century BC would lose much of its
Aegean based on Lefkandi, Kalapodi, and Corinth, see problematic status (e.g., Camp 1 979; Morris 1987; Osborne
Tof olo e t al. 2013). 1989) . Such a down-dating does n ot result in an accordion
With the beginning of the early Iron Age in Greece placed ef ect; all it does is shrink Protoattic into a shorter period
in the eleventh century BC, and probably in the earlier half of time. By the second half of the seventh century BC, we
of that century, there is little clear evidence in Greece dur- return to the conventional chronology. As we will see, this
ing the ensuing Geometric period that provides conclusive chronology i ts well the era of Greek colonization .
evidence for absolute chronology. For this, we can only look
to the east. A remarkably large number of radiocarbon A Diachronic Perspective
samples from various sites (e.g., Beth Shean, Dor, Khirbet Diachronically, the traditional view of the early Iron Age in
en-Nahas , Megiddo , Tel Hadar , and Tel Rehov ) have pro- Greece has been one of decline (twelfth and earlier eleventh
vided what seems to be a robust sequence for the southern centuries BC), followed by isolation (later eleventh and tenth
Levant , especially for the critical period of transition from centuries BC), then the beginnings of recovery (late tenth to
the Iron I–II periods. Several of these sites have produced early eighth centuries BC), culminating in the ‘Greek renais-
growing, but never substantial, quantities of Greek pottery. sance’ (mid-to-late eighth century BC). Such an overview,
Despite the large number of radiocarbon samples analyzed, however, lacks explanatory power. Explaining the demise of
two schools of interpretation have emerged (Mazar and a culture as archaeologically visible as the Mycenaean has led
Bronk Ramsey 2 008 ; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009 ; both to much debate. The two most popular scenarios involve an
with references), and the evidence to date is simply not good invasion( s) conventionally linked with the erstwhile Dorians
enough to bear on the broader issue of the date ranges of (for which, see Schnapp-Gourbeillon 2 002 : 74–83), them-
the particular phases of the Greek early Iron Age. For this, selves loosely pinned onto the later literary tradition of the
we can only look to the future, and the hope of more Greek return of the Herakleidai; the other, a ‘social uprising’ (also
imported material in good eastern contexts. linked with a Dorian ‘substratum’ of Mycenaean society:
Thus far, I have presented nothing that is not in keeping Taylour 1 964: 86; Snodgrass 1971: 186–87, 385). The latter
with the conventional chronology of the early Iron Age was championed by Hooker ( 1976: 179), who suggested that
Aegean. The one area where there is need for reconsid- the indigenous ‘Helladic’ substratum of Mycenaean society
eration is the terminal date of Late Geometric. The evi- not only forcibly deposed their Mycenaean masters, but also
dence for this derives from an analysis of what is arguably consciously returned to their ancestral customs of individ-
the largest group of non-funerary early Iron Age contexts ual inhumation in cist and pit graves .
anywhere in the Greek world : the numerous wells from The Dorian invasion/migration has dissolved into a schol-
the area of the Athenian Agora (Papadopoulos 2 003 ). arly mirage (Schnapp-Gourbeillon 2002: 131–82). In contrast,
This is not the place to present the argument in detail. If internal collapse remains an under-emphasized explana-
the Agora deposits are regarded as representative and not tion, as does ‘Balkanization’ (i.e., internal conl ict between
an accident of survival or preservation, and if we keep the the various Mycenaean states competing over diminish-
absolute chronology precisely as it is but lower the termi- ing resources). Another line of reasoning argues that the
nal date of Late Geometric from 700 down to 670 or even Mycenaean polities were ‘Potemkin palaces,’ and that once
650 BC, then many of the problems disappear. But can we the long-distance route-based economies of the eastern
lower the date of Late Geometric without violating our Mediterranean were disrupted, the economic underpinnings
carefully constructed chronological scheme? Once it is of the Myceanean palatial system collapsed (Sherratt 2 001) .
clear that the Thucydidean dates for the western colonies T he twelfth century BC is certainly a period of upheaval,
are problematic, as Hall ( 2008 : 409) has shown, and since witnessing movements of peoples not only in Greece but
any reexamination of the literary and archaeological evi- throughout the entire eastern Mediterranean (Sandars
dence for the supposed destructions of Near Eastern sites 1 978 ; Oren 2 000 ; Yasur-Landau 2 010 ). Whatever the causes
suggests that our earlier coni dence in these ‘i xed points’ of the demise of Mycenaean culture, there is a signii cant
185
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online from within the IP domain of the University of California on Sun Feb 01 20:18:46 GMT 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.014
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015
John K. Papadopoulos
shift in the nature of occupation and in subsistence strat- territorial polities and identities , but these are rarely the
egies in Greece during the later twelfth and eleventh same as ceramic units.
centuries BC, largely dei ned by a less ordered political Hand in hand with ‘ceramic regions’ is the idea of
landscape. The centrally administered palace economies the ceramic k oine – but how relevant is a k oine based on
of the second millennium BC gave way to more dispersed painted pottery? Many scholars have spoken, for exam-
forms of economic organization. This new Iron Age pat- ple, of a Euboean or Athenian koine (e.g., Lemos 2002:
tern did not rise suddenly out of the ashes of Mycenaean 212–17). These are, however, ceramic, not political k oinai .
bureaucracies, but had already begun to take shape long An early Iron Age Euboean k oine is about as relevant as an
before 1000 BC, contributing to the processes underlying Athenian (red-i gure) k oine in the Classical period: it means
the disappearance of the Bronze Age centers. very little. Athenian red-i gure pottery was closely copied
Against such a backdrop one aspect often overlooked is: in many centers (Corinth , Ambrakia , Chalkidike , and in
how Mycenaean is Late Helladic (LH) IIIC? On account Apulia , Lucania , Paestum , Campania , Sicily ), but does
of the systemic divide between Aegean prehistory and such a k oine make sense outside the narrow coni nes of
Classical archaeology, we have come to view LH IIIC as pottery production ?
‘Mycenaean,’ even though it is Postpalatial. Since LH IIIC Another ef ect of these ceramic k oinai is that whole
is Postpalatial, there is a strong argument for attaching LH swaths of Greece are subsumed under the orbit of other
IIIC to Protogeometric rather than to the earlier palatial regions solely on the basis of pottery. A classic case in
periods, and to regard developments in LH IIIC as contrib- point is Boiotia , which is sometimes seen as being part of
uting to the social, economic, and political trajectory that the orbit of Attica , sometimes subsumed under that of
ultimately led to the rise of the Greek city-states , b efore any Euboea . There is, to date, no palatial center on Euboea,
putative dark age . For many scholars, the ceramic transi- whereas the importance of Thebes in the Late Bronze
tion from Late Mycenaean to Early Protogeometric is more Age cannot be underestimated. Latacz ( 2004 : 242–43),
important than the transition from Palatial to Postpalatial. among others, persuasively argues that Thebes was the
Greater emphasis should therefore be placed on the impor- seat of the ruler of A hhijawa , adding: ‘Should the Thebes
tance of LH IIIC as a critical period in the development of hypothesis prove to be true, then i nter alia … the old
the early Iron Age. One result of recasting the way we think problem of why it has to be that the catalogue of ships
of our periodization would be that there is far more conti- [Homer, I liad 2.494–759] begins with Boiotia and the
nuity from LH IIIC through the early Iron Age and into the Theban region and why the l eet assembled at Aulis is at
Archaic period than is currently conceded. Another, argu- once explained: Thebes dominated Mycenaean Greece at
ably more important, result would allow the collapse of the the time, and Aulis … had always been the natural har-
Mycenaean way of life as a major factor contributing more bor of Thebes.’ Indeed, the collapse of the Mycenaean
directly to the political experiments that were to follow. palatial center at Thebes might well provide the impe-
tus for a more fragmented but independent network of
Regionality settlements in LH IIIC, a pattern that was to continue
In the same manner that periodization af ects the way throughout the early Iron Age.
we conceive of the Greek early Iron Age, so too does the
process of carving up the various regions of Greece into
broader entities. Just as periodization has been largely Four Critical Developments of the
determined and dei ned by painted pottery, so too has Greek Early Iron Age
regionality. So far as the traditional picture of the early
Iron Age is concerned, there is a good deal of regional var- Palatial versus Non-Palatial – P olis
iation within the Greek world . Nevertheless, although var-
versus P olis -less Tribal States (E thne )
ious aspects of material culture play into this (metalwork,
burial customs, what survives of architecture), pottery By the closing stages of the early Iron Age, much if not all
looms largest. of the southern Balkan peninsula was composed of two
Coldstream ( 2009) and others sketched out the very dif erent types of social and political forms of orga-
regional divisions of Greece based on early Iron Age nization. As Hall (2 007a: 49) elaborates, ‘Conventionally, a
pottery. Signii cantly, these various regional entities distinction has been drawn between the p olis and the e th-
do not always accord with other ways of determining nos – a looser type of political organization associated above
regions, such as the distribution of the later Greek dia- all with regions such as Achaia, Elis, Aitolia, Akarnania,
lects (Jef ery 1 990) . Epichoric script helped to dei ne Thessaly, and Makedonia. ’ I would extend this area to cover
the spread of literacy and to harden linguistic units Epirus , Illyria , and much of the rest of the Balkan penin-
that contributed to a more explicit dei nition of Archaic sula. Various Classical authors – not least Thucydides (1.5,
186
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online from within the IP domain of the University of California on Sun Feb 01 20:18:46 GMT 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.014
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015
Greece in the Early Iron Age: Mobility Commodities, Polities, and Literacy
1.10, 3.94), Herodotus (5.98; cf. 1.96), and Aristotle (P oetica T he political pattern that emerged in the Late Bronze Age
1448a.36; Politica 1261a.28) – state that unwalled villages, between palatial and non-palatial was to continue, albeit
referred to as komai , were characteristic of an e thnos . much altered, in the early Iron Age, surviving the collapse
Hammond (2 000 : 345) has argued that the term ethnos in of the Mycenaean world in an unpredictable and overlooked
the Greek sources denotes a tribal state based on kinship , manner. The distinction between palatial and non-palatial
and Hall ( 2007a: 49–53) reviews the various meanings of mirrors that between the p olis and the p olis- less e thne . This
the term ethnos , drawing a distinction between consoli- distinction, clearly visible in the Archaic and Classical peri-
dated e thne and dispersed e thne. Perhaps the best examples ods, was to have enormous ramii cations in later history.
of excavated k omai are those of Epirus, particularly Vitsa
and Liatovouni (Vokotopoulou 1 986; Douzougli and
Papadopoulos 2 010) . These settlements are certainly small, Mobility: Greek Overseas Travel and
unfortii ed, and sometimes at relatively high elevations.
Settlement
A further distinction between p oleis and komai is that
the latter relied more heavily on specialized pastoralism. Osborne ( 1998) has noted that ‘colonization ’ is, i rst and
In a number of important independent studies, Halstead foremost, a literary event, and Purcell (1 997: 501) has
(1 990) and Cherry (1 988) challenged the prevailing view stated, ‘the reference of “Greek colonization” as a mean-
that the mountain environment and pan-Balkan ai nities ingful term can only be to the concepts of the literary tra-
of the material culture of the Pindos indicated transhu- dition … “Greek colonization” is as dead as Bronze Age
mant or nomadic pastoralism. Rather, they interpreted the matriarchy.’ A number of scholars have come to view
evidence in terms of sedentary mixed farming , replicating the process of the foundation of any Greek foreign set-
for the early Iron Age the subsistence strategy that dom- tlement not as a foundation d’une colonie , but rather as a
inated the lowlands of Greece throughout the Neolithic formation d’une polis d’outre-mer (Luraghi 1 996) . The phe-
and Bronze Age, further noting that this pattern does not nomenon of Greeks traveling and settling overseas is not
preclude seasonal use of distant pastures . a unii ed movement that can be reduced to simple factors.
In attempting to understand why pastoral nomadism It is a complex and interwoven story of multiple diaspo-
has been so widely assumed as the dominant economic ras in the Mediterranean and Black Seas that should not
model in the study of early Iron Age Greece, Cherry (1 988: be seen solely in the light of other colonizations, partic-
29), following Shaw (1 982– 83), concluded: ‘From Homer ularly European colonizations from the sixteenth to the
to Ammianus Marcellinus , the pastoralist is dei ned simply twentieth centuries AD (Purcell 1997) . Moreover, it is not
via logical opposition to the essential criteria of civiliza- just a Greek phenomenon, but a broader Mediterranean
tion : mobile and without established homes, non-urban, one. Most of the earliest overseas settlements – such as
polis -less, without properly constituted rules or law-codes, Pithekoussai – are not exclusively Greek, but involve
lazy and parasitic (because he does not w ork the land and Phoenicia n s, North Syrians , Etruscans, and others. Such a
harvest crops, like the farmer), an eater of meat (often raw reality raises many issues, primary among which are l ocal
l esh, and even raw h uman l esh) rather than grain, and a continuities of exchange network s and nodes. Also at play
drinker of milk, not wine. By a confused social syllogism, are scholarly agendas, what Dietler (2 005) has ef ectively
nomadic pastoralism comes to bear the full stigma of called the colonization of archaeology.
uncivilized barbarity.’ At the same time, it is important to stress, as Horden
The distinction between the p olis and the e thnos in the and Purcell (2 000: 286) have done, that there is ‘no rea-
Archaic period, I would argue, has a Bronze Age ances- son to seek special (and, still less, apologetic) explanations
try in the distinction between the palatial and non-pala- [for the overseas settlement of so many Greeks in the
tial polities. Such a distinction extends beyond tracing Archaic period], any more than for Athenian cleruchies,
the ‘borders’ of the Mycenaean world. Among the e thne Roman coloniae, or Venetian and Genoese settlements in
enumerated by Hall, Achaia and Elis , in the Peloponnese , the later Middle Ages. The establishment of cash-crop pro-
the heart of Mycenaean Greece, together with Aitolia , duction in the landscape of the Hellenic overseas settle-
Akarnania , and Macedonia , never boasted a Mycenaean ment is one of the more radical and intrusive dislocations
‘palace,’ and even in Thessaly , the only palatial center is in Mediterranean agrarian history.’ Such a dislocation in
at Iolkos (equated with the site of Dimini ; Pantou 2010) , the Mediterranean and Black Seas is perhaps most conspic-
whereas northern and western Thessaly display a very dif- uously visible archaeologically at Metapontion and, in the
ferent material record. The passage from a tribal to a state context of Greek tradition, best encapsulated in the fabu-
society in early Greece is often regarded as an old problem, lous stories of agricultural success at Sybaris .
but I am not convinced that such a straightforward linear Chronologically, Greek overseas settlements in the
development was the case. Mediterranean are usually considered to be a historical
187
Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online from within the IP domain of the University of California on Sun Feb 01 20:18:46 GMT 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139028387.014
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015