1.1 Introduction
The Bronze Age in Greece started around 3200 BC and lasted about 2,000 years, until 1050 BC. It is called ‘Bronze’ because the weapons, vessels and everyday tools were made of copper, initially in its pure form, and later alloyed with arsenic or mainly tin to make bronze.
The Bronze Age is divided into three periods: Early (3200–1900 BC), Middle (2000–1650 BC) and Late (1650/1600–1050 BC).
During the Bronze Age, a high civilization developed in Greece and the Aegean, consisting of three major geographical units. There was the Minoan civilization which developed in Crete, the Cycladic civilization in the Cyclades and the Helladic civilization in Mainland Greece. Each of these areas had its own characteristic cultural expression, but the commonalities are many and suggest continuous contact and interaction within the Aegean area.
Archaeological research dealing with the prehistoric era, both especially with the Bronze Age in Greece and more generally in the area of the eastern Mediterranean basin, developed in the 20th century and particularly so after the Second World War. Around the end of the 19th century, the only Greek art considered worthy of study and respect was that of the Classical period, the art of the Parthenon. Thus, Archaic and Geometric art, the value of which was recognized later, seemed strange; Geometric art in particular was deemed barbaric and something of an affront to the conventional notions of the time. However, the discovery of prehistoric culture, thanks to archaeology over the last hundred years, has provided a wonderful ‘preface’ to historical Greek art, an entire artistic cycle much earlier than the one already known. Furthermore, while in the past Greek art was considered completely autonomous and quite independent of what was going on in the world around it, today we know that in its infancy Greek art was exposed to the influence of even older civilizations, thanks to contacts that proved fruitful and continued until the very end of antiquity.
Ancient authors have little to say about the Minoan and Mycenaean eras. Herodotus was familiar with the myths and accepted them, though with some reservations, questioning the authenticity of the stories, but for the ancient Greeks, the mythological past was always alive. Mythology provided a basis for their religious tradition and history, and was reflected in epic and dramatic poetry, key elements of their social and intellectual life. The origins of ancient Greek myths do indeed go back a long way; some may even date to the Bronze Age.
A few years later than Herodotus, Thucydides also refers to the early Greek history in a somewhat critical manner, in the first book of his Histories (1.4–12): ‘For the immediately preceding events [he means before the Peloponnesian War] and in still earlier times I could not come to any safe conclusions because many years have passed’ (trans. D. Evely). Tradition had kept alive the memories of the Trojan War and the return of the Herakleides, descendants of Herakles, alias the Dorians. Thucydides accepts them as facts: he also refers to the glorious past of Mycenae – although in his time Mycenae was an insignificant city, he mentions Agamemnon as taking part in the Trojan War with a significant fleet and he refers to the Pelopids. He also knows about powerful King Minos of Crete, who was the first to build a sea-based empire, a thalassocracy, in the Aegean.
Ancient historians – Atthidographers, local Attic historians – as well as Eratosthenes and the Parian Chronicle also put forward various dates for events that the older scholars considered completely hypothetical, but which recent research has shown to be quite close to reality. Thus, according to ancient sources, Kekrops and the founding of the Athenian kingdom are to be dated to 1581 BC; the establishment of the Kadmeia by Kadmos, who came from Phoenicia, belongs to the 15th century BC, and so does the kingdom of Minos. In the 13th century BC, the war of the Seven against Thebes and the reign of Theseus occurred. 1184 BC saw the end of the Trojan War and 1104 BC saw the return of the Herakleides. Still later, in the 1st century BC, the geographer Strabo describes and talks about the ‘mythical’ cities mentioned in the epics, as does the traveller par excellence Pausanias, who visited Mycenae in the 2nd century AD (p. 249).
Apart from these few pieces of evidence, our knowledge of the Bronze Age was and is entangled with the myths and stories set out in the Homeric epics and in the works of the tragic poets. Homer, living in the 8th century BC and thus in a completely different environment, switches between the two eras – his own and the Mycenaean. Even so, through the mythological elements that survive in his epics and retain yet older memories, he describes the Achaeans perfectly. Their way of life, their enemies, their wealth, their society – primitive and yet at the same time somehow sophisticated and refined, as well as the power and influence the Mycenaeans had over the rest of the Greeks. The tragic poets drawing upon the heroic corpora, set out the genealogy of the ancient royal houses, according to which the sons of Pelops, who came from Asia, are the ancestors of the Atreides (sons of Atreus) who ruled at Mycenae.
Legend has it that there were ancient pre-Greek tribes in Greece, namely the Leleges and the Kares, whose memory it preserved. Legend also suggests that Asian princes came to Greece and founded the old cities: Kekrops founded Athens, Kadmos Thebes, Pelops Olympia and Danaos Argos. Finally, the tales are aware that in the depths of time there existed a Cretan thalassocracy, controlled by Minos, a paradoxical ruler – both just and cruel, ‘father’ of the Minotaur. Until the beginning of the 20th century, these were the historical and mythological records on which almost all accounts and descriptions of those eras were based, and many have been proved to contain more than a grain of truth after archaeological research: Cretan sea-power, the peculiar Minoan life-style with the strange bull-leaping practices, the existence of ‘pre-Hellenic’ peoples, Mycenaean power and the spread of Mycenaean civilization.
At the end of the 19th century, a new page in the study of prehistory was turned. Archaeological discoveries came thick and fast. In Greece they began with the discovery of the Mycenaean civilization. This period is dominated by Heinrich Schliemann, and – due to an extraordinary conjunction of circumstances – he who believed in Homer was lucky to discover the very ‘world’ of the poet. In 1871, Schliemann started his excavations in Troy. There, nine cities were discovered – ten today, after further research – cities with walls surrounding palaces and houses. Among the finds were precious vessels and a hoard of gold and silver objects, the so-called Priam’s Treasure.
In 1859, Schliemann made his first voyage to the Mediterranean countries that were of particular interest to him: Greece, Italy, Syria and Palestine. He returned to Greece in 1868, when he conducted a short excavation on Ithaca. It was then that he visited Mycenae for the first time, wanting to get to know the seat of the Homeric tradition at close quarters. The walls and the main gate were still preserved and visible. Schliemann had read everything there was to know about Mycenae at that point and had in his mind the descriptions of the early modern travellers who had begun their tours in Greece from the end of the 17th century (p. 249).
In 1870, Schliemann made his first application for permission to excavate at Mycenae. For various reasons, which are outside the scope of this book and have already been published elsewhere, the decision was delayed. In 1876, though, the license was granted to the Archaeological Society to carry out excavations in Mycenae with Schliemann but under the supervision of Panagiotis Stamatakis, a series of events that will be discussed in another chapter.
In addition to Mycenae, Schliemann excavated at Orchomenos and Tiryns with the collaboration of Wilhelm Dörpfeld. In these places, famous for their mythological tradition, he found ruins that spoke to him vividly. In Tiryns, in the centre of a palace surrounded by strong walls, the great hall with its four columns and the vestibule were uncovered, appearing just as the Odyssey describes the palace of Ithaca, where the suitors gathered. But more striking still was the discovery of the royal shaft graves of Mycenae, in which the dead were found weighed down with gold, confirming the Homeric epithet of ‘Mycenae, rich in gold’. Schliemann’s excavations were the forerunners of new discoveries all over Greece. From Thessaly to Cyprus and from the Ionian Islands to Athens, the same civilization was carefully and slowly brought to light.
The dating of the finds was problematic, as there was no absolute chronological criterion for either Greek or Trojan objects. The discussions were endless among the experts; the proposed dates ranged from 1400 to 700 BC. Many even believed that the material might have been Byzantine! The archaeologist W. M. Flinders Petrie was the first to think of tying them into the Egyptian chronology, as the Egyptian civilization had already been dated with great precision. In various parts of Egypt, Mycenaean clay vases had been found associated with written and datable evidence, while the tombs and houses of Mycenae had also yielded either genuine Egyptian, or Egyptianizing, objects. Thus, a relative and comparative chronology could be created and absolute dates assigned. This realization was of great importance because the Mycenaean civilization proved to be contemporary with the New Kingdom of Egypt and could now take its proper place in time.
But the Mycenaean finds also gave rise to new questions about the origin, provenance and formation of the culture to which they belonged. On the basis of objects that appeared Oriental in style and technique, the theory was proposed that this was an Oriental culture that had been spread by the Phoenicians. With the excavations that began first in the Cyclades and then in Crete, and especially with the excavations of the English archaeologist Arthur Evans in Knossos from 1900 which revealed the Minoan civilization, many of these inaccuracies were solved. It became apparent that the Mycenaean civilization was a genuinely Greek one, and that the Minoan culture was its forerunner and inspiration. Minoan civilization could also be dated by reference to the Egyptian chronology.
Following the great discoveries at the beginning of the 20th century, other important ones followed on Greek soil, such as Pylos in Messenia, and Dendra and Asine in the Argolid. However, important revelations were made also in the interior of Asia Minor, where the entire Hittite empire came to light along with its most valuable archives, revealing interesting details concerning Greece. In Syria, the city of Ugarit, today’s Ras Shamra, which had close commercial relations with both Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece, was excavated. It was a major transit and trading hub linking the Aegean, Africa and Asia.
One of the last major academic triumphs was when, in 1952–53, the decipherment of the Mycenaean script, Linear B, was achieved by the Englishmen Michael Ventris and John Chadwick. Many tablets in this script had already been found at Pylos, Mycenae and Knossos, all of which date to after 1450 BC. The Knossos tablets, similar to those of Mainland Greece, confirmed Mycenaean presence in Knossos from that time onwards. The most amazing aspect of this discovery is that the language of those tablets turned out to be a very ancient form of Greek, even older than Homer, which at the period seems to have been in use throughout Greece.
The outstanding discoveries in Greece continued and in 1961 the fourth major Minoan palace was unearthed, at Kato Zakros. In 1967, the culture of Thera, which had been buried for so long under volcanic ash, began to see once more the light of the day.
Arthur Evans named the civilization he discovered in Crete ‘Minoan’ after the mythical King Minos. He divided it into three major periods – Early, Middle and Late – each one of which was further divided into three subphases, thus creating a cycle of nine periods. The logical process by which Evans arrived at his classification is not known; perhaps many factors influenced his thinking, such as the general concept of the cycle of life – which begins at birth, progresses to maturity and ends in decline, or the idea of symmetry in the evolution of art, which is associated with the general perceptions of aesthetics at the end of the Victorian era. It is, however, extremely probable that he was actually influenced by the existing Egyptian model and the division of Egyptian history and art into the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms.
The archaeologists Christos Tsountas, Carl Blegen and Alan Wace, continuing what Evans had begun, called the culture of the Cyclades, Cycladic, and that of Mainland Greece, Helladic. They too divided each one of these cultures into three periods: Early, Middle and Late Cycladic and Early, Middle and Late Helladic. Each of these periods was again further split into three subperiods. These various periods were defined on the basis of the evolution of ceramics, because the stratigraphical research showed that each period and subperiod was represented by a different type of pottery. These divisions are conventional and the dates are not absolute, but this system remains useful and is still taught.
The culture of the Late Helladic period, the last phase of Greek Bronze Age culture, is called Mycenaean because the first and most significant finds made came from Mycenae, but also because Mycenae – according to tradition and archaeological research – was its most important centre. This homogeneous culture spread outwards with vigour all over Greece, to Crete and the islands beginning in the 1450s BC.
1.2 The Early Helladic Period (EH: 3200–2000 BC)
The Bronze Age begins around 3200 BC with the general availability and use of copper and copper-based alloys, the greatest innovation of this era. Metal was first introduced as a sort of luxury but went on to change not only the basic technology, by offering a new way of making tools and weapons, but also affected the economy and every aspect of life. There emerged a need to organize the extraction and distribution of the new precious material, as well as ways to secure and safeguard the wealth it generated. Naturally, trade developed, a new class of skilled craftsmen was created, and cities with a central administration came into being. From the relatively closed agricultural economy of the Neolithic era, a more open one developed in Greek lands, based on the distribution of goods. The transition from the Neolithic period to the Bronze Age was smooth, without disasters. It seems that new residents came from the East, possibly related to those who had already settled in Greece, with whom they assimilated.
This earliest part of the Bronze Age has been recognized as a time of ‘internationalism’, a time of intense contacts. In the Aegean, a shared culture, a koine, came into being, meaning all partook in a broadly common culture, with a characteristic homogeneity, albeit with strong local manifestations. The underlying uniformity in artistic matters, along with certain linguistic elements, indicate that the inhabitants of Greece at that time all belonged to the same population stock, already endowed with Greek cultural elements. Indeed, recent studies have shown that various groups of ‘Greeks’, anticipating the more extensive Middle Bronze Age movements of peoples (p. 8), had been gradually settling in Greece not only during the Early Bronze Age, but even earlier, at the time of the spread and diffusion of the Neolithic economy from Asia Minor to Greece.
These old inhabitants of Greece, already present in the country before the mass arrival of the Greeks around 2000 BC, have been generally labelled ‘pre-Greeks’, or rather ‘proto-Greeks’. From this complex Mediterranean substratum many words then passed into the Greek language as it later became. Specifically, the linguistic elements of -νθ, -σσ and -ττ (-nth, -ss and –tt) are believed to go back to at least the Early Bronze Age. They are observed in words that are found over a wide area which, as well as Mainland Greece, includes Crete, the Aegean islands, and some areas of Asia Minor. These components have been characterized as ‘pre-Greek’ or ‘proto-Indo-European’: however, this terminology does not imply that Greek tribes were absent from Greece at the time the words were formed and used. Many place names have such ‘pre-Greek’ origins, which is natural because such toponyms are resilient and can be preserved for a very long time indeed. For example, there exist even today the toponyms of Amnisos, Ilissos, Lykabettos, Hymettos, Korinthos and Alikarnassos. Moreover, many species of plants were new to the Greeks, when they arrived in the Early Bronze Age, and so they borrowed existing names; this is the reason for which many Greek plants have pre-Greek names, such as kolokynthe (pumpkin), narcissus, hyacinth, olynthos (fig), kissos (ivy) and rodon (rose). The words for sea, wine and olive are also pre-Greek (thalassa, oinos and elaion). The Greeks later became aware that there were words in their language that were in some way older than themselves, which is why some old place names and monuments are termed Pelasgian. The Pelasgians were one of the oldest peoples said to inhabit the region of Greece (cf. the Leleges and Kares mentioned above).
During the Early Helladic period, people are buried in cist graves (p. 104) and the houses are simple, with stone foundations and socles and mud-brick walls. The pottery is mainly monochrome, including an early sort of glaze – Urfirnis ware, plain or with incised decoration. A characteristic shape of that time is an idiosyncratic pouring vessel commonly called a ‘sauceboat’ (see figure 1]).Footnote 1 The important centres of the period appear mainly in the Argolid: Zygouries and Tiryns are among them, but pride of place goes to Lerna, where the ‘House of Tiles’ may have been a type of ‘proto-palace’. The layout of the halls, the storage spaces and the use of seals that appear now for the first time in Greece all indicate the existence of a central authority and of an administrative organization.
Figure 1 ‘Sauceboat’ drinking cup from Arcadia. The shape has a Cycladic provenance. In the EH period it occurs in Mainland Greece, the Cyclades and Troy. EH II (2500–2200 BC). Gold. Ht. 0.17.
Continuity of civilization in Greece was interrupted and the cultural uniformity discussed above ended at the end of the 3rd millennium BC. Beginning around 2200 BC and lasting for two centuries, there was a very unsettled period in the Aegean. By the end of the Early Helladic II (henceforth EH II) period, Lerna and other settlements are destroyed. A general decline is observed in settlement patterns and building techniques. This dramatic unrest has been associated with the arrival of Indo-European groups, who probably settled in Greece during this period, and the high mobility within the population. It is generally believed that the great mass of the Greeks appeared around 2000 BC, but others had arrived at intervals even earlier, as already mentioned. This mass influx meant that new dynamic elements entered Greece, along with these groups of people in search of new places to settle. The newcomers merged with the inhabitants already present on Greek soil, gradually creating their own society with a new cultural expression and a particular linguistic idiom.
Another type of incursion is associated with population mobility. Before the end of the EH period, as the first movements began, a different kind of pottery, completely foreign to the Greek area, appears in the south-western Peloponnese – mainly in Olympia, in Messenia, in the Argolid (at Tiryns, Zygouries and Prosymna), but also in some places in Thessaly. This ceramic ware is characterized by thin-walled vases, with a polished surface and incised and impressed decoration. It originates in the south-eastern Adriatic, in the region of Dalmatia, and belongs to the Cetina culture. Its cultural elements are found distributed across the Mediterranean as far west as Malta, and are the result of trade activities, most probably of metals. After 2000 BC, this activity stops, at least in Greece.
These movements, which began around 2200 BC, mark the end of the Early Helladic period, and signal the first major break in the history of the Bronze Age, one which saw the disintegration of the smooth development of civilization in Greece. After 2000 BC, in Crete civilization develops quickly. The cultural influence of the Cyclades shrinks, and the autonomy of the islands is reduced significantly as they become tied to Crete; at the same time, in Mainland Greece, the rate of cultural progress slows down. Homogeneity and continuity in the cultural expression, as well as the administrative organization, will only be restored here again in the Mycenaean period, about five centuries later. From 1500 BC the Cyclades will gradually pass into the sphere of influence of the Mycenaeans, into which Crete will be absorbed from 1450 BC onwards.
The second major rupture in the history of the Bronze Age occurred a thousand years later, around 1100–1050 BC, when the Mycenaean civilization declined and finally was plunged into a turbulent era of new population movements, pirate raids and destructions of the large urban centres.
1.3 The Middle Helladic Period (MH: 2000–1650 BC)
After the web of interactions and developments that characterize the EH period, the first Middle Helladic centuries show stagnation and even regression, a descent to barbarism – elements that are to a great extent mirrored in the dreariness observed in cultural expression. Continental Greece shows all the symptoms of isolation. It seems closed in on itself and cut off from the leaps and bounds of technical and artistic progress that are taking place around it.
The MH house has the shape of a primitive megaron,Footnote 2 consisting of a vestibule or porch and a main hall, the back end of which is generally apsidal. The dead are buried mostly in cist graves in a contracted position, and often in pithoi, clay storage jars. The burials are organized in cemeteries, but they are also found intra muros, i.e. inside the settlements, under the floor of the house and near its entrance, especially in the case of small children.
Usually, several burials are grouped together under a mound or tumulus, which itself consists of stones, soil and sand, and is surrounded by a stone platform. The same mound may shelter various types of tombs: small or larger pits, cists and even chamber tombs in later cultural phases, and very often there are burials in pithoi. Rarely does the mound cover a single tomb. The tumuli actually appear around the middle of the EH period and remain in general use into MH times. Thereafter, they continue sporadically throughout Mycenaean times in various regions, especially in Messenia and the Argolid where most Mycenaean tumuli have been found. The custom of burial under mounds continued into the historical, post-Bronze Age era. It is now generally accepted that the mounds played a role in shaping the architecture of the vaulted tomb (tholos), at least in terms of three fundamental features: their basic shape, the underground nature of the burial and the mound covering the top of the vaulted tomb. Christos Tsountas was the first to point out the connection between the tumulus and the vaulted tomb in 1893.
Burial in mounds is a characteristic custom of many peoples, including the Indo-Europeans. The appearance of this custom in Greece occurs along with the arrival of new Greek tribes around 2000 BC. The fact that the oldest mounds in Lefkada date to the EH period is an indication that the population movement southwards had already begun at that time. The mound covers, protects and at the same time honours the dead with a visible monument in becoming part of the landscape and keeping their memory alive.
The abundant pottery that survives from the Middle Helladic period is very different from that of the previous period. It clearly demonstrates the changes that have taken place in Greece.
The Middle Helladic vessels belong mainly to two types of ceramics, the Minyan and the matt-painted. Minyan was given its name by Schliemann because they were first discovered in Orchomenos, Boeotia, where according to legend the wealthy king Minyas lived. The Minyans were a group mentioned by the lyric and epic poets.
Minyan pottery is very distinctive. The vessels are wheel-made, monochrome – grey or yellow (see figure 2). The potter’s wheel had already been introduced to Greece at the end of the Early Helladic period; this revolutionary innovation gradually transformed the whole of ceramic production and became universal in the Middle Helladic period. Minyan vessels clearly show that they are influenced by metallic prototypes. They have clean lines, with carinations and angles, and they are smooth and even slightly soapy to the touch.
Figure 2 Grey Minyan cup from Sesklo (tomb 28). MH III (1700–1600 BC). Clay. Ht. 0.17.
Minyan pottery appeared before 2000 BC, during the EH period. The exact same vessels are in use at Troy at the same time, which is not surprising, because the Trojans apparently belonged to a racial group related to the Greeks, with whom they shared a common Indo-European past. Minyan vessels are made throughout the Middle Helladic period and sporadically during the Mycenaean, or Late Helladic. Grey Minyan, arguably the older variant, is produced until about 1550 BC, though the Yellow Minyan continued until around 1400 BC, which is also the time when Mycenaean pottery took off in a different direction.
Matt-painted vases are handmade. Their decoration is linear, painted in a dull dark paint on the light-coloured ground of the vase (see figure 3).
Figure 3 Matt-painted bridge-spouted jar from tomb B of Grave Circle B at Mycenae. End of the MH period. Clay. Ht. 0.108.
Matt-painted vessels are reminiscent of Cycladic ones and their distribution runs in parallel with the Minyan, although they differ drastically from them. Aegina was an important centre for the production of matt-painted vases. Alongside these two types, the manufacture of handmade utilitarian vessels that have incised or coarse relief decoration continues. Aegina is again the main place of production of these vessels. Gradually, however, mainly from the end of the MH II period, other varieties appear in the ceramic repertoire. These include the mainland polychrome type, the dark or light-coloured burnished wares, the light-on-dark style, the red or black-slipped wares and the lustrous decorated. At the end of the MH III, Cycladic vases appear on the mainland, both imported or local imitations, as do Minoan ones, which means that Mainland Greece is now firmly entering the Aegean trading area.
The picture of the general poverty that Greece shows in the Middle Helladic era gives little warning of the emergence of the brilliant Mycenaean civilization around 1600 BC in the same geographical area, although there are signs, as mentioned below, that presage the evolution.
1.4 The Late Helladic Period (LH: 1650/1600–1050 BC): The Mycenaean Era
It appears that the Mycenaean era is the period of formation of the Greek nation. It is to this time that the earliest quasi-historical memory of the Greeks is traced. The ‘heroic tradition’ is embodied in the Mycenaean years and the myths, as well as the Homeric epics, indicating that for the Greeks of the historical times Minoan Crete was a world remote in time, and utterly enwrapped in myth.
The Mycenaean era is divided into three phases (see the Chronological Chart for further details and abbreviations): Late Helladic I (LH I, 1650/1600–1500 BC), the era of the shaft-graves of Mycenae; Late Helladic II (LH II, 1500–1400 BC), the era during which the tholos tombs became widespread; and Late Helladic III (LH III, 1400–1050 BC). This final phase is also the longest during which Mycenaean power reaches its peak, the era of the so-called Achaean domination.
1.4.1 Emergence and General Characteristics of Mycenaean Civilization
Around 1650 BC, a profound and rapid change occurred in the history of Greek culture which noticeably changed the pace of events. The rather introverted Middle Helladic world was succeeded by the brilliant Mycenaean civilization that reopened Greece to the East and the West, even to areas beyond the reach of the Minoans.
At the end of the Middle Helladic period, in addition to the new varieties of pottery, certain architectural and residential elements – such as the appearance of a more complex house-plan, an early sort of urban planning, as well as fortifications, especially in Peristeria in Messenia – suggest that a process leading to a new cultural phase was already under way. Moreover, some rich interments and the introduction of a new type of tomb point to new directions. But above all, it was the development in the artistic arena that appeared rather abruptly and took off with startling rapidity. It was clearly the influence of Minoan Crete that made Mainland Greece change its course.
The Greeks became familiarized with Minoan Crete around 1700–1600 BC through various diplomatic and trade contacts, perhaps even military operations, and quickly embraced its culture, with the elite the first to do so, as it will be shown later in the chapter. Cretan artists came to Greece to teach the secrets of their art to the Mycenaeans. The art of Mainland Greece changed so much that Evans formulated the theory that the Cretans had occupied Greece from the end of the Middle Bronze Age, which is historically unsubstantiated and, indeed, incorrect.
The Mycenaeans were ever-ready to accept new ideas and able to develop them. They found themselves in the sphere of influence of Crete, in contact with a brilliant civilization and adopted it. But it would be a mistake to consider that the Mycenaean civilization is but the Minoan transplanted to Greece, because the Mycenaeans did not discard their own life experiences, and their art often bears the stamp of their distant, northern, origin.
Minoan art is naturalistic. This means that artists not only drew their inspiration from nature, but above all that they developed their various themes with respect to it. Minoan naturalism is expressed in the freedom to manipulate space in a composition, in presenting dynamic movement and the twisting of forms (torsion), and in the sheer variety of ideas and its rich imagination, which sometimes may become exaggerated. The Minoans treated the space available for decoration as an entity, composing harmonious imagery, complete in itself, where a specific aura emerges. In an impressionistic way – often indifferent to exact anatomical details – and using elaborate design, they created vivid and fluid silhouettes that evoke immediate impressions. These forms seem in motion even when they are at rest because all the elements that make up the composition are subordinated to a counterpoint principle of motion and immobility. Thus, for example, the thin waist in the human form acts as the axis around which the body moves.
The same disposition for variety is shown in Minoan architecture, which is characterized by the pursuit of the theatrical in the composition of the spaces and a love of strong colour (see figure 4). Everything works together to produce an art of refined quality, with a tendency towards the elaborate, where the aesthetic element transcends the emotional.
Figure 4 The North Propylon of the palace at Knossos. (Y. Sakellarakis).
A different spirit pervades Mycenaean works. The richness of Minoan inspiration is adapted by the Mycenaeans in keeping with their own temperament and is rendered in a less dramatic manner. Mycenaean artists express their intentions and ideas in a simpler and clear way, bequeathing at the same time an imposing dimension to their creations, where often alongside an austerity of manner there prevails a tendency to show masculine and competitive elements.
In Mycenaean art the principles of order and symmetry found a greater response than pure naturalism; pictorial compositions tended towards geometrical arrangement and gradually became standardized, especially towards the end of the era. It is precisely this tendency towards symmetry, abstraction and standardization that essentially distinguishes Mycenaean art from the highly refined Minoan (see figures 5, 6).
Figure 5 Plaque from Palaikastro with a representation of a long-necked bird. The delicate rendering of the bird and the impressionistic landscape enriched by elements of the marine style characterize this image. LM IB (1500–1450 BC). Ivory. Ht. 0.07, W. 0.03.
Figure 6 Cushion seal depicting a griffin. From the tholos tomb IV at Ano Englianos (in the area of ’Nestor’s Palace’). The dignified bird with unfolded wings placed in the middle of the picture emphasizes the symmetrical layout of the space and the intended austerity. 1500–1450 BC. Gold. L. 0.027, W. 0.021.
The field in which the Mycenaeans expressed themselves with particular originality, revealing their creative abilities, is architecture (see figure 7). Both secular and funerary architecture adopts trends presenting completely new elements in which the Mycenaean spirit appears (see p. 239). It is characteristic that while their architecture – compact and solid – evolves from domestic traditions and environmental perceptions, their decorative arts, such as seal-engraving, metalwork or wall painting, are closer to the Minoan world. The reason is that for these latter arts the Mycenaeans were taught by the Minoans and of course at the same time took over many decorative themes and motifs, which, however, they once again adapted to their own artistic feelings and ideas.
Figure 7 The main entrance to the citadel of Mycenae.
In various artistic expressions we can observe the coexistence and parallel evolution of the two different traditions, the Minoan and the Mycenaean. Within the Mycenaean palace itself, the two elements exist side by side: while the architecture is a new creation, the decoration of the halls with painted floors and walls goes back to the Minoan tradition. The same phenomenon is observed in the grave stelai: their decorative themes present many mixed elements, such as spiraliform decoration reminiscent of the Minoan and at the same time somewhat awkward representations that betray a more domestic origin and style (see figure 31).
There are other new elements in the art and society of the Aegean during the Mycenaean era which have no precedent in Minoan Crete: these are the martial customs and traditions with their parallel depiction in the visual arts, the development of the skills of war and weaponry, as well as the use of amber, the new valuable material coming out of the North. A survival from the MH period is the Minyan pottery, which is used continuously, as already mentioned, until ca. 1400 BC.
The two Aegean civilizations, the Minoan and the Mycenaean, coexisted for about a century and a half, from 1600 to 1450 BC, during which the Cretans and Mycenaeans lived in peaceful rivalry. The Mycenaeans, although highly advanced, do not seem to have developed any expansionist tendencies. In Crete, life goes on undisturbed between 1600 and 1500 BC, which is the golden age of the Minoan world. The peaceful coexistence of Cretans and Mycenaeans suggests that the Cretans were not considered an alien people by the Mycenaeans but were somehow related.
The Cretans, in addition to helping the Mycenaeans to develop artistically, introduced them to the great trade routes and the important ports of the East. In their organization of trade and in the system of palace administration, the Mycenaeans followed the Minoan example. In everyday life they embraced, at least up to a point, the Minoan way of life, adopting Minoan clothing, writing and many elements of their religion.
Their civilization matured by interacting with a more advanced civilization, and, when the right time arrived, around 1450 BC, the Mycenaeans were ready to replace the Minoans in ruling the Aegean. Crete, under unbearable pressure from new, natural and historical circumstances, was forced to relinquish her primacy.
After two centuries of intense Minoan influence, Mycenaean civilization prevailed and imposed its political and cultural expression on the Aegean. A characteristic unity and uniformity in artistic creation spread across the Aegean area; the extent – and at the same time the borders – of the Mycenaean world is evidenced by the use of the tholos tombs and the spread of characteristic types of pottery.
The cultural elements of the various regions of the Aegean (Minoan, Cycladic and Mycenaean) were united as if in a giant melting-pot, a koine, that allowed the creation of a brilliant new cultural phase. Known as the ‘Mycenaean koine’, its beginning in about 1400 BC marks the first time that, in a way, the Greek world was unified. It is as this point that, Greece appears as an entity and Mycenaean centralized power gives the scattered Greek units the status of a nation. The expression ‘centralized power’ does not have the same meaning of totalitarianism in Mycenaean Greece as it does in the great contemporary eastern kingdoms. What it means is that, under similar administrative systems, life developed harmoniously and uniformly throughout Greece, finding a common expression in art, shared customs and traditions, religion, language and way of life.
In a strange way this era of power, uniformity and technical achievements, from 1400 BC onwards, goes hand in hand with an artistic decline in the decorative arts. Spontaneous inspiration and vitality are on the wane, most especially in the field of iconography, which proved to have been directly contingent on the Minoan tradition. Exceptions to this general picture are some genuine Mycenaean creations, such as the Pictorial Style pottery and the iconography on the larnakes.
Gradually, from 1300 BC on, art mainly becomes formalized, and the style fossilizes; the same themes are constantly repeated, and the decorative space is arranged simply, in a heraldic way, or with decoration arranged in zones. Wall-painters, goldsmiths, pot-painters all prefer easy solutions, sticking to old successful formulae, conventional expressions, and hardly go beyond common codified limits. It is a phenomenon observed broadly and most obviously in naturalistic art: an irreversible evolutionary path towards standardization. This codified style, based on established themes, is promoted and flourishes in its own way because it is based on the advancement of technologies for the mass production of artworks now in greater demand by wider sections of the population. Mass production is inevitably detrimental to artistic creation.
In conclusion, it can be said that prehistoric art is at its conception alive, full of movement, impressionistic; but that progressively it succumbs to generalization, the dissolution of styles, and ends in conventionality.
With the fall of the Mycenaean world, artistic creation became impoverished and, for a while even, disappeared; it flourished again in the 8th century BC with the Greeks taking to the seas and the creation of a new cultural cycle.
1.5 The Centres of Mycenaean Civilization
Mycenaean civilization touched almost all the Greek provinces and almost everywhere we can see a Mycenaean background in their histories. The great centres, the ones that continue to yield the richest finds, are the very ones immortalized in the epics: those at the hearts of the great mythological cycles. The richest area, in terms of finds and tradition, is the Peloponnese and in particular the Argolid, which could well be called the cradle of Mycenaean civilization, its oldest and main focus, the setting of the most important Greek myths.
The Argolid is actually a small geographical unit. It is separated from the rest of the Peloponnese, without being isolated, and is open to the Aegean Sea. It was continuously inhabited from very early in prehistory. A fertile and densely populated area, it experienced exceptional prosperity during the Mycenaean period, as is evidenced by the rich cemeteries of tholos and chamber tombs. It was also an important transportation hub where the relations between Crete and Mycenae developed, which were decisive for the evolution of the Mycenaean civilization. The three great citadels, Mycenae, Tiryns and Midea (pp. 246, 238, 302) are situated in the Argolid, as well as many other important centres such as Argos, Prosymna, Zygouries, Asine, Korakou and Perdikaria. From the beginning of the Mycenaean period, Mycenae had established itself as the most important city; it appears to have controlled a large area and its power was based on this very fact. Apart from the Argive plain, the area it controlled extended to the neighbouring ones, as well as the Corinthia, and reached as far as three separate bodies of water – the Gulf of Argos with access to Tiryns and Nafplio, the Saronic Gulf, where relatively recently the small prehistoric port of Kalamianos was discovered, and the Corinthian Gulf, where a great defensive fortification work was located, the Cyclopean wall across the Isthmus, which started at the Saronic Gulf and reached Isthmia.
Kalamianos is a coastal walled settlement founded in LH IA by people who may well have come from Mycenae. It enjoyed prosperity due to its commercial activities for a relatively short period from LH IIIA2 to the end of LH IIIB2, in parallel with the time of the greatest prosperity of Mycenae, and was destroyed at the same time as the palace around 1200 BC. Kalamianos covered a large area, 72,000 sq. m, but was sparsely populated, with the buildings occupying less than half the area. The houses had the shape of insulae, that is of residential complexes of three or four rooms each. In the hinterland of Kalamianos is Korfos, a settlement that was sparsely but continuously inhabited from the EH period, with a Mycenaean settlement very similar to that of Kalamianos.
In epic and tragic poetry Argos is presented as a site equally important as Mycenae, with which it is sometimes confused; but the glory of Argos has not yet been confirmed by archaeological research, perhaps because it has not been properly excavated or published. It was never a palatial centre, but it nonetheless endured as an important, dynamic settlement.
The topography of Argos is defined by the two hills of Aspis and Larissa; between them is the ravine of Deiras, where the great cemetery of the city was founded. Argos appears to have been an organized settlement, built and walled at the top of the Aspis hill in MH and already had contacts with Crete. At the end of the MH III period and the transition to LH I, the settlement moved to the foot of the hill and experienced a remarkable development, especially later, on the evidence of richly frescoed houses of the LH IIIA period. There was an increase in population, economic prosperity and an appropriate administrative organization, with the construction of a fortification wall on the hill.
The MH cemeteries of Argos are located mainly at the southern and south-eastern feet of the hill. According to an earlier study, the tombs were concentrated under tumuli, but modern research has identified only two such tumuli with certainty, with a possibility of two more. From the end of the MH III period, a higher social class began to stand out, using better-built family tombs and conducting funerary practices for its dead. As elsewhere during this period, in Argos the differentiation between social groups became emphasized, as well as the importance of the identity and family ties of each group. When the old cemeteries were abandoned in the LH II period and the cemetery in Deiras was fully established, it is clear that full ‘Mycenaeanization’ had taken place.
The second hill, Larissa, against all reasonable expectations, has not the characteristics of a Mycenaean citadel, although it may have been used as a fortress in the LH IIIB2 period, when supplementary defences were added to the other citadels.
The interconnections of the three Argive citadels, Mycenae, Tiryns and Midea, are discussed in another chapter. Even if there are indications of subjugation to Mycenae, there is also evidence of friendly or even kinship relations, for otherwise these citadels and especially Mycenae would not have seen such a great growth. On the basis of the organized road network, the other settlements also had close contacts with each other, although they may have been occasionally on hostile terms, as well as with the main citadels.
Laconia and Messenia are also two important Mycenaean provinces in the Peloponnese. Laconia is located at the southern tip of the Peloponnese and was a special region of the Mycenaean world, with a dense pattern of settlements yielding important finds – the Menelaion, Vapheio, Ayios Vasileios, Pellana, but without as many impressive monuments as the neighbouring Argolid or Messenia. While Laconia provides the setting for celebrated cycles of myths, such as those of Tyndareus and Menelaus, a great palace from which they would have ruled has not yet been found – unless the complex at Ayios Vasileios, which will be discussed below, was the administrative centre of Mycenaean Laconia. Until recently, the relatively limited number of excavations and publications contributed to the lack of interest in conducting systematic research in this area.
But the geography too, in part responsible for the habitation pattern of Laconia, does not help to foster a perceivable sense of unity. Some areas are cut off from the centre, such as Kynouria, others are simply in quite far or remote places, such as Tainaron, yet more have Cycladic influences, such as Pavlopetri, while others display Minoan influence. The large tombs in Pellana certainly belonged to an aristocratic family, just like the royal personage buried in the Vapheio tholos, but we do not know where they lived. The Menelaion was definitely a centre of power, but its occupation was chronologically intermittent. We should perhaps consider that small hegemonies were the norm here, each quite separate from the other and that they had contrived a way of coexistence or cooperation, albeit one not obvious to us (p. 29).
The name Laconia is mentioned for the first time in the late Roman period, but in earlier times the area was known as Lacedaemon or Lakoniki; the adjective Lacedaemonian is already to be found on a Linear B tablet of the 13th century BC from Thebes, which clearly shows the contacts that the various provinces had with each other.
Ancient Laconia, in addition to Lakoniki proper, embraced both Thyreatis in Kynouria, which today belongs to Arcadia, and the Messenian Mani which is now part of Messenia. In Homeric epic, it is clear that this part of the Mani is not seen as separate from the rest of Laconia:
Between Taygetos and Parnon lie the two large fertile plains crossed by the river Evrotas. Here, most of the Mycenaean settlements form clusters, either in the plain of Sparta or in that of Elos, the ‘hollow’ Lacedaemon. Starting from the Menelaion (p. 25) on the east side of Evrotas, and running south-east of Sparta, are a series of low hills with important Mycenaean monuments: Amyklai on the hill of Ayia Kyriaki, Paliopyrgi, a large settlement close to the famous tomb of Vapheio (p. 197), and finally Ayios Vasileios near Xirokambi.
Ancient Amyklai – roughly on the site of the present village – lies 5 km south of Sparta on the west side of Evrotas. It owed its fame already to its antiquity and its venerable old sanctuary. Mentioned for the first time in the Iliad in the ‘Catalogue of Ships’ (2.584) among the cities that had provided ships for the Trojan campaign, it came under the authority of Menelaus.
The area had been inhabited since the EH period but, by the end of the MH period, the settlement was abandoned. During the Mycenaean period the settlement and the cemetery were located at the foot of the hill of Ayia Kyriaki, which is the northernmost of the hills on the west bank of Evrotas. At the top of the hill lay the important Mycenaean sanctuary of Amyklai, where in historical times, around 750 BC, the sanctuary of Hyakinthos and Apollo Amyklaios was founded with the Classical statue of the god on his famous throne, a work of the sculptor Vathykles from Magnesia.
In the middle of the LH IIIB period, the Mycenaean Sanctuary was founded. It was an open-air rural one, consisting of only a single enclosed space (peribolos) although it has been argued that there may have been an altar or a small structure within. No proper Mycenaean fill was located, but all Mycenaean finds were discovered in the Protogeometric layer, very much scattered across the space. These include pottery, a few spindle whorls, three seal stones and a large number of figurines: many are female of the Psi-class (see Chapter 4 on sculpture), but there are also horses and numerous animal figurines of a wide variety, as well as fragments of two large female figurines, perhaps cultic.
The deity worshipped in Amyklai in the Mycenaean era is not known, but the figurines clearly indicate a fertility deity, possibly a vegetation goddess. The view has been expressed that Hyakinthos was already worshipped here in Mycenaean times, but it is impossible to be sure of the Mycenaean origin of his worship. However, this divine figure has characteristics that would suit a Mycenaean deity, later to become paired with Apollo, merging an old traditional cult with the new Olympian spirit in the persona of Apollo, an old god who absorbed in his personality many elements of the religious expression of the new society which was gradually created after the dissolution of the Mycenaean world; his character as an Olympian god crystallized fully at the beginning of the Archaic period.
The Mycenaean sanctuary was in use during the LH IIIC period. After the collapse of the palaces, when social conditions had completely changed, the small communities that survived sought cohesion through their religion. In the middle of the 11th century BC, in an era of general poverty, the sanctuary fell into decline and the hill looks as though it had been abandoned by about 950 BC, after which there is a form of recovery.
Despite this, in the hundred years that passed between 1050 and 950 BC, Amyklai was not totally abandoned. According to recent studies, some Protogeometric vessels and some large wheel-made zoomorphic figurines testify to the survival of Mycenaean styles in shape and decoration, the latter showing some influence from western Greece. It is therefore possible that, after the dissolution of the Mycenaean world, a settlement nucleus was preserved locally, into which newcomers from the western regions moved, a pattern which has been observed elsewhere. Towards the end of the Protogeometric period, the cult was established again, but in a completely new form and context. It is noteworthy that the religious use of the space was maintained, thus making Amyklai one of the few examples of holy places that bridge prehistoric and historical times.
The hill of Ayios Vasileios, actually a chain of low hills in the southern part of the Spartan plain west of the Evrotas, was named after the church located at the top of the central hill. It was known mainly from travellers and scholars who were interested in the inscriptions built into its walls. In recent years, a surface survey on the series of hills was carried out by the British School at Athens. All scholars involved with the site have remarked on the prehistoric remains and possibly the existence of a settlement, seeking to identify it with places mentioned in the Iliad, such as Pharis, Messi or Vryseia, but without any positive conclusion. In 2008, during landscaping of the terrain, a short distance from the church, a fragment of a tablet of Linear B was accidentally discovered together with Late Helladic pottery. This find gave rise to a more sustained campaign of research and from 2010 systematic excavations have been conducted under the auspices of the Archaeological Society. Excavation is still in progress.
The hill had been continuously inhabited since the EH period. A number of building complexes mentioned below belong to the Mycenaean period.
Building A was built in LH I–II and destroyed in LH IIIA, at a time when destructions are observed also in other official buildings, for example at the Menelaion, Mitrou and elsewhere. Bronze swords and arrowheads, ritual vessels, an ivory figurine of a youth carrying a calf (see figure 8), an Egyptian scarab and the remains of a banquet have been recovered from various rooms. An important find was a cube-shaped altar of limestone, bearing horns of consecration in the same material. On top of the altar was an equid figurine, and, around it, figurines of bovines emphasize the sanctity of the space. Contemporaneous with Building A is the neighbouring cemetery that was founded at the end of the Middle Helladic years and was in use in the LH I–II period.
Figure 8 Ayios Vasileios in Laconia. Figurine of a male carrying a calf. Ivory. End of LH II.
Building B is only partly excavated, Building C dates from the Byzantine period and was constructed over Building A.
Building D, a short distance from Building A, is dated from the associated pottery to the LH IIIA1–2 period and yielded many fragments of wall paintings. Building E which is gradually being uncovered was two-storeyed and had a large courtyard surrounded by two stoas, supported by a colonnade of alternating pillars and wooden columns, a unique feature for Bronze Age architecture on the mainland. On the floor of the west portico the archives of the complex were discovered, and it appears that most of the tablets had fallen from the collapsed upper storey. By the end of 2015, fragments of about 120 tablets had come to light, which refer to a large number of weapons, textiles and raw materials for making perfumes. There were also sealings and labels. One of the sealings mentions the word wa-na-ko-to, in the general sense of ‘belonging to the wanax’, the ruler. The bureaucratic organization, the frescoes and architectural remains all indicate that Ayios Vasileios was a great centre, conceivably palatial. The complex of Ayios Vasileios was destroyed by fire in LH IIIB Middle, during a period of upheaval, when other palaces were also destroyed. It was then somehow repaired, briefly inhabited again and finally abandoned in early LH IIIC.
To the north in the Evrotas valley, 27 km from Sparta, is Pellana, an important Late Bronze Age site. The Mycenaean finds are located in three places: on the hill of Palaiokastro, where the settlement probably was; in Tryporrachi, where the cemetery of chamber tombs lies; and at Spelies, where lavish rock-cut tholos tombs of princely character are found. Rock-cut tholoi, also known from the cemetery in Volimidia, Messenia, are relatively rare. They are not built like real tholoi but are actually cut out from the bedrock. Nonetheless, they also require skill to fashion, a knowledge of statics and of the technique of the vaulted tombs they imitate, let alone the rock-carving. So far, six tombs have been found at Spelies, already looted in antiquity, which were in use from the LH II period until LH IIIC. The largest was about 10 m in diameter, with a long dromos – now partly damaged by a nearby torrent, a monumental entrance with a relieving triangle (imitating the stone-built proper tholoi) and a deep entrance to the chamber itself. Some valuable finds on the floor had escaped the looting, such as gold leaves, an amber button and some fine vases. These finds suggest that Pellana was the centre of a small territory that flourished quite early in the Mycenaean period. Future excavations will certainly provide more information.
In the plain of Elos, the most important settlement was Ayios Stephanos, excavated by the British School at Athens and often identified with the ancient city of Elos mentioned by Pausanias, although this is not entirely certain. The settlement was walled and in existence from the MH period to LH IIIB. It was then located closer to the sea than it is today and was the pre-eminent port of the southern Peloponnese for communication with Crete and the Minoan colony on Kythera. It was from Ayios Stephanos that lapis lacedaemonius (a greenish hard stone, quarried from nearby Krokees), was exported. The other stone associated with Laconia is the ‘Taenarium marble’, the well-known antico rosso, from which valuable objects and decorative embellishments were made, the most famous of which is seen on the facade of the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae. Its quarries are in the Mani, close to Lagia.
In Ayios Stephanos, a strong Minoan influence is detectable, not only because of direct communication with Crete, but more so because of the proximity of the site to Kythera. The excavations have brought to light genuine Minoan vessels, as well as many Minoanizing ones, which has led to the hypothesis that two different pottery workshops operated, one run by Minoans and the other by local craftsmen. The Minoan influence on Ayios Stephanos, however, was a catalyst for Mycenaean pottery in general, because it seems that the first true Mycenaean style of LH I was created there: this is the ‘lustrous decorated’ ware that owed so much to Minoan ceramics. This style spread throughout the Argolid and is especially seen at Lerna and Mycenae. The early contacts between the Argolid and southern Laconia are furthermore proved by the presence, at Ayios Stephanos, of matt-painted vases. After LH I–II, Minoan influence in Laconia somehow fades away, but then appears more clearly in Messenia and the Argolid.
The site of the Menelaion is located in a prominent position on top of a narrow plateau, about 100 m above the east bank of Evrotas and 3 km from Sparta.
In antiquity, the area was called Therapne and is known from ancient authors (Pausanias 3.197, Pindar Isthm. 1.33). In the centre of the area rises a large Classical monument, which as early as 1833 Ludwig Ross had identified with the sanctuary of Menelaus and Helen, famed in historical times. Towards the end of the 19th century, Schliemann visited the site hoping for impressive finds, like those at Mycenae, that would confirm the fame of the glorious Menelaus and the Homeric description of the place:
But the quick examination he carried out in the area disappointed him.
The first to identify Mycenaean relics at the Menelaion was Christos Tsountas, who arrived a little later than Schliemann, and briefly tested the site. He was followed by Panagiotis Kastriotis, who partially cleaned the Classical sanctuary. In 1909, excavations were undertaken by the British School at Athens under the direction of R. M. Dawkins. At that time, only the sanctuary was excavated, and at a distance of about 100 m from it Mycenaean building remains were discovered. In 1910, Dawkins explored the neighbouring Aetos hill, where remains of a Mycenaean building were also found, but this excavation was not continued either. Not until 1973, after a long period of inactivity, did the excavations restart, under the direction of H. W. Catling, whose completed work was published in 2009.
The prehistoric site of the Menelaion covers an area of about 1,000 × 150–100 m. It is spread across three hills: Prophitis Ilias, where the main Menelaion and Classical sanctuary lie, the so-called North hill, and the southernmost, Aetos hill. It was the largest settlement in the area and dominated the Spartan plain. A fortification wall was obviously unnecessary, because the site is naturally fortified: on one side the plateau overlooks a torrent bed, while on the other it ends in a steep cliff above the river. The defensive advantages are obvious, but other factors also played a role in the choice of location, such as access to a large area of arable land – the Spartan plain – with the advantages it offers to the ruler for consolidating his authority and showing his supremacy.
The first signs of habitation date back to the Neolithic and the EH periods and come from the southern part of the plateau. The central hill was regularly inhabited from the MH period, from which few relics are preserved, through to the LH I and II periods (1550–1450 BC), as shown by fragments of decorated and Palace Style pottery. No buildings survive from these early periods, but reused ashlar blocks of worked poros limestone incorporated in later buildings certainly came from a structure of the early 15th century BC. The use of dressed poros, ashlar masonry, known from Minoan buildings, rarely occurs on the Greek mainland during this period, and indicates a connection with Crete. Such contacts are also confirmed by other finds in the Menelaion, and also in Laconia in general. As has been shown by the Ayios Stephanos excavations, Laconia was exposed to Minoan influence earlier than the other regions of the Peloponnese.
The Menelaion takes on a position of greater importance in the LH IIB period, around the middle of the 15th century BC. Then Mansion 1 was built on the central hill, at the eastern end of the plateau, on a naturally level area set a little below the top (see figure 9). In its foundations were recovered some LM IB ceramics, whose presence not only dates the structure, but is an additional indication of its relationship with Crete. The building opened to the south onto a central courtyard, was two-storeyed and was divided into three sectors by two corridors. The central sector was in the form of a megaron, while the other two consisted of several rooms, some of which served as storage areas. The walls were plastered, and the floors paved.
Figure 9 The Menelaion. Mansions 1 and 2. Plan. Mansion 2 cross-hatched. (H. Catling).
Figure 9Long description
The plan shows a complex of structures with walls, rooms and possible pathways. Some areas are shaded with diagonal lines, while others are shaded solid. There are also dotted lines indicating boundaries. The plan includes annotations such as Stairs up and numerical values with triangles including 273.40, 280 and 276.20. An arrow in the upper left corner indicates the direction of north.
Mansion 1 anticipates the Mycenaean palaces and is in a way their precursor in its layout. It preserves the Greek tradition of the EH and MH periods of buildings with a central corridor and axial layout of the spaces, while it appears that the architect had a significant knowledge of Minoan construction. It is a rather idiosyncratic structure, without any earlier precedent in Greece. The impression is given that those who ordered its building may well have had a model and specific requirements in mind. Indeed, Mansion 1 marks a change in Mycenaean society, the rise of a ruling class that is interested in obtaining power and managing resources. It is obvious that an attempt has been made to adapt the design of the building to the conspicuous but steep and inaccessible position at the edge of the rock, while, at the same time, its function as an administrative centre with a capacity for the storage and distribution of goods is clear.
Mansion 1 was soon destroyed, most likely by an earthquake. Deep in the fill, the excavations brought to light interesting finds that indicate that perhaps the building housed a sanctuary as well. Three female figurines and a clay model of a house or sanctuary were retrieved, typical votive offerings as known in Minoan Crete, but unique up to now on the mainland.
Mansion 2 (see figure 10), which replaced Mansion 1, was built shortly after 1400 BC at the beginning of the LH IIIA1 period. The new building also had three sectors but a different orientation from the previous one, with an entrance from the west. In order to increase the strength and stability of the building, the foundations and parts of the walls of Mansion 1 were preserved. For security reasons, and so that it would no longer be located at the edge of the plateau, it was built 10 m further back than the old one. As a result, the area suitable for building was limited and, to accommodate the change in circumstances, the two lateral wings were built at a lower level, while the centre of the mansion was higher. Large terraces, a courtyard and a propylon were created in front of the entrance, but the final form of the building is not entirely known due to the great erosion that the area later suffered.
Figure 10 The Menelaion. Mansion 2. View from the west (Juliette de la Genière).
Mansion 2 was soon abandoned, even before the end of LH IIIA1 – that is to say it had, like its predecessor, a life of only 25 years. The area was then deserted and for some inexplicable reason remained uninhabited for 100–125 years until the middle of the 13th century BC when the ruined Mansion 2 was partially repaired and reinhabited but without many pretentions towards luxury. The new installation was symbolically named Mansion 3; it was in use until the end of the 13th century BC, at which point it was destroyed by fire.
The Mycenaean buildings on the neighbouring hills, especially on the northern hill, are very much ruined by intense erosion, but it is known that they follow the broad chronological sequence observed on the central hill. The development of habitation on Aetos Hill closely parallels the construction activity of the Menelaion itself.
In the LH II period, around 1450 BC, on Aetos Hill a reorganization occurred which created a need for the installation of a larger central residential unit. A sizeable building was built, probably of a megaron-like type, constructed of unworked poros stone and with gravel and pebbled floors. After a short time, around 1400 BC and at the same time as the construction of Mansion 2, Aetos was redesigned. Two successive rebuildings of this important structure took place before it was abandoned around 1375 BC. After this, there was an unexplained gap of habitation of about 100 years.
In the 13th century BC, the building was largely repaired. A terrace was created, a large enclosure wall built of limestone, the top layer of which was covered with reddish and blue schist slabs, apparently selected for aesthetic reasons, and clay pipes were installed for drainage. As part of the general concern for its aesthetic appearance, the walls of the building were frescoed. The pursuit of a relative level of luxury and comfort is obvious, maybe rather more so than in the contemporary Mansion 3. The building was destroyed around 1200 BC.
After the destructions of the end of the 13th century BC, the hills were abandoned. The Menelaion and Aetos hills were inhabited sporadically by inhabitants who used a coarse and burnished utilitarian pottery conventionally called ‘Barbarian ware’.
The lack of monumental buildings like those at Tiryns, Pylos or Mycenae during the period of Mycenaean floruit in LH IIIB, the fact that the Menelaion never took on the character of a real palatial centre, the ambiguous social organization of Laconia around a ruling class without a central administration, and the absence of signs of integration into a palace-type ‘culture’, make it difficult to comprehend the overall pattern of habitation of the area.
Messenia (p. 309) occupies the most fertile part of the Peloponnese and, unlike Laconia, shows from early on in the Mycenaean years a unity in burial customs (especially with the abundance of tholos tombs), and various other expressions of life and the arts. Small, affluent but independent hegemonies, some established in LH I, unite at the beginning of LH IIIB under the sceptre of the wanax, ruler, of Pylos. These hegemonies include Koukounara, Nichoria, Kampos, Iklaina, Mouriatada and Peristeria, all of which still have their fortifications, as well as Malthi, where we can observe the gradual evolution of a Middle Helladic settlement into a proper walled Mycenaean polity. However, there were also other important settlements such as Myrsinochori–Routsi where the rich tholoi were found, or Gialova and Ellinika in the area of ancient Thouria.
Most of these sites were destroyed at the end of the LH IIIB2 period, when the palatial system of Pylos collapsed along with its agropastoral economy, which was organized by an all-pervading bureaucracy. Some of the old sites did survive into the LH IIIC period though, such as Nichoria.
Elis, a fertile area next to Messenia, has many features in common with it, not only in the burial architecture with its many tumuli and tholos tombs, but also in a similar range of finds. It was inhabited for a long time.
The important fortified settlement of Kakovatos, founded at the end of the MH period/start of LH I, was built on a hill near the sea to control the great plain of Zacharo. The remains of a large house – a ‘royal residence’ – were discovered; the excavator, W. Dörpfeld, qualified it as ‘palace’ and identified Kakovatos with the Homeric Pylos. Very close to the settlement, three large tholos tombs date to LH IIA. The finds of these tombs include a set of Palace Style amphorae, beads of glass and semi-precious stones, an ivory comb, gold jewellery, a pendant with golden mounting in the shape of a frog and another in the shape of an owl, a bronze sword, a lapis lazuli seal and a large number of beads and plaques of amber. From the tholos tomb in Kakovatos – apparently – comes the famous ring that Evans acquired, the ‘ring of Nestor’, whose authenticity is disputed.
From the finds it can be deduced that Kakovatos pursued significant commercial activity, having contacts with other regions and with far-off lands. This activity ceased at the end of LH II and the settlement on the hill was destroyed for unknown reasons, maybe by an earthquake; but life in the lower town continued for a while.
It has been hypothesized that the small hegemony of Kakovatos belonged to the sphere of influence of the palace of Pylos. Certainly, no palatial centre developed in Elis, nor in Achaea, even though these areas were rich, with large settlements functioning as administrative centres and cemeteries with important finds. Two other settlements are important in Elis, Samiko and the recently discovered site of Triantaphyllia at Koryphi in the heart of Elis.
The archaeological site of Kato Samiko is located at a place called Kleidi and, as the name kleidi (key), implies, was the point of contact between Elis, Achaea and Messenia. The settlement was situated on a fortified citadel with a wall of Cyclopean type and very close to the large ‘cemetery of the mounds’ which consists of six tumuli and a vaulted tomb. Both the cemetery and the settlement were established at the end of the Middle Helladic period; one of the tombs was still in use in LH IIIB.
The cemeteries of Ayia Triada are important too, with more than fifty chamber tombs, as well as the cemetery of Kladeos at Trypes and that at Mageiras with rich ‘warrior’-graves. One of these tombs contained, in addition to weapons and jewellery, a gold signet ring; there are many other cemeteries as well as tumuli, while three small tholos tombs have recently come to light near the important settlement of Triandaphyllia at Koryphi. Burial customs and offerings represent the characteristic Mycenaean range. Some special finds from the tombs of Elis are worth mentioning here, such as the diadems of decorated glass plaques worn by men and women, the bent (‘killed’) swords and especially the custom of placing large vases in the dromoi of the tombs as grave-markers. In one case, in a tomb of the cemetery at Ayia Triada, a krater was found with the representation of a prothesis (display) of the deceased, while in the cemetery of Kladeos an amphora bears the representation of an ekphora, the funerary procession. The similarities with related scenes represented later on Geometric kraters are impressive. According to the excavator, these two vessels are a pair by the same artist, and date to LH IIIC, probably indicating a bridge between the end of the Mycenaean era and the coming Protogeometric period (p. 460). To the same type of pictorial style belongs a ring-based krater from a chamber tomb at Mageiras, with a representation of a procession of chariots. It appears that vessels of the Pictorial Style were produced in Elis in the LH IIIC period, just as in places like Tiryns, Mycenae, Naxos and Lefkandi, which all flourished at that time.
Other rare grave-gifts from the Ayia Triada cemetery include two bone styluses, which is a puzzling find, as one has to wonder what use they would have been for a scribe when clay tablets were no longer made; possible explanations are that either the dead man may have indeed been a scribe, or, more likely, that the styluses were possessions of the family from older days and laid in the grave as an offering. Also found was a composite vase decorated with glass paste and another one wrapped in a linen cloth, an offering made precious by its contents.
The cemeteries of Elis were in use until the end of LH IIIC period. But there is also a cemetery in the ancient city of Elis dating from the Post-Mycenaean period, where the finds were mixed: in addition to Sub-Mycenaean material, there were other features dateable to LH IIIC, such as pottery, a small sword of type G and a type F dagger. It also appears that new settlers arrived from areas further east, displaced by the destructions of 1200 BC, and continued their way of life. Moreover, a general observation may be made here, that the Mycenaean civilization remains alive in some way right up until the transitional years.
Mycenaean finds also come from Olympia but these are not extensive. There was some settlement around mount Kronion; chamber tombs were found near the New Museum, as well as a settlement in Drouva, in the present-day city of Olympia, which was in use from LH IIIA–B until the beginning of LH IIIC. The crucial issue at Olympia is the origin and development of worship, as soon after the collapse of the Mycenaean world one of the most important sanctuaries of antiquity was established here.
The excavations below the Pelopion, the oldest site in the sanctuary of Olympia, brought to light the remains of apsidal buildings and a mound dating to the EH II period, but no trace of a Mycenaean installation. They also confirmed that there was no sign of worship before the 11th century BC, when the cult of Zeus began, initially as a typical rural cult. The theory that there existed a continuum of worship from the Mycenaean era to the historical years, as believed by some archaeologists and especially Dörpfeld, cannot be supported. But what can be said is that the new cult retained a memory of Mycenaean ritual practices. Indeed, in the Pelopion were found two large Sub-Mycenaean goblets, the primary libation vessel of that time, used during ceremonies and known from representations on wall paintings and on vases, but also in corpore from the Amyklaion. It is a type of vessel that survives from LH IIIC into the Protogeometric years.
Achaea, like Elis, is an area that participated in the Mycenaean koine and was in contact with other Mycenaean centres, such as the Argolid and with other areas too like Thessaly, Crete, Messenia and the Ionian Islands, and beyond to the Italian peninsula. It was once thought that Achaea and Elis belonged to the periphery of the Mycenaean world, but today, after many excavations, this is known not to be true, even though they are in a way ‘regional’, in the sense that palace organization did not develop locally. Perhaps they lay and operated at the edges of a palatial complex, possibly of Pylos, living in an autonomy of small local hegemonies, of the sort already mentioned above.
The topography of Achaea is like that of Elis, with rich springs and fertile valleys interrupted by mountains and hills favouring the development of independent settlements. One such settlement, Voudeni, surrounded by other smaller ones, was a seat of power: built on a naturally fortified plateau close to the slopes of Mount Panachaïkon with easy access to the sea. The site preserves foundations of houses with courtyards and cobbled streets, part of a fortification wall and a large cemetery. This cemetery covers an area of 30,000 sq. m and was in use from LH II until Post-Mycenaean times. It contains chamber tombs, some quite large (one measures 5.93 × 4.62 m) accessed through narrow, sloping dromoi, having facades with shaped jambs and sometimes painted decoration, pyramidal roofs, lateral rooms and niches in the sides of the dromos, or above entrances. Very distinctive are the two- and four-handled amphorae that are found in the tombs, which date to the middle and late phases of LH IIIC and belong stylistically to the so-called Western Mycenaean koine.
Another important fortified settlement was Chalandritsa, also built on a plateau at the foot of Panachaïkon, controlling the area of Dymi. The stone foundations of the houses with their many rooms and corner hearths are preserved, as well as well-designed roads that cross the settlement, a sign of organized leadership.
Also of importance is the walled settlement of Mygdalia-Petrotou near Patras, which was founded in the MH III–LH I period. The pre-palatial period is characterized by spacious houses, intra muros burials and a tholos tomb on the hillside. At the beginning of the palatial era (LH IIIA1), the settlement is abandoned without violence, with valuable items left in situ. This event seems to be connected with the wider phenomenon of upheavals in power and administration that followed the development of the palaces. The settlement is developed again in the LH IIIC period, and is expanded, with new houses and a mansion built on the top of the hill. It too participates in the Western koine that characterizes Achaea, Elis and Arcadia, as well as part of the Ionian Islands at that time.
While there are many cemeteries in Achaea, the settlements are few. Portes was definitely the most important one, not only for Achaea, but for western Greece in general. Built at the foot of Mount Skollis, next to the rich spring Kefalovrysso and with fertile plains around it, Portes was an ideal place for a Mycenaean settlement. From this location near the border with Elis and Arcadia, the settlement controls the area of Dymi and the passage to Patras. According to the descriptions of Homer and Pausanias, some researchers identify it with the Elian Pylos. The site survey has not been completed.
Near the settlement is the large cemetery (see figure 11) in use from 1700 BC until the end of the 11th century BC. It includes tombs of all types: most are chamber tombs, but there are also built chamber tombs, cist graves, two LH II tholoi set above ground level and two older tumuli created at the end of MH.
Figure 11 Achaea. Portes. The cemetery. Site plan (L. Kolonas).
Inside tumulus C, there were three built chamber tombs; the central one (C1), built with an entrance and measuring 8 × 1.60 m, is the largest in Greece, similar to those found at Thorikos, Marathon and at Mitrou. It definitely belonged to one of the prominent families of the settlement during the 17th and 16th centuries BC. The other important tomb of the cemetery at Portes is a chamber tomb a ‘warrior grave’ (tomb 3). The offerings that accompanied the burial of a young man, certainly a prominent member of the local community, date to the 12th century BC and are preserved in excellent condition. They included bronze greaves, a sword, a knife, a spearhead and a rare type of helmet in the form of a tiara, consisting of bronze strips joined by nails and with a straw lining on the inside. A similar tomb is known from Kallithea, Patras; as with the tomb at Portes, it contained bronze greaves and a helmet with bronze revetment. Another ‘warrior grave’ at Kallithea contained a horse sacrifice.
Tombs of this type, endowed with weapons, are generally characterized as ‘warrior graves’ and mostly date to the LH IIIC period. They are found all over Greece, but especially in the western regions of Achaea and Elis. It is such a distinguishing feature that just in Achaea we have as many as sixteen swords of the Naue II type, the characteristic type of the LH IIIC.
Weapons as grave offerings is not a new custom; it was already known from the time of the Grave Circles of Mycenae, but the term ‘warrior-graves’ is especially used for the graves dating from the 14th century BC onwards, maybe because they are numerous and because the martial qualities of the dead are all the more emphasized. As for the proliferation of these tombs in the LH IIIC period, this probably means that the era was less safe and weapons more in demand.
Apart from those mentioned above, other notable cemeteries are in Mitopoli, Spaliareika, Elaiochori at Achaea Klaus, behind the modern winery, in which an excellent alabaster pyxis decorated with nautili was found – a piece of the highest artistic quality – and the cemetery of Kallithea near Patras with warrior tombs, in one of which an already mentioned horse burial was found. The prosperity of the area is also evidenced by the tholoi, that, apart from Portes, occur at Petroto, Kallithea, Ayios Vasileios Chalandritsas and Katarraktis, in Rodia. Here, in a remote and inaccessible area, two tholos tombs in good condition were discovered; one was looted but the other yielded important finds, such as weapons, a silver bowl and especially a gold-plated dagger decorated with dolphins in the inlaid technique (p. 149).
One of the most important Mycenaean settlements is located at the north-western end of Achaea, at Cape Araxos. It is a Cyclopean acropolis, Teichos Dymaion, which is identified with the Teichos mentioned by Polybius (4.59.4). The name dates back to the Hellenistic period, when the acropolis was the fortress of Dymi, today’s Kato Achaea. The Mycenaean name is not known, although it has been speculated that it may have been the place named Larissa.
The citadel commands a strategic location in the centre of a fertile area, on the border of Achaea and Elis, with a view over the countryside and the sea routes. In fact, at the time the sea reached the south-west side of the foot of the citadel, which today has been turned into a swamp by the alluvium dumped by the river Larissos.
The well-preserved exterior wall of the citadel (see figure 12), differs from the Argive Cyclopean style in that it is built in a pseudo-ashlar masonry, probably due to the nature of the rock used in its construction. The fortification surrounds the three sides of the citadel, except the south-west, which is naturally very steep. Overall, it is 295 m long and in thickness ranges from 4.50 to 5.50 m; it survives to a height of 8.40 m. The long north-west side is 190 m in length and has a curved line that helped those inside defend the citadel.
Figure 12 Achaea. Teichos Dymaion. LH IIIB.
There were three gates. The main gate is at the eastern end of the north-east side and was protected by an L-shaped tower. A ramp cut into the rock leads to the gate, but to take account of the rising terrain inside the citadel a stairway was built. An intermediate gate existed in the middle of the long side of the wall, and another in the north-west. Inside the acropolis, to the right of the main gate, an altar of the Geometric period was found, but the excavator Efthymios Mastrokostas believed that there had previously been a Mycenaean altar in the same place.
The earliest finds at Teichos Dymaion date back to the Neolithic era, but the fortification proper was founded in the LH IIIB period, around 1300 BC. At the same time, or perhaps a little later, inside the citadel, houses were built with small rooms along with storerooms, of which only the foundations survive. The citadel was destroyed by fire around 1200 BC but was immediately reinhabited and remained in use until the end of the Mycenaean era. For the rest of antiquity, as well as in the Byzantine period and also during the Venetian occupation, it was used as a fortress.
This large and powerful Mycenaean acropolis raises several questions and its foundation seems enigmatic. It did not include a palace and had no archives or large storage areas. It was apparently established at this key location for purely defensive purposes, as was the wall at the Isthmus. Therefore, it is possible that its construction was due to the fear of raids, although there are no indications of an actual raid. The other question relates to the ruler who organized this citadel, about whom there is also no information. One theory is that he may also have ruled the rich settlement in Portes, but the distance from Teichos Dymaion is considerable. It is also possible that the Teichos Dymaion was a collective project of the settlements of Achaea and perhaps of a wider area still.
The study of Mycenaean Arcadia in the centre of the Peloponnese is challenging, mainly due to its geological configuration. It is an inaccessible, wooded place, with a continental climate, different from the mild climate preferred by the Mycenaeans. The region has not yet been sufficiently researched. Upon first impression, it is an isolated area that did not participate in major projects, nor play a role in the cultural and economic development of the Mycenaean world. Yet it was not really isolated from the rest of the Mycenaean world, and from an early date it shared some aspects of Mycenaean culture, and its historical trajectory in general follows the evolution of other Mycenaean areas – although seemingly quite independent of any palatial administration.
In the extensive necropolis in Palaiokastro of Gortynia, in use from LH IIA to LH IIIC, two tholos tombs cut into the ground have been discovered. Similar to those of Laconia and Messenia, they display excellent quality ceramics, of a number of different styles, including a stirrup jar of the LH IIIC period; this vase shows Minoan influence, but was probably produced in a local Elian workshop, the so-called Mainland-Minoan workshop, just as others like it found in the neighbouring area. Warrior graves also occur: in Palaiokastro the burial of a young man is accompanied by the prestigious symbols of his social standing, a Naue II sword, a knife and a spearhead.
Settlements are few. One is located at Gortsuli, which is identified with Ptolis, the ancient Mantineia. The most important settlement is, however, Analipsis, a fortified settlement in use from the LH II period until the end of LH IIIB. A large tholos tomb of the LH II period and eight smaller ones have been found in its cemetery. Among its varied ceramics some fine decorated pieces with Minoan influences stand out.
The great discovery in Arcadia has been the Mycenaean sanctuary at the top of Mount Lykaion, exactly in the same location where the sanctuary of Zeus existed in historical times (p. 494).
In studies of the ancient Greek world, Aegina is usually grouped together with the Peloponnese. The reasons are the special ties it had with the Argolid, and also because culturally it belonged to the Doric world. In the Bronze Age, however, it was more closely connected with Attica. The island was first inhabited at the end of the Neolithic, and the important site of Kolona emerged quite early as an important settlement. Here, in the EH and MH periods, a highly urbanized culture with a central administration developed, evident both in the buildings and also in the organization and continuous maintenance of its fortifications. A member of the elite of this society can be recognized in the rich MH burial within the city wall.
In the Mycenaean period, large centres did not develop as the geography of the island is rather against such, but prosperity was the product of trade and contacts with destinations near and far, with Crete (especially in the case of Kolona) and Cyprus. Aegina, thanks to its geographical position, was an important trade hub and controlled the Saronic Gulf and the sea routes from the Peloponnese to Attica and the Aegean. It also had its own exports: its high-quality ceramics, the matt-painted and cooking wares and especially the gold mica ware, which circulated widely from Attica and Boeotia up to Thessaly. The island also produced stone objects for daily use. The manufacture and export of these products reflect the presence of fine clays and stone raw materials available on the island.
After the destruction of the palaces, the various settlements in Aegina declined and were finally abandoned at the beginning of the 12th century BC. The inhabitants dispersed, perhaps retreating to the interior of the island, but most likely they left for other areas. The reason is unknown: it could have been due to the fear of raids, although at present there is no evidence to support this. A fortification raised at the top of Ayios Antonios may be connected with these events, but at the moment there is not enough information to settle the issue.
The first to mention Aegina and the ruins of the temple of Aphaia were the travellers of the 17th century, P. M. Coronelli, J. Spon, and G. Wheler. However, the large influx of visitors occurred later, starting at the beginning of the 19th century. In order to spotlight the Greek antiquities, in 1811 a small company was established in Athens, the Xenioi, which included architects, antiquarians, and individuals interested in antiquities in general; among them were Charles Robert Cockerell, Karl Haller von Hallerstein, Otto Magnus von Stackelberg, John Foster and Jacob Linckh. In the spring of 1811, these and other members of this company visited Aegina, conducted excavations in the temple, discovered and drew the architectural remains and the relief decoration, transported the reliefs to Zakynthos and later sold them in Munich. They went on to act also in Phigaleia with similar results, only those sculptures were sold to the British Museum. In 1829, the famous French expedition Expédition Scientifique de Morée systematically visited the island as did other travellers such as Edward Dodwell and William Martin Leake, who also made various drawings and gave descriptions. From the Greek side, Aegina was studied by Andreas Moustoxydis, first Curator of Antiquities and Director of the National Museum of Aegina from 1829 until the beginning of 1832.
Systematic excavations began at the end of the 19th century by the Archaeological Society at Athens, starting with Valerios Stais in 1895 who explored the hill of Kolona and was the first to locate prehistoric remains under the temple of Apollo. He was succeeded by Antonios Keramopoullos, who conducted excavations near Kolona, at the cemetery of Myloi. At about the same time – in 1901 – the excavations of the German Archaeological Institute in the Temple of Aphaia began, published in 1906 in the monumental work Aegina: Das Heiligtum der Aphaia by A. Furtwängler, E. R. Fiechter and H. Thiersch.
Furtwängler first identified prehistoric material in the sanctuary of Aphaia at a place east of the Archaic temple near the altar. His own and other, more recent, research showed that a cult had apparently been established at the end of the MH, that the acme of the Mycenaean sanctuary dated to the LH IIIA2–IIIB period, and that this was a rural sanctuary with an altar and probably an enclosure that served the neighbouring communities. After the middle of the LH IIIC period, the sanctuary does not seem to have continued in operation, though activity restarted in the early Geometric period. The votive offerings included many figurines of various types, especially kourotrophoi, among which a figurine of rare type, depicting two female figures with a child, along with sealings, seals, beads and more. The identity of the goddess worshipped is unknown, but the finds suggest that it was a female deity succeeded by Aphaia, whose prehistoric origin is extremely probable.
The other sanctuary of Mycenaean Aegina is located on Mount Hellanion, the highest peak of the Saronic Gulf, where the sanctuary of Zeus was established in historical times. This sanctuary was first identified by Andreas Moustoxydis, who proved that the sanctuary of Aphaia was not dedicated to Zeus, as had been formerly believed.
On a plateau just below the top of the mountain were found the remains of a Mycenaean installation, although it may not have been a real settlement, because access is difficult and the weather conditions adverse. But there was an open-air sanctuary where worship was performed, as the many finds indicate: figurines, vases, bronze and stone objects, as well as an iron knife. Chronologically, the floruit of the sanctuary coincides with that of Aphaia, and it was abandoned at the same time.
Kolona is the most important prehistoric settlement of Aegina and, as Hans Walter rightly remarked, it is not just a settlement but essentially a town. Already in the EH II period, it displays an urban character with buildings of the Lerna type, such as the ‘White House’, obviously an ‘administrative’ centre, fortifications and metallurgical facilities.
Excavations were carried out in Kolona after Stais by Gabriel Welter and Hans Walter, among others, and currently they are being continued by the Austrian Archaeological Institute. Eleven prehistoric phases have been identified in the area (2500–1050 BC) which, in spite of the two destructions and alterations in the residential plan that took place, present an impressive homogeneity in the fortifications, constantly reinforced with ramparts, towers, gates and bastions, as well as in the pottery, where shapes and patterns show a continuous evolution.
The phases follow each other without any intrusive foreign elements and the only novelty that appeared around 2000 BC was the newly introduced Minyan pottery, which did not affect the local styles at all.
A destruction took place around 2200 BC, when the ‘White House’ was demolished, and a second larger destruction occurred around 2050 BC, when the settlement burned down and new inhabitants arrived who do not appear to have been foreigners. The population movements around 2000 BC concerned Greek tribes that shifted around within the Greek cultural landscape. Associated with the destruction of 2200 BC is a valuable treasure recently found in a room of a house.
Phase VIII (1900–1800 BC) was a rich period for Kolona, when the matt-painted ware appeared and contacts were established with Minoan Crete and the Cyclades. Phase IX (1800–1650 BC) was likewise a period of prosperity. A large building, the seat of the ruler, was built at a central point, the fortifications were strengthened and the overseas activities of the inhabitants intensified. All this is dynamically reflected in the pottery, with its marine motifs in an emerging Pictorial Style, lively themes observed first-hand from life on ships and at sea. Around 1700 BC, the ruler, or someone of his class, died and was buried near the wall, next to the south gate, in a shaft grave of an earlier Mycenaean form. The location was significant, and the tomb richly endowed with weapons, including a sword with a gold-and-ivory hilt, bronze knives, one with golden animal heads in the outer corners of the blade, boar’s tusks, spearheads and also a gold band diadem, all of which were accompanied by excellent pieces of Cycladic and Minoan pottery.
Phase XI is Mycenaean (see figure 13). The central administration still existed and looked after the fortifications, obviously because the need for defence remained, but the splendour of earlier times has been lost, perhaps because it was overshadowed by the presence of the neighbouring large centres. An extension, built in the Cyclopean style, was added to the wall and a safer entrance was formed. Pottery of local inspiration came to an end and in this final phase a new ceramic era commenced which adopted Mycenaean standards. Commercial activities continued unabated, although Kolona was no longer the only important centre, as others were developing, mainly on the east side of the island, such as Lazarides. Towards the end of the Mycenaean era, Kolona shrank and was eventually abandoned like the other settlements of Aegina, but not forgotten.
Figure 13 Aegina. Kolona XI. Mycenaean fortification of Cyclopean type. Part of the north-east side. 16th century BC.
Near the town of Kolona is the cemetery of Myloi, which includes various types of tombs used from the LH I period until the end of LH IIIB/early IIIC. There, in the Brown vineyard, Keramopoullos excavated chamber tombs in which he observed the characteristic burial customs known from elsewhere, such as vessels containing ash, tephra or sea sand, as well as many shells as votive tributes. From his research, he formed the opinion that the ‘Aegina Treasure’ came from the same vineyard, but from an older tomb; the Treasure was sold to the British Museum.
The ‘Aegina Treasure’ comprises a gold cup and an impressive set of gold jewellery, including chest-ornaments, necklaces, earrings, rings with inlays of lapis lazuli, bracelets and many beads of gold or semi-precious stones. The treasure was found in a chamber tomb, but it is not certain whether all the jewellery came from this tomb only or from other tombs too; also it is not known when the items were collected as a ‘treasure’ and hidden. Definitely, they were not transferred to Aegina as a group from another region, such as Crete, as previously believed. A general homogeneity is observed in that all the objects date from the end of MH into LH I, although they do not appear to have been entirely contemporaneous.
Some of these are elaborate objects, while others are cruder, suitable only for burial use. From an artistic point of view, the style that most of them present is quite idiosyncratic, special and fascinating, an amalgam from many elements – Minoan, Mycenaean, Egyptian and Eastern. They are the products of three or four different workshops, but it is not known whether the goldsmiths worked on Aegina or at some other place. It is noteworthy though that in those years a society existed on Aegina that sought and could afford such expensive adornments; this is corroborated by the early Helladic treasure from Kolona and the rich burial near the wall.
The settlement of Lazarides was discovered relatively recently (1979) and is systematically being researched by a team from the University of Athens. It is a mountainous settlement on the east side of the island, between Aphaia and Mount Hellanion, it commands the east coast and the seaway that leads to Attica and the Cyclades, but it is actually invisible from the sea. It was founded at the end of the 17th century BC, experienced a period of prosperity in the 14th and 13th centuries BC, at the same time as Aphaia and Mount Hellanion, and was abandoned at the beginning of the 12th century BC. The houses had stone walls, preserved to a reasonable height (1–1.50 m), without a brick superstructure, and with roofs of slate. They comprise living, storage and working areas. The finds include cooking ware, pithoi and various other types of pottery, bronze tools, a stone mould, querns and grinders etc. Apart from the items of daily life, however, the settlement also displayed evidence of commercial activities, as indicated by the weights recovered, one of which, made of lead in the form of a duck, finds its best parallel in Cyprus.
Near the settlement is the cemetery. The tombs, built chambers with a four-sided room and an entrance placed eccentrically on one side, belong to a quite rare form. They are built, like the houses, entirely of a local hard stone. The chambers are quite large, 7 sq. m and 1.60–1.80 m high. The dromoi, also large, are stone-lined with facades formed by pilasters. It is obvious that the inhabitants sought to project a monumentality in their funerary architecture. The cemetery was in use from the 14th to the 12th century BC, but the burial type is older and there may be older tombs in the area that are not yet known. As in the settlement, the finds present a wide variety of pottery from various parts of the Argolid, Attica and Boeotia, figurines, seal stones, beads of semi-precious stones and amber – also metal objects, some of which are made of iron, a rare material appearing as a precious offering in rich tombs before its use became widespread.
Attica is the centre of many famous legends, like those of Theseus, Erechtheus and Kekrops; and Athens is the place where perhaps we can best study the survival of Mycenaean religion in Greece and the continuous worship of a hero from prehistoric to historic times.
Athens was continuously and quite densely populated from the Middle Helladic period. The settlements extended around the Acropolis both on the north and south sides, as well as towards the Olympieion and Areopagus. The most important and richest cemetery was in the Agora, where the oldest tombs date back to the LH IIA period. The cemetery was in use until LH IIIC, a period during which burials became more scarce, indicating that burial activities were being moved elsewhere. Indeed, the Kerameikos cemetery came into use in LH IIIC and especially in the Sub-Mycenaean period.
Settlements and cemeteries are scattered throughout Attica. Some settlements were founded in the early LH I or even the final MH period, such as Aphidna, where there is a Middle Helladic tumulus similar to the Messenian ones. Other settlements, such as Ayios Georgios in Koropi, Ayios Kosmas, Brauron, Thorikos and Marathon were in use already in EH times. There were also walled settlements, namely Vari and Kiafa Thiti. Among the cemeteries, Ayios Kosmas and Vari-Varkiza are important in the area, corresponding to the Attic deme of Anagyrous, also Brauron, and especially Perati, which will be discussed in another chapter (p. 557).
Kiafa Thiti was an important settlement not only because of the large area it occupied, 10,000 sq. m, but mainly and in particular because of its fortification wall, not a typical Cyclopean one, but a precursor of this type. It dates to LH I–II, before the well-known Cyclopean technique had appeared. It consists of large raw boulders and, as with Cyclopean proper, has two faces with the gap in between filled with smaller stones; the width ranges from 2.70 to 6 m, much as in the Cyclopean ones. In many places the wall is founded directly on the bedrock; on the inside it has cross-walls that create casemate-rooms and it boasts towers on either side of the main gate; on the outside its outline forms corners where they are necessary in order to adapt the wall to the curve of the enclosure. This wall gives a picture of the fortifications that would have existed in the Argive citadels early on, and also allows us to understand the way in which the Mycenaeans solved various problems and gradually developed their technical skills.
Mycenaean Thorikos was built in a strategic position on the top of the hill Velatouri, overlooking two natural ports. It was founded at the beginning of LH I and owed its importance to the neighbouring mines of Lavrion.
The earliest evidence for the exploitation of Lavrion silver and lead ore dates back to the end of the Neolithic, when processing the ores using the method of cupellation seems to begin. The first fragment of prehistoric litharge dates back to the 16th century BC and is contemporary with the development of the settlement. As early as the end of the MH period, silver is used on the Cycladic islands of Kea, Melos and Thera, as well as on Crete and in Mainland Greece. The connection these areas had with Thorikos is also demonstrated by the parallels observed in the burial finds.
Thorikos is also important for its burial architecture. Five sizable tombs have been uncovered. Tombs I and II are dated to LH IIA–IIIA and belong to the category of built chamber tombs, similar to the built tombs of Eleusis. Tomb V is the earliest and dates to the end of the Middle Helladic period, contemporary with tumuli I and II of Vrana in Marathon and some of the graves in Circle B at Mycenae. It is a cist grave encircled by a rectangular construction of the megaron type, with the entrance in one of the narrow sides and covered by a tumulus surrounded with a circular retaining wall of about 17.50 m. in diameter. Against the external face of this wall and in its northern section there is a low rectangular platform probably connected with a funerary cult. Tomb IV, the so-called oblong tomb (see figure 14), is the most interesting. It is rectangular, with two semi-circular extensions on the narrow sides, and was also covered with a mound. Built of large slabs, the chamber measures 9 m in length by 3.5 m in width, and is preserved to a height of 5 m. The roof had a linear apex as opposed to the pointed apex of the true tholoi. The crest line of the vault was formed by five 6 m-long limestone blocks of rectangular section, now lying on the floor. The tomb has a dromos, which is eccentrically positioned in relation to the chamber and shows a narrowing on its west side, a sign that the original plan had undergone some alteration. A relieving triangle above the entrance does not extend beyond the thickness of the masonry. It is obvious that the tomb represents an experimental stage by the architect who intended to build a vault. It dates to just before 1500 BC and is contemporary with graves III and Δ of the two Mycenaean Grave Circles. Finally, tomb III is a real tholos but also early in date, because here too the relieving triangle is unfinished. It has affinities with the tomb of Aegisthus at Mycenae. The tomb is surrounded by a circular enclosure; inside it, three pits and two built sarcophagi were found. It dates shortly after 1500 BC. The last two tombs, III and IV, are significant because in them we can observe the evolution of the vaulted tomb and the role played by the mound in this process.
Figure 14 Thorikos. Tomb IV, ‘oblong tomb’. Plan. End of 16th century BC. (Thorikos VIII).
Figure 14Long description
The plan includes a circular structure made of blocks, with a central passage. There are also sections labelled, Section 1 and Section 2, as well as a Relieving triangle. The plan also indicates the Ground plan at the height of the first row of blocks. A scale in metres is provided at the bottom left. It ranges from 0 through 5 metres.
In the early Mycenaean era, Thorikos experienced its greatest development. It appears that it was this community that exploited the mines during those early years. We do not know much about its organization: the wealthy tombs indicate affluent families, but their place of residence is unknown. In this transitional period between the Middle Helladic and the Mycenaean, the emergence of powerful families that commanded respect by their wealth is observed everywhere. Some of them continued to rule, while others lost their power and fell to stronger lords, as we assume happened in Thorikos, which declines after the end of this early period. Perhaps the demand for silver decreases, perhaps again the exploitation of the mines changed hands. Silver, an extremely precious metal, was used not only for the manufacture of precious utensils, but also served as a means of exchange in this pre-monetary society.
The prehistoric acropolis of Brauron, at the eastern end of Attica, is a limestone hill that dominates the South Euboean Gulf, near a good harbour. At the foot of the hill is the famous sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia, where the cult was established as early as the Protogeometric period, and two more sacred sites, one of them the so-called Heroon of Iphigenia.
The place was inhabited from the Neolithic until the LH IIIB2 period. The site was investigated by Ioannis Papadimitriou from 1948 until his death in 1963, under the auspices of the Archaeological Society.
On the northern slope of the hill, finds from the Early Cycladic II, a Spedos-type figurine and a pyxis lid, indicate early contact with the Cyclades, which is probably explained by the Cycladic interest in the silver of the neighbouring Lavrion mines. The pottery of the area also includes vessels of the EH II period, of the ‘sauceboat’ type, which hints towards a ritual activity.
Mycenaean remains are located at the top of the hill, including ruins of a house conventionally called the ‘Middle Helladic house’, which came into use by LH I. The cooking ware and drinking vessels found in this house, and dated to the LH IIB–IIIA1 period, indicate food preparation and feasting. Almost contemporary are the finds from a deposit of mainly ritual vessels, discovered outside the north-east side of the house, near the entrance of a walling – part of an enclosure that had a U-shape and surrounded an area of about 1,000 sq. m. It is obviously a construction of religious character or temenos.
Large amounts of pottery, mainly from the Shaft Graves era, have been found around these structures; all of it is imported and of good quality. Multiple categories and types are represented which cannot be listed here, and many are the areas that appear to have relations with Brauron, namely the Cyclades, Crete, Athens, Boeotia and Central Greece.
The combination of the various elements that emerged from the excavations, the evidence of feasts, the precinct wall, the ritual vessels and the variety of ceramics, all lead to the reasonable conclusion that a sanctuary existed on the acropolis of Brauron, perhaps open-air, intended to accommodate a large congregation. The deity worshipped is unknown, but she would probably have been either a goddess of nature and fertility, who was replaced by Artemis, or the Potnia Theron, Mistress of Animals, who is associated with water and leads rite-of-passage ceremonies.
Activities at the acropolis stopped around 1200 BC, in the LH IIIB2 period. The neighbouring cemetery, however, was still in use for at least two or three more generations, which means that the area was inhabited, but, as in other places in Attica, the settlement has not been found.
Marathon had been continuously inhabited since the EH period; it held a key geographical position for maritime communications between the northern and southern Aegean, opening onto the Gulf of Euboea and the Cyclades, with which it had been in contact for a long time. Cycladic people had apparently settled in Marathon in the EH period, as indicated by the rich cemetery of Tsepi.
In the MH period, there was a remarkable installation at the coastal site of Plasi. A large megaron-like structure was named by Marinatos the ‘Palace’ – the Megaron – and was contemporary with tomb I at Vranas, as well as with another tomb in the place named Klopa. The settlement was fortified and had relations with the Cyclades and Aegina. At the end of MH or at the beginning of LH I the buildings were destroyed and a cemetery was established in their place, a phenomenon that has been remarked upon elsewhere, when newcomers arrive or new settlement-patterns are established. The tombs are found scattered among the houses, but never inside the Megaron, which was visible and obviously respected as a relic of the past. The Mycenaean settlement was moved to the south-east of the Middle Helladic one and dates to the LH IIIA. There is no solid information about the intermediate period, and the remnants of the settlement itself are very fragmentary. The old Middle Helladic site was not completely abandoned, as is indicated by the animal bones and many goblets found demonstrating that ritual gatherings may have taken place there. It is assumed that there was a second settlement in Agriliki, but this has not yet been confirmed.
Vranas is one of the most important funerary ensembles of the Bronze Age (see figure 15). It comprises four tumuli, a real tumulus cemetery, as it has been characteristically labelled, and one tholos. Tumulus I is the oldest, belonging to the Middle Helladic period; inside, it has a second small circular enclosure. It contained a total of eight tombs. Important is tomb 2, a spacious, rectangular built tomb, with a doorway, a separate stomion and projecting antae, and a megaron-like main chamber. Tomb 3, which like the previous tomb 2 abuts the outer wall of the inner enclosure, has a square chamber and an entrance with pilasters consisting of two upright slabs of stone. A very well-preserved horse skeleton was found on the floor of the chamber, but is actually dated to the medieval period.
Figure 15 Marathon. The area of the tumuli at Vranas. Site plan (I. Travlos).
Figure 15Long description
The museum building is centrally located on the left side of the plan. It is a large, rectangular structure with a series of steps leading up to the entrance. It is surrounded by landscaping, including trees and pathways. To the right of the museum, there are several circular areas labelled with Roman numerals 1 through 6. A road or pathway curves along the bottom of the plan, leading towards the museum. A scale bar is located at the bottom left corner, ranging from 0 through 60 metres.
The other three tumuli are Mycenaean. Their location near Tumulus I is obviously chosen to establish a link with the ancestors. Tumulus II, dating to the beginning of the Mycenaean period, contained only an elongated built tomb, with a courtyard, vestibule and an entrance with projecting antae. The megaron-like chamber is surrounded by a rectangular construction whose rear wall is apsidal in shape.
These burials indicate that leading figures emerged in the local community, who differentiated themselves from the social context by their luxurious burials. We also notice that in Attica mounds are a typical feature, as in Messenia. Others similar to them have been found in the area of Marathon, and Marinatos believed that the discovery of the burials in Vranas was not exhaustive and that more mounds would come to light. In comparison to the Middle Helladic period, we may observe that cult practices also evolved, as shown by a circular altar between Tumuli I and II as well as by a light structure in Tumulus I consisting of two orthostats placed on a slab and leaning against the western outer wall of the inner circle; two adjacent jar necks are apparently related to this structure.
Near the mounds is the tholos tomb. The dromos is quite long and contained two small horses buried in a pit near the entrance, placed on their sides in an antithetical arrangement. This extravagant offering means that the tomb belonged to a prominent family. The chamber was full of ashes, a large rectangular cavity had been opened in its floor, at the bottom of which there were two small cist graves; one of the dead was honoured with a golden cup of the same type as the cups of the Mycenae Grave Circles. The finds show that the tholos tomb of Marathon was built in LH II but was still in use in the 13th century BC.
Other rich Mycenaean tombs have been found in Attica. In Menidi (ancient Acharnai), the well-preserved tholos tomb dates to the LH IIIA2 period. The jewellery, the ivory-work of exquisite craftsmanship and the Canaanite amphorae indicate that the deceased belonged to a wealthy family that had contacts with the Syrian-Palestinian coast, or perhaps with a palace centre; one thinks immediately of Thebes, then in its floruit.
The two chamber tombs that have been found in Spata date to the LH IIIA1 period, but were in use until the end of LH IIIB, as was the tomb of Menidi. They were also rich: the finds include jewellery, ivory-work, boar’s tusks from helmets, agate seals and other objects which do not give any specific information about the owners of the tomb or the area they ruled, but only stressed the fact that they belonged to families of the uppermost social stratum.
In Salamis, a large Sub-Mycenaean cemetery at the Arsenal, as well as many other Mycenaean tombs scattered around the island, had been known for a long time. In 2000, the Mycenaean settlement at Kanakia on the south-west coast, opposite Aegina, was discovered and excavated by the University of Ioannina, under the direction of Ioannis Lolos. The settlement was completely destroyed already in antiquity and the area deserted, just as Strabo describes it (9.1.9): ‘it contains a city of the same name; the ancient city, now deserted, faces towards Aegina’ (trans. H. L. Jones). The classical city of Salamis was in Ambelakia looking onto Athens.
The residential centre in Kanakia (see figure 16) includes an acropolis over two neighbouring hills, where the main quarter was located having a general command over the surrounding area and access to two natural harbours; smaller houses were on the slopes of the hills and even further below. High up on the acropolis was found a compact building complex with workshops, consisting of three buildings (IA, IB, IΔ). The so-called Kychreia Odos, a paved road that comes up from the sea, ends at building IB. The entrance of the building was laid out according to an original design, a peculiar triangular gate guarded by a tower-like structure. From this complex come remarkable finds, such as stone tools, whetstones, a slingshot, figurines, clay bathtubs, steatite buttons, knives, weights, seals and a large quantity of imported fine pottery, decorated and plain, from Attica and the Peloponnese, and coarse ware from Aegina; the pottery shows connections with Crete, the Dodecanese and especially Cyprus. Specifically from Cyprus comes a part of a wall-bracket, as well as an amphora inscribed with a sign in the Cypro-Minoan script. Also from these buildings comes a hoard of bronze objects, tools, a sickle-shaped knife, plaques and sheets and more, that was hidden away in the LH IIIC period. A unique and important find is a scale from an armour corselet bearing the seal of Pharaoh Ramses II showing the connections of Salamis with the wider Mediterranean.
Figure 16 Salamis. Kanakia. The Mycenaean building complexes. Residential part and workshops. LH IIIΒ–IIIC. (I. Lolos).
Figure 16Long description
The plan depicts several buildings and structures, represented by outlines of walls and rooms. Some buildings are labelled with Greek letters and others are labelled with Roman numerals including I, I A and I B. A cluster of buildings is labelled the Eastern complex on the right side. The contour lines surround the outlines of buildings. A scale bar is present in the lower left corner, ranging from 0 through 50 metres. A north arrow is located in the upper right corner.
Higher up, on the uppermost level of the acropolis, is Building Γ, which has two entrances and twin megara, definitely having an administrative function. The floors and walls were plastered. It is not certain whether it had a hearth, but two platforms, one in each megaron, probably acted as tables to receive offerings. From Building Γ come two large steatite spindle whorls with engraved decoration of Cypriot/Eastern style, and, importantly, part of a copper oxhide ingot, which attests to the transport of pure copper from Cyprus to the Aegean area. A short distance away from this complex, at Pyrgiakoni, a building of a cultic character has been located and is being studied; it was clearly connected with the adjacent cemetery.
The buildings at Kanakia date to LH IIIB and the early LH IIIC period. After the middle of LH IIIC, the buildings were partly destroyed and abandoned. The inhabitants left for the interior of the island, or for more distant destinations such as Cyprus, which is connected with Salamis both in myth and in finds. The story goes that it was the legendary Teukros from Attica who founded the city of Salamis in Cyprus.
For a short period of time, new but impoverished people settled in Kanakia. They blocked off certain walls, thus changing the internal layout of the structures, but shortly after the middle of the 12th century BC they left the area, which was afterwards completely deserted, just as Strabo recorded so much later.
Eleusis today is very much damaged and marred by industrial facilities and unregulated construction. However, in historical times it was one of the most important places in the Greek world because of the special mythological cycle that connected it with the great goddess Demeter, the vegetation cycle, the seasons of the year, and life and death. All were bound up in the famous Eleusinian mysteries, whose secret was never revealed by the initiates.
The area of Eleusis has been investigated by Dimitrios Filios, Konstantinos Kourouniotis, George Mylonas, as well as Ioannis Travlos, who also prepared the excellent architectural plans of the site. Recently, Michael Cosmopoulos conducted stratigraphic excavations and published the Bronze Age remains from the settlement, successfully clarifying the early history of the site.
Eleusis, located on the slopes and at the top of a low acropolis, was one of the settlements of Attica that was founded in the MH period. The Mycenaean finds come from the south of the acropolis, but mainly from the east slope, where the Telesterion was later built. Beneath this building, excavations revealed a MH apsidal building. At the beginning of the LH IIA period, in the same place, a rectangular building was constructed, comprising a porch and a main hall, whose roof was supported by two columns. In LH IIB this building, Megaron B (see figure 17) as it is called in the report, acquired elements that characterize it as a sanctuary. In front of the porch, a platform was placed and a drainage system was created. An extension was built and a protective enclosure-wall around the whole complex isolated Megaron B and its extensions from the surrounding area. The raised platform, the precinct, the ceramic finds, the scattered figurines all demonstrate the sacred purpose of the installation. In the drainage system, ashes were found mixed with sherds of the LH IIB–IIIA1 periods, and burnt animal bones – piglets, which means that burnt sacrifices apparently were performed on the platform – which, therefore, must have served as an altar – and the remains were then washed away by cleansing waters. It has been argued quite convincingly that Megaron B was the residence of the ruler of the region, and that it acquired gradually a sacred character and that the interior of the precinct became a place of worship for a select audience. Indeed, no other official building has been found in Eleusis that can be associated with any administrative or religious authority. Very close to Megaron B and perhaps connected to it, there is a large built tomb, οne of the largest of this type in Greece, originally constructed in the MH times. Later, in LH IIA–B, it was repaired and enclosed in a rectangular casing. The tomb remained in use until the end of the LH IIIA2 period, when some reversal of fortune must have happened to the family that used it or a change in the social organization took place.
Figure 17 Eleusis. Megaron B. Plan (I. Travlos).
Figure 17Long description
The temple is enclosed within a rectangular boundary defined by a double-lined border. The interior of the temple complex is divided into several sections. The main structure, likely the Megaron itself, is a rectangular space in the upper left quadrant of the plan. There are steps leading up to the entrance, labelled B 3. To the left of the entrance, there are areas marked as B 2 and B 5. The perimeter of the temple complex is lined with a stone wall. The wall is labelled, B 6 in the upper and lower left corner and B 7 on the right side of the plan. A scale that ranges from 0 through 10 metres is provided at the bottom of the plan. A compass is at the top right of the map.
The deity who was worshipped in Megaron B is not known. Mylonas had previously claimed that it was Demeter, perhaps because pigs were also sacrificed in her worship, and because Demeter is associated with Eleusis in myth. He also insisted that the Mysteries already existed in the Mycenaean era, but such a hypothesis cannot be proven. What is certain, however, is that the sanctity of the place was preserved, or rather the memory of the sanctuary was, and so Eleusis is a characteristic lieu de mémoire. Megaron B continued to be used until the end of the LH IIIB period. Subsequently, the area shrank, and the population dwindled, but there is no gap in occupation, as is evidenced by the finds of the LH IIIC and the Post-Mycenaean periods. Indeed, Megaron B was still standing in the Geometric period when a curved wall was built, perhaps replacing the old precinct wall. At the same time cult returned, centred on the space where the Geometric pyres A, B, C were set up near the precinct wall on a terrace created at the time: it was a chthonic cult of a completely different form and meaning, but maintaining the sanctity of the place. Finally, the Telesterion of Peisistratus was built right over the old ruins, although this location was not the most suitable for a large building, which means that this site was of particular importance and had somehow become consecrated ground.
At a distance of about 750 m north-west of the Telesterion is the large cemetery of Eleusis, which was in use from the Middle Helladic period until the end of LH IIIB. The tombs are built; the older are usually simple cists, but by the end of MH the characteristic, for Eleusis, large rectangular tombs with an entrance, and certainly intended for family burials, have appeared. However, scattered tombs from the beginning of the Mycenaean period, LH II, are also found in the area, such as the one close to Megaron B, already mentioned. It is noteworthy that in Eleusis the chamber tombs so widespread in the nearby areas were uncommon, and only four of such a type have been located.
Even though the Mycenaean settlement spread over a large area and enjoyed a lot of wealth, Eleusis never evolved into a palatial centre but remained a satellite site. It had connections with the palace of Thebes and seems to have been its harbour. It also had close relations with Aegina. Eleusis provided the route for Aeginetan pots and products into both Attica and Boeotia.
Apparently, Attica was split up in the Mycenaean period into smaller or larger units, seemingly independent of each other. It is not possible to determine to which ruling class the luxurious burials belong. It is also not known with which body, city or palace the exploitation of the mines of Lavrion, a great source of wealth, went. Small coastal settlements, Thorikos, Brauron, Marathon, developed early in the Bronze Age and opened up the sea routes to the north and into the Aegean. These very same routes were followed in the Mycenaean expansion as settlers pushed out of the Argolid or Corinthia. There is no indication that Athens commanded any degree of authority. Athens with its Acropolis became the centre of Attica (p. 330) only in the LH IIIB period at the time of the development of large fortifications along with the reorganization of the general network of the Argive citadels.
In Euboea, Chalkis and Eretria were, among others, remarkable Mycenaean centres with fortified settlements. In the general overview of Mycenaean Greece being given in this chapter, Lefkandi is of special archaeological and historical importance.
Lefkandi, or Xeropolis, where excavations are carried out by the British School at Athens, is located on the south coast of Euboea opposite Boeotia, at the edge of the Lelantine plain, at the point where the South Euboean Gulf approaches the straits of Euripos. Thus, it is important geographically because it overlooks this busy sea route. Xeropolis is built between two bays that act as harbours, on a narrow and low plateau with steep slopes, like a mound, protruding into the sea.
The settlement was large, 8,000–9,000 sq. m, indeed among the largest in the central Aegean. It was inhabited and fortified from the end of the MH period right up to the end of LH IIIC. But there are few remains from the older periods, because at the beginning of the LH IIIC period the area was considerably remodelled and the settlement rebuilt from scratch in a highly organized manner. While other settlements were in decline, at Xeropolis there was an increase in population. It was one of the places where new residents moved in and settled after the destruction of the palaces, creating a new way of life. It has been observed that the settlements that experienced a renaissance in those years owed their success to their geographical location: near the sea at a point where it is easy to travel and to ensure communication of the Aegean with the wider Mediterranean.
Xeropolis had large two-storey houses with storage spaces and a relatively organized construction with courtyards and alleys. One of the largest buildings, called by the excavators the ‘Megaron’ (see figure 18), was perhaps the essential administrative centre of this large settlement; in one area of the ‘Megaron’ signs of worship have been observed. The building, despite all the destruction that the site suffered, survived into the Post-Mycenaean period, but without a cult character. A wall, possibly double, crosses the settlement from east to west. It appears to have been part of the fortification wall, as there seems to have existed deliberate landscaping of the approach to the site with an entrance into its northern section. A ‘ritual zone’ has been identified on the western side. In structures dated to the 12th–10th centuries BC, there is a series of places of worship characterized by the ritual display of sacred objects, animal bones and figurines, also providing evidence for communal food consumption, an arrangement which has been observed in other cases.
Figure 18 Euboea – Lefkandi. Xeropolis. The ‘Megaron’. LH IIIC. (Irene Lemos).
After a destruction in the middle of the LH IIIC period, the settlement was repaired with some greater care for elegance. According to the excavator, it is most likely that there were changes in the social structure. Xeropolis enjoyed a period of prosperity in the middle of the LH IIIC phase, which is reflected not only in the more meticulous construction of the buildings, but mainly in the ceramics, where a characteristic Pictorial Style developed, with some excellent examples. There is evidence for craft activities like copper-working and textiles, perhaps for mats, fishermen’s nets or sails, probably produced in every house. Imports attest to commercial activities, such as obsidian from Melos, emery from Naxos, pithoi and cooking-pots from Aegina, which suggest that maybe people from that island settled in Lefkandi. Additionally, there are objects that came from afar, as indicated by the beads of semi-precious stones, a scarab of lapis lazuli, an iron knife, fragments of pottery from Cyprus, an Octopus Style stirrup jar from Chania, burnished handmade ceramics, knives, a pin showing contacts with Italy and the western Balkans, and others. At the end of the LH IIIC period, the settlement was destroyed again by fire; although after this destruction the new buildings were poorer and the finds more limited, the continuity in pottery suggests that it was not abandoned. Eventually a new type of structure appeared in the Protogeometric period.
In Lokris, the islet of Mitrou is located in the bay of Atalanta, in the North Euboean Gulf, not far from important prehistoric sites, about 20 km north of Gla and Orchomenos, and 50 km north of Thebes. It is now a flat and low islet, only 12 m above sea level, covering an area of 3,600 sq. m. The ancient remains cover the entire islet, but also extend to a depth of 3 m below the present sea level, a sign that this was lower in antiquity than it is today. Mitrou was perhaps then not an island at all, but a small cape attached to the mainland.
Archaeological interest in the site came about for two reasons. First, a surface survey showed that the specimens collected covered a continuous range of habitation from Neolithic to Roman, with peaks in two periods, the Mycenaean and the Protogeometric. Second, because the geographical location of the islet was advantageous, in an era where the land roads were difficult, the sea lanes made communication much easier. Through the Gulf of Euboea with its safe harbours on both the Mainland and the Euboean shores, southern Greece was connected to the northern areas of Phthiotis, Thessaly and the northern Aegean. In fact, this may have been the most important sea route for the region during the Mycenaean period.
It is noteworthy that in the Classical period various fortresses were established at the same coastal places on the Gulf of Euboea.
The excavation of Mitrou began in 2004, as a collaboration between the American School of Classical Studies, under the direction of Aleydis van de Moortel, and the Ninth Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities. Mitrou proved to be an important place that helps us to understand two key events of Greek pre- and early history, namely the transition from the Middle Helladic period to the start of the Mycenaean and the transition from the end of the Bronze Age to the historical era. Both these transitions, which in many places were accompanied by destructions, marked deep changes in the cultural development of Greece, but occurred within the same broad cultural context; this proves that there were no gaps or fundamental breaks but, on the contrary, a general continuity in cultural development.
The Middle Helladic settlement at Mitrou was a rural one, with simple houses and intra muros burials. It was also a fishermen’s settlement: in one of its narrow streets, some 40 m from the present shoreline, the imprint of the hull of a ship was found. It was made of oak, using unworked logs (a log-boat), suitable for short journeys in the Euboean Gulf; it dates to the MH II period, around the end of the 19th century BC. The find is extremely valuable for the history of navigation and shipbuilding in prehistoric times.
The LH I period, an era in which the Mycenaean prevalence is established with the emergence of a new social class, an elite that gained power through its weapons, organization and wealth, brings great changes to Mitrou. A new settlement is created on a completely different scale with an urban character that presupposes a central administration. Large, wide cobbled streets are opened according to a rectangular layout with length ranging from 60 to 80 m and width about 3 m, able to accommodate the two-wheeled Mycenaean light chariot, known from representations. Three of these streets lead to two large, well-built structures – H and D. In one of them, Building H, a horse-bridle made of deer antler with engraved wavy and spiral decoration was found; it is related to similar objects common in the Transdanubian countries and the territory of the Carpathians. It is not known if this item was imported – it appears to have been of Aegean manufacture, but it demonstrates the connections and influences that were circulating at the time, and the preferences of those who set out to obtain expensive and exotic accessories. The exact use of the buildings is not known: they were probably used as the residences of officials, but they also had craft facilities, such as one for the production of purple dye.
Changes are also observed in burial practices. The inhabitants of Mitrou no longer bury their dead in their homes and a large cemetery is established in the Middle Helladic settlement and, as in other parts of Greece at this time, an attempt is made to ‘separate the world of the dead from the world of the living’. There are tombs that stand out from the others, such as cists that were placed in a prominent position and contained important finds. Most significant, however, is a large built chamber tomb set over the north-western part of one of the buildings already mentioned – Building D (see figure 19). The chamber is lined with sandstone slabs as a sign of luxury, since this is a material brought in from elsewhere (Mitrou does not have sandstone in its bedrock). One of the streets of the city ends at the dromos of the tomb in the form of a propylon. The entire burial complex is housed in a rectangular enclosure built of hewn poros limestone, the exterior of which was plastered and painted white; a platform inside the enclosure was apparently intended for ritual activities. The tomb was looted, but some finds of valuable materials are preserved, such as gold and silver nails and amber beads. It is obvious that this was a monument that belonged to an important member of society, perhaps the ruler himself, and intended to impress at a time when a particular class was trying to establish itself.
Figure 19 Lokris. Mitrou 2009. The north-eastern area. Plan. Buildings D, B, C, A and the large tomb 73 are indicated (Aleydis van de Moortel).
Figure 19Long description
The plan shows the layout of several buildings labelled Building F, Building D, Building E, Building G and Building I and other features such as roads, tombs, cists, platforms and kilns. The plan uses a variety of periods and shades to label M H, L H I, L H 2 A, L H 2 B, L H 3 A, L H 3 B and L H 3 C. The plan includes coordinates in the upper left corner that includes 13 600.67 X and - 12 660.05 Y. A scale bar is provided at the bottom left, indicating a distance of 5 metres. The legends include M H, M H 2, M H 3, L H 1, L H 1, L H 3 A all phases, L H 3 C early to middle, L H 3 C middle to late and P G, L H 1 and L H 2 B, L H 1 and L H 2 B, L H 1 and L H 2 A 2 middle, L H 2 A, L H 2 B, L H 2 B and L H 3 A 2 middle, L H 2 B and L H 3 A 2 middle, L H 2 B and L H 3 A 2 late, L H 2 B, L H 3 A 2 middle and L H 3 C early to middle and more.
Tombs of this type are relatively rare. They usually appear in the beginning of the Mycenaean age before Mycenaeanization proper has crystallized and Mycenaean burial types have become prevalent. They are not completely identical but have original elements depending on the ruling personage for whom they were intended. In the contemporary and similar monumental tombs at Thorikos, Marathon and Eleusis we can observe interesting similarities, but also differences.
In the LH II period, the burial complex is expanded, both the chamber itself and the precinct wall, so that they achieve even greater monumentality. The side walls of the dromos are given a revetment, and the interior of the enclosure is probably covered with a mound. The finds are more numerous and correspond to the finds of other Mycenaean tombs of the same period, such as gold and rock crystal jewellery, wild boar’s tusks, imported vases of high quality, a spearhead and objects indicating contact with other areas and the mercantile activities of this island site. The excavators rightly assume that the rulers of Mitrou are now fully members of the Mycenaean system, an association that resulted in the accumulation of glory and power.
Despite the prosperity, however, at the end of the LH IIIA2 period the settlement in Mitrou is destroyed, but not abandoned; it seems that construction activity comes to a halt and only in ceramics is continuity witnessed with certainty. It is not known why thriving sites are destroyed in the LH IIIA1–2 period, a fact that has been observed in other parts of Greece, but the excavators suggest that it was due either to internal rivalries of factions and rulers, or that in this case the islet, important for its geographical position, came under the sway of Orchomenos. Towards the end of the LH IIIB2 period the political situation changed. The destruction of the fortified site of Gla indicates the demise of the palatial polity of Orchomenos since the two centres were linked through the drainage system of the Copais. At that time, there were further destructions at Mitrou. Based on the ceramics, it has been hypothesized that these calamities are to be associated with reorientations in allegiance; a change of power brought the islet into the sphere of influence of Thebes. In the LH IIIC period, the settlement was rebuilt anew and acquired a different character. The entrance to the large tomb remained open and visible for 170 years. This means that people retained a memory and an awareness of the importance of the monument.
The settlement of the LH IIIC period followed the pattern of its pre-palatial form, at least partly. LH IIIC walls were often built over pre-palatial ones; on top of Building D, the most important ruin of LH II, Building B was constructed, the largest of the new settlement, clearly upholding the memory of the importance of the area, a phenomenon known also from elsewhere – such as Tiryns, interpreted as an attempt by post-palatial elites to legitimize their status. Towards the end of the period this building was destroyed and near it a small construction of special character was built, Building C; many small drinking cups and a cooking vessel containing piglet bones indicate its use as an assembly place for a ritual of worship, perhaps linked to the dead buried all around it.
Gradually, in LH IIIC late, the settlement began to decline and to take on a rural character, as happened at sites in other areas, like Lefkandi or Nichoria; between the ruined buildings left from the preceding period, simple houses were built in cheap materials with external courtyards. Intra muros burials returned to the houses, but burials also occurred between the ruins of abandoned buildings, though they were distanced from the large Building B. The tombs, mainly, but not exclusively, for children, were small cists, with simple offerings, sometimes in clusters, though it is not known if this was due to kinship ties. A small group of four tombs located exceptionally close to Building B differs, as these tombs are constructed of limestone or conglomerate slabs and obviously belong to persons of a higher social class. They date to the early Protogeometric period. In general, across all this burial area, tombs of the LH IIIC and Protogeometric periods are found mixed together, and no gap is observed between the two periods. A vase or pile of stones is sometimes placed as a marker on the Protogeometric tombs. Mitrou is one of the sites in Greece that does not show a hiatus of occupation between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age.
In the Protogeometric period, on the ruins of Building B, the apsidal Building A was built, the largest of the new settlement that gradually formed; it is noteworthy that the memory of the importance of the space is still preserved. The new lords seek out the positions of older important buildings, which bestow the virtue of continuity on them and set them apart from the common people. Similar phenomena have been observed elsewhere. The apsidal Building A is one of the few such surviving structures of the Protogeometric period. It seems to have been the residence of the ruler, as can be seen from the remarkable, mainly ceramic, finds; a large collection of pots kept all together indicates that banquets and symposia took place inside the building, something that typifies the social relations of the time and the position of the ruler.
Another site of Lokris that is extremely important for the later Mycenaean years is Kynos, discovered, excavated and studied by Fanouria Dakoronia and her collaborators. Ancient Kynos is a low, coastal hill 15 m above sea level at Pyrgos, 3 km from Livanates; it covers an area of 200 × 70 m. It was formed by continuous phases of habitation from Neolithic down to Byzantine times, quite an impressive sequence.
According to mythology, Pyrrha and Deucalion, the parents of Hellen, who gave his name to the Greek peninsula, were the founders of Kynos, which is also mentioned in the Iliad (2.531) as one of the cities of the Lokroi that took part in the Trojan campaign.
The first archaeological remains, in a very poor state of preservation, date to the Middle Bronze Age; the early Mycenaean periods are better represented, but only in their ceramic and other movable finds, while the dwellings are poorly known. A succession of earthquakes in the area brought many disasters; the inhabitants of Kynos were constantly levelling up the area to use it for new buildings, or repairing earlier ruins. For this reason, the best-preserved Mycenaean phases are the LH IIIC period and the Sub-Mycenaean, into the transition to the Early Iron Age, a particularly interesting period for the history of the Greek Mainland, which displays here indisputable elements of a continuous evolution.
In the LH IIIC period, the buildings in Kynos were not only residential, but also had a craft-working character, as shown by the discovery of two kilns, one ceramic and one metallurgical. In the storerooms, the large pithoi and the other large vessels used for storage and transportation of cereals, oil and wine inform us about the involvement of the inhabitants with agriculture and trade. Loom weights, spindle whorls and purple murex shells, scattered throughout the settlement, indicate activities related to weaving and dyeing. And, of course, they also had activities connected to the sea.
In the Classical era, the hill was protected, as was the shoreline, which had a mole, and fortified port facilities, the finds of which relate to sailing, for example anchors and blocks with notches typical of dockyards. Although no such finds have been recovered from the Mycenaean period, it is reasonable to expect that the space would have served the same purpose, as is usually the case with harbours when their location, as here in the Gulf of Euboea, is so well-suited to maritime commerce. This conclusion is reinforced by the excavated items from the settlement itself, such as fish hooks, nets and fishing-line weights, and fish remains, but also from the iconography on the pottery, depicting nautical themes taken from everyday life.
Since no cemeteries have been found around the hill, it has been speculated that the present Kynos was actually the harbour of a city called Kynos, located inland, on a hill above the village of Livanates, where Mycenaean cemeteries have been discovered. This hypothesis has not yet been confirmed archaeologically.
The LH IIIC period is a time of prosperity for Kynos. To this period are dated the famous pictorial kraters and deep bowls, which not only opened new paths for the study of ceramics, but also yielded information on daily life, ships, shipbuilding and war. The pictorial subjects include such rare snapshots of maritime life as a naval battle, a dead man in the sea, sacrifice on board and others (p. 456). However, they also opened a new chapter for the study of Geometric pottery and its connection to the LH IIIC period.
It is difficult to interpret why in this particular area of central Greece there was such a large output of high-quality vases decorated mainly with nautical themes. Who were the target consumers of these products? And how did trade and distribution take place? Further excavations in neighbouring areas could provide more information. It is noteworthy that nowhere in the rest of Lokris, other than in Kynos, was there any tradition of pictorial pottery before the middle of the LH IIIC period, nor even afterwards, when such narrative iconography was widespread. The workshop of Kynos had a brief span of activity, only in the LH IIIC period, and according to the excavator it had limited staff, a master, two assistants and maybe one other person. It is not possible to determine whether these craftsmen were locals or where they had learnt this – apparently already developed – form of art, or whether they came from elsewhere and set up their workshop in Kynos. The clay is local, as analyses have shown.
Shortly after the middle of the LH IIIC period, an earthquake destroyed Kynos, but the buildings were soon repaired with small changes and additions; a second earthquake towards the very end of LH IIIC delivered a worse blow. The settlement was not abandoned, but it nonetheless presents a picture of poverty and decline, like the rest of Greece at that time. In the last phase of the LH IIIC period, as elsewhere, the habit of intra muros burials, that is infant burials under the floors of houses, returns to Kynos. Along with typical Mycenaean pottery, albeit in its most sketchy version, there are two new styles, handmade burnished ware and a wheel-made ware decorated with concentric circles executed by compasses. This transitional Sub-Mycenaean period is followed, with but small changes, by Protogeometric. Little in the way of change is observed between these last two periods and the previous final LH IIIC, as life continues in the same habitation context and with the same implements. The appearance of the two new ceramic styles cannot be attributed to a population change. New features are usually borrowed from neighbouring areas, perhaps by groups of people moving around, but this does not mean a massive invasion.
In western Lokris, an area very close to Phokis and western Boeotia, a tholos tomb was recently brought to light, in use from the 13th to the 11th century BC. It has a long dromos and a circular chamber with a diameter of 5.90 m. It is located at Amblianos, a short distance from Amfissa; other tombs may have existed in the area, although the specific burial type is rare. The finds are related to those that come from sites in Phokis and shed light on the connections between the local communities, although at the same time they raise questions concerning the elites who used the tholoi.
In addition to the large centres mentioned in other chapters, such as Thebes, Orchomenos and Gla, many other cemeteries and settlements have been found in Boeotia. Several of them are fortified with Cyclopean walls, particularly those that are close to the land reclamation works of Kopais, such as Ayia Marina and Ayios Ioannis. Habitation in these places dates to the end of the Middle Helladic period, a fact which reinforces the view that perhaps the drainage works were under way even then. Other small settlements, such as Elaion, mentioned in the Theban Linear B tablets, were under palatial control: Elaion had enough financial capacity to manage as an independent unit and to survive after the demise of the palace until the end of the LH IIIC period. Another important centre was Eutresis in the plain of Lefktra, between Thebes and the coast of the Corinthian Gulf, which had flourished in the Early Helladic and Middle Helladic periods. The impressive Cyclopean fortification that encircles an area of 213,000 sq. m dates to the Mycenaean era, specifically LH IIIB. The settlement, whose remains are not well preserved, occupies only a small part (about 35,000 sq. m) of this large area.
This phenomenon of a small habitation unit within a large, fortified area has been observed elsewhere, and especially in neighbouring Phokis at ancient Krisa, near the modern village of Chryso. There, inside a large Cyclopean acropolis of 235,000 sq. m, the settlement occupies a small section of 200 × 100 m. The fortification of Krisa also dates to the LH IIIB period and presents many structural elements similar to those of the Argive citadels. The ancient road ended at the main gate of the citadel, while outside the citadel, on the north-west, a semi-circular tower was part of the Mycenaean defence system. Krisa was the most important site in the region because it controlled the plain of Amfissa and all the roads to Delphi, as well as the lower part of the valley towards the sea.
At Delphi, remains of a Mycenaean settlement have been found north-west of the temple of Apollo. From the same area come some finds related to worship and usually found in sanctuaries, such as clay conical rhyta, a stone rhyton, fragments of at least four bull-shaped figurines and a female figurine; all these date to LH IIIB–C. A quite exceptional find is a Minoan lion-shaped rhyton of the LM I period, a valuable object that came to Phokis from an important centre. Although the existence of worship in Delphi in the Mycenaean period has been disputed, these objects lead to the conclusion that there would have been a sacred place near the settlement. Of course, the identity of the deity worshipped is not known, but it would probably have been a goddess of fertility. Delphic tradition itself states that, before Apollo, Gaea was worshipped there, whose veneration is indeed attested in the Delphic sanctuary itself.
Another place with many offerings directly related to religion (more than 170 female figurines) is the sanctuary of Athena Pronaia; a Mycenaean sanctuary has not been located here, so it has been assumed that these figurines were brought from elsewhere. The matter remains open.
Delphi continued to be inhabited without interruption into the Early Iron Age. Building remains are located in an area east of the temple, near the settlement, where it is assumed that there would have been a sacred place.
The question of the continuity of worship at Delphi from the Mycenaean into the historical period has been of great concern to researchers. Until recently, it was thought that the first indications of worship dated back to the 9th century BC and that therefore there was a gap after the end of the Mycenaean era. Newer studies, however, have given a new date for the bronze tripods, usually considered a sacred vessel, that have been retrieved in this area. These studies are based on comparisons with pieces of tripod moulds found at Lefkandi. Various features indicative of an older date, mainly the solid section of the legs, place the tripods of Delphi in the first half of the 10th century BC, very close to the end of the Mycenaean era. It would not be too audacious to conclude that there was no gap in the practice of worship.
To the south-west of the temple of Apollo, tombs of the LH IIIC period have also come to light. The pottery that accompanies these burials indicates contacts with neighbouring Elateia, as well as Achaea; some vessels are either imported from there or are local imitations. The sea gave easy access to the rich sites in coastal Achaea.
A similar phenomenon of influences coming from the opposite Peloponnesian coast is to be observed in Medeon, which is located in the Bay of Antikyra, on the north coast of the Corinthian Gulf, very close to the village of Aspra Spitia, that is Antikyra.
The settlement has not been precisely located, but rich cemeteries have been discovered, with two tholos tombs dating to LH IIIB. The construction of the tholoi is not so careful and shows that the builders may not have had experience in this system of masonry. Apparently, the new burial type, the tholos, had been introduced from the Peloponnese and the local craftsmen had tried to build it using their own techniques and know-how.
In the cemeteries of Medeon there is an interesting variety of tombs that are contemporary but quite different. There are cist graves with the side walls built of stones in rows or of slabs, chamber tombs, pit graves, large rectangular built tombs with or without an entrance passage, and with descending steps, as well as L-shaped tombs. All were in use from the LH IIIB period into LH IIIC.
Of particular interest are the built tombs (see figure 20), where a slight incline to the side walls reduces the opening at the roof, which is then closed with rectangular slabs. The entrance, the stomion, is on the side, slightly raised, and set above the floor of the chamber. A large pit in the floor was used to collect the bones. The form is unusual, even given the many known variations of built tombs. It has been hypothesized that in this type we see an evolving form of the cist grave, at a time when the custom or the need for tombs for multiple burials prevailed and more space was required. The variety of burial practices at Medeon may be explained by the fact that this community would not have been homogeneous but composed of diverse elements.
Figure 20 Phokis. Medeon. The built chamber tomb S2. View from the north. The widening of the dromos can be seen in the foreground. End of LH IIA. (EFA. Ino Ioannidou).
Since Medeon was on the shore and at the edge of a mountainous area, its location made it a crossroads. We may suggest that various groups could have settled there bringing their customs with them. Although, judging by the grave goods, there must have been wealthy families among them, a central administration that would impose uniformity does not seem to have existed.
A preference for cist-type graves is generally observed in the peripheral regions of the Mycenaean world, where the Middle Helladic tradition is deeply rooted, in places that were conservative and reluctant to innovate. As will be discussed below, Epirus is another typical example.
Apart from Thessaly, which had easy maritime communications and therefore was well connected to the south, the northern regions of Greece were unequally receptive to Mycenaean civilization, as it was formed in the great Peloponnesian centres; they were incorporated in the Mycenaean world sooner or later, in a process conditioned by various factors such as the potential of the local population to absorb a new culture or the movements of Mycenaean settlers. As attested in the rich cemeteries in Lokris near the sanctuary of Kalapodi, in Elateia and further north in the Spercheios valley in Phthiotis, a ruling class, an elite, emerged, which fully adopted the Mycenaean culture. The footsteps followed by the Mycenaeans are leading us to the tholos tombs, the clearest testimony of their presence.
In Aitolia, Thermos, the religious and political centre of the Aitolian Confederation of the historical era with its great panhellenic sanctuary of Apollo Thermios, was an important settlement, albeit rural in character, as early as the Middle Helladic period. Excavations were carried out by representatives of the Archaeological Society at Athens, first Georgios Sotiriadis (1891–1908) and then Konstantinos Romaios until 1931. They discovered three temples, two of Apollo and one of Artemis, the Agora, the Bronze Age settlement and a large apsidal structure, Building A. After a gap of several years, excavation was resumed under Giannis Papapostolou, who completed the investigation of the site bringing to light many new significant elements.
The Middle Helladic settlement, situated at the heart of Thermos, was large, rich and open to communications: it already had contacts with other areas and it evolved even more in the Late Helladic period to become the main trading centre in Aitolia, although it never developed into a Mycenaean city, always retaining its local character. From the 15th century BC on, it had close relations with the Mycenaean world, which is why many Mycenaean vessels have been found, some of exceptional quality and definitely imported, alongside local imitations. These vessels may have been gifts or objects of exchange, and some were used for rituals. Thermos experienced a destruction around 1450 BC, certified by a sealed layer, the buildings were repaired and life went on without any change in its traditional character.
The houses of the Middle Helladic settlement were apsidal, rectangular or elliptical. The most important building was a large apsidal building, Megaron A, one of the largest of its time, the seat of the local ruler who may have ruled over the entire region; it retained the same use in the ensuing Late Helladic period, right down to the end of the Bronze Age. There was a paved area in front of the building suitable for gatherings, a necessary element for such a hegemonic social set-up. The sacred character of the building has not been confirmed, but is nevertheless very probable, since no sanctuary has been identified in the settlement; we assume that the ritual Mycenaean vessels would have been kept and used in Megaron A.
Small pithoi were found inside the building, inverted on the floor slabs, and containing burnt animal bones, ashes and coals. The find reflects ritual libations and the like, but it is of much later date than Megaron A. The material belongs to the 11th century BC and was apparently associated with the appropriate rituals that would have taken place at about the same time as the final destruction of the settlement, when, in the years of the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, the entire Mycenaean world collapsed. The disaster at Thermos was related to the movements of various population groups that were then heading south, looking for new places to settle. Great changes are also witnessed at this time in Thermos, which now becomes cut off from southern Greece and looks to the northern regions. These changes can also be seen in the ceramics, as a new type appears, namely matt-painted ware, very similar to the contemporary style in Macedonia. Almost on top of the ruins of Megaron A is built Megaron B (see figure 21), a rectangular building with a tripartite division, one of the oldest examples of similar buildings in Greece during the Early Iron Age. It was clearly the seat for the new warlord. It is noteworthy that the new building is built on the same site and almost on top of the old centre of operations, whose ruins were surely preserved. This practice bestows a certain legitimacy and power upon the new lord, as the rituals with the pithoi mentioned above tap into this way of thinking. This phenomenon, i.e. the preservation or the conversion and new use of older buildings by a new authority to consolidate its position, is observed at the beginning of the new era in many places in Greece, the most striking example being Building T that succeeded the Megaron of the Palace in Tiryns. Much later (620–600 BC) the temple of Apollo Thermios was built on the ruins of the already destroyed Megaron B.
Acarnania has not been systematically researched, which is why our knowledge of the Mycenaean era is fragmentary. Some sites are known of old, such as Kalydon, Lithovouni, Ayios Ilias and others, while new ones have emerged after excavations in recent years, such as Langada in the area of Stratos, Angelokastro near the Acheloos river and Loutsaina at Astakos. As is natural, the coastal zone, places near lakes and rivers and alongside the main inland communication routes were the more densely populated.
The Mycenaeans came in contact with Acarnania early, from the end of the LH I period though mainly in LH II, when they began to systematically penetrate this province which was open to the sea and favoured their trade, an activity vital for them. Indeed, the finds attest to the inter-relationship of Acarnania and western Greece in general with Sicily, southern Italy and the Aeolian Islands.
There are gradations in the cultural and social situation in Acarnania. Some settlements have more pronounced Mycenaean characteristics, because either the lords are Mycenaean or the local leaders have taken up Mycenaean elements. Even so, the majority of the inhabitants certainly followed their own older traditions. This is clearly seen in the burial customs: the chamber tombs, although the most common sort of Mycenaean tombs, are rare here, while the traditional cist graves prevail; and for the higher social class, the tholoi appear for the Mycenaeans or those seeking a more monumental burial practice. Also, while the pottery is mainly local and handmade, there is also the ‘Mycenaean’ type, a product of local workshops, as well as the genuine, imported Mycenaean, a mark of luxury. The metal finds are mixed, either local or imported from more developed areas and in some cases from the Italian peninsula.
There are two strong acropolis-citadels in Acarnania, one at ancient Pleuron, near Messolonghi, and the other at Palairos. They are fortified with a Cyclopean-type wall, but they are not true ‘Mycenaean’ installations. Although they make use of Mycenaean know-how, they do not follow the regular technique. The presence of the Mycenaeans is clear at Ayios Ilias of Ithoria, where there is a settlement and four tholoi, three in Marathia and one in Seremeti. They are relatively small, the largest has a diameter of 5.40 m, and are distinguished by their careful and elaborate construction. They have the peculiarity that they do not have a shaped stomion, an element that is also found elsewhere in the Peloponnese. The dromoi are lined with stone and are, at least partly, covered with slabs. They oldest date from the LH II period and continue to be used from LH IIIA down to LH IIIC. They have been looted, but a few surviving finds indicate that they belonged to wealthy families: in one of them an Egyptian scarab of Pharaoh Amenhotep III (18th Dynasty, 1402–1364 BC) was found. The concentration of a significant number of remarkable tholoi presents a contrast within the general provincial environment. One can assume that they belonged to members of the same family, or to relatives of those who controlled and exploited the area.
Further north, there were other tholoi, at Mila near Pentalofos, at Koronda on the pass that leads from the coast inland, at Moschovi on the Ambracian Gulf, at Stamna and at Kechrinia Valtou. A total of eleven tholoi have been found in Acarnania and there may yet be others that testify to the presence of the Mycenaeans.
An extraordinary burial find has recently come to light, a rich cist ‘warrior grave’ at Kouvaras, 5 km north of Stratos – the ‘largest’ city, μεγίστη, of ancient Acarnania according to Thucydides (2.80.8). The tomb is small, built of limestone slabs and dates to the Sub-Mycenaean or Early Protogeometric period. Some of the grave goods, however, are older. The deceased, in a flexed posture, was surrounded by excellent gifts, regularly placed in specific positions, apparently following a custom. Among them are vessels, the shape and decoration of which date them to LH IIIC or the Sub-Mycenaean period, and metal objects. A gold high-stemmed kylix, older than the tomb, was placed on the chest of the deceased; this gift was clearly an heirloom, because no gold vessels were made at such a late date. Also retrieved were a type F sword with ivory hilt-plates, another of the Naue II group with gold wire wrapped around the handle (an Italian variant of the type), a spearhead, an arrowhead, bronze greaves with wire reinforced edges, similar to those found at Portes in Achaea of the 12th century BC (p. 34), a bronze tripod cauldron (lebes) and a rare bimetallic knife made with a special technique. The knife has a curved iron blade, while the tang of the handle is made of bronze; these two parts, the blade and the tang, have triangular notches at the edge where the metals are joined; they are firmly assembled, the notches overlapping and held together by the one-piece, ivory handle. Like the Naue II sword, the knife is imported and belongs to a type found in Italy, as well as the eastern Mediterranean. We note here that, as in other cases, the Mycenaean civilization with its characteristic customs remains active even at the very end of its days.
Epirus, which has also been only partially researched, presents a picture similar to that of Acarnania. However, it seems relatively more isolated, despite the presence of two important monuments, the acropolis of ancient Ephyra and the tholos tomb of Kiperi near Parga, which clearly testify to the Mycenaean presence. The tholos tomb of Kiperi has great architectural similarities with the tombs of Ayios Ilias – a dome neatly built with small rectangular stones, no stomion, the chamber and dromos floors both paved with pebbles – and is almost contemporary with them, around the end of the LH IIIA1 period. The hypothesis has been put forward that it was actually built by the same craftsmen, which is very probable, given that various craftsmen, builders, painters and others travelled to execute orders of their commissioners, probably wealthy Mycenaeans, already established in the area; the tomb was probably in use until 1200 BC.
The excavations in the area did not identify a settlement, as one would have expected, but revealed that there was a direct line of visual contact between the monument and both the sea and the Ionian Islands, as well as the citadel of Ephyra.
The walled settlement of the acropolis of ancient Ephyra, located on the hill of Xylokastro near the mouth of the Acheron River, where the Nekyomanteion was later located, was in use from LH IIIA to LH IIIC, with its floruit in LH IIIA2. The fortification consists of three enclosure walls. The uppermost and inner enclosure is Hellenistic in date, while the middle and lower ones are Mycenaean, built in the Cyclopean technique. The main entrance was the south gate in the lower precinct, monumental, framed by two strong walls as extensions of the pilasters; one of these walls is jutting out, creating a tower-like bastion.
Ancient Ephyra has been identified with the place referred to in Homer (Od. 9.259) and Thucydides (1.46). It was then, as in medieval times, very close to the sea and was a well-protected harbour, the Γλυκὺς λιμήν of Strabo (sweet harbour, 7.7.5). The same held true in the Bronze Age, which explains the interest of the Mycenaeans in this place, which facilitated their trade to the Ionian Islands and the Adriatic and further functioned as a good transit hub for products coming from the interior of the country. Mycenaean Ephyra and her port withered away after the destruction of the palaces, perhaps because migrants arrived from northern areas, as is suspected in other places, or, more likely, because trade was paralyzed for a time and the secure communications that had until then facilitated the movement of Mycenaean products to the Balkans and the Italian peninsula ceased to operate. After the abandonment of the settlement, three tumuli with cist graves were built on the acropolis right inside the middle wall. On the basis of the finds, they can be dated to the 12th century BC, which provides a terminus ante quem for the abandonment and change of use of the site.
The citadel of Ephyra and the tholos tomb of Kiperi are unique in Epirus and both monuments were probably used by the same authority, the same local governor or the same family. Those people may indeed have come from southern Greece to settle there for the reasons mentioned above. However, the large mass of pottery that comes from these places is not imported but handmade and local, which means that these are not true Mycenaean centres, but installations that served specific purposes.
Some small groups of Mycenaeans had also settled on the coast, at Ayia Eleni near the estuary of the Acheron, and on the cape at Ayios Thomas, on the Ambracian Gulf, especially at Skafidaki, very close to the shores of Acarnania. It is obvious that these are very important positions for carrying out commercial activities. At Ayia Eleni, as in another location, Kastriza on the Vouvos river (or Kokytos), a tributary of the Acheron, some remains of a Cyclopean-type fortification have been found, which, in addition to the finds, indicate the arrival of Mycenaeans.
At Dodona, a large religious centre in historical times, the situation was different, as there do not appear to have been any proper Mycenaean settlements. The prehistoric settlement, the remains of which were found in the area of the sanctuary of Zeus, was, in LH IIIA–B, still primitive in nature, consisting of circular pile dwellings, like the other settlements in the area. However, many finds related to the Mycenaean world have come to light, such as imported Mycenaean pottery, which represents a mere 5 per cent of the total, with most of the ceramics being local, and metal objects, tools and imported weapons, such as type C swords and type F daggers, dating to the LH II and LH IIIA periods, respectively.
Apart from the settlements already mentioned, there were other, less important ones, in Epirus. In terms of cemeteries, cist graves were the most prevalent form of burial in the area. Some were quite rich, such as at Mazaraki and Kalpaki, and their contents shed light on the contacts Epirus had with not only the Mycenaean world, but also other areas.
The Mycenaeans had moved into Epirus quite early on, in the LH I period, ca. 1600 BC. This is shown mainly by two pins from Skafidaki, which have parallels in the Shaft Graves period, as well as some radiocarbon-dated shells from the same area. The contacts intensify in LH II, when Mycenaean-type weaponry appears, and are most evident in the LH IIIA and B periods, 1400–1200 BC.
It is noteworthy that not only the first Mycenaean objects that arrived in Epirus were of metal, but also that they were much more numerous than the clay ones, perhaps because they met specific needs. Those metal objects included tools, double or single axes, knives with straight or incurved edges and swords with blades bearing engraved decoration, with simple or T-shaped hilts (types E and F), horned swords (type C), cruciform ones (type D), as well as of the Naue II type, leaf- or flame-shaped spearheads, pins etc. Objects other than metal include many beads of semi-precious stones or amber, and ceramics. The pottery in Epirus consists of handmade monochrome wares, some with plastic or incised decoration that originated in the Middle Helladic period, similar to the ware that was widespread throughout central Europe and carried on until the end of the Bronze Age. Rarely, there were wheel-made imported vases from the Mycenaean workshops in Thessaly, Acarnania or the Ionian Islands. The prevailing shapes are mainly the kyathos (cup) or the kylix, predominantly drinking vessels that were used in everyday life, as well as on social occasions, such as banquets and gatherings; some vessels also had ritual uses, such as kraters, stirrup jars and alabastra.
The Mycenaean objects that arrived in Epirus also spread more widely into Albania, the Ionian Islands, across to Italy and up into Macedonia. The Mycenaeans sought out the routes, mainly by sea, but also by land, up the river valleys and across plains to disseminate their products, which frequently reached far inland, to such places as Kalpaki or Dodona. However, due to its geographical location, Epirus was also influenced by other regions; objects that originated in Central Europe, such as sickle knives, also ended up there. Also of European origin are bracelets and finger rings with an S-spiral bezel, a type known already in the 17th century BC, which was introduced in Greece and spread widely as late as the Geometric period.
In LH IIIB, it seems that local metal workshops started to operate and produce objects with both Aegean and European elements, and as a result a special mixed style was created.
After 1200 BC, Epirus dissociated itself from the south and turned to look further north, especially towards Macedonia, with which it shared many common elements.
Macedonia clearly belongs to the periphery of the Mycenaean world; this does not however mean that it was isolated. The Mycenaeans had arrived there looking for outlets for their trade and exploring the possibilities for access to mining areas and metals; however, they did not settle and there are no Mycenaean settlements, only portable finds. Macedonia is in a zone that has a completely different cultural expression from the Mycenaean. It was deeply rooted in its own traditional way of life, had different contacts with the world around it and followed its own autonomous evolution. Diachronically, it was never totally isolated from the rest of the Greek peninsula but joined it more closely only in the historical period.
The first research on Macedonia in prehistoric times was conducted by Walter Abel Heurtley, who published his conclusions in his main work Prehistoric Macedonia in 1939. Investigation and research continue today, but, despite the particular interest of the area, our knowledge of its history in the Mycenaean period is still quite limited.
Late Bronze Age settlements in Macedonia are somewhat backward architecturally. They have brick-built huts on stone foundations and are mainly organized on tells, either on the slopes or at the top. The tell, or toumba, is an artificial hill created when settlements are successively repaired or built on top of each other, so that the overlying layers of habitation build up. Important tells are those of Kastanas, Ayios Mamas at Olynthos, Assiros and of course the better known Toumba in Thessaloniki. Large brick and stone terraces, equipped with spacious storage areas, rationalized, supported and protected the settlement; the houses were located a little higher up on stepped levels. It is obvious that there existed a hierarchical organization in their society, to supervise and maintaine these works; so very different from the Mycenaean palatial system. Contacts with the Mycenaean world did not disturb the stability of local social and cultural structures.
Coastal settlements have a different look, such as the settlement of Toroni, which has been methodically investigated. Prehistoric Toroni is located on a rocky promontory at the tip of the Sithonia peninsula of Halkidiki, between two natural harbours that were better protected in antiquity than they are today. It is an attractive place for the establishment of a prehistoric settlement and in this way Toroni resembles other settlements of the Bronze Age, which were built on promontories and near safe ports, such as Kolona in Aegina, Mitrou in Lokris or Ayia Irini on Kea, to name a few. Toroni was walled and very different from the tell residential type, common in the interior of Macedonia, as it was open to the sea and had contacts with the northern Aegean, the Cyclades and Asia Minor, which began in the Early Helladic period and continued for a long time, as the site functioned as a fortress until post-Byzantine times. In the Late Bronze Age, Toroni was an important commercial and transportation hub, for the circulation of the rich ores of the hinterland; the name Halkidiki (from halkos, copper) is perhaps indicative. It was an emporion, a trading post and one of the first places contacted by the Mycenaeans as early as in the LH I period. The various coastal sites on the Halkidiki peninsula were a small world by themselves, active in maritime communications and still not yet well known. In fact, the whole of Halkidiki, as Heurtley rightly observed, was a separate enclave to itself in the prehistoric Aegean.
The oldest Mycenaean objects found are those from the tell of Kalamaria near Thessaloniki, at Kastanas and in Toroni, as already mentioned; they date to the LH I period. The discoveries multiply, particularly in LH IIIB when our picture of prehistoric Macedonia begins to become clearer and relatively homogenous, a process that intensifies in the early phases of the Iron Age.
The most common and marketable product in the Late Bronze Age was ceramics. As in Epirus, so in Macedonia local pottery prevails; it is handmade, with plastic or incised decoration, the last chiefly associated with eastern Macedonia and the Balkans, but imported Mycenaean pottery and its imitations are also known. The most characteristic pottery of the area is matt-painted, which appears extensively in the LH IIIA period and remains in production until the Geometric period. It has a special dissemination in Upper Macedonia, as indicated by the ceramic workshop found at Aiani. Various views have been expressed about its origin, but the predominant one is that it lies in the matt-painted pottery of the Middle Helladic period of southern Greece.
Within this overall ceramic total, the imported Mycenaean pottery represents only 5 per cent and obviously it was not intended for everyday use but should be associated with social events at specific occasions, as a kind of luxury ware for some families. It is not appropriate to associate it, at least for now, with ritual activity, because the religious beliefs of the Macedonians of the time are not known. Only two Mycenaean figurines have been found and are, in any case, chance finds, so we do not know what they represented for their owners, whether they were merely ‘exotic’ objects, or whether they had a deeper significance. One of the two figurines, an idol’s head of fine quality was found in Aiani, which has been systematically excavated and where most of the Mycenaean finds of Upper Macedonia are concentrated. Based on this, the excavator Georgia Karamitrou-Mentesidis believes that perhaps there was a Mycenaean settlement there. Worth noting here in the field of religion is the presence of two hearths in an apsidal building at Dikili Tash, and especially the discovery of an ash altar in an Archaic sanctuary at Poseidi of Halkidiki, where the finds bridge the period from LH IIIC to the Protogeometric, without leaving a gap between the Bronze Age to the Iron Age.
As far as burial practices are concerned, we observe the absence of tholoi, those very monuments that would mark the presence of Mycenaeans; as in Epirus, cist graves are common, but so are tumuli. Pit graves are known at Leivadia, a place in Aiani, interspersed between tombs of Archaic and Classical times. The contents are mixed in type everywhere, with the clear preference for local types. Exceptions are the two cemeteries of cist graves at Ayios Dimitrios at the foot of Olympus, in the straits of Petra, which are characterized by abundant Mycenaean finds. That at Spathes is of the 13th century BC and the other, at Petra – ‘in the pit in the vineyard’ (στοῦ λάκκου τ᾽ἀμπέλι), of the 12th century BC. Perhaps some southerners had settled there and had brought with them their customs; most likely though they were locals who had adopted the Mycenaean way of life. The finds also include seals, mostly belonging to the Mainland Popular group, which are the first to be found so far north. Similar seals come from two cemeteries of the same type at two recently investigated sites in Platamon. Recent research showed that these seals had no bureaucratic function; they were ornaments or amulets, and many were hastily made for funeral use to accompany their owner as insignia dignitatis and enhance their social status and ‘Mycenaean’ identity. There is a remarkable concentration of settlements and tombs high up in the area of Olympus; this may be explained by their strategic position, because the passes and routes from Thessaly to the north run along there, by both land and sea. A find, such as the seals, emphasizes the extent of the Mycenaean koine.
Apart from pottery, a few metal objects have turned up at various places in Macedonia. These are mainly weapons, such as the swords at Aiani, Grevena and Assiros, which are either true imports or local imitations. It seems that metal workshops soon started operating, having access to appropriate metal ores.
Our meagre information about religious practices, an element that bound early societies together, and the fragmentary evidence from the burial practices and the few finds of personal items, such as jewellery, do not further our understanding of the character and personality of the inhabitants of Macedonia in the Late Bronze Age. Future research is certainly required to shed light on the cultural features of the area.
The Ionian Islands, off the coasts of Acarnania and Epirus, were in direct contact with these areas, as well as with the western Peloponnese on one side and the Italian Peninsula on the other. They certainly did not initiate trade with Italy, but they would have participated in the voyages of Mycenaeans and would also have served as way stations.
During their expansion to the west, Mycenaeans who apparently came from the south-western Peloponnese had contacts with the islands in LH II. Gradually and unequally in manner and style, Mycenaean civilization got the upper hand and, as can be seen from the burial finds, was adopted first by the upper social strata. In the Ionian Islands, Mycenaean sites are generally somewhat scattered. Urban centres were never created, with the economy and society remaining purely rural.
Corfu has few Mycenaean finds. Lefkada with the rich tumulus cemetery excavated by W. Dörpfeld achieved a high cultural level in the Early Helladic period, but Mycenaean finds were sporadic, and it was generally considered that it had not been greatly influenced by the Mycenaean world. Recently, however, a tholos tomb was discovered in Ayios Nikitas, on the west coast of the island, which proves otherwise. The tomb is located on a steep slope, but close to a sheltered cove and a good well-watered plain; all the favourable elements for a Mycenaean settlement are in place, and future research will probably bring this to light.
Ithaca is associated with perhaps the most important figure in Greek mythology, and with an entire epic; the word Ithaca, beyond being the name of a place, acquired a symbolic meaning, as did the hero himself, Odysseus, whose life and adventures developed metaphorical significance. Naturally, many scholars busied themselves with Ithaca, and first Schliemann sought the sites mentioned in the Homeric epic. He published some of his conclusions, which, however, did not live up to the expected results. Later, other scholars – Sylvia Benton, Walter Heurtley and Hilda Lorimer – brought Mycenaean Ithaca to light, but it had no splendour. Small humble settlements have been unearthed: Tris Langades, the only settlement where remains are preserved, Stavros and Pelikata; the finds include pottery, rare in the LH II period, but plentiful enough in later periods, as well as some metal objects, weapons and tools. Apart from the settlements, pottery also comes from the so-called Polis cave, near the bay of the same name, and from a spring known as the ‘Baths of Penelope’, which is considered to have been in use in the Mycenaean age. According to some scholars, there was a Mycenaean settlement at the site of Ayios Athanasios – Homer’s School. Future research will confirm if this was the case, or not. As for the Aetos hill, much discussed because it was deemed a walled Mycenaean settlement, this theory too is not confirmed. Aetos begins to gain in importance from the Dark Ages onwards and flourishes in the Archaic and Classical periods.
Zakynthos seems to have been the first of the islands the Mycenaeans came to know and shows a remarkable Mycenaean presence, little in LH II, but denser in LH IIIA and later, when two settlements develop at Kalogeros and Akrotiri, unpublished and poorly known, as is a third settlement, at Lithakia-Kamaroti. Two tholos tombs have also been found, one at Keri and the other at Akrotiri, of small dimensions and not of elaborate construction. Of particular interest is the cemetery at Kambi, with fourteen rock-cut pit tombs. It was in use from LH IIIA until LH IIIB. The tombs are rectangular with a flanged edge at the top to secure the covering slabs. They are of various dimensions, cut to different depths, and seem to have functioned as family tombs with multiple burials. The grave goods, pottery and a few metal items, are purely Mycenaean. This type of burial with a rock-cut pit is unusual in Mycenaean Greece at that time, with a few exceptions at the periphery. The preference for it here could be explained by the conservative nature of the inhabitants, or by the fact that the hard limestone of the area presented great difficulties for the construction of the customary chamber tombs. It seems that the cemetery belonged to a community whose members chose the specific place and the specific burial type for reasons of their own, which we cannot grasp today.
Zakynthos was in contact with the other islands and the mainland, mainly Messenia. This is confirmed by the pottery, and especially by the adjective Zakynthios (za-ku-si-jo) mentioned in the Linear B tablets at Pylos and Mycenae. The adjective may be related to the origin or destination, or it may also refer to a group of rowers.
Kephallenia, the largest of the Ionian islands, was also the most important one in the Mycenaean era; it also, despite some idiosyncrasies, had the purest Mycenaean character. From its close contacts with Mainland Greece, some scholars assumed that Kephallenia was probably Homeric Ithaca, as yet an unproven hypothesis. Another reason that certainly helped to promote this theory is that in the Iliad (2.631–634) it appears that the Kephallenians ruled Ithaca, as well as Zakynthos.
Two great scholars conducted research in Kephallenia, Panagiotis Kavvadias and Spyridon Marinatos, who coincidentally were both ‘magnanimous’ and ‘Kefallēnes’, according to the Homeric description of the inhabitants of the island.
In contrast to the presence of many large cemeteries, residential remains in Kephallenia are few. Two large houses have been explored, one at Starochorafa, near Diakata, and the other on the hill of Vounia in the Sami area, dating to the LH IIIC and LH IIIA–B periods, respectively. Although a long time span separates them, the two houses are similar; they are large rectangles and do not preserve any internal partitions, which presumably would have been made of perishable materials.
Most of the tombs are of the usual Mycenaean chamber type. They appear in the LH IIIA period, are similar to those of Mainland Greece and show some small variations among themselves. For example, the tombs of the Lakkithra cemetery do not have a dromos, and in others the floor level is set lower than the threshold. A characteristic feature is the large pits in the floors, opened with a greater or lesser degree of care, depending on the individual case, and intended for burial or for removal of relics. Such a feature is known from areas of the Peloponnese, in Laconia, Elis and Achaea, but in Kephallenia it is almost the norm. In fact, from the LH IIIC period, the system became standardized, the openings in the floors became rectangular, approximately equal in size, deep, symmetrically placed and separated by corridors to facilitate the process of access and use. This new organization was perhaps deemed necessary for demographic reasons because it creates space for many bodies. It probably also indicates the practical spirit of the Mycenaeans, who, as has been shown, found solutions to technical problems.
Another type of tomb that occurs in Kephallenia is the rock-cut tholos type, also known from the Peloponnese, Arcadia at Palaiokastro and Pellana, as well as Volimidia in Messenia. The chambers are round, cut into the rock up to two thirds of its height with the rest covered, according to their excavator Spyridon Marinatos, with slabs of stone. Real tholoi are also quite common; to date, seven have been found; the most recent one in Litharia, near Poros, came to light in 1990. But the most important is the tholos at Tzanata, Poros, an imposing monument with a diameter of 6.80 m and a doorway opening 1.90 m high, dating to the LH IIIA2 period. The dome had collapsed, and the tomb had been looted, but a small ‘treasure’ survived, which included gold jewellery, seals, gold bulls-horns and a golden double axe, indicating the status of the owner, who would have belonged to the ruling class and most probably was the local ruler. Next to the tomb a small rectangular structure with a dromos contained the bones of many individuals and may have been an ossuary that functioned at the same time as the main tomb, as can be deduced from the date of the offerings. The remains of an apsidal building of the LH III period have been found near the tomb and may be connected to it. Future research will provide more information.
The finds in the cemeteries indicate that there was a social hierarchy, a fact that was in any case obvious from the presence of the tholoi and especially that of Tzanata, which differs from the others both in size and construction. Social stratification is also attested by the gifts in chamber tombs, as well as the unusual find of two stone larnakes in a chamber tomb, intended for persons who wanted to stand out. From the study of the cemeteries, it is concluded that the society was organized in family units or groups of the same lineage.
Finally, a single tumulus has been found in Kephallenia, in the area of the Oikopeda; older than the tholoi, it is connected with the MH tradition of the tumuli of Lefkada, Elis and Achaea.
The LH IIIC period is the time after the destruction of the palaces, when various rearrangements take place in Greece, in population and land use. While in the other islands some gaps in the habitation record appear, Kephallenia on the contrary experienced relative prosperity. There was an increase in population, mainly in the Argostoli-Leivathos area, where most of the tombs with pits on their floor are concentrated. At the same time, the pottery departs from the koine and undergoes a renewal by creating a local style showing that the island was in contact with areas as far away as Crete, Cyprus and Rhodes; there are also a few artefacts, like weapons or jewellery, which are either imported from Italy or indicate Western influences.
This pattern is a general phenomenon of the time and has been observed in Perati, Tiryns, Naxos and elsewhere. When the regulatory role of the palaces ceased, sea-side sites whose location favoured trade experienced a new, although short, period of prosperity.
Thessaly was the cradle of the Neolithic civilization of Mainland Greece. Many sites have been discovered with excellent finds, particularly the two large acropolises of Sesklo and Dimini, which were excavated and published by Christos Tsountas. His work is still the bedrock on which the study of the Neolithic civilization of Greece is built. Later, other great scholars toiled in Thessaly, Greek and foreign alike, such as Apostolos Arvanitopoulos, Dimitris Theocharis, Nikolaos Verdelis, Vladimir Milojčić, Alan Wace, Walter A. Heurtley and others.
Thessaly was, from the beginning, a key part of the Mycenaean world and was helped in this by the maritime communications that developed along the coasts, from southern Greece to the great port of ancient Iolkos. The antiquity of Thessaly is traceable through the mythological cycles with which it is connected, like those of Pelias, Achilles, the Centaurs and especially the expedition of the Argonauts to Kolchis, which is considered as the first collective campaign of the Greeks in search of rich resources overseas, in search of the Golden Fleece.
Apart from Iolkos (p. 350), other large settlements developed in Thessaly in the Mycenaean age, concentrated mainly on the eastern side of the plain, around Volos and Larissa, but also around Pharsala, ancient Phthia, the homeland of Achilles, and Karditsa. The penetration of the Mycenaeans inland started from Volos and went as far as the foothills of Pindos and the north-western part of the Thessalian plain, as demonstrated by the pottery from Trikala and neighbouring Exalofos with its ties to Epirus and Kephallenia. Elassona, on the other hand, was the northernmost point of Mycenaean penetration near the passes leading to Macedonia. Seeking new lands for settlement and the expansion of their economy, the Mycenaeans did not hesitate to cross into inaccessible areas as has generally been observed; in Thessaly at the foot of Ossa they established two settlements with tholos tombs, Spilia and Marmariani.
Large settlements were located at Nea Anchialos, at Chassambali near Larissa, at Bara, at Phyllo and at Pteleos at the entrance to the Pagasetic Gulf; and they are not the only ones. Some settlements were fortified with a wall of Cyclopean type, such as Petra (Stefanovikeio) with its extensive fortifications, Pyrgos Kieriou and Ktouri, a fortress on the hill of that name near Pharsala.
Chamber tombs are generally not very common in Thessaly, with a few exceptions, such as the rich cemetery at the Mega Monasterion in Pherai or at Phyllo. On the contrary, there are many tholoi, in some cases concentrated together, with nine at Aerino, five at Pteleos and ten around Lake Karla, the ancient Voivi. The tholos appears to have been the most common burial type in Thessaly. Some tholoi are large, such as the two in Dimini, the so-called Toumba of the 13th century BC and the Lamiospito of the 14th century BC. Within a short distance is the tholos at Kapakli, as is the one in Kazanaki and yet another in Georgiko near Karditsa. There are also many small tholoi that perhaps indicate a social stratification. Most of them date to the LH IIIC period or to the Protogeometric. The survival of this type of burial well into the Iron Age, even into Geometric times, is a feature of the region. In Thessaly, the traditional cist graves are also commonly encountered, as are built tombs with a dromos, and tumuli. We can observe a variety of types existing along with the retention of the same burial customs.
Tireless sailors, the Mycenaeans travelled to the Northern Sporades off Thessaly. They left traces of their passing everywhere, albeit to varying degrees.
In Skopelos, a rectangular built tomb near Cape Staphylos contained many remarkable finds, among which was a sword with a gold-covered hilt, grip and pommel. Settlements have not been found on the island and this individual tomb thereby raises a question. Maybe the deceased was someone who died and was buried in Skopelos by chance, or a local who returned from somewhere else to be buried in his homeland. But certainly, and this is inferred from the finds, he was a warrior who belonged to a higher social class.
In Skyros, the Mycenaean settlement was located at Kastro, on the acropolis of ancient Skyros, on the protected western side. Around the acropolis are cemeteries of chamber tombs, although it is almost certain that cist graves also existed in other areas, though information is so far slight.
The ceramic finds of both the settlement and the tombs date to the LH IIIA period and run down to LH IIIC. An increase in population is to be observed at the end of LH IIIB, which may be related to the destructions afflicting Mainland Greece and new inhabitants who arrived there as refugees.
The decorative approach and the shape of the vessels follow the styles in use in Mainland Greece, but also retain a certain local character. In LH IIIC, many common elements exist mainly with the contemporary pottery of Perati, but with other areas too, like Naxos or Ialysos; these put Skyros in the network of Aegean contacts. Research on the island is very patchy, and only further studies will shed light on the picture and extent of Mycenaean civilization there.
The Cyclades had experienced great prosperity in the Early Bronze Age, the Early Cycladic period, with small organized proto-urban centres, enjoying growth and blessed with high-quality craft products. From the beginning they had contacts with Crete, which increased over the years; in the Middle Cycladic period, they became completely interconnected, and their chronology went hand in hand with the Minoan.
After the destructions that Crete experienced in the LM IB period, the way into the Aegean was opened for the Mycenaeans and they brought to the islands their way of life and their art, integrating them now into the Mycenaean world, although certain local peculiarities were always preserved to varying degrees. Life for the Cycladic islanders after the arrival of the Mycenaeans may not have been much different than before. Local customs were enriched with new types of buildings, fortifications and mansions, and with new habits such as burial practices, now in chamber, but also in tholos tombs. To date, only three vaulted tombs are known: one in Naxos, another in Tenos, at Ayia Thekla dating to LH IIIB, and an older one in Mykonos, all well-built tombs with interesting finds. There was no dependence on local palaces and, despite Mycenaean influence in various fields, throughout the Late Bronze Age the Cycladic peoples lived in autonomous socio-political groups. We believe that different forms of power and political systems prevailed on each island. In the LH IIIA period, Mycenaeanization had taken firm hold and the chronological sequence of periods is now stated in mainland Greek terms. The Mycenaeans replace the Minoans everywhere and are actively following the previously ‘Minoan’ routes into the Eastern Mediterranean as well as to Egypt.
Shortly after the middle of the LH IIIB period, a restlessness is observed in Mainland Greece and a consequent need for extra protection (p. 308); simultaneously the exports of pottery to the Aegean are reduced. A similar reaction occurs in the Cyclades. In Ayia Irini on Kea, the water source that supplied the settlement is brought into the fortified area, the walls at Phylakopi on Melos are extended, the Cyclopean acropolis is built at Ayios Andreas on Siphnos and the wall of Grotta on Naxos is put up. A little later, in LH IIIC, the acropolis is constructed at Koukounaries in Paros and the Cyclopean wall at Xobourgo, a remote part of Tenos. These fortifications are very different from each other, not only in the style of masonry, but also where they stand in the terrain. Some are coastal, such as Ayia Irini, Phylakopi and Grotta, while others are in naturally fortified places like Koukounaries, and still others are in mountainous parts of the hinterland, like Ayios Andreas on Siphnos or Xobourgo on Tenos. The character of the fortifications is as much truly defensive as a striking deterrent; it seems though that their purpose was not only to impress, as has been supposed for the large mainland citadels. There does not seem to be any organized overarching plan for the construction of these defensive projects; each island acted by and for itself. After the destruction of the palaces, new inhabitants from the mainland came to settle on the islands, but this did not take the form of a mass movement, rather, they joined larger settlements. Trade experienced a new boom; the character and peculiarities of the different sites are revealed, and new balances of power appear to have been created.
From the middle of the 11th century BC, life in the Cyclades, as everywhere in Greece, was very constrained. People felt insecure, the population was reduced and a decline set in, without further disasters. By no means can we say that the islands were deserted and uninhabited; sporadic finds of the Sub-Mycenaean period or the final LH IIIC are always around. At the beginning of the 10th century BC, with the Protogeometric period, new blood arrived, new settlers appeared and life took up its rhythm again, albeit in a new pattern.
The settlement of Ayia Irini is located on a peninsula in the sheltered bay of Ayios Nikolaos, near Vourkari on the north-west coast of Kea. It was a Cycladic city fortified early on, but mainly from the end of the Middle Cycladic period with a Cyclopean-type wall, which included towers at intervals and a central monumental gate. It was a rich city, with a strong Minoan flavour to it. The excavations of the American School of Classical Studies brought to light wall paintings, tablets in the Linear A script, and an important sanctuary/temple, where worship was conducted over an exceptionally long period of time, from the Middle Cycladic period to Hellenistic. From this temple comes a large number (fifty-five) of clay statues of the LC I period, depicting female figures standing or dancing; they wear a wide skirt, have a narrow waist, and some bear garlands around their necks.
Ayia Irini experienced a devastating earthquake around 1450 BC, in the LM ΙΒ/LH II period, from which it never fully recovered.
The contacts with Mainland Greece had begun around LH II, but intensified in LH IIIA, when Kea was completely absorbed into the Mycenaean sphere. During this period the wall is repaired, as is the temple, but on a smaller scale. A single Minoan-type figurine dates to these years, but its style of manufacture is different. At the end of the LH IIIC period the whole settlement goes into decline, the sanctuary shrinks to a single room at the north-east corner of the shrine complex, but the worship continues, and in fact there is an indication that burnt sacrifices are taking place.
Phylakopi in Melos was also a prosperous Cycladic city with Minoan overtones, walled, with a central building, the Mansion, an administrative centre with wall paintings, from where comes a fragment of a Linear A tablet. This city, Phykalopi III, was partially destroyed in the LM IB period, at the same time as Ayia Irini. The reason for the destruction is not known, but it has been assumed that it was caused by the Mycenaeans arriving in force and the changes after the Mycenaean take-over are evident. The city was rebuilt and partially repaired. In the place of the Cycladic Mansion, a Mycenaean-type complex was built with a central Megaron and auxiliary spaces around it; the Megaron resembles those on Mainland Greece, but it is simpler, without a hearth, columns, frescoes or archive. It is obvious that the new complex was in the hands of either a Mycenaean prince from Mainland Greece who introduced his customs, or of a local who had adopted the Mycenaean way of life.
Another element that gives a Mycenaean character to the settlement is the abundant imported pottery, as well as the gradual elimination of Minoan features in the local material. Finally, at the same time as the Megaron, another building was established at Phylakopi at the other end of the city and near the city wall, a double sanctuary which also shares elements with the well-known Mycenaean sanctuaries of the mainland (see figure 22). From here come golden masks, tortoise shells, kernoi, baetyls and many figurines that were placed on altars or benches. Some of the figurines are large, such as the so-called Lady of Phylakopi, and there were also hollow bull figurines reminiscent of Cretan ones, and male figurines with emphasis on the genitalia, also related to Minoan material.
Figure 22 Melos. Phylakopi. The Mycenaean sanctuary. Plan (C. Renfrew).
Figure 22Long description
The plan is oriented with north indicated by an arrow at the top left corner. The plan shows two main structures labelled Western sanctuary and Eastern sanctuary. Surrounding the sanctuaries are various walls and structures, indicated by lines. A scale that ranges from 0 through 5 metres is provided at the bottom right of the plan.
In the middle of the 13th century BC, the fortification of the settlement, in continuous use since LH I, is strengthened with new solid masonry work and marked indentations, which effectively create bastions. From the well-preserved western edge of the site, it can be understood that the fortification wall, built with large raw boulders, was a double one, with vertical walls in between making for a total thickness of 6 m.
Naxos, the large, rich island in the centre of the Cyclades, is notable for the brilliant progress of its culture from the Early Cycladic period, when it was not only already an important centre, but also a hub for traffic in the Aegean, until the end of the Mycenaean period. The Mycenaean settlement of Grotta, located on the north coastline of Naxos, experienced its first peak in the LH IIIA period, was destroyed by an earthquake in LH IIIB, but was immediately rebuilt afterwards, in the same period. It was not simply repaired, but a whole new settlement was erected above the old, on a different orientation. At the beginning of LH IIIC, the new settlement was given a wall built with a stone socle of unworked boulders and mudbrick superstructure, reminiscent of Cypriot or Middle Eastern fortifications. Inside the wall, apart from houses, there was also a large area of workshops. At the end of the Mycenaean age, the settlement of Grotta was abandoned, the inhabitants moved elsewhere and a Protogeometric cemetery was established in the same spot. The wall, repaired many times, remained visible even after the end of the Mycenaean era.
At a distance of 200 and 500 m, respectively, from the northern wall-line are the two rich Mycenaean cemeteries of Aplomata and Kamini, two separate clusters of tombs, which means that they belonged to different kin groups. The material that came from these tombs, as well in part from the settlement, constitutes one of the most important ensembles of the LH IIIC period in the Aegean. Among this is one of the largest sets of Pictorial pottery, to be put alongside those of Ialysos and Perati. The abundance of material has allowed the identification of individual ceramic wares, even the origin of specific vessels, and so reveals the contacts of Naxos with Crete, the Dodecanese, Perati, Lefkandi and Cyprus. Other finds from the cemeteries are Naue II swords, seal stones, tools, female figurines representing wailing women similar to those of Perati and Rhodes that connect the Mycenaean with the historical years, arched fibulae, gold jewellery and in particular four gold plaques from Kamini with a representation of a child’s figure – a unique find in the Aegean that has parallels with plaques from Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean bearing the form of Astarte. The finds from the cemeteries and the settlement illustrate a prosperous society, with a strong local character but open to contacts and trade. We observe once again that the arrival of people from Mainland Greece after the destruction of the palaces never took the form of a mass emigration so large as to alter the form of existing local communities.
The citadel of Ayios Andreas on Siphnos (see figure 23 (a), (b)), at the southern end of the island, far from the coast, has a dominant and protected position from which it controls a large area. It is a place most suitable for a fortress and obviously it was for this reason that it was chosen by the inhabitants of the island when there was a need for emergency security measures.
Figure 23 (a) Siphnos. The citadel of Agios Andreas. Site plan (Christina Televantou).
Figure 23 (a)Long description
The settlement is enclosed by a double-layered wall system, consisting of an Inner wall and an Outer wall. A ditch runs along the exterior of the outer wall. The settlement is accessible through three gates, labelled Gate 1, Gate 2 and Gate 3. Within the walls, there is a network of buildings and structures with narrow passages and open spaces between them. Some of the buildings are labelled with letters, such as A, B, H, M, N, O, P, S, Y and Z. A Church of Saint Andrew is located near Gate 3. A Sanctuary is located near Gate 2. A Cistern is situated in the central area. Two Drain systems are marked, one near the cistern and another closer to the church. A scale that ranges from 0 through 200 metres is provided at the bottom left of the plan.
Figure 23 (b) Siphnos. The citadel of Agios Andreas. Outer fortification wall. Part of the north-west side after the removal of the destruction layer (Christina Televantou).
The Cyclopean fortification was founded towards the end of the Mycenaean era, in the LH IIIB2 period. It encloses an area of approximately 10,000 sq. m, has a length of 330 m, and its original height is estimated at 6 m, of which up to 3.80 m survives today. The wall was double, with indentations and bastions at intervals, and has great similarities with the Argive citadels.
The inner wall was built first. The main entrance, Gate III, is located on the east side, protected by a semi-circular bastion; a small ramp leads to the gate, which is designed to prevent the enemy from deploying. There are still two postern gates that doubled as windows, access to which was by way of a movable ladder. Stone stairways facilitated the ascent of the warriors to the top of the wall, the north-western side of which was reinforced by a stout tower. Abutting the wall in the interior of the acropolis were houses built for the garrison or storage rooms, which communicated with their attics via wooden ladders. Shortly after these works, the external wall was constructed: 2 m thick with huge blocks of stone, thus creating a deep ditch between the two lines of fortifications and making the citadel virtually impregnable. This is an extremely sophisticated system of defensive architecture, yet another proof of the ingenuity and practical spirit of the Mycenaeans.
Nevertheless, this important acropolis did not enjoy a long life, only around 100–120 years. It was abandoned in the middle of the LH IIIC period for reasons unknown, maybe simply because it no longer had a reason to exist. It was repaired and inhabited again from the 8th century BC onwards.
At Koukounaries on Paros on the hill above the bay of Naoussa, a Mycenaean settlement was established in the LH IIIC period. On the slopes of the hill there was a small settlement, while higher up a fortified complex with a megaron-like mansion was protected by a Cyclopean wall of Argive type with indentations; the original height was estimated to be 8 m, but only 3 m survive today. It is built on a series of successive hill terraces, so that it serves both as a fortification and as a backing for the buildings and protection of the ascent to them. The people who settled here do not seem to have been random refugees. On the contrary, they were organized, knowledgeable about the Mycenaean way of life and had a high standard of living, judging by the finds, like a piece of rock crystal and ivory plaques. It is not known where they came from, but it is possible that they arrived here from another island, or from within Paros itself. Soon, however, the whole complex was destroyed by fire and obviously by enemy attack. In an effort to defend themselves, the residents made use of large stones found in heaps in the storerooms behind the wall. In the basements of the buildings were discovered the crushed remains of people and animals that had gathered there to protect themselves. The pithoi and other containers in the storerooms were full of supplies. Perhaps they were taken unaware by the rapidity of the attack. After this destruction, Koukounaries was abandoned, to be inhabited again in the Geometric period.
Xobourgo in the centre of the southern region of Tenos was a well-known fortified settlement of the Archaic and Classical period. Modern research revealed that the Cyclopean wall (see figure 24) that protected it was built at the end of the Bronze Age, in late LH IIIC, at the same time that a small settlement was established there. The location is steep, but it is close to arable land, has access to water sources and oversees all the land and sea routes, so it was perfectly suitable for the housing and shelter of a community that may have feared raids and piracy. The wall, built of large unworked boulders, enclosed a small area of 2,000 sq. m.
Figure 24 Tenos. Xobourgo. Cyclopean wall from the outside, before repairs. (Nota Kourou).
According to its pottery, the settlement dates, like the wall, to the final part of the LH IIIC period. Though it was small, it seems to have been well organized and had some remarkable metallurgical facilities. It ceased to function at the beginning of historical times, as indicated by the burials and pyres of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods in front of the wall. Burials made beside older fortifications were not an uncommon practice in the Aegean. Such a habit has been observed elsewhere, for example at Eleusis, but also in neighbouring Naxos, where a Protogeometric cist grave was placed near the wall, followed by the establishment of a Protogeometric cemetery.
As already mentioned, the trajectories followed by the other Cycladic islands were broadly similar, with the exception of course of Thera, a topic not included in this study. The Mycenaeans must have been in contact with the island before the volcano erupted. Mycenaean vessels have been found in Thera, as have Theran ones in Mycenae in Grave Circle B. The Mycenaeans are arguably depicted in Theran frescoes, either in procession wearing their characteristic panoply, the tower-shaped shield, spears and helmets, or on ships, their boar tusks helmets hanging on the rigging. The Mycenaeans returned to Thera 300 years after the eruption of the volcano, when things had calmed down, but their presence is not noted by any particular event or achievement. Thera regained its place in the cultural evolution of the Aegean in the Archaic period.
The islands of the North Aegean constitute a unit with their own prehistory and common interests. There, in the Early Bronze Age, the first large ‘proto-urban’ centres developed, Poliochni on Lemnos and Thermi on Lesvos. The islands were connected to the coast of Asia Minor opposite, participating in some way in a cultural cycle centred on Troy, the most important of the cities of that part of Asia Minor.
The islands of the North Aegean were to various degrees drawn into the Mycenaean sphere of influence. Located amid a region of commercial interest to the Mycenaeans, they also acted as intermediate way stations on the sea lanes of the Aegean leading to northern Asia Minor and from there to the Black Sea.
The contacts with Mainland Greece, clearly evident in Lemnos, had already begun in the Middle Bronze Age, before the ‘Mycenaean’ identity of the great centres had taken shape. The matt-painted vessels of Lemnos from Hephaestia and Koukonisi are similar to the Thessalian ones, which is why it has been thought that there may have been common workshops.
It is believed that the first Mycenaeans went to Lemnos, perhaps not peacefully, from Thessaly or Pylos around the 14th century BC, a time when Mycenaean expansion in Greece and beyond was notable and vigorous. It is noteworthy that the relationship between Lemnos and Thessaly is also hinted at in mythology. Searching for the Golden Fleece, Jason and the Argonauts stopped in Lemnos and had children with the local women who were alone because they had killed their own husbands. Jason had two sons with Hypsipyle, the queen of Lemnos; one of them, Euneus, became king of Lemnos and cooperated with both the Trojans and the Greeks, to whom, according to tradition, he traded wine and slaves.
The Mycenaeans also used to move slaves around, which is apparent not only from mythology, but also from written sources. In the Hittite records, in the Tawagalawa letter, it is mentioned that a certain Piyamaradus supplied 7,000 captives to the Aḫḫiyawā, that is to the Achaeans. It is known that captives were enslaved and used as labourers or sold on. The ‘life of slavery’ – δούλειον ἦμαρ – was the fear of all vanquished people (p. 135). The tablets of Pylos mention the women of Lemnos; they were workers and had been seized or exchanged after a battle.
Lemnos was located in a key position on the metal trade route that led north to Macedonia or east to Troy and Anatolia. At Poliochni were found the oldest products of metalwork in the Aegean and the city played a crucial role in the introduction of new technology. Mythology reflects the importance of Lemnos in this field: Hephaestus, the metal-working god and protector of the island, had his workshop there.
Apart from Poliochni and Hephaestia, Mycenaean finds have come to light at Myrina and other places. In particular, the recent excavations in Koukonisi have revealed a great harbour town that had contacts not only with neighbouring Troy and other settlements in Asia Minor, but also with Mainland Greece, Crete and the islands of the southern Aegean. Koukonisi owes this activity to its exceptional geographical position, deep within the Gulf of Moudros, which is one of the safest harbours in the Aegean.
Koukonisi was already a prosperous settlement during the Early and especially the Middle Bronze Age. The various artefacts that have been found indicate its cultural connections with and parallel development to Poliochni and Troy. Also, the discovery of two balance weights belonging to different metrological systems indicates a range of transactions with traders of different origins.
During the Late Bronze Age, the exceptional position of Koukonisi, a secure anchorage on the metal routes, attracted first the Minoans and then the Mycenaeans, who were not mere traveller-merchants but settled there, as demonstrated by the numerous ceramics and the typically Mycenaean clay figurines. Animal and anthropomorphic figurines, conveyors of deeply rooted religious beliefs wherever they are located, reveal the identity of their owners.
As the excavator, Christos Boulotis, aptly observes, the multidisciplinary research carried out in Koukonisi helps to understand the prehistory not only of Lemnos, but also of the whole region of the North-east Aegean. The Mycenaean settlement connects us in some way with the time of the Trojan War and illuminates the place of Lemnos in the Homeric epics.
In Lesvos, Mycenaean finds have mainly been found at Thermi, and to a lesser degree at other places, such as Mithymna, Antissa and Perama in the bay of Gera, but the degree of Mycenaean penetration is not yet known because the island has not been sufficiently explored. Lesvos, like Samos and Chios, is unlikely to have been one of the priorities of the Mycenaeans, unlike Lemnos and Psara.
Samos was inhabited from the beginning of the Bronze Age. In the EH II period, in the Heraion area, there was a fortified settlement of proto-urban character, a trading point in contact with the Cyclades, Asia Minor and particularly Crete, especially after 2000 BC. A Mycenaean settlement has not yet been discovered, although scattered finds and a built Mycenaean tomb indicate that there must have been one. But cult was already established in the 17th century BC, at the time of the Minoan thalassocracy, as is proved by the Minoan pottery found under the great altar of the sanctuary of Hera. Many conical cups, incense burners, etc., indicate ritual sacrifices and feasting. On top of the Minoan layer, Mycenaean pottery and an ivory statuette of a worshipper show continuity of cult; it is considered that most likely worship continued at the transition of the millennium into the Iron Age, as elsewhere. The fact that Hera is mentioned in the Linear B tablets corroborates this.
In Chios, the first few Mycenaean ceramic finds that have been unearthed in various parts of the island date back to the LH IIIA period; it does not look as if Mycenaeans had approached before this date the island, which was and remained on the periphery of the Mycenaean orbit. However, at the end of the period, in LH IIIC, an important Mycenaean settlement developed at the coastal site of Emporio. Until then, the pottery of Emporio had been either a local grey ware with eastern Anatolian characteristics or a reddish-brown one; in LH IIIC Mycenaean pottery appears, some imported, but mostly of local production, which shows much similarity with the contemporary ceramics from Lefkandi and Kea. This change means that new settlers had arrived; the excavator, Sinclair Hood, rightly assumed that they probably came from Euboea and that they may have been Avantes, that is, they belonged to the very old tribe of the Avantes, whose cradle was in Euboea.
The Psara group, or Ψυρίη of antiquity (Od. 3.170–172), consists of a cluster of small rocky islets located in the centre of the archipelago, very close to Chios. The largest of the islands, Psara, with an area of 67 sq. km, is mainly known from the heroic action of its fishermen during the struggle for Independence in 1824 and from the famous epigram by the national poet of Greece Dionysios Solomos. Of all the islands of the North Aegean, Psara and Lemnos – Koukonisi – were the safest and used as essential sheltering points for those travelling to the north Aegean from the south, from Euboea or the Cyclades onto the coasts of Asia Minor. Of all the settlements, Archontiki on Psara was the only truly Mycenaean one, in the sense that it was a real settlement and not just a trading station or emporium.
Archontiki, on the southern leeward coast of Psara, is a fertile valley with water sources, well protected from the winds. The earliest habitation dates back to the end of the Neolithic and continued into subsequent periods. The Mycenaean settlement, established in the middle of the second millennium BC, was built amphitheatrically on a hillside, and extends down to the sea. Contemporary with the settlement, a cemetery was founded in a large area between the western and the lower eastern parts of the hill, with cist graves and a small tholos, the dromos of which was covered with stone slabs. A little to the south of this tomb, a stone-built altar in the shape of an eschara covered with a thick layer of ashes and burnt animal bones came to light. Between the tomb and the altar there was a deposition pit filled with vessels regularly placed, from the 6th and 5th centuries BC and of exceptional quality, both black- and red-figured styles from various parts of Greece, especially Corinth and Attica, as well as an important set of Chian pottery. The shapes were mainly goblets and skyphoi, that is vessels for drinking and making libations, indicating the performance of a ritual. The same is suggested by votive inscriptions incised on certain vessels. It is obvious that this is a case of hero worship associated with a deceased person unknown to us, and just as unknown to the people of the 6th century BC who discovered and honoured his tomb.
The houses in Archontiki are organized in clusters, have stone foundations and mudbrick walls, or are made entirely of stone; all have storage rooms in which large pithoi were found. The settlement is crisscrossed by roads, a large central one that goes to the port and other smaller ones. The main road led to the ‘Merchant’s House’, as it was named from the many pithoi it contained, and to the area of bronzesmiths, where stone moulds were found for the manufacture of weapons and tools. The settlement was destroyed by an earthquake and fire around 1100 BC, or a little later.
The finds from the cemetery are of very good quality, showing the prosperity of the inhabitants, despite being far from the large centres. The pottery follows the entire development of Mycenaean ceramics, from the end of the LH IIB period to LH IIIC. Stirrup jars, alabastra, goblets and skyphoi predominate, while there are also rarer shapes, such as flasks and askoi. Along with the true Mycenaean, there is also the grey-ware pottery as well as domestic ware. Of the clay figurines one clay model of a boat stands out, with a reclining figure inside, holding a vase. Numerous pieces of jewellery were recovered, such as a gold pendant with granulation, gold earrings, rings, golden strips that had been sewn on clothing, and several beads of gold or semi-precious stones, of faience and particularly of glass, which were assembled into necklaces. There were many plaques of glass in various shapes, some rectangular and variously decorated, including a set of original plaques in the shape of a female figure and seals, many imported from other regions. Weapons also appear: eight swords of types C, D, F and G; twenty-four knives, spearheads and arrows. There were also fish hooks and net weights, as is natural for a coastal settlement, and a steatite mould for manufacturing metal rings. This variety and wealth confirm that Psara was an important trading hub. In addition to their agricultural and fishing activities, the inhabitants of the Mycenaean age were traders who imported both raw materials that were processed on site and finished products, as well as export items. There must have been a system for handling these goods, the organization of which currently escapes us.
We observe that in the islands of the North Aegean, as in the Cyclades, there was no Mycenaean central authority and that the Mycenaeans controlled only certain activities. The local population chose from the Mycenaean material culture specific elements that interested them, either from a practical or an artistic point of view, mainly ceramics and to a lesser degree the metal objects and in particular weapons, jewellery and seals.
The southern area of the Aegean, the ‘lower interface’ according to the term that has recently prevailed, the tangential borderline with the coasts of Asia Minor, is closer to the Mycenaean world than is the northern area, or the ‘upper interface’. In both cases, though, the Mycenaean presence is more pronounced than the Minoan had been, and carries a deeper significance for the future.
The Dodecanese islands lie on one of the major maritime trade routes of the Aegean, and the most important in the Bronze Age, connecting Mainland Greece, Crete and the Cyclades with Cyprus, Asia Minor and the Syrian-Palestinian coast.
The Mycenaeans arrived early in the Dodecanese, in the LH II period. They settled in various places, but mainly on Rhodes, at Trianda, and on Kos. Trianda, or ancient Ialysos, lies on the north-west coast of the island, very close to the sea where there was a rich Minoan ‘colony’; the Mycenaean settlement was also founded there, although today it is extremely damaged by continuous habitation and the later deposition of quantities of alluvium.
Because of this, Mycenaean monuments are not preserved at Ialysos, or anywhere else in the Dodecanese, except for some residential remains on Kos. However, in the two cemeteries of the city, the Mycenaeans appear dynamically with their characteristic chamber tombs and rich grave goods. The tombs of ‘warriors’, noted for an impressive number of weapons of various types, such as swords of type C and D, gave rise to the hypothesis that the Mycenaeans arrived as conquerors and very likely from the Peloponnese, because the Minoan pottery was gradually replaced by pottery coming from the Argolid. This is indeed possible, but signs of destruction are not apparent. Many finds from Cyprus date to the same period, and anyway the two islands had links throughout the ages. The greatest expansion of the Mycenaeans in the Dodecanese occurs in LH IIIA and, as in the Cyclades, their presence is similarly varying in its intensity. The population is on the increase in this period, as the establishment of new tombs shows; obviously new inhabitants are coming from Mainland Greece.
The main reason that motivated people to move to the islands is well-known: trade and the search for new ways of enrichment. This goal was achieved through contacts with Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean basin, and Rhodes was ideally positioned in this respect. But the fact that many of those who left Mainland Greece in the years of 1400–1350 BC belonged to the wealthy and upper social class, as can be seen from the goods in the tombs, leads us to suspect that some left because of new social and living conditions at home. Just before the establishment of the palatial centres, signs of social unrest appeared in the mainland. Some mansions or rich houses were destroyed or abandoned; this happened in the Menelaion, at Pylos, Tiryns, Nichoria, and perhaps even Mycenae. New authorities took over the palaces and a strong central administration was organized. Some felt they had to leave, and members of aristocratic families sought refuge elsewhere. From this point of view, the ‘warrior’ tombs of Ialysos are typical.
In the LH IIIA1–2 period, apart from the imported Mycenaean pottery, the hybrid Rhodian-Mycenaean style appears, which will increase its circulation as time goes on. The pictorial style develops, especially in Ialysos, where from comes the largest set of figurative vessels in the eastern Aegean, including large kraters with chariot representations. There are also other types of pottery, local products such as grey ware and the burnished ware with its variety of shapes and decoration, which indicates that the craftsmen were acquainted with the pottery of the eastern regions and even of Troy.
In addition to pottery, jewellery has been found in the tombs, beads from semi-precious stones and amber, items in silver, tinned clay vessels, as well as various exotica, such as an ostrich egg, a pyxis from a hippopotamus tusk and other objects that indicate connections with eastern countries. Despite the fact that it had been looted during the 19th century, the cemetery at Ialysos is considered among the richest in Greek lands.
The burials follow Mycenaean customs, such as the libations in honour of the deceased and the ritual breaking of the vessels, thus accounting for the many fragments of kylikes found at the entrance of the tombs or in the dromoi.
Ialysos certainly accepted Mycenaeans as inhabitants, but it never became a ‘Mycenaean’ town. It was an important commercial centre and a transit hub where goods were collected from various quarters for redistribution. Its material culture was Mycenaean and it enjoyed close contact with Cyprus and parts of Asia Minor, mainly in the LH IIIC period, namely with Iasos, Ephesus, Miletus, Halicarnassus, Panaztepe, Müskebi in Caria, as well as the Cyclades. At that time a small geographical unit had been created in this area, whose binding link was a Mycenaean cultural thread and activities held in common.
On the south-east coast of Rhodes, in the area of Pylona near Lindos, one of the two best harbours of the island, cemeteries of chamber tombs have come to light, one in the past, most of whose tombs had been looted (as elsewhere in many parts of the Dodecanese), and a second, discovered relatively recently. The four tombs in this second cemetery (called Asprospilia), were intact and the contents have greatly enriched our knowledge of Mycenaean Rhodes. They date to the LH IIIA1–2 period. The pottery is either imported, most probably from the Peloponnese, as at Ialysos, or it belongs to the Rhodian-Mycenaean category. Many vessels have been used for burial ceremonies. In tomb 1, two large piriform jars and one jug in the Octopus Style carry remnants of linen cloth around the mouth, rim and neck; this is a rare find, as very few specimens of cloth survive from the Mycenaean period (p. 115). The climatic conditions in Greece favour the growth of bacteria and for this reason fabrics are not preserved. In the case of the tomb of Pylona, the preservation is relatively good because its proximity to the bronze offerings protected it. Copper oxides, or sulphides, have the property to destroy germs.
Another piece of linen cloth, of which only remnants are preserved, was used to tie up the lower jaw of the dead person. This is an old custom that is preserved to this day. In Mycenaean Greece it is known from Perati and the region of Attica (p. 557). Very close to and together with the skeletal remains were found many beads from faience and glass that adorned the clothes of the deceased woman, as well as two necklaces or diadems with mould-made beads in blue glass. Similar jewellery is known from the Peloponnese (p. 31). A small vessel made of coarse clay with a slate cap that was apparently used to provide light during the burials or ceremonies is a rare find. Items of similar purpose, albeit a little different in form, have been found elsewhere, in Cyprus, the Menelaion and at Tiryns, and are torch-holders. In tomb 3 another find, also unique to the Dodecanese, is the chariot figurine (see figure 25) with two human figures and a canopy placed between them; they obviously had some official status, perhaps suggesting that they were taking part in a ritual procession. Their attitude betrays intimacy, as the hand of one rests on the shoulder of the other; the gesture probably signifies friendship or kinship, and – as a burial gift – it acquires a personal character. Chariot figurines with a canopy are known from other places in Greece, but they are rare; they are also depicted on kraters of the pictorial style. The deceased of tomb 3 was a person of higher social class, as can be seen from the symbols of ‘prestige’ that accompanied him, bronze weapons, a bronze vase, a spear and a short sword of type EII, which date the tomb to the LH IIIA2 period.
Figure 25 Rhodes. Pylona, cemetery, T. 3. Chariot figurine depicting two figures with a parasol between them. LH IIIA2. Clay. Ht. 14.3, L. 0.12. Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, 1683. (Efi Karantzali).
The fourth tomb can be dated between the early and late LH IIIC. The finds include clay vases, gold jewellery, glass, faience. A bronze arched fibula stands out, well preserved and decorated with two bronze plastic knots. It has parallels at Perati, Elateia and Kamini on Naxos; this is one of the first examples of a type that survived up to the Geometric period.
A little before the end of the LH IIIB period, at the same time as the cities of Mainland Greece and the Cyclades were experiencing unrest and taking protective measures, Ialysos and Rhodes in general show signs of decline, but to a much lesser extent. Part of the reason may have been the distance that separates the Dodecanese from the mainland. The quantity of imported pottery was reduced, and the number of tombs became limited, although the grave goods still contain valuable materials.
The LH IIIC period was again one of prosperity for the Dodecanese. Another population increase is observed in Ialysos. It is noteworthy that old tombs abandoned in LH IIIB were again used by new owners, perhaps new settlers or even local residents from more remote areas getting together near a large centre with its good economic prospects. The ceramics generally followed the phases that prevailed on the mainland but display a great variety mainly with the development of the pictorial style. In this last category, the Octopus Style is the most widespread; it has a close affinity with Peloponnesian ceramics, but even more so with specimens from Naxos, Perati and Crete. At this time, a new type of burial appears in the Dodecanese, namely cremation of the dead. An older instance from Ialysos dating to LH IIIA2 was an isolated example, but in LH IIIC cremation becomes more widespread, just as in other areas in Greece, even coexisting with inhumation, a practice which has also been observed at Perati (p. 557). It is a custom that came either from eastern areas or the central Mediterranean depending on circumstances, although not totally unknown in Greece.
Kos, despite its connection with Rhodes, follows its own course, as do the other islands of the Dodecanese. There was a Mycenaean settlement in the area of Alasarna, but most of the finds come from the large walled settlement of Seraglio and the two cemeteries, Langada and Elaiona.
The decline in the LH IIIB period does not seem to have affected the island, as the settlement and tombs show continuous use. Kos had its own elite society, as is reflected in the ‘warrior graves’ endowed with a large number of weapons. In one of them the sword of the deceased had been ‘killed’, a custom appropriate to important people.
A part of this elite society used the two only tholos tombs found in the Dodecanese, one in the western part of the ancient city of Kos, the other in the surrounding area. The tombs date to the LH IIIB2–IIIC periods, are small, with diameters of 4.50 m and 4.14 m respectively, and were very damaged and looted. Nevertheless, small sets of gold jewellery and weapons were found inside them, indicative of the social status of the owners.
From the finds we conclude that Kos had some connections different from those of Rhodes. It is certain that it had contacts with Perati and was open to a more ‘European’ influence, as evidenced by an early Naue II type sword that had arrived from western Greece directly, or through intermediary trading posts. The pottery is also diversified: although the well-known older styles continue, namely the grey and the burnished wares, the Rhodian-Mycenaean style is endemic, and the local vessels outnumber the imported ones. In LH IIIC, as in Rhodes, the pictorial style is very popular and towards the end of the period some figurative vessels are very richly decorated. The Italian excavators named this variant the ‘flamboyant’ style. On one krater a warrior is depicted with the characteristic feathered headgear of the Sea Peoples. Maybe their influence was more important in Kos than in other places.
Crete is an important region within the Mycenaean world, but it always kept its own identity in every sphere, an afterglow of the great era of its palaces.
After the destructions of 1450 BC in the Late Minoan (LM) IB period, Mycenaeans settled in Crete, arriving not only from the Argolid, as was previously believed, but also from other areas. Whether their arrival was peaceful still remains to be determined. However, they did not come as conqueror-destroyers. They had known Crete for a long time, from the LH I period; they had learnt much from it, initially about arts and crafts, religion, administrative organization and overseas trade. It was then that the first phase of the syncretism of the two civilizations occurred.
Apart from those who were part of the large group that took control and occupied Knossos, others gradually arrived to settle wherever they saw fit. There was no real ‘Mycenaeanization’ of Crete (although of course the adoption of Linear B was something of the sort), but more of an osmosis, an amalgam of two cultures, even if the administration was in the hands of the Mycenaeans. The 14th and 13th centuries BC mark the second phase of assimilation.
When the first Mycenaeans arrived around 1450 BC or a little later, the Minoan palace centres had been destroyed, except for some parts of the palace of Knossos, and thalassocracy was a thing of the past, as was the pax minoica. These were turbulent times. The ruling class that settled and emerged in Crete after the Mycenaean take-over sought to create its own identity, which was Mycenaean and Minoan at the same time. They maintained their own mainland customs, but selectively adopted various Minoan elements. It was a compromise policy, as indicated in the path followed in the sensitive field of religion that had deep roots in Crete. They introduced their own gods mentioned in the tablets, but they also wanted to secure the Minoan fundamentals, as can be seen in the case of Zeus, the Mycenaean god worshipped as Diktaios in caves as was customary in Crete.
Some rooms of the palace of Knossos were designed and painted in accordance with the new spirit. The palace no longer controlled the whole island but continued to operate and wield significant power, as its rich archive demonstrates. As elsewhere in Crete, in its immediate surroundings, mainland chamber tombs, the predominantly Mycenaean burial type, appear, along with rich grave goods, typified by the many metal objects deposited, bronze vessels and weapons with luxuriously embellished hilts, as on the mainland. Mycenaean presence and influence may be recognized in the large clay jars or amphorae of the Palace Style created in Crete according to a new aesthetic. One such amphora is adorned with a boar’s-tusk helmet, while a goblet/kylix, a typical Mycenaean burial gift, has a decorative motif of a sword.
The palace of Knossos is suddenly destroyed around 1375 BC, a time when there is no evidence of other destructions on the island; the cause may be attributed to internal disputes. After this event the palace utterly lost its splendour. It was partially inhabited and acquired a mainly religious character, but the movements of persons and goods were still recorded; there are many tablets of Linear B from this second period.
On the hill of Kastelli in Chania, in the centre of the present city, an organized settlement had been established since the Middle Minoan period. At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, there existed a palatial centre with an advanced administrative system, as demonstrated by the discovery of a rich archive of Linear A tablets and a large number of seals and sealings. The complex was destroyed around 1450 BC, as were all the palaces on Crete, but after a while it was reorganized and, freed from the control of Knossos, experienced a new prosperity in the LM IIIB period, a period during which the Mycenaean presence is strong in Crete and especially at Chania, where Mycenaeans probably lived. The palace had an important archive with Linear B tablets; it traded with the rest of Greece and the islands, as evidenced by transport stirrup jars, often inscribed with Linear B, circulating throughout the Aegean with their contents of oil and perfumed oils, and wine, which have turned up at many sites.
Mycenaean building remains in Chania are few and fragmentary, due to the modern dense construction. However, a palace-type installation has been identified, which, among other things, includes a large outdoor courtyard, where sacrificial ceremonies took place. To the south and east of the settlement are the scattered tombs of the cemetery, which date to the LM IIIA–B periods, mainly chambered, but also some that belong to the rare type of pit with side niches, the so-called pit caves.
Apart from Knossos and Chania, which both maintained a central administration, after the destruction of the palaces in LM IB, small autonomous centres emerged, of varying importance depending on their level of prosperity. Mycenaean presence is recognized in several of them, where either a mixed population lived, or the locals were influenced by the Mycenaean mentality. Especially worthy of mention here are Gournia for the whole organization of the city, Kommos, Ayia Triada, Gazi and, of course, Archanes.
In the very rich cemetery at Phourni just outside Archanes, an enclosure containing seven shaft graves is clearly of Mycenaean origin. It is a burial practice unprecedented in Crete with the closest parallel in the much earlier royal Grave Circles of Mycenae. The same cemetery includes three tholoi, two older and one – tomb A – which dates to the LM IIIA period and has similarities in the way of construction with the vaulted ones of the mainland. Many finds also have Mycenaean parallels, such as beads of gold and glass, ivory plaques and inlays, including ones of a male head with a boar’s-tusk helmet etc. Other finds are purely Minoan, such as the gold signet rings. It may be suggested that those buried there were either Mycenaeans, who had achieved a harmony with the Minoan cultural environment, or Minoans who had adopted Mycenaean customs and decorative themes.
Characteristic of this admixture of Minoan and Mycenaean elements is also the rich cemetery at Armenoi near Rethymno, with chamber tombs of the Mycenaean type and a tholos. Among the finds are grave stelai, a Mycenaean custom, as well as numerous tusks from a helmet, tinned vessels and twenty-four clay larnakes, from which we may learn a good deal about the life and religious observances of Minoan and Mycenaean society. Biers were used to transport the dead to their final resting place, another Mycenaean custom.
LM IIIB was a period of prosperity for Crete; the trade routes were open and Cretan products circulated throughout the Aegean. Ceramic output may not have been as original as it used to be, but the workshops of the island continued to be productive. However, at the turn of the 13th century BC, at the end of LH IIIB and the very beginning of the LH IIIC period, at the same time as all the destructions in the Aegean area, the decline began. Settlements were not abandoned but contracted, and new ones were established in safer mountainous places, such as Karphi, Vrokastro, the walled Kastrokefala and also the similarly enclosed Ornos. At Kavousi, the megaron-like components present in the big houses indicate that the inhabitants preserved some Mycenaean patterns and followed the developments that had taken place in the mainland. Art also evolved, shaped by new elements. The transition to the Protogeometric style and the new era was accomplished smoothly and without breaks, maintaining a definite continuity.
From this overview of the different regions of Greece during the Mycenaean age, it is clear that not only was each one defined by particular characteristics, but also that each experienced different rates of growth and cultural development. Nevertheless, in following the course of the Mycenaeans down the centuries, we can ultimately discern the unity and continuity of their history. For Greece of historical times, it has been said that it was an entity, but one with many faces; the same applies to the Mycenaean age. The ‘many faces’ aspect is a timeless image of Greece, which only the Roman occupation managed to unify, or flatten out.
