Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

26
27 ATHENS AND LEFKANDI: A TALE OF TWO SITES Irene S. Lemos In terms of the sources of our knowledge of them, ancient Athens and Lefkandi might be said to occupy the extremes of a continuum. In the case of Athens, we have more information from literary sources than for any other Greek city. Lefkandi, however, is unknown to the literary sources, to the point where we do not even know its ancient name, 1 and it was only discovered in the 1960s by a British survey of Euboea. 2 It is, however, archaeology and not the ancient sources which give us more reliable information about the early history of both Athens and Lefkandi, 3 and indeed, archaeological discoveries provide enough evidence to suggest that both sites were occupied through out the Bronze Age. Although they both continued to play an important role in the Early Iron Age, Lefkandi appears to have lost its prominent position at the end of the eighth century, while Athens continued to be a focal site up to the modern day.This continuous occu- pation of Athens, however, deprives us of a complete archaeological picture of its early history. Apart from the systematic excavations in the Kerameikos and the Agora, the rest of the town has been investigated only by rescue excavations from which we rarely have fully published reports. Moreover, the Athenian Acropolis had to experience not only continuous occupation but also several cleaning oper- ations after destructions or rearrangements, and even the occasional bombard- ment, throughout its long history of use. 1 For the ancient name of the site see Popham in Lefkandi I: 423–7 and discussion in Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 203–4. 2 The site was excavated after a survey conducted by Hugh Sackett, Mervyn Popham and others (Sackett et al. 1966). The location of the site next to the Lelantine plain and between the two well-known ancient cities of Eretria and Chalkis suggested to the rst excavators that it must be of some importance. I believe, however, that it is fair to say that they would have never antici- pated its signicance for the history of early Greece. 3 In this chapter I am not going to use later literary sources in order to reconstruct the early stage in the history of the two sites but only archaeological material. So questions related to the syn- oikismos or the autochthony of the Athenians or possible scenarios for the end of Lefkandi related to the Lelantine war will be left out.

description

грчка

Transcript of Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

Page 1: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

27

ATHENS AND LEFKANDI: A TALE OFTWO SITES

Irene S. Lemos

In terms of the sources of our knowledge of them, ancient Athens and Lefkandimight be said to occupy the extremes of a continuum. In the case of Athens, wehave more information from literary sources than for any other Greek city.Lefkandi, however, is unknown to the literary sources, to the point where we donot even know its ancient name,1 and it was only discovered in the 1960s by aBritish survey of Euboea.2 It is, however, archaeology and not the ancient sourceswhich give us more reliable information about the early history of both Athensand Lefkandi,3 and indeed, archaeological discoveries provide enough evidenceto suggest that both sites were occupied through out the Bronze Age. Althoughthey both continued to play an important role in the Early Iron Age, Lefkandiappears to have lost its prominent position at the end of the eighth century, whileAthens continued to be a focal site up to the modern day. This continuous occu-pation of Athens, however, deprives us of a complete archaeological picture of itsearly history. Apart from the systematic excavations in the Kerameikos and theAgora, the rest of the town has been investigated only by rescue excavations fromwhich we rarely have fully published reports. Moreover, the Athenian Acropolishad to experience not only continuous occupation but also several cleaning oper-ations after destructions or rearrangements, and even the occasional bombard-ment, throughout its long history of use.

1 For the ancient name of the site see Popham in Lefkandi I: 423–7 and discussion in Lemos,Protogeometric Aegean: 203–4.

2 The site was excavated after a survey conducted by Hugh Sackett, Mervyn Popham and others(Sackett et al. 1966). The location of the site next to the Lelantine plain and between the twowell-known ancient cities of Eretria and Chalkis suggested to the first excavators that it must beof some importance. I believe, however, that it is fair to say that they would have never antici-pated its significance for the history of early Greece.

3 In this chapter I am not going to use later literary sources in order to reconstruct the early stagein the history of the two sites but only archaeological material. So questions related to the syn-oikismos or the autochthony of the Athenians or possible scenarios for the end of Lefkandirelated to the Lelantine war will be left out.

Page 2: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

ATHENS TO THE END OF THE LH IIIB

It is generally believed that there was a Mycenaean palace on the Acropolis butthe only evidence for its existence is a column base and possibly some steps whichaccording to Iakovidis have proportions and workmanship comparable to thosefound in the west staircase of Mycenae and other palaces (Iakovidis 1962: 173–8;1983: 86).4 However, despite later building activities, one would have thought thatif there was an ‘imposing megaron complex’ on the Acropolis, then more evidenceof it might have survived. The exact position of the assumed palace is also uncer-tain (Iakovidis 1983: 86–8).5

But apart from the remains on the Acropolis – or the lack of them – a numberof chamber tombs and domestic deposits, mostly in the form of wells and rubbishdumps, provide more evidence of LH Athens. These have been located in threeareas: to the north, to the south, and to the east of the Acropolis.6

To the north tombs and wells were located in the north slope of the Areopagusand in the area of the later Agora. Tombs were built there in LH IIB. The wealth-iest are dated to the LH IIIA1 phase and were located in the north slope of theAreopagus and the Kolonos Agoraios (Immerwahr 1971: 98; Mountjoy 1995: 29;Regional Mycenaean: 493). Another cluster of burials was located in the east sideof the Agora beneath the Stoa of Attalos (Immerwahr 1971: 98–9; Townsend1995: 9).7 During the next stage – LH IIIA2 – more tombs were built in this areabut with fewer burials deposited in them.8 In addition a rubbish dump is dated tothis stage. It was found close to the later north-east Stoa (Immerwahr 1971:248–50).

506 .

4 The earliest remains found on the Acropolis are dated to LH I by Iakovidis – followingKavvadias and Holland, who excavated them. These remains consisted of walls found north ofthe Erechtheion (Iakovidis 1962: 69–70, fig. 5; 1983: 75, fig. 9).

5 Considering the date of the construction of the palace, Mountjoy (1995: 23–4) re-examined theslight evidence for the construction of the five retaining walls which were built to accommodateMycenaean buildings. First, it is noticeable that such material was found in connection with theconstruction of the terraces and not buildings. This material consists of four groups of sherdsinitially published by Iakovidis (1962: 240–3) but now lost. Mountjoy dated them from pho-tographs to the LH IIIA1–A2 phase and not to the early LH IIIB, a date suggested by Iakovidis.She then argued that the terraces and the palace were built during LH IIIA1–A2, a date whichshe believed fits better with sequences in other Mycenaean citadels. It is obvious, however, thatany discussion of the terraces and the possible palace is based on meagre evidence.

6 Both Pantelidou (1975) and Mountjoy (1995; Regional Mycenaean) give good summaries of theevidence during the LH period.

7 Another tomb was found near the Hill of the Nymphs and west of the area of the later Agora;the tomb is located close to others excavated in the area and Immerwahr suggested that theyprobably belong to the same cemetery (Immerwahr 1971: 178; Pantelidou 1975: 51–3; Mountjoy1995: 31). More tombs came to light in the more recent excavations conducted by Camp (2003:254–73) under the Classical Building II to the north-east of the Stoa Poikile. They are datedmostly to LH IIIA1 which is the period of the richest burials found within the area of the laterAgora and the north slope of the Areopagus.

8 Mountjoy has redated some of the pottery in tombs which have been considered by Immerwahrto belong to LH IIIA2, see discussion in Mountjoy 1995: 37–8.

Page 3: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

In the next LH IIIB phase, fewer tombs were found in the area of the laterAgora, but interestingly more wells or dump deposits were opened during thisperiod (Immerwahr 1971: 254–61; Mountjoy 1995: 47).9

Moving to the south of the Acropolis, first we note the material found in fivewells on the south slope which are dated to LH IIIA1 by Mountjoy (1981; 1995:25–8). She suggested that these deposits were either generated by some sort ofcleaning operation which took place in the supposed palace on the Acropolis ormore probably from houses built on the south slope. Further to the south, twomore wells have been found; these had a long period of use from the LH IIB tothe LH IIIB. They too belong to domestic dumps (Pantelidou 1975: 123–6).10 Tothe west of this area, a cluster of chamber tombs was found dated to LH IIIA1,11

while further to the west and on the east slope of the Mouseion Hill, anotherchamber tomb has been excavated and dated to the LH IIIA period.12

Further to the south of where these tombs and wells were cut, another impor-tant cemetery has been excavated. It is located in the south slope of thePhilopappos hill and on the north bank of the Ilissos River; some of the largestin size and richest chamber tombs were found there. Burials started as early as LHIIA1 and continued into the LH IIIC Middle period. The same area was used forburials during the SM and EIA too. This burial ground must have been one of themost important Athenian cemeteries, belonging to a wealthy community whichlived in the vicinity.13

Another burial ground has been investigated in the south and south-easternarea of the Acropolis.14 Excavations there revealed tombs dated from the LH IIBto the LH IIIA1. Interestingly this is another area which was occupied also in theEIA.15

Lastly, to the east of the Acropolis and in the area of Hadrian’s Gate and theOlympieion, a number of deposits have been found and dated from the LH IIAto the LH IIIB (Pantelidou 1975: 140–1; Mountjoy 1995: 17). These are domes-tic deposits and they must have come from a settlement which was probablylocated on the northern banks of the Ilissos River.

: 507

9 Sherds, but no other remains, from this period were found on the north slope under later LHIIIB/C houses. They might have come down from the Acropolis but equally they might be fromearlier occupation of the slope (see Mountjoy 1995: 28).

10 These are Pantelidou’s Wells 2 and 3 found in Kavalloti Street.11 For a full discussion of the material see, Pantelidou 1975: 57–66; Mountjoy 1995: 32.12 The tomb was found robbed but see discussion in Pantelidou 1975: 54–7.13 Most of these tombs were found in rescue excavations along Dimitrakopulou Street and others

in Aglaurou Street (Pantelidou 1975: 71–112; Onasoglou 1979; Mountjoy 1995: 17, 32–5, 46,61).

14 This is the area roughly around the Makrigiannis complex – the site of the new Acropolismuseum. Several LH and EIA tombs were found in the area. More tombs and deposits werefound there during the construction of the Metro, see Parlama and Stampolidis 2000: 40–3,51–2.

15 Most of the tombs are from rescue excavations and have been discussed in Pantelidou 1975: 66–9and Mountjoy 1995: 21, 32–3.

Page 4: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

Thus in these three main areas around the Acropolis we have evidence ofchamber tombs and some indications of domestic occupation in the discovery ofwells and dump deposits. What we do not have from Athens, however, are anytholos tombs.16 Recent discussion has shown that this does not necessarily implythe absence of palatial organisation (Darcque 1987). So we cannot argue thatbecause we do not have them that there was no palace on the Acropolis.Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suggest that the evidence itself on the rock isinsufficient and so we cannot claim without any doubt that there was one. Theremight equally have been a mansion such as in Menelaion in Laconia or megaronstyle complexes such as on Gla in the Kopais.

We may, however, agree with Pantelidou and others (1975: 223–4; Mountjoy,Regional Mycenaean: 485–7) that since at least the beginning of the LH periodAthens was made up of three or more settlements. We can assign chamber tombsto each of them and, where we have found them, the domestic wells and pits. Thesheer distances between the various cemeteries and wells indicate that these couldnot have belonged to one community. Whether, however, these communities wereunified under a wanax, who had his seat on the Acropolis, or whether thefortifications on the Acropolis were built in times of danger, remains in my viewuncertain.17

It is the fortification wall which provides us with the most substantial remainson the Acropolis. This was most probably constructed towards the end of LHIIIB (Iakovidis 1962: 205–6; 1983: 80).18 The enceinte followed the entire browof the Acropolis and had its main entrance to the west (Iakovidis 1962:166–73).19 The reconstruction of the main west entrance to the citadel hasoccupied the efforts of many generations of archaeologists.20 The debate has

508 .

16 There are a number of them known in Attica, in Thorikos, Menidi, Spata and Marathon. Forshort descriptions of LH sites in Attica, see Mountjoy, Regional Mycenaean: 485–9. For the lackof tholos tombs in Athens, see discussion in Cavanagh and Mee, Private Place: 56, 78; Mee andCavanagh 1990: 259–41.

17 It is hard to know which one of these cemeteries was the burying place of those who lived onthe Acropolis. A possible cemetery is the one on the north slope of the Areopagus but this ceme-tery has fewer burials after LH IIIA2. See discussion by Mountjoy and Immerwahr above andCamp 2003: 254.

18 The dating of the fortification wall is based on pottery found in three locations: in the south-east of the museum, near the bastion of the temple of Nike, and under the foundation of thenorth part of the wall above the north-west terrace (Iakovidis 1962: 244; Mountjoy 1995: 40–1).

19 Another surviving part of the fortification wall is in the north. At this point there was anotherentrance with a north-east ascent leading to the north slope of the Acropolis. It has been sug-gested that this ascent was blocked when the fortification wall was built in LH IIIB (Broneer1933: 351–6; Iakovidis 1983: 81–2). For the construction date of the stairway see now Gauss2003: 98. See below for further discussion relating to this area during the LH IIIC.

20 See Wright (1994), Mark (1993) and Eiteljorg (1993) for the history of the research and for inter-pretation and reconstructions of the west entrance. Wright proposed that there was an earlierdefence system at the western gate consisting of a bastion and a terrace and that the westapproach to the citadel was further improved with an overlapping gate system in the later LHIIIB following similar ways of improving defensive systems found in other citadels during thisperiod (1994: 348).

Page 5: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

been mostly focused on whether the gate had monumental scale and on whetherthe bastion (underneath the later temple of Athena Nike) was an integral partof both its appearance and defence21 or whether the west entrance was rein-forced and improved during the later part of the LH IIIB, as was the case onother Mycenaean citadels. During the same period steps were taken to securethe water supply on the Acropolis. This was achieved by constructing a stair-way on the north slope of the Acropolis which led down to a natural fissure inthe rock and reached an underground spring. Such a resourcefully constructedunderground fountain reminds us of similar efforts which were made atMycenae and Tiryns (Broneer 1939: 317, 326–46). Broneer argued (1939: 417–29) that the stairway was constructed at the same time as the fortification wallat the end of the LH IIIB. The pottery found in the fissure is dated to the LHIIIB2 to LH IIIC Early. Scholars agree with the excavator that the staircase wasused only for one generation (some twenty-five years) and then it was aban-doned and used as a dump since pottery of the LH IIIC Middle period was alsofound in it.22

So it is apparent that by the end of the LH IIIB fortification walls and theFountain House show that the inhabitants of Athens took similar decisions todefend their Acropolis like those in other Mycenaean citadels.23

The abandonment of the Fountain House early in LH IIIC brings us to theperiod which coincides with the end of the palatial era in other Mycenaeancentres and probably in Athens too.

ATHENS IN LH IIIC

On the Acropolis, during the early stage of LH IIIC, there is evidence of occu-pation in the north slope and in particular in the area of the north-east ascent(Broneer 1933: 352–5). Broneer found a deposit of a LH IIIC Early date justabove the stairs of the north-east ascent. He suggested that it came from housesbuilt on the top of the steps of the ascent which were abandoned shortly after,and before the end of the phase. Rutter, however, could not find any trace of such

: 509

21 In discussions over the years of the debate it is interesting to see how a number of walls havebeen assigned to a variety of periods ranging from the Mycenaean to the Medieval. This showsthe difficulty of reconstructing with certainty diachronic building activities in the area of thePropylaea. See discussion of Tanoulas (1987).

22 For the construction of the stairs and the use of the Fountain House see Broneer 1939: 346;Iakovidis 1983: 82–5; Mountjoy 1995: 43–4.

23 A hoard of bronze objects (assorted weapons, tools and a bowl) was found in a narrow gapbetween the fortification wall and one of the houses in the south part of the enceinte. It hasbeen catalogued by Spyropoulos (1972: 63–78, 92–7). Mountjoy (1995: 50–1) re-examined thepottery (two sherds) found with it and dated one sherd to the transitional phase from LH IIIBto IIIC. Given that the hoard must have been hidden after the construction of the fortificationwall, her dating is presumably correct. For a discussion of LBA hoards see Knapp, Muhly andMuhly 1988, especially pp. 246–8. For the Tiryns hoard see in this volume Maran andPapadimitriou.

Page 6: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

houses just above the steps but only in the area between the north-east ascent andthe fortification walls (see Gauss 2003: 98).24

Moreover the remains of walls in the north slope of the Acropolis have beenincluded in the discussion concerning the so-called Pelargikon wall. It is knownthat both literary and epigraphical references have initiated a long debate as to itslocation and date (Iakovidis 1962: 179–89; 1983: 84–6; Travlos 1971: 52–5; Camp1984).25 Traces of this wall survived on a terrace below the north fortification wallof the classical period. Scholars agree that was part of an outwork built in the LHIII period to defend further the west approach to the citadel and also to securewater supplies. Camp suggested that the Pelargikon was built after the collapse ofthe Fountain House to secure a water supply from two reservoirs found under theclassical Klepsydra and dated to the LH IIIC period.26 He might be right sinceapart from the archaic wells, the area was clearly used during the end of the LHIIIC period as shown by the discovery of two ‘cuttings’ found beneath the classi-cal paved court in front of the Klepsydra which contained pottery dated to theend of the LH IIIC. Moreover Smithson (1977, 1982) also suggested thatthe installation of the prehistoric Klepsydra served as a replacement for theMycenaean Fountain and that it was inside the Pelargikon. It appears that activ-ity around this area continued into the transitional stages from the LH IIIC Lateto Early Protogeometric.27

Less certain, however, is the date of walls found north-west of the fortificationwall above the bastion and below archaic walls (Iakovidis 1983: 87).28 The sameapplies to two or three rooms located in the south-east corner of the fortificationwall and below the museum. These rooms might belong to one or more housesbuilt alongside the fortification wall (Iakovidis 1983: 87). It has been shown thatthese were built after the wall but their date is unclear. Iakovidis dated them toafter the construction of the fortification wall and before the archaic remains.The pottery, however, found in the shaft of the Fountain House was dated to the

510 .

24 Rutter’s observations are commented on by Gauss who in a more recent study of the materialfound in the area of the north slope suggested that there are certain similarities between thepottery which dates the final use of the underground fountain and the pottery deposit found inthe area of the north-east ascent to the LH IIIC Early phase (Gauss 2003). Mountjoy dated thesame material in the transitional phase from LH IIIB2 to IIIC early (Regional Mycenaean: 495).

25 These walls consist of rough dressing of stones (which were probably used for the foundation)and a few in situ blocks next to the fissure in which the Fountain House was constructed andwere built first parallel to the steps of the north-east descent and then following the brow of theterrace (Iakovidis 1962: 189–99; 1983: 84–5, fig. 16).

26 A group of wells located in this area and dated to the archaic period were associated by Campwith the Peisistratids incidents in the sixth century and their seizure of the Acropolis (Camp1984; Papadopoulos 2003: 302–5).

27 This has been based on the detailed analysis of the pottery found in the filling which wasdumped in the overflow channel of the Classical Klepsydra (Smithson 1982: 149–52). See alsodiscussion in Gauss 2000 for the date of the pottery found in the area and its importance, andSmithson (1977) on the LH IIIC domestic deposits.

28 No pottery has been assigned to these remains, so the date of their construction is uncertain(Mountjoy 1995: 55).

Page 7: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

LH IIIC Middle (Broneer 1939), and confirms that the Acropolis was occu-pied during the whole of the LH IIIC. The pottery, especially of the middlephase of LH IIIC, is of good quality and shows that the inhabitants were awareof developments taking place in other centres during these periods (Broneer 1939;Mountjoy 1995: 56; Regional Mycenaean: 497–8).

As for the funerary data of the LH IIIC, the evidence from the area of the laterAgora indicates that during this phase only a few burials were deposited in re-usedtombs (Immerwahr 1971: 181–90).29 In the other areas located to the south andthe east of the Acropolis we have a number of burials made in this period.Particularly interesting is the ‘warrior’ burial found in the south slope of theAcropolis. Although this burial cannot be securely dated on the basis of thepottery found there, Mountjoy has shown that some of the metal offerings andespecially the pair of greaves cannot be dated to either an earlier or later date thanLH IIIC Early (Mountjoy 1984).30 More burials, however, were made by re-usingchamber tombs in the north bank of the Ilissos River (Pantelidou 1975: 91;Onasoglou 1979). Domestic occupation also continued in the area to the east ofthe Acropolis, where the two earlier deposits, discussed above, were filled with LHIIIC Early pottery (Pantelidou 1975: 76–96, 130–5; Mountjoy 1995: 53; RegionalMycenaean: 496–8). It is worth noting, however, that during this stage too themost important cemetery was not located in Athens but at Perati on the east coast(Iakovidis, Perati).

SM ATHENS

SM Athens is represented by a large number of burials found in new and oldcemeteries around the Acropolis. Some of the burial plots are newly used whileothers are located close to or at sites which were also occupied in the earlier LHIII period.31 Interestingly, a number of tombs dated to this period were also foundon the Acropolis. Most of them are child-burials which suggest that they wereprobably intra-mural burials made close to houses. If this is indeed the case, wemay then assume that the Acropolis was inhabited during this stage.32

To the south of the Acropolis and close to LH III locations, SM tombs werefound around the area of Markigiannis and further south in the valley of the

: 511

29 More recently, however, Papadopoulos assigned to the Final Mycenaean/SM phase some of thetombs which were dug in the bedrock in the area of the Hephaisteion (Papadopoulos 2002: 156).

30 For the warriors burials in this period see Deger-Jalkotzy in this volume.31 Some 230 or more burials are assigned to this period. Their number, however, must be higher

because they usually come from rescue excavations conducted by the Archaeological Servicewhose reports take longer than others to appear. Styrenius (1967) and more recently Mountjoyhave lists of most of them (1995: 63–6). For more recently found SM tombs in Syntagma Square,see Parlama and Stampolidis 2000: 162–5.

32 For the most detailed analysis of the SM tombs found on the Acropolis see Gauss andRuppenstein 1998. This study includes a full bibliography on the SM and EIA finds from theAcropolis.

Page 8: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

Ilissos River where the important LH III cemetery discussed above was alsolocated. The former area must have also been an extensive cemetery which con-tinued to be used into the EIA. Burials were also made in the area to the east andnear the Olympieion, where the LH III dump deposits were found.

In the north a number of burials were made in the area of the later Agora butalso further to the north more SM tombs have been discovered in various clusters.The most important of them is the cemetery found in Kriezi Street which contin-ued to be used into the EIA. This is located to the north of the Pompeion ceme-tery – a cemetery which, in my view, was also established at the very beginning ofthe SM period.33 Another cemetery which starts during this period was found atVasilissis Sophias Street. Interestingly, most of the cemeteries founded in SM con-tinued into the PG and the G periods. It is equally important to note here that theSM period is marked by the introduction of a new rite: single burials mostly in cistsbut also in pits and shafts replaced multiple burials in tombs. SM Athenians wereburied in flat cemeteries and the earlier chamber tombs were abandoned.34 We alsohave a few cremated burials which are secondary cremations, a rite which becomesthe main burial practice in Athens during the PG period.35

Apart from the indirect evidence on the Acropolis, almost no settlementdeposits were found dated to this period. The exception is one of the wells on thenorth slope of the Acropolis which continued to receive pottery during this periodand until the very beginning of the EPG (Smithson 1977).

ATHENS IN THE TENTH AND NINTH CENTURIES

The beginning of the Early Iron Age coincides with the appearance of the PGstyle of pottery. Athens is one of the few sites in the Aegean together withLefkandi and Knossos which used the new technology during the course of thelate eleventh and early tenth centuries (Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 101–3).

During this period in Athens, the same areas were used for burials as in the pre-vious SM. However, the richer burials – with weapons, dress-ornaments andseveral vases – are to be found mostly at the Kerameikos and, from the little weknow from preliminary reports, also at the cemetery in Vasilissis Sophias Street.Cremation is at this time the main burial practice. The usual form of cremation

512 .

33 Mountjoy has argued that the Pompeion cemetery had already started to receive burials in theLH IIIC period. But I still believe that what is important at this cemetery as it is for the othersfounded in this period is not whether some LH IIIC pots have found their way into SM tombs,but the introduction of a new burial rite and the foundation of a new cemetery (Lemos,Protogeometric Aegean: 6–8). For the re-dating of the few tombs at Pompeion see Mountjoy andHankey (1988) and see a recent, stimulating discussion of style and chronology in Ruppenstein2003.

34 Note, however, that one SM amphora might have been the last offering of a burial in one of theearlier chamber tombs at Dimitrakopoulou Street, as noted by Mountjoy (1995: 67).

35 It is interesting to note that the earliest cremated burials were made in Perati, on the east coastof Attica, see Iakovidis, Perati and also the summary in Lemos, Protogeoemetric Aegean: 186–7.

Page 9: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

was that of placing the incinerated bones of the dead together with some personalornaments in an urn, usually an amphora. Then the urn was placed in a hole dugat the bottom of a rectangular shaft together with more offerings. This type isknown as the ‘trench-and-hole’ cremation. The wide use of the trench-and-holetype by most of the adult population has been rightly noticed as an importantdevelopment (Whitley 1991: 114–16; Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 155–7).

It is, however, in the early ninth century that burials with rich offerings com-parable to those in Lefkandi made their appearance in the Athenian cemeteries.A number of them were found in the Kerameikos, and in particular on the southbank of the Eridanos River, while another group with rich pottery and otherofferings was buried in the north slope of the Areopagus. It is indeed during thisperiod that more rich offerings were given to the dead including gold funeraryornaments, and imports from the Near East such as faience beads and bronzebowls.36 Whitley (1991: 137–8) noted that a combination of exotica and theoffering of vases which display a style assigned to specific gender and status canclearly be seen as manifestations of hierarchical patterns emerging during theninth century.

In contrast, it is not clear whether the Acropolis continued to be inhabitedduring this phase. The detailed analysis of material (mostly sherds) dated fromthe PG to the MG periods by Gauss and Ruppenstein (1998: 27–30, 43–5) showsthat the evidence is uncertain and we cannot say with any confidence whetherthere was still a settlement there.37

Despite the meagre evidence found on the Acropolis, Papadopoulos advocatedthe view that the Acropolis was the only settlement in Athens during the EIA(2003: 297–316). He argued that the fact we have so little evidence from this periodis due to the later building activities which removed any traces of EIA occupa-tion.38 It is of course possible that the Acropolis continued to be partly inhabited

: 513

36 For a discussion of the burial plots in Athens during the EG and MG periods see Coldstream,Geometric Greece; Morris 1987 and Whitley 1991.

37 Gauss and Ruppenstein (1998: 28–9) have pointed out that the discovery among the finds fromthe Acropolis of one clay bead – made in the so-called Attic Incised Hand-made Ware – mightbelong to a burial since such beads are often found in graves and especially those of childrenand women.

38 Papadopoulos argued that the EIA remains were in some way less likely to survive as they werethe latest on the Acropolis before the major building activities of the sixth century (2003: 298).Nevertheless, the EIA is a long period (from the early eleventh to the late eighth centuries) soone would have expected to have more PG or EG/MG material surviving, rather than LG. Infact the analysis by Gauss and Ruppenstein shows exactly the opposite (1998: 43–50). Most ofthe EIA fragments which have survived and been published are LG; so they were closer in timeto the major building activities of the archaic period. In addition, although it is likely that EIAmaterial found around the Acropolis comes from the top of it, it is clear from the two depositsquoted by Papadopoulos that the EIA sherds are very few indeed. In fact, five sherds were cat-alogued by Peace (1935: 239–41) and four by Roebuck (1940: 162–3). Most of these were of anLG date. Note, however, that the large number of joint fragments of pottery, figurines and othermaterials discovered from the slopes and the top of the Acropolis belong to later periods andnot to the EIA; for this see Papadopoulos 2003: 298, n. 152).

Page 10: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

and Papadopoulos is right to follow others who have argued that some substan-tial parts of the Mycenaean fortification were visible and in use until perhaps thePersian attack. But the assumption that the Acropolis was the only settlement inAthens during the whole of the EIA is more problematic.39

Related to the above hypothesis is the suggestion that the area of the laterAgora was not filled by houses but by pottery workshops and kilns. In his studyof some of the deposits, Papadopoulos (2003: 5) identified pottery fragmentswhich belong to potters’ debris and test pieces.40 This challenged previous viewswhich reconstructed the area of the later Agora as being occupied by houses andburials until the sixth century when it was given up to public space (Camp 1986:24, 33; Townsend 1995: 12).

The question, however, is whether the area of the later Agora, as Papadopoulosargued, was a kind of an ‘industrial’ quarter for the production of fine atticpottery or whether it was the part of Athens where potters lived, worked and died.For the little evidence we have from EIA settlements and dump deposits outsideAthens, it seems that workshops of potters and metalworkers were found withinthe limits of domestic spatial organisation.41 So although there is no doubt fromPapadopoulos’ careful study that some of these deposits contained potters’debris, the view that there were houses for perhaps the potters and others livingin the same area can still be maintained.42

I still believe that Athens, as other EIA settlements, was made up by an agglom-eration of houses and burials (as do Snodgrass, Archaic Greece: 28–31; Morris1987: 64; Whitley 1991: 61–4; Welwei 1992: 63–5; Hurwit 1999: 87–94). In addi-

514 .

39 For the use and extent of the Mycenaean fortification see discussion in Travlos 1971: 52–4;Camp 1984; Papadopoulos 2003: 302–5.

40 This is not the place to discuss whether all the deposits were potters’ dumps rather than domes-tic deposits. In addition, in order to agree or disagree with this suggestion one needs to have thecomplete material found in each one of them and not a select catalogue of test pieces andpotters’ debris as published in Papadopoulos 2003. Moreover one also needs to combine thiswith information about the burials found in the area in order to understand their relationshipto the deposits both chronologically and contextually.

41 See Mazarakis Ainian in this volume for Oropos and Eretria, where metal workshops werefound within domestic and even cult contexts. In Pithekoussai, in the suburban site on theMezavvia hill, the Mazzola complex combined industrial and living quarters (Ridgway 1992:91–6). The Moulds deposit found in the settlement on Xeropolis at Lefkandi is a pit wheremoulds for the production of tripods were found among other dump material and which shouldhave come from a workshop located in the vicinity of the settlement (Lefkandi I: 42–4). In addi-tion Crielaard (1999: 52–8) argued that EIA pottery production was based on a ‘householdindustry’ and that this was in the hands of (semi-) specialists who worked within a householdunit. For changes in the production of pottery and metalwork in this period see also Kayafa andMorgan in this volume.

42 Papadopoulos (2003: 275) further argued that even the evidence of a house in the Agora – theso-called oval house – has now been thought to be a ‘hero-shrine’ (following Thompson’s rein-terpretation of it). The function of the structure, however, remains uncertain, as bothAntonaccio (Ancestors: 122–6) and Mazarakis Ainian (Dwellings: 81–7, 314–15) argued in dis-cussing this case. Both, however, concluded that it is not impossible that there was a house therein the early ninth century.

Page 11: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

tion it appears from the available evidence that some of these areas were alsooccupied in the LH III period: especially those located to the south and the eastof the Acropolis. There, deposits and burials continued to be made into the LGperiod (Figure 27.1). It is clear then that an important focus of activity waslocated in this part of Athens. We can perhaps also assume that another suchfocus of houses and burials was close to the cemetery at Vasilissis Sophias Street,while one or more clusters of houses were associated with the Kerameikos ceme-tery and the other burial plots to the north and to the east of this area.43 As I haveargued above, it is not clear whether there was occupation on the Acropolis during

: 515

43 We may also assume that other houses were spread across the landscape around the Acropolisand reached as far as the suburb of Nea Ionia where a wealthy cemetery was established by theend of the tenth century . See discussion with references in Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean:154).

Figure 27.1 Archaeological sites around the Acropolis of Athens during LH, SM, andEIA

Page 12: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

this period. Apart from the insufficient evidence one might argue that by the endof SM period there was no need to protect settlements behind walls and on thetop of strongholds, as was the case earlier in LH/LM III and later in the eighthcentury, especially on the islands.44

In contrast to the previous period, the archaeological picture of the lateeleventh and tenth centuries is not marked by either any destruction or any aban-donment of settlements. It is therefore safe to suggest that by that time commu-nities in the Aegean were not facing outside threats. As the new communitiesstarted to face a different world without palace control or protection, they con-centrated on negotiating their status within their own population. From the avail-able evidence it is apparent that although the population in Athens clearly tookthe decision to continue to live and bury themselves in separate cemeteries aroundthe Acropolis, they also decided to invest gradually in funeral display. The richAthenian evidence allows us to follow this steady development from the SMperiod onwards and trace the strategies employed by these communities in burialrites within their cemeteries located around the Acropolis.

Although it has been argued in the past by Whitley (1991: 96–7) that in the SMburials in Athens there are no formal and regular distinctions in status, genderand age, it has become clear from recent research that we can trace some mani-festations of hierarchy and gender and even age in the funeral display(Ruppenstein 1999).45 In the Kerameikos, for example, I believe that status, as thisis reflected in the burial offerings, is stated not by the giving of specific vase typesnor by the decorative motifs on them, but mostly with a display of metal orna-ments such as fibulae, pins and rings and occasionally gold spirals. In fact, it isinteresting to see that burials here follow a similar pattern in displaying status bythe disposition of metal offerings as in other sites during the last decades of theeleventh century.46

I also believe that an important change that clearly illustrates a break with thepast is the decision of the various groups buried in Athens to abandon completelyMycenaean funeral rites and to adopt the new practice of single burials in flatcemeteries.

Further developments manifested themselves in Athens with what Whitley calls‘formalisation’ of the funerary ritual which fully developed in the PG period withthe wide use of the practice of cremation in the ‘trench-and-hole’ type of burial(Whitley 1991: 116). Equally important is the re-appearance of the so called

516 .

44 The re-appearance of fortified settlements such as Zagora on Andros, and Minoa on Amorgosis dated later to the eighth century. But Crete is different. See Wallace in this volume and alsoNowicki, Defensible Sites, and papers in Defensive Settlements.

45 Ruppenstein convincingly showed an even more noticeable interest in displaying genderspecifications in the SM Kerameikos.

46 For SM tombs in the Kerameikos rich in metal offerings see tomb 2 (Müller-Karpe 1962: 82);tomb 42 (Müller-Karpe 1962: 87,119); tomb 70 (Müller-Karpe 1962: 119); tomb 108 (Müller-Karpe 1962: 120). See also the rich in metal offerings in Elateia (Deger-Jalkotzy 1991). For SMLefkandi see below.

Page 13: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

‘warrior burials’, alongside rich female burials; such burials were found mostly inthe Kerameikos and, from the little we know from preliminary reports, also in thecemetery in Vasilissis Sophias and later in the north slope of the Areopagus and inthe rich cemeteries at Kriezi Street. If this is the case then we may suggest that someof the groups buried around Athens become gradually more important during thecourse of the tenth century. Finally, during the ninth century, such earlier manifes-tations of status became more clearly articulated by displaying in their funeralseven more exceptionally rich offerings and imports (Whitley 1991: 137).

LEFKANDI IN THE LH III PERIOD

The EH and MH deposits on Xeropolis have established the importance of thesite in Bronze Age.47 And as has been clearly stated (Popham and Sackett 1968:5; Popham and Milburn 1971: 348–7), the LH IIIB levels – at least in the smallarea excavated on Xeropolis – were terraced in order to build the LH IIIC houses.It has also been argued on the basis of the pottery that perhaps Xeropolis was nota prominent Mycenaean settlement. But LH IIIB pottery – which also remainsunpublished – was only found in a restricted area under the LH IIIC remains sothis evidence is not decisive. More information, however, about the whole islandduring the palatial period comes from Linear B tablets in Thebes. The tabletsrevealed close connections with Euboea, and strongly suggest that the island wasdependent on the palace at Thebes.48

So, it is possible to assume that Xeropolis together with other sites along thewest coast were seats of Mycenaean officials (perhaps of a qa-si-re-u).49 Thearchaeological evidence also shows that Xeropolis became an important placeafter the destruction of the palace at Thebes and that it flourished in the LateHelladic IIIC period. Both old and new excavations on Xeropolis have revealedthat the town extended over the whole of the mound indicating that during thisperiod there was a large settlement there.50 A sample of the history of Xeropolisduring the LH IIIC period can be followed in the excavation of the deep and well-stratified deposits investigated by Popham and Sackett on the eastern part of thetell which covered the whole of the LH IIIC period.

The period has been divided by its excavators into three main stages.51 In Phase1, which corresponds to the LH IIIC Early period elsewhere, houses were madeup of a number of rooms. Most of them appear to have two storeys with storage

: 517

47 These deposits remain unpublished; for preliminary reports see Popham and Sackett 1968: 6–11.48 See in this volume Crielaard for references in the Linear B tablets and bibliography.49 See also discussion by Crielaard in this volume.50 Trial trenches investigated by Popham and Sackett showed that the whole of Xeropolis was

occupied during the LH IIIC phase and especially during the middle stage of the period(Popham and Sackett 1968: 3–5; Lefkandi I: 1–3); see also H. Sackett in the forthcoming volumeLefkandi IV. The size of Xeropolis is some 500 m in length and 120 m in width.

51 The publication of the LH IIIC levels is in press as Lefkandi IV (edited by D. Evely, whom Ithank for providing me with a manuscript of the volume before publication).

Page 14: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

areas and workshops found on the ground floors and living quarters on the upperfloors. The latter, of course, are not preserved. We know this settlement had a longlife because the houses were found to have had structural alterations and theirfloors were re-laid, allowing the excavators to divide this first LH IIIC stage intotwo sub-phases. The houses of Phase 1b were destroyed by fire leaving behind aconsiderable amount of evidence buried in the destruction debris which in somecases was over a metre in depth (Popham and Sackett 1968: 11–14; Popham andMilburn 1971: 334). After the destruction of Phase 1b, the settlement was levelledoff and a new town was built on the top, but on a different plan and orientation.This new settlement corresponds with Phase 2 – also a long period – whichroughly corresponds with the LH IIIC Middle in other sites.

Architecturally, this new settlement consisted of well-planned houses made oflarge rooms, and at least one of them had a central post. The use of open spacesbetween them is also a feature of the new plan (Popham and Sackett 1968: 14–16).It appears that part of this settlement was also destroyed during the stage whenpictorial pottery was in use. Some parts of the town were repaired and rebuiltassigning the finds of the re-occupation to the second stage of this phase, Phase2b. The houses of this phase were most probably abandoned since no destructionlevel is associated with the end of this stage (Popham and Milburn 1971: 334).

An interesting feature of Phase 2 is the discovery of burials under the floors ofthe rooms. So far fifteen such burials have been found. All ages and both gendersare represented amongst them.52 Intramural burials were also found in the LowerCitadel in Tiryns and dated by Kilian to LH IIIB2 – IIIC (Kilian 1979: 386–7;1982: 395–6).

From the pottery of Phase 2 we assume that the inhabitants had a sophisticatedlifestyle reflected in the production of some of the most celebrated examples ofthe pictorial style. Links with other sites within and outside the Aegean flourishedduring this period and if we had discovered the cemetery corresponding to thisperiod we might have more evidence of the links that this flourishing communityshared with others in the Aegean and beyond.53

The final stage of LH IIIC corresponds to Lefkandi Phase 3. The first excava-tors assigned to this phase pottery which was associated with one house and wascharacterised by deteriorated standards (Popham and Milburn 1971: 342–6). Thispicture, however, has changed since the current research and excavations haverevealed more houses dated to this stage in the eastern part of Xeropolis (Lemos2004: 39–40).

As mentioned above, no LH IIIC cemetery has yet been discovered. But twovases found in the area to the south-east of the Skoubris cemetery are dated to

518 .

52 In particular, five burials were adults and eight or more children and one was neonate; the preciseage of all of them was not always possible to determine. For a detailed report see Musgrave andPopham (1991: 273–91), and Musgrave forthcoming in Lefkandi IV.

53 For the flourishing LH IIIC phase around the Euboean Gulf see Crielaard in this volume andalso Lemos 1998.

Page 15: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

LH IIIC. This discovery implies that perhaps cist-tombs of the LH IIIC/early SMperiod were located there too.54

SM LEFKANDI

Until recently the SM period at Lefkandi was represented only by the burialsfound in the Skoubris cemetery, but recent excavations on Xeropolis have revealedSM pottery associated with soils and walls indicating continuity in the occupa-tion of the site from the end of the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age.55

The Skoubris cemetery, however, provides us with a small number of burialsdated to the SM period.56 The SM tombs are single burials in cists and so com-parable to those of Athens during this period. There are also a number of cre-mated burials, but at Lefkandi they are primary cremations rather than thesecondary ones which were typical in Athens (Lefkandi I: 201–2, 210).

Here, as in Athens, some tombs have more rich offerings than others. As Ihave already mentioned above, rich tombs during this phase are consideredthose which in addition to a large number of pots were given a rich display ofmetal offerings (such as fibulae, pins and rings). In the case of Lefkandi,another important element is the tomb itself which is often constructed withgreat skill.57

EIA LEFKANDI

The EIA history of the site is known from the discoveries made in the cemeteriesand those made by the first excavators on Xeropolis (Figure 27.2). The latter con-sisted of a number of rubbish pits dated from the LPG to the SPG and also thehouse, walls, and the circular structures dated to the LG (Lefkandi I: 11–25).Recent excavations, however, have found more structures, walls and soils dated to

: 519

54 This is the Khaliotis area (Figure 27.3) see comments in Lefkandi I: 313, 355. It might be possi-ble that here, as in Athens, a flat cemetery with cist tombs was founded during the SM period.The SM tombs in Skoubris belonged to the later phase of the SM period. Earlier tombs mighthave been cut in this plot or in the Khaliotis burial ground.

55 Particularly interesting is the discovery of two complete SM/EPG vases close to walls whichwere found above LH IIIC Late houses. The vases, an amphoriskos and a jug, are typicalofferings in SM and PG graves in the Skoubris cemetery. Therefore, it is possible that they weregiven to a burial, although no bones were found. If there was a burial, however, it might havebeen that of a child which would explain the lack of bones (Lemos 2004: 39, fig. 55).

56 The number of the SM burials is 24. We have to take into account, however, the fact that onlya part of this cemetery was excavated while, as mentioned above, there might have been a ceme-tery to the north-east of Skoubris with earlier SM tombs.

57 For example, tombs rich in metal offerings at Skoubris are tomb 16 (Lefkandi I: 114–15, pls95–6) tomb 19 (Lefkandi I: 116, pls 98–9), tomb 38 (Lefkandi I: 122–3, pl. 103), tomb 40(Lefkandi I: 124, pl. 104); tomb 43 (Lefkandi I: 124–5, pl. 43). For a well-built tomb see forexample tomb 38 (Lefkandi I: pl. 85). Considering the small number of SM tombs at Lefkandi,the number of tombs with rich offerings is quite high when compared to Athens. For the tombsin the Kerameikos in Athens see above.

Page 16: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

Fig

ure

27.2

Lef

kand

i:X

erop

olis

and

the

cem

eter

ies

Page 17: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

the PG and SPG periods which show that Xeropolis was occupied at the sametime as the cemeteries.58

Some 500 meters to the west of Xeropolis are located the cemeteries ofLefkandi. Apart from the Skoubris cemetery and the other three, the Khaliotis,Palia Perivolia and Toumba, burial plots or just clusters of burials have beenlocated on the whole area of the hill (Figure 27.3). For example, burials werefound in the South and the North cemeteries, none of which have been fully exca-vated (Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 161–2).

In EIA Lefkandi both inhumation and cremation were practised as they wereduring SM. Since in most of the tombs no traces of full inhumation or cremationhave been found, it has been assumed that either the skeletal remains had decayedaway or that the graves were furnished with only a few token pieces of bone fromcremations which had taken place elsewhere. Initially, the excavators were infavour of the second possibility, but more recently the number of skeletons in apoor state discovered in the Toumba cemetery has increased, indicating that thecorrosive effect of the soil might have been underestimated. Nevertheless, a greatnumber of tombs still produce no evidence of bones, so the possibility of a com-plicated secondary rite remains open.

It is obvious that at Lefkandi ‘formalisation’ of the funeral display was not con-sidered a priority. On the other hand, what was important here was the display ofwealth which was used extensively to construct social differences. This immenseconspicuous destruction manifested especially at the Toumba cemetery showsthat signifying hierarchy in funeral rites was an important concern of the com-munity at Lefkandi. Such displays started in the SM with a small number of richburials but they become more noticeable during the LPG and SPG periods andeven more clearly so after the funeral of the exceptional warrior found buriedunder the PG building at Toumba. I have argued elsewhere in detail that the build-ing at Toumba has never served as a Heroon but that both its construction anddestruction were part of complex funeral rites (Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean:162–8).

The most important element of this funeral was an extraordinary destructionof wealth in which even the lives of the consort and the horses were lost. I havealso argued that this abnormal destruction should be seen as marking a social-political change at Lefkandi, namely the change from the rule of a powerfulbasileus to that of a dynamic elite group. I think it is also important to note thatboth the construction and the destruction of the building as well as the filling-inrequired the mobilisation of many people. Presumably, the entire demos wasinvolved in this operation. After the building was covered by an artificial tumulus,

: 521

58 Some MPG sherds were known from the first excavations (Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 140),but now part of an apsidal building which has survived later occupation and modern plough-ing is dated to the E/MPG. More walls and rooms of SM and EPG dates have also been locatedin the area of the old excavation to the south-west of the LG houses (Lemos 2004: 39; Lemos2005: 50–2).

Page 18: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

522 .

Figure 27.3 The cemeteries at Lefkandi

Page 19: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

members of an elite group, who probably belonged to the same lineage or kingroup as the first burials at Toumba, started to be buried to the east end of thebuilding. At the same time it is clear that neither they nor the community as awhole were concerned with veneration of their ancestor, since they did not makeany offerings on the tumulus. This is because, I believe, they were more interestedin securing their links as descendants of the first occupant in the Toumba ceme-tery.59 It is clear from the rich offerings made in the Toumba cemetery that thegroup buried there emphasised their high status more vigorously than in any ofthe other contemporary cemeteries at Lefkandi.60

Nevertheless, the rich cemeteries at Lefkandi stop receiving further burialsbefore the end of the ninth century (Lefkandi I: 367–9). Xeropolis, however, wasnot abandoned; the number of known LG houses has increased with the recentexcavations, but the LG cemeteries have not yet been located.61 Even if we assumethat life continued on Xeropolis, the fact remains that in contrast to Athens,Lefkandi did not become an archaic polis. That development took place in Eretriawhich from then on was the focal site of the region.

CONCLUSIONS

The above summary of the archaeological evidence reveals interesting similaritiesbut also differences between the two sites. It is obvious from their archaeologythat both had a long Bronze Age prehistory and in my view this had an effect onlater developments in the Early Iron Age.

During the Mycenaean period, Athens – with or without a palace – is repre-sented by groups of burials located around the Acropolis. We assume that thesecorrelated to nearby settlements because in some of them pits and dump depositshave been found, especially in areas to the south and to east of the Acropolis.From these burial grounds and the offerings found in them, it is apparent that themost prosperous period was that from the LH IIB to the LH IIIA1. Rich offeringswere given especially to burials in the cemetery to the north of the Acropolis, in

: 523

59 The Toumba building and its burials have been discussed by a number of scholars. Most recentlysee Morris, Archaeology: 228–39; Antonaccio 2002; Whitley 2002; 2004. In this volume seeAntonaccio, Crielaard and Mazarakis Ainian. I still maintain, however, as one of its excavators,that the building was erected after the burials; that it was little or never used and finally it wasbuilt, filled in and covered by a mound within the so-called MPG phase. Soon after the erectionof the mound the first burials were made in the Toumba cemetery (see for more detailed dis-cussion Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 141–6, 161–8, 218–20). The Toumba cemetery will befully published in the forthcoming volume of Lefkandi III.2.

60 For one of the most important male burials in Toumba in the ninth century, Toumba tomb 79see Popham and Lemos 1995; Lemos 2003. For the rich female burials in Toumba see Lemosforthcoming.

61 In the 2003 and 2004 seasons at least three houses and the walls of several more have been dis-covered. It is also possible that some of them were occupied into the late eighth and even earlyseventh century. But these observations must be considered only preliminary since the excava-tion on the site continues.

Page 20: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

the north slope of the Areopagus, and to the south, in the cemetery located in thenorth bank of the Ilissos River (Immerwahr 1971: 150–1; Onasoglou 1979;Mountjoy 1995:70–1). The lack of any tholos tombs is noticeable, especially sincea number of them have been found in the rest of Attica. This suggests that it wasoutside Athens that the most important Mycenaean centres were located.

In Athens, however, LH IIIB is marked by the construction of fortifications andthe Fountain House to secure the water supply to the citadel. Similar action wastaken as we know in other citadels but, unlike them, Athens does not seem to endthe period with either destruction or abandonment. It is possible that the danger– whatever that might have been – passed Athens by. In fact the Fountain Housewas abandoned within one generation and was turned into a rubbish dump,clearly indicating that there was no need for it any longer.

As Hurwit (1999: 83) argued, however, even if the Acropolis did not suffer thesame fate as other Mycenaean citadels, Athens could not escape the transforma-tion taking place in the Aegean during the twelfth century.62 But all the same,Athens continued to be occupied throughout the LH IIIC period. Yet accordingto the available evidence the major site during this stage in Attica is not Athensbut Perati located on the east coast. During the LH IIIC it is there that one of themost prosperous sites in the Aegean was located. This is not surprising consider-ing that important Mycenaean cemeteries and settlements were located to the eastof Attica in earlier periods too, such as those at Spata, Marathon, and Thorikos.The later importance of Athens, however, starts to develop more evidently in theSM period when new and old cemeteries around the Acropolis were extensivelyused and, as we have seen, there was the introduction of a new rite – that of singleburials.

It has been argued above that even if there were some Athenians living andburying their children on the Acropolis, the persisting use of most of the LH IIIcemeteries into the SM and PG indicates that the same clusters of houses con-tinued to be located close to the burial grounds. In addition the distance of someof the cemeteries, either from the Acropolis itself or from each other, is too greatfor it to be reasonable to argue that they belonged to a single community livingon the Acropolis.63 On the other hand, that there was a cultural unity among thevarious groups of peoples living around Athens is suggested by the use of thesame burial rites and material culture. This becomes even clearer in the next

524 .

62 It is difficult to argue that later building activities on the Acropolis swept away evidence of suchdestruction as some of it should have survived in the archaeological record. One is left to wonderwhether Athens was not much affected by the LH IIIB upheavals because it was not a centralsite during the palatial era.

63 Morris argued (1994: 27–30) that although Athens and Argos were made up of small groups ofscattered houses, the fact that the inhabitants were using the same resources suggests they wereone community. The distance, however, between the various burial plots suggests that eachcemetery corresponds to a cluster of houses which perhaps formed an independent socio-polit-ical unit but which had some common cultural links, as is clearly indicated by their archaeolog-ical record (Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 219).

Page 21: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

period with the almost universal practice of cremation in the ‘trench-and-hole’type of grave. At the same time, we can follow the first signs of attempts to artic-ulate a display of status in the appearance of warrior and rich female burials. Thisdevelopment went further in the ninth century when we can clearly distinguishparticular groups demonstrating their status by giving to their dead exceptionalfunerals and displays of rich offerings. It is of course tempting to suggest thatthese clusters of burials belonged to members of the same kin group who livednearby and who were buried together.64

Interestingly, at the same period rich burials started appearing in the rest ofAttica from where the evidence after the end of the LH III is very scarce(Coldstream, Geometric Greece: 73–81; Morris 1987: 79–81; Whitley 1991: 55–7).The reason might be that Attica was more seriously affected by the upheavals inthe end of the LBA and so recovery took longer there.65

At Lefkandi, the architectural remains, the material culture and the sheer sizeof the settlement during the LH IIIC period, and especially in Phase 2, illustrateclearly that Xeropolis was one of the communities which thrived during the post-palatial period, but as we have seen not without a price. The settlement wasdestroyed twice, but it was not abandoned. Recent and old finds also indicate thatEuboea together with sites on the coast of central Greece and Thessaly as well assome of the Cyclades remained in contact throughout the LH IIIC period. Evenduring the latest stages of the period, in the LH IIIC Late, pottery links betweenLefkandi, Skyros, Kea, and central Greece illustrate that such contacts in factnever ceased.

It is almost certain, thanks to the recent excavations, that Xeropolis, likeAthens, did carry on into the EIA without ever being abandoned. I assume thatthe reason was the significant position that the site enjoyed with excellent har-bours and fertile land next to it. This perhaps explains the persistence of theinhabitants in keeping building their houses after terracing and levelling earlieroccupations and even after destructions.

Moreover, in contrast to Athens, I believe that Xeropolis was the only settle-ment in the area.66 And if I am right, then perhaps at Lefkandi we have a nucleussettlement rather than a conglomeration of small ‘villages’ as appears to be thecase in Athens. But this is not the only difference between the two sites. AtLefkandi we see a much earlier display of status manifested in the rich offeringsgiven to the dead from as early as the SM period. It is apparent that the Toumba

: 525

64 Runciman (1982: 373–4) also prefers to see these units as small agricultural villages using theirown resources and made up by the same kin group.

65 For a survey of the archaeological material of this period see Mersch 1996: esp. 83–4).66 The only other area – which might in any case have been part of the same settlement – is Area

SL which is located north of the Xeropolis (Lefkandi I: 22–3, 364). See also the results ofthe survey conducted by Sackett et al. (1966: 60–1) before the area was overbuilt and whichshows that EIA sherds in the area are scarce except for those found on Xeropolis and in thecemeteries.

Page 22: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

cemetery preceded the other burial plots in the wealth of offerings. For thesereasons, it has been argued that the Toumba must have been the burial place ofthe local elite. At the same time we must not forget that there were other groupswhich continued to be buried in the other cemeteries of the necropolis andalthough their offerings are not as spectacular as those found in the Toumbacemetery, some and especially a few buried in the oldest cemetery, at Skoubris,clearly show competition in funeral display by being given the same combinationof goods which we see in the Toumba burials.

In Athens such competition – in so far as it is reflected in burial practices – isnot intense until the ninth century when comparably rich burials were made in theareas of the Kerameikos, Kriezi Street and of the Areopagus.67 The question thenarises as to why the Athenians did not have such rich burials earlier. There are anumber of possibilities. One is that Athenians were simply more interested ingiving their dead a formal funeral than in providing them with exceptional gravegoods. On the other hand, it could be that formalisation of the burial custom wasan alternative to conspicuous consumption in the form of expensive burials.Another explanation might be that there was no need of such a display of wealthsince competition among members of the same kin group or between differentones was not as acute as at Lefkandi. In addition the importance of such com-petition at Lefkandi among the kin groups is clearly shown in the fact that thedifferent burial grounds were located very close to each other in the same area,whereas in Athens – as we have seen – we have the opposite situation with ceme-teries located some distance from each other.

In trying to explain the reason behind the observed differences in funeraldisplay between Athens and Lefkandi, I can offer one suggestion. Athens,without an urban centre, was divided into small villages made up of members ofthe same lineage, each with a small number of equal-in-status leaders. This frag-mentation of the socio-political landscape of Athens did not encourage the kindof display in funerals as we see it at Lefkandi but rather a dependency on localresources which find their manifestation in the ‘formalisation’ of the funeral rite.

But at Lefkandi local competition was more rigorous leading to the early andperhaps atypical social-political developments reflected in the funeral rites givento the burials under the Toumba building and their successors in the cemetery. Itis likely that such competition led to internal conflict by the members of thegroups who tried to gain primary control or by envious neighbours who wished

526 .

67 Even if we assume that it is only accidental that we do not have the equivalent of the Toumbaburial plot in Athens – which according to Coldstream (1995: 393) might have been located inthe north slope of the Areopagus – I believe we have enough burials from a number of ceme-teries to suggest that Athens catches up with Lefkandi only in the ninth century . Even then,however, the wealth found in the graves of Athenian elite members is not as rich as in those incontemporary Lefkandi. Compare for example ninth century burial of the so-called AthenianRich Lady (Smithson 1968) and the warrior burial in Athens (Blegen 1952) with those found inToumba tomb 79 and tomb 80 (Popham and Lemos 1996: pls 78–85).

Page 23: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

to be in command of the prosperous site. Perhaps those were the reasons that therich cemeteries ceased to receive burials at the end of the ninth century andalthough there was a settlement on Xeropolis in the LG period its importance isnot yet clear. What is certain, however, is that the more gradual developments inAthens secured a better future for her inhabitants.

So by following the archaeological record of two of the most important sitesduring the period from the wanax to basileus, we may start to appreciate that theycannot be studied in isolation from their Bronze Age past and when that is takeninto consideration then one may start to understand better the decisions and thedevelopment taken by the communities which lived through this important periodas they are reflected in the archaeological record.

ReferencesAntonaccio, C. (2002), ‘Warriors, traders, and ancestors: the “Heroes” of Lefkandi’, in Munk

Høtje, J. (ed.), Images of Ancestors, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 15–42.Blegen, C. W. (1952), ‘Two Athenian grave groups of about 900 ’, Hesperia, 21, pp. 279–94.Broneer, O. (1933), ‘Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens’, Hesperia, 2,

pp. 329–417.Broneer, O. (1939), ‘A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis’, Hesperia, 8,

pp. 317–433.Camp, Mck. J. (1984), ‘Water and the Pelargikon’, in Rigsby, K. (ed.), Studies Presented to

Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday, Durham, NC: Duke University, pp. 37–41.Camp, Mck. J. (1986), The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens,

London: Thames and Hudson.Camp, Mck. J. (2003), ‘Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1993–2001’, Hesperia, 241–80.Crielaard, J.-P. (1999), ‘Greek Early Iron Age pottery’, in Crielaard J.-P., Stissi, V. and van

Winjngaarden, G. J. (eds), The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation andConsumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (sixteenth to early fifth centuries BC),Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, pp. 49–81.

Coldstream, J. N. (1995), ‘The rich lady from the Areiopagos and her contemporaries: a tributein memory of Evelyn Lord Smithson’, Hesperia, 64, pp. 391–403.

Darcque, P. (1987), ‘Les tholos et l’organisation socio-politique de monde mycénien’, inLaffineur, R. (ed.), Thanatos: Les Coutumes Funeraires en Egée à l Age du Bronze, Liège:Université de Liège, pp. 185–205.

Deger-Jalkotzy, S. (1991), ‘Elateia (Phokis) und die frühe Geschichte der Griechen: Ein öster-reichisch-griechisches Grabungsprojekt’, ÖAW, 127, pp. 77–86.

Eiteljorg, H. (1993), The Entrance to the Athenian Acropolis before Mnesicles, Boston:Kendal/Hunt.

Gauss, W. (2000), ‘Neue Forschungen zur prähistorischen Akropolis von Athen’ in Blakolmer,F. (ed.), Österreichsche Forschungen zur Ägaischen Bronzezeit 1998, Vienna: WienerForschungen zur Archäologie, pp. 167–82.

Gauss, W. (2003), ‘The Late Mycenaean pottery from the North Slope of the AthenianAcropolis’, in Chronology and Synchronisms, pp. 93–104.

Gauss, W. and Ruppenstein F. (1998), ‘Die Athener Akropolis in der frühen Eisenzeit’, AM,113, pp. 1–60.

: 527

Page 24: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

Hurwit, J. M. (1999), The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from theNeolithic Era to the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iakovidis, S. E. (1962), H Mukhnai ¨kh/ Akro/poliß twn Aqhnw/n, Athens: University ofAthens.

Iakovidis, S. E. (1983), Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece, Leiden: E. J. Brill.Immerwahr, A. (1971), The Athenian Agora XIII: The Neolithic and Bronze Age, Princeton:

American School of Classical Studies at Athens.Kilian, K. (1979), ‘Ausgrabungen in Tiryns, 1977’, AA, 379–411.Kilian, K. (1982), ‘Ausgrabungen in Tiryns, 1980’, AA, 383–439.Knapp, A. B., Muhly, J. D. and Muhly, P. (1988), ‘To hoard is human: Late Bronze Age metal

deposits in Cyprus and the Aegean’, RDAC, pp. 233–62.Lemos, I. S. (1998), ‘Euboea and its Aegean koine’, in Euboica, pp. 45–58.Lemos, I. S. (2003), ‘Craftsmen, traders and some wives in Early Iron Age Greece’, in

Stampolidis, N. C. and Karageorghis, V. (eds), Plo/eß, Sea Routes, Interconnections in theMediterranean 16th–6th Century BC, Proceedings of the International Symposium heldat Rethymnon, Crete, Athens: University of Crete and A. G. Leventis Foundation,pp. 187–95.

Lemos, I. S. (2004), ‘Lefkandi report’, in Whitley, J., AR 2003–4, pp. 39–40.Lemos, I. S. (2005), ‘Lefkandi report’, in Whitley J., AR 2004–5, pp. 50–2.Lemos, I. S. (forthcoming), ‘Elite and gender in Early Iron Age Greece’, in Keimelion:

The Formation of Elites and Elitist Lifestyle from Mycenaean Palatial Times to theHomeric Period, Studies in Honour of Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Vienna: Austrian Academyof Science.

Mark, I. S. (1993), The Sanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens: Architectural Stages andChronology, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Mee, C. B. and Cavanagh, W. G. (1990), The spatial distribution of Mycenaean tombs’, BSA,85, pp. 225–43.

Mersch, A. (1996), Studien zur Siedlungsgeschichte Attikas von 950 bis 400v. Chr., Frankfurt:Peter Lang.

Morris, I. (1987), Burial and Ancient Society: the Rise of the Greek City-State, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Morris, I. (1994), ‘The early polis as city and state’, in Rich, J. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds),City and Country in the Ancient World, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 25–57.

Mountjoy, P. A. (1981), Four Mycenaean Wells form the South Slope of the Acropolis at Athens,Gent: Miscellanea Graeca IV.

Mountjoy, P. A. (1984), ‘The Bronze Age greaves from Athens: a case for a LHIIIC date’,OpAth, 15, pp. 135–46.

Mountjoy, P. A, (1995), Mycenaean Athens, Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.Mountjoy, P. A. and Hankey V. (1988), ‘LH III C late versus Sub-Mycenaean: the Kerameikos

Pompeion cemetery reviewed, JdI, 103, pp. 1–37.Müller-Karpe, H. (1962), ‘Die Metallbeigaben der Früheisenzeitlichen Kerameikos-Gräber’,

JdI, 77, pp. 59–129.Musgrave, J. H. and Popham, M. (1991), ‘The Late Helladic IIIC intramural burials at

Lefkandi, Euboea’, BSA, 86, pp. 273–91.Onasoglou, A. (1979), ‘Enaß ne/oß mukhnai ¨ko¿ß qalamoeidh/ß ta/foß sto Kouka/ki’, AD, 1, 34,

pp. 15–42.

528 .

Page 25: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

Pantelidou, A. M. (1975), Ai Proi ¨storikai/ Aqh/nai, Athens: Archaeological Society ofAthens.

Papadopoulos, J. K. (2002), ‘The cultural biography of a Cycladic Geometric amphora’,Hesperia, 71, pp. 149–99.

Papadopoulos, J. K. (2003), Ceramicus Redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potter’s Field in the areaof the Classical Athenian Agora, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Parlama, L. and Stampolidis, N. C. (eds), (2000), The City Beneath the City: Antiquities fromthe Metropolitan Railway Excavations, Athens: N. P. Foundation.

Peace, M. Z. (1935), ‘The pottery from the North Slope of the Acropolis’, Hesperia, 4,pp. 214–302.

Popham, M. and Lemos, I. S. (1995), ‘A Euboean warrior trader’, OJA, 14, pp. 151–7.Popham, M. with Lemos, I. S. (1996), Lefkandi III: The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Toumba,

Oxford: Alden.Popham, M. R. and Milburn, E. (1971), ‘The Late Helladic IIIC pottery of Xeropolis

(Lefkandi), a summary’, BSA, 66, pp. 333–49.Popham, M. R. and Sackett, L. H. (1968), ‘Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboea 1964–66’, AR,

pp. 3–35.Ridgway, D. (1992), The First Western Greeks, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Roebuck, C. (1940), ‘Pottery from the North Slope of the Acropolis 1937–1938’, Hesperia, 9,

pp. 141–260.Runciman, W. G. (1982), ‘Origins of States: the case of Archaic Greece’, Journal of

Comparative Study of Society and History, 24, pp. 351–77.Ruppenstein F. (1999), ‘Geschlechtsspezifische Beigabenkombinationen’, AM, 114, pp. 13–28.Ruppenstein F. (2003), ‘Late Helladic IIIC versus Submycenaean: a methodological problem’,

in Chronology and Synchronisms, pp. 183–91.Sackett, L. H. et al. (1966), ‘Prehistoric Euboea: contribution toward a survey’, BSA, 61,

pp. 33–112.Smithson, E. L. (1968), ‘The tomb of a rich Athenian Lady, ca. 850 ’, Hesperia, 37,

pp. 77–116.Smithson, E. L. (1977), ‘Submycenaean and LH IIIC deposits in Athens’, AJA, 81, pp. 78–9.Smithson, E. L. (1982), ‘The prehistoric Klepsydra: some notes’ in Studies in Athenian

Architecture, Sculpture and Topography Presented to Homer A. Thompson, Princeton:American School of Classical Studies at Athens, pp. 141–54.

Spyropoulos, T. G. (1972), Ysteromukhnai ¨koi/ Elladikoi/ qhsauroi/, Athens: TheArchaeological Society at Athens.

Styrenius, C. G. (1967), Submycenaean Studies, Lund: Lund Cwk Greerup.Tanoulas, T. (1987), ‘The Propylaea of the Acropolis at Athens since the 17th century: their

decay and restoration’, JdI, 102, pp. 413–83.Townsend, R. F. (1995), The Athenian Agora XXVII: The East Side of the Agora. The Remains

Beneath the Stoa of Attalos, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.Travlos, J. (1971), Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London: Thames and Hudson.Welwei, K.-W. (1992), Athen: Vom Neolithischen Siedlungsplatz Zur Archaischen Grosspolis,

Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Whitley, J. (1991), Style and Society in Dark Age Greece: The Changing Face of a Pre-literate

Society, 1100–700 BC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Whitley, J. (2002), ‘Objects with attitude: biographical facts and fallacies in the study of Late

: 529

Page 26: Athens and Lefkandi a Tale of Two Sites

Bronze Age and Early Iron Age warrior graves’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 12,pp. 217–32.

Whitley, J. (2004), ‘Cycles of collapse in Greek prehistory: the House of the Tiles at Lerna andthe “Heroon” at Lefkandi’, in Cherry, J., Scarre, C. and Shennan, S. (eds), Explaining SocialChange: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew, Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs,pp. 193–201.

Wright, J. C. (1994), ‘The Mycenaean entrance system at the west end of the Acropolis ofAthens, Hesperia, 63, pp. 324–60.

530 .