Social Diversity in Dark Age Greece Author(s): James Whitley Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens,

Vol. 86 (1991), pp. 341-365 Published by: British School at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30102882 . Accessed: 20/04/2011 04:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual of the British School at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

I.
INTRODUCTION

A consideration of 'Greek Society in the Dark Ages' (I loo100-7oo B.C.) has by now become almost obligatory for ancient historians who have a particular interest in the Archaic period.' One reason for this is the enduring fascination of Homer, and of the world he depicts. But another, more prominent in recent discussions, is an interest, almost amounting to an obsession, in the origins of Greek society and civilization. Discussions of 'Dark Age Society' usually overlap with discussions of 'Homeric Society'. 'Homeric Society' is historical, it is thought, because it is coherent (historians of ideas are particularly insistent on this point2), and 'Homeric Society' must somehow precede the first suggested of Odysseus, society of Archaic Greece. It was Moses Finley, who, in The World in the Dark Ages.3 It is perhaps no coincidence that 'Homeric Society' should be located that, whilst Finley was arguing for a Dark Age 'Homeric' society, Michael Ventris and John Chadwick were revealing the bureaucratic (and unromantically un-Homeric) nature of the Late Mycenaean Palaces.4 The decipherment of Linear B has made it much more
This is an expanded version of a paper Acknowledgements: (with the same title) given at the New York Aegean Symposium, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and the Mycenaean Seminar at the University of London. It is based in part on my Ph.D. thesis and on a paper I gave at the British School at Athens, entitled 'Knossos in the Ninth Century B.C.'. I would like to thank all those who gave comments and criticisms at these occasions, in particular Tom Palaima, Hector Catling and Lyn Foxhall. I would also like to thank Ian Morris, Richard Billows, John Lenz and Rachel (my wife) for criticism of earlier drafts of this paper, and Professors William Harris and Alfred Frazer for granting me the status of Visiting Scholar at Columbia University when I was in New York. No-one, apart from myself, however is to be held responsible for any remaining mistakes, nor for any of the views expressed in this article. Many of the objects referred to in this article will be found illustrated in James Whitley Style andSociety in Dark Age Greece (Cambridge 1991). Abbreviations In addition to those commonly in use, I have used the following abbreviations:Coldstream GG J.N. Coldstream Geometric Greece (London 1977) V.R.d'A Desborough The Greek Dark Ages Desborough GDA (London 1972) M.I. Finley The Worldof Odysseus(HarFinley WO mondsworth 1979) Fortetsa near J.K. Brock Fortetsa:Early GreekTombs Knossos(Cambridge 1957) Number given to object by Brock published in Fortetsa Kerameikos Kerameikos: derAusgrabungen Vols Ergebnisse I-VII, Berlin 1939 onwards. I M.R. Popham, L.H. Sackett and P.G. Lefkandi Themelis (eds) LefkandiI: The Iron Age BSA Supp. II (London I980). Morris Burial I.M. Morris Burial and Ancient Society (Cambridge 1987) Snodgrass DAG A.M. Snodgrass The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh 1971) Whitley Ph.D. AJ.M. Whitley Style, Burial and Societyin Dark Age Greece (Cambridge Ph.D. 1986) example, Oswyn Murray Early Greece(Glasgow de la citi 1980), 38-68 and Frangois de Polignac La naissance (Paris 1984), 15-39. grecque 2Witness A.W.H. Adkins, 'Homeric Values and Homeric Society' JHS 91 (1970), 1-14, p. i. 'I find it impossible to believe . . . that the bards of the oral tradition invented out of their own imaginations a society with institutions, values, beliefs and attitudes all so coherent and mutually appropriate as I believe myself to discern in the Homeric poems. SThis was first published in 1954. I have used a later, revised edition: Moses Finley The Worldof Odysseus (Harmondsworth 1979), hereafter Finley WO. For archaeological arguments in favour of a Dark Age date for Homeric society, see O.T.P.K. Dickinson, 'Homer, The Poet of the Dark Age' Greece and Rome 33 (1986), 20-37. See M. Ventris and J. Chadwick Documents in Mvcenaean Greek(Cambridge 1957); see also J. Chadwick TheMvcenaean World(Cambridge 1976). ' For Fort.

342

JAMES WHITLEY

difficult to sustain the belief that 'Homeric Society' is essentially a picture, albeit a distorted one, of the Late Mycenaean world.5 Although there is no real consensus regarding 'Homeric Society', historical (rather than literary) discussion of Homer has tended to concentrate on two or three main themes. Is 'Homeric Society' real, fanciful or both? If real, can it be assigned to a particular period? Does it reflect a Mycenaean, a Dark Age, or an eighth-century social reality? Such discussions seem to me to assume that, if we could only tease out the historical from the fanciful in Homer, and if we could only be sure that Homeric society could be located in the Dark Ages, then we would have an adequate description of Dark Age society. These discussions pre-suppose that Dark Age and Homeric society was essentially uniform,that there were no great regional or local differences in social organisation or structure. But this view of Dark Age society flies in the face of most of the material evidence. For an archaeologist, the most striking feature of the Dark Ages is its regionalism, its material diversity. In this paper I hope to show that this material diversity is no accident. I shall argue that Dark Age (or Early Iron Age) Greece was a period of great social diversity. There was no such thing as Dark Age society, if by that we imply that the social structure and organisation of Greek Dark Age communities was essentially the same. Instead of Dark Age society, there were a number of Dark Age societies, which developed along quite different lines. Historians have too frequently mistaken the poetic coherence of the Homeric poems for an underlying coherence of social institutions, and so have been misled into thinking that Homeric society was essentially uniform. But the uniformity of 'Homeric' society cannot easily be reconciled with the regional diversity of the early Archaic period. Finley himself noticed these difficulties:'Surely it is a mistake to accept on face value the image created by the poets, that the whole Achaean world (and the Trojan with it) was essentially the same in all its parts'.6 ... in the earliest literary and epigraphical documents other than the Iliad and Odyssev, very profound differences in social and political institutions are at once apparent'.

And he goes on to say:'It may well be, therefore, that some of the odd passages in the poems which are often explained as anachronisms - Mycenaean reminiscences - are, instead, reflections of differences within the Greek World as it existed after the period of settlement. And it may well be that some reflect differences within the single communities, for they were societies of considerable complexity, in which there was not necessarily a single norm of organisation to which everyone adhered with unfailing regularity'.8

The diversity in political and social institutions that we find in the Archaic period is difficult to square with the picture of a uniform Homeric society. Such uniformity is moreover hard to reconcile with the archaeological evidence from Dark Age Greece, with

Some may still adhere to this belief, but the arguments against it to my mind are too weighty. They are summarised by M.I. Finley, 'Mycenae and Homer: Property and Tenure' and Societyin AncientGreece(Harmondsin Finley Economy worth 1983), 213-232 (= Historia6 (1957), 133-59).
5

8SFinley

Finley WO p. 230. WO p. 230. FinleyWO pp. 230-231.

SOCIAL I)IVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

343

its regional patterns in pottery styles burial customs,"' and settlement structure. This regionalism is one reason why archaeologists in particular have been reluctant to accept the reality of 'Homeric Society'." Even in those rare cases where the artefacts or the practices described in the poems appear to have parallels in the archaeological record (such as the practice of inurned cremation within a metal vessel"2), such apparently 'Dark Age' practices can be shown to have a very limited distribution.'3 Only the use of iron is universal in the Dark Ages (although not in the poems), and even here there are important regional differences.'4 I shall not be arguing however that Homeric Society is pure fantasy, that it has no reality at all. Homeric society is much more than a poetic amalgam of bits and pieces of social reality. It is a literary creation, a social framework in which heroes live, act, suffer and die. I hope however that I will be forgiven for concentrating on those aspects of the poems that seem to have some bearing on the archaeological and social reality of the Dark Ages. The uncovering of inconsistencies is not meant to detract from the essential unity of the poems, a unity which is far more literary than social.5 For historical and archaeological purposes however 'Homeric Society' must be treated as a poetic amalgam; not so much an amalgam of fragments from different periods, as of aspects of different, but contemporary, societies of the late Dark Ages. I shall be arguing that Homer can be used as evidence for tenth- and ninth-century social structures, but not for the usual reasons. I do not believe that their acquaintance with the epic tradition endowed the aoidoi with exceptionally long memories, nor do I think that the need for 'distancing effects' in epic is sufficient reason for our accepting the more archaic aspects of the poems as being of tenth or ninth century date." Rather I believe that there was a tendency, in some parts of Dark

" See especially Coldstream GGP and Snodgrass DAG, 24-105. In an important paper Coldstream also makes the point that we cannot explain the marked regionalism of Dark Age Greece by a kind of geographical determinism. Regionalism in material culture is not the natural outcome of regional geography, since there were numerous periods in prehistory when the material culture, in particular the pottery styles, of Greece were noticeably uniform. See J.N. Coldstream, 'The Meaning of the Regional Styles in the Renaissance Eighth Century B.C.' in R. Higg (ed.) The Greek B.C. (Stockholm 1983), 17-25. It would of theEighthCenturyv of course be equally facile to explain away the regional Age Greece in terms of 'isolation', diversity of')ark particularly when there is increasing evidence that Greece was far from isolated in this period. `oGenerally, see Snodgrass DAG, 14o-212. For the peculiar burial customs of Lefkandi, see M.R. Popham, L.H. Sackett and P.G. Themelis Lefkandi I: TheIronAge BSA Suppl. ii (London 1980), 209-216. " See especially A.M. Snodgrass, 'An Historical Homeric Society?'JHS94 (1974), I114-125.Coldstream also puts the sceptics' case eloquently, GG p. 18: 'Homer we cannot use: his epics, set in the heroic past, are coloured by an amalgam of anachronistic details, accumulated over centuries of oral transmission; thus Homeric society cannot be assigned to any single period.' '12For example the funeral of Patroklos II. xxiii 108-261, esp. 236-261; and the funeral of Hector II. xxiv 788-804.

13 Cremations in bronze urns seem to be confined to Attica and Euboea in the eighth century. For Euboea see C. Berard L'Hiroon d la Ported'Ouest.: Eretria III (Berne 1970); for Attica see K. Kilbler Kerameikos V (Berlin 1954), graves G6, G58, G7I, G72 and G78; AM 18 (1893), 92-93, Dipylon grave 3; AM 18 (1893), 414-415, the Pnyx grave; see also Coldstream GG, 120 & 126-127. The unique tenth-century example at Lefkandi is discussed further below; see M.R. Popham, L.H. Sackett and E. Touloupa, 'The Hero of Lefkandi' Antiquity 56 (1982), 169-74. 14 For regional differences in iron working, see Snodgrass DAG, 213-295 and I.M. Morris, 'Circulation, Deposition and the Formation of the Greek Iron Age' Man n.S.23 (1989), 502-519'1 Nor do I wish to take sides on the orality vs textuality (i.e. literacy) debate. Both poems stem from an oral tradition, but whether this means that they are entirely oral creations is a more difficult question. For the latest views on this subject, see G. Nagy The Best of the Achaeans at the Dark of the Moon (Baltimore 1979), N. Austin Archery (Berkeley 1975), J. Griffin Homeron Life and Death (Oxford I980) and O. Taplin 'Homer' in J. Boardman, J. Griffin and O. Murray (eds) TheOxford Historyof the ClassicalWorld (Oxford 1986), 50-77. 16 For 'distancing effects' see I.M. Morris, 'The Use and Abuse of Homer' ClassicalAntiquity 5 (1986), 81-138 esp. 89-90 & 97. Morris believes that the poems reflect an essentially eighth-century situation.

344

JAMES WHITLEY

Age Greece, for certain social forms to recur:to form, to 'collapse',17 and to form again. This phenomenon of formation, collapse and recurrence is supported by the archaeological evidence. Its possibility is suggested from ethnographic observations of societies in other parts of the world. This is not the only use I shall be making of ethnographic analogies. If Homeric society indeed is an amalgam, a poetic conflation of a number of diverse, contemporary societies, we are still left with the problem of sifting out those aspects which may refer to one type of society, and those which refer to another. For this we need an 'ethnographic sieve'; that is, a variety of ethnographic analogies which are capable of making social sense of the institutions referred to in the Homeric poems. Ethnographic analogies, in particular descriptions of material culture and material practices, furnish us with a vital link between archaeological evidence and social form.
AND MATERIAL DIVERSITY II. SOCIALDIVERSITY

But why should the assumption that Greek Dark Age society was 'diverse' be inherently more reasonable than the assumption of uniformity that most historians have made? The reason is that for pre-state, pre-literate agricultural societies the ethnographic record seems to indicate that diversity, rather than uniformity, is the norm. In a given geographical area social organisation and political complexity will vary quite considerably between communities. In his classic study, The Political Systemsof Highland Burma, E.R. Leach examines the so-called Kachin of Northern Burma.'8 The Kachin are neither a linguistically nor a politically unified group, and they display a bewildering range of variation in dress,"9 language20 and social and political organisation. Unlike most ethnographers, Leach did not confine his study to a single small area, and so he was able to adopt a wider, regional perspective. This enabled him to see that, in contrast to the equilibrium and homogeneity that was supposed to characterise small-scale societies of this type, the communities of Highland Burma were in a constant state of flux. Individuals were not necessarily bound by the linguistic and cultural categories into which they were born, but were frequently liable to change their linguistic, cultural and political affiliation. More significantly, the political structures of Kachin communities were constantly changing. However Leach felt confident in treating these diverse local cultures as part of one regional system, whose unifying features were a certain kind of kinship terminology and a particular kind of marriage pattern. It was these unifying features indeed that enabled individuals from different local cultures to cross the linguistic and political boundaries that appeared to divide them. Two political systems exist side-by-side with one another amongst the Kachin: the hierarchical gumsa, ruled by hereditary chiefs; and the egalitarian, 'republican' gumlaowho repudiate all notions of hierarchy. These different political systems have distinct and explicit 'hierarchical' and 'egalitarian' ideologies. They also have distinct material
My use of the term 'collapse' follows the usage adopted by Joseph R. Tainter The Collapse of Complex Societies(Cambridge 1988). Tainter makes the important point that any kind of society of any degree of complexity (not only states and empires) can collapse. "
" E.R. Leach The Political Systemsof Highland Burma

(London 1954). I( Leach [n. 18] above p. 55. 20 Leach [n. 18] above pp. 29-61.

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

345

correlates: in gumsa societies, for example, chiefs have special chiefs' houses, and when they die, the site of their burial is surrounded by a ditch.2' These features are absent in gumlaosocieties. What particularly interested Leach was the inherent instability of these political systems, the tendency for gumsato become gumlao,and vice-versa. Gumsasocieties 'collapsed' when the chiefs' demands on their kin and followers became too great, and there was an equal (if opposite) tendency for inequalities to increase in gumlaosocieties. So only some of the societies that Leach observed conformed to these two ideal types. More often than not, the societies he observed were in a state of transition from one to the other. That is, they were in 'unstable equilibrium'. The Kachin example seems to indicate that social diversity and political instability are common states of affairs amongst non-literate, agricultural, 'tribal'22 societies. It is only the narrower focus of most ethnographies that prevents us from seeing similar patterns in other parts of the world. Cultural and social diversity and political instability seem, in 'tribal' societies at least, to go together. Let me emphasize that I am not saying that the Kachin example necessarily provides an exact analogy with the situation in Dark Age Greece.23I simply want to make a general point. In an area the size of Highland Burma or the Aegean, before the development of state societies, a condition of diversity is at least as probable as one of uniformity. When we consider the very great differences that existed between the regions of Archaic Greece then the case for diversity is strengthened. Regional diversity in material culture is moreover the hallmark of the Greek Dark Ages. Every region differed in its pottery style, burial customs, depositional practices and settlement pattern, and this fact may be said to facie case for social diversity. The question then arises, how significant are provide a prima these regional differences? I believe that they are much more than regional fashions; they are the material manifestation of distinct regional cultures. But to argue this I have to show that the particular form that material culture takes in particular regions, the manner of its production, consumption and deposition, is structurally and thus meaningfully related to particular forms of social organisation. Formal differences are nonetheless important in defining regional cultures. To an extent, it matters that tholos tombs are used in Crete and Thessaly, but not in general elsewhere; that cremation is the dominant rite in Attica, whereas in the Argolid it is inhumation; and that pottery traditions differ widely between regions.24 But the attention that these differences have received in the archaeological literature is in a sense misleading. Such facts are less significant than the structural differences which contextual analysis reveals. What matters is not the fact that different traits are to be found in different regions, but how these traits are related to each other in particular, local symbolic systems. To understand a symbolic system we have to

18] above pp. io8-iog9; for chiefs' burials see Leach [n. 18] above p. i ig9. One consequence of having a burial surrounded by a ditch is that the archaeological visibility of chiefs' burials would be greater than those of commoners. This observation is not without its relevance to the debates that have grown up about the 'visibility' of burial in Dark Age Greece; see Ian Morris Burial and Ancient Society (Cambridge 1987), hereafter Morris Burial. 22 I am using the term tribal in Sahlins' sense. See Marshall Sahlins Tribesmen (Englewood Cliffs NJ 1968),

2 For chiefs' houses see Leach [n.

esp. 1-13. 2: Even though a case could be made for such an analogy. Certainly some features (iron working, agriculture, a low population density combined with a high degree of population mobility) seem to be common to both Highland Burma and Dark Age Greece. The similarities in social structure (see Leach [n. 18] above p. 288) are probably illusory however. 24 For burial customs see Snodgrass DAG, 14o-212; for pottery styles see Coldstream GGP and Snodgrass DAG, 24-o105.

346

JAMESWHITLEY

pay attention to the context in which artefacts were deposited, and the patterns of association that emerge. The contextual analysis of symbolic systems must precede any attempt to make social sense of the archaeological record by ethnographic analogy. A comparative study of regional symbolic systems would be clearly in order here. But, before embarking on this, it is worth emphasising another, perhaps more striking, archaeological manifestation of diversity in Dark Age Greece: the diversity of settlement types. Here I want to make a distinction between settlement diversity and settlement hierarchy. Settlement hierarchy involves functional differentiation, distinct types of sites which have particular roles within a broader settlement system. The fact that some sites are larger than others does not produce a hierarchy. In Late Minoan Crete for example we have a clear settlement hierarchy. It is fairly easy to classify a site as tower, villa, peak sanctuary, town or palace, and there is rarely any ambiguity in our classification of any one site. We may disagree as to the exact function of any of these types of site, but my point here is simply that this system of classification works.2"Sites can fairly easily be arranged into site hierarchies. The same appears to be true for Classical Attica. It is fairly easy to identify a site as an isolated farmstead, deme site, mine, washery, fort, or sanctuary, and it is fairly easy to deduce how these sites were related in an overall settlement hierarchy.26 No such hierarchy can be discerned amongst Dark Age sites. It is true that Dark Age sites vary in size, density, duration of occupation and so forth, and so, theoretically could be classified. But these sites do not resolve themselves easily into of Dark Age sites. types, and I would challenge anyone to produce a hierarchy That having been said, I would like to introduce a distinction between two types of Dark Age site: stable and unstable. Stable settlements are those sites which remained continuously occupied throughout the Dark Ages. These sites were often large, they had usually been important Mycenaean centres, and were very often to become the urban foci of later city states. These sites are known to us more from their abundant cemetery evidence than from very much evidence of settlement. Broadly speaking Athens,27 Argos28 and Knossos29 fall into this category of settlement. The term 'unstable' settlement is something of a catch-all category. All that 'unstable' means here is that the site in question was occupied for a relatively short period of time, anything from fifty years to three centuries. Unstable settlements include Dhonoussa in the Cyclades3" (occupied only during the ninth century), Zagora on Andros3 (occupied
25 The hierarchical nature of the Neopalatial (particularly LMI) settlement pattern on Crete has been known for some time. It has been confirmed by recent special studies: of Minoan villas by J.C. McEnroe, 'A Typology of 86 (1982), 3-19 and L. Minoan Neopalatial Houses' AJA4 Nixon, 'Neo-palatial Outlying Settlements and the Function of the Minoan Palaces' in R. Haigg and N. Marinatos (eds) The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm 1987), 95-98; and of peak sanctuaries by A.A.D). Peatfield, 'The Topography of Minoan Peak Sanctuaries' BSA 78 (1983), 273-279. For a recent overview, see John Bennett, 'Knossos in Context' AJA94 (1990), 193-211. The lower levels of the settlement hierarchy are now being better understood as a result of various kinds of field survey, particularly in East Crete. 2 For the site hierarchy of Classical Attica, see Robin Osborne Demos: TheDiscovery of ClassicalAttika (Cambridge

1985), esp. 47-63. 7 For the settlement of Dark Age Athens, see Morris Burial, 62-69. There is also much useful information in B.C. (Ph.D. W.G. Cavanagh's AtticBurial Customs c.20oo00-7oo thesis, London 1977). " For Argos, see R. Higg, 'Zur Stidtwerdung des dorischen Argos' in Palast und Hiitte: Beitragezum Bauenund Wohnen in Altertum (Mainz 1982), 297-307. 2 For Knossos, see Sinclair Hood and David Smvth Survey of the Knossos Area BSA Suppl. 14 Archaeological (London i98i), i6-i8. "'For Dhonoussa, see P. Zapheiropoulou 'Dhonoussa' ADelt 24:3 B Chr (1969), 390-393. 1 For Zagora, see A. Cambitoglou, J.J. Coulton, J. Birmingham and.J.R. Green ZagoraI (Sidney 1971) and A. Museum of Andros:Guide(Athens Cambitoglou Archaeological I98I).

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

347

between the ninth and eighth centuries), Nichoria in Messenia32 (occupied until the eighth century), and, at the very end of the period, Emborio on Chios.33 Other than their relatively short duration of occupation, these sites have little in common. There is however an interesting sub-category of the unstable settlement type, the unstable settlement system. Here settlement has a tendency to move around within a small area. Lefkandi in Euboea34 and Kavousi in Crete35 are good examples of this sub-category. At Lefkandi, Xeropolis is occupied during the LHIIIC period,36but by the tenth century BC settlement has apparently moved to the nearby Toumba hill.37After the abandonment of the Toumba 'heroon', settlement is again concentrated on Xeropolis in the ninth and eighth centuries.38 At Kavousi settlement begins in the LMIIIC period and continues through the Subminoan period on the hill of Vronda.3"After about i,ooo B.C., Vronda is abandoned, and settlement gradually becomes concentrated on the Kastro above.40 At both Kavousi, Vronda4' and Lefkandi, Toumba,42 the abandoned sites continue to be used as cemetery areas for at least a century after their being deserted. I want to argue that these 'unstable settlement systems' are characteristic of a particular kind of social organisation, one radically different from that found in the stable settlements. Like the settlement system, this social system too is unstable. I will refer to it as the 'big-man' model.

:2 For Nichoria, see W.A. McDonald, W.D.E. Coulson and J.J. Rosser Excavations at Nichoriain Southwest Greece III: Dark Age and ByzantineOccupation (Minneapolis 1983), esp. 9-60. on Chios :1 For Emborio, see John Boardman Excavations I: Greek Emborio BSA Suppl. 6 (London 1967). " For Lefkandi I. generally see Popham et al. Lefkandi :5 For Kavousi generally see H. Boyd, 'Excavations at Kavousi, Crete, in 19oo' AJA 2ndSer5 (I901O), 125-157; and more recently L.P. l)av, W.D.E. Coulson and G.C. Gesell 'Excavation and Survey at Kavousi 1978-81' Hesperia 52 (1983), 389-420. 3 For LH IIIC occupation on Xeropolis, see M.R. at Lefkandi Popham and L.H. Sackett Excavations 1964-66: A Preliminary Report(London 1968), 11-23. :` For occupation on Toumba, see M.R. Popham, L.H. Sackett and E. Touloupa, 'The Hero of Lefkandi' Antiquity 56 (1982), 169-174 and M.R. Popham, P.G. Calligas and L.H. Sackett, 'Further Excavation of the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi, 1984 & 1986' AR 1988-89, 117-129. For further details of the 'heroon' see brief reports in AR: AR 1980-81, 7; AR 1981-82, 15-17; AR 1982-83, 12-15; and AR 1983-84, 17. For a more detailed plan of the Toumba 'heroon' see P.G. Calligas, 'Hero Cult in Early Iron Age Greece' in R. Hiigg, N. Marinatos and G. Nordquist (eds) Earlv GreekCult Practice (Stockholm 1988), 229-234. The question of whether the large building is indeed a 'heroon' is discussed further below. :1 See Popham et al. LefkandiI, 11-97. Surface finds (rather than material from the small area of settlement

excavation) appear to indicate that Xeropolis was never entirely abandoned during the Dark Ages, but the absence of major finds in the excavated portion of Xeropolis does seem to indicate that settlement on Xeropolis had diminished at the time of the floruitof the Toumba 'heroon'. 9 See L. Day, W.D.E. Coulson and G.C. Gesell, 'Kavousi 1983-84: The Settlement at Vronda' Hesperia 55 (1986), 355-387. See also Day et al. [n. 35] above. 4" For the Kastro, see L.P. Day, W.D.E. Coulson and G.C. Gesell, 'Kavousi, 1982-83: The Kastro' Hesperia54 (1985), 328-355. Most of the material so far recovered from the Kastro is either Late Geometric or Orientalising. See also L.P. Day, W.D.E. Coulson and G.C. Gesell, 'Excavations at Kavousi Crete, 1987' Hesperia57(1988), 279-301. There now appears to be evidence from the 1989 season that the Kastro was occupied throughout the Dark Ages, from the iith century onwards, but the early Dark Age occupation appears to be slight compared with the major, 8th century phase. 4 For continuity of tomb use at Vronda, see Day et al. [n. 39] above, 385-387 and Day et al. Hesperia 57 (1988), 279-(298. 42 For continuity of use of the Toumba cemetery throughout the ninth century (SPG) see Popham et al. Lefkandi I, 105, io8, 168-196; see also M.R. Popham, L.H. Sackett and E. Touloupa, 'Further Excavations at the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi' BSA 77 (1982), 213-248. For further details see also AR 1984-85, 15-16, AR 1986-87, 12-14 and Popham et al. AR 1988-89, I17-129.

348

JAMES WHITLEY

III.

UNSTABLE SETTLEMENTS AND 'BIG-MEN'

One of the most notable features of the accounts of 'Homeric' society given by Finley and others is the extreme fragility of its political structure.43 This fragility is at its most marked in the case of Ithaca. In the absence of Odysseus, Telemachus is unable to exercise any authority as his son;44 Laertes either cannot or will not re-assert his former and Penelope is obliged to entertain a large number of suitors whom position as basileus;45 she does not like, and who are eating her out of house and home.46The people, the demos, of Ithaca seem indifferent to this situation, and certainly there seems to be little or no popular sentiment in favour of Odysseus' legitimate heir."7 Political authority has collapsed in the king's absence, and it takes his own personal intervention (and the drastic measure of killing all the king's rivals, the suitors) to re-establish it. Clearly 'kingship' here is a more fragile institution than the feudal kingship of Western Europe in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries C.E., and I would argue that it does not deserve to be called kingship at all. As Bjorn Qviller has noted,48 these structural weaknesses of Homeric society, its extreme dependence on the personal qualities of its leaders, are very similar to the structural weaknesses of 'big-man' societies which anthropologists have described for us.49 The relevance of the 'big-man' model to our overall understanding of prehistoric social change has recently been emphasized by Binford:'In big man systems, the competition is for persons [rather than goods or land] and the result is the actual residential gravitation of people to the neighbourhood of big men. Status however accrues to those who can offer others security on account of the number of alliances they have. When the crops do fail, the followers of a big man are protected in the short run because he can use his alliances to get food to support them; but as soon as he begins to cancel alliances by calling them in, he loses status ....'10

The scarce resources in such systems are people and labour, not land. It is easy to imagine how the conditions of the early Dark Age might have favoured such a system. There had been a considerable loss of population after 12oo00 B.C. in Greece. All the survey evidence of recent years has tended to confirm Snodgrass' suggestion that the number of
1:'See Finley 10O, 74-o107.This fragility has been highlighted by Bjorn Qviller, 'The )Dynamics of Homeric Society' SymbolaeOsloenses56 (1981), 109-155. For the 8o-io8; and Antinous' threats to Telemachus Od. ii 123-125; see also Finley W10p. 52. 7 See again Od. ii 1-259. There are one or two individuals favourble to Telemachus (Od. ii 239-241) but they cannot swing the crowd. See Finley's remarks 14'0 p. 93. " See Qviller [n. 43] above, esp. 116-120, who is

absence of organised political structures,see also John Halverson,'The SuccessionIssue in the Odyssey' Greece
andRome 33 (1986), I119-128. 4 This is particularlyevident in the assembly scene (Od. ii 1-259) when Telemachus tries to rally support from the people for himself and his family, and fails. There appears to be no real popular feeling in support of Odysseus' family. Halverson [n. 43 above] argues that there is no succession issue in the Odyssey; that is, no-one is aiming for the kingship, since there is 'no throne, no office of king, indeed no real Ithakan state' (p. Ii19).There is simply a struggle between basileis over property and status. See also Finley W'O,78. 15 For Laertes' position, see Od. i 188-193; iN 737-741; see also xv 351-357; xvi 137-145; xxiv 205-212 & 244-279; Finley WO, 86-87. The meaning (or rather meanings) of the term basileusis discussed further below. 4 See Eumaeus' complaints to Odysseus Od. xiv,

eloquenton the subject of the institutionalweaknessof could be a king Homeric'kingship'.Any noble (basileus)
in order to (Od. i 394-398); a basileushad to feast his hetairoi retain their loyalty, as is indicated in Odysseus mendacious story which he tries to palm off on Athena. (Od. xiv 199-258, esp. 249-251). Qviller goes on to compare the rise of a Homeric basileusto that of a Melanesian 'big man'. 1 The most succint account is by Marshall Sahlins,

and Historv in Society 5 (1963), 285-303. There are also some excellent ethnographic accounts of 'big-man' societies, for (Cambridge example AJ. Strathern's The Rope of MVoka 1971). 51 Lewis R. Binford In Pursuit the Past (London of I983), 219.

Studies 'PoorMan, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief Comparative

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

349

sites in the early Dark Age was very low, compared to both previous and subsequent The security provided by the Mycenaean palace system (especially if we see it periods.5"' as redistributive) had disappeared, and people were in shorter and shorter supply thereafter. Big men could offer some of the economic security that had previously been provided by the palaces. But big men also had to attract followers, when followers were hard to come by. Though they might have wished to behave like Mycenaean rulers, they were never strong enough to do so. Their position demanded that they make constant exertions to maintain any kind of following. Depopulation (or a low population density) favours big-man systems, and in such systems 'it is not goods that move, but people'.52 In this situation we would expect an unstable settlement pattern, which is exactly what we find at Kavousi and Lefkandi. Like the settlements, authority too is unstable. It depends entirely on the big man's personal qualities, on his ability to attract and to maintain a following. Authority is transient and personal. As Binford points out:
'A big man's alliances, negotiatedat individuallevel, cannot be passed on to someoneelse; they are not when a successfulbig man dies, his transferable to his sons, who must negotiatetheir own. Consequently, alliancesdie with him and his competitors gain in status as a resultof his death. So there is an inevitable outflowof populationassociatedwith the death of high status persons'."3

Big man systems then are inherently unstable, and we should be able to detect such instability archaeologically. In such systems, we would expect settlement foci to last no more than one or two generations, which is exactly what we find in both Lefkandi and Kavousi.54 It is perhaps also significant that at both Lefkandi, Toumba and Kavousi, Vronda, the settlement is centred around a large central building. Building A at Vronda appears to be a large hall opening onto a central courtyard, surrounded by ancillary buildings.55 The 'heroon' at Lefkandi is an exceptionally large structure which seems to stand alone on its hill.56 Both of these buildings would have been highly visible structures, as they were both built on the summits of low hills. Such prominence would have been a highly effective means of 'advertising', a necessary feature in a big man system. Another important feature of such systems is their investment in display. A big man needs some means of advertising his prowess if he is to attract followers. If Murray57 is right in thinking that the symposionwas originally an institution whereby a man of aristocratic birth (a basileus) created personal bonds of allegiance by feasting his companions, then the large 12th to ioth century buildings at Kavousi, Vronda (Building A58), Lefkandi, Toumba59 and Nichoria Unit IV.I.6Ocan all be reasonably interpreted as serving as both house and feasting hall. Such exceptionlly large buildings served two functions: they advertised the attractions of associating oneself with a 'big-man'; and they
" See refs in [n. 37] above, especially note the plans in AR 1981-82 p. 17 and Calligas [n. 37] above p. 231 fig. I.

- See Snodgrass DAG, 360-368, esp. 364. For a summary of recent survey evidence see Morris Burial, 156-160, esp. fig. 54 and table 12. Morris bases his estimates for the rise and fall of population on the number of occupied sites, not the number of interments. A.M. Snodgrass' estimates, both in DAG and in ArchaicGreece(London I980), 22-23 figs. 3 & 4, are therefore probably a little overdrawn. 52 Binford [n. 5o] above p. 2 19. SBinford [n. 5o] above p. 22o. - See references in notes 35, 37 and 39 above. SSe D)av et al. [n. 39] above figs. 2 & 3.

sation' in R. Higg (ed.) The GreekRenaissance of the Eighth B.C. (Stockholm 1983), 195-199; see also Murray Century [n. I] above 49-50. Murray here echoes many of the points

O Oswyn Murray,'The Symposionas Social Organi-

that Qviller[n. 43] abovemakes.

" See refs in [n. 37] above, especially AR 1981-82, I7 and Calligas [n. 37] above p. 231. 60
See McDonald et al. [n. 32] Nichoria III, 19-42.

See refs in [n. 37] and [n. 39] above. 518

350

JAMES WHITLEY

were places where a leader could entertain his followers in suitably lavish style. But, since authority in these systems was so highly personal, on a big man's death, his authority and his prestige collapsed with him. In Lefkandi, Toumba the association of a big man's personality with his house was such that it could not be used by anyone else. So he was interred within its floor, and a tumulus was built over both him and his house.61 This interpretation of the Lefkandi 'heroon' obviously conflicts with the view of the excavators. This difference of interpretation is in turn based on a different interpretation of the sequence of events at Letkandi, Toumba. I see the sequence of events as follows:i. The construction of the large building (as a house); 2. The interment of its occupant and his wife beneath the floor of the house on his death; 3. The construction of the tumulus over the house. and not, as the excavators see it;62
i.
2.

The interments;

The construction of the large building as a shrine or heroon; 3. The almost immediate destruction of this large building and the erection of a tumulus
over it.

Both interpretations are equally consistent with the archaeological evidence as it has been published. Direct stratigraphical evidence for the sequence of events is lacking, since a bulldozer destroyed the area of the large building immediately above the burials. The heroon hypothesis relies on what seems to me to be rather ambiguous circumstantial details, such as the rarity of sherds in the floor deposit and the apparent absence of a hearth.63 It is at least strange that, according to the published plans, the 'heroon' possesses large areas seemingly devoted to storage.64The 'heroon' hypothesis has not won a great deal of support amongst other scholars, particularly not from those interested in Dark Age architecture.65 In any case, these problems can only be pursued in detail after the final publication of the site. The 'big man' model does then seem to be consistent with the archaeological evidence from some early Dark Age sites. It helps to explain the instability of some of these settlement systems. Moreover, a shifting settlement pattern, with settlements moving around following the rise and fall of big men, does seem to be one of the characteristics of such societies that ethnographers have recorded.66But it must be admitted that there are serious difficulties when it comes to our accepting the big man model in its pure Melanesian form. It is unreasonable to expect that there will be an exact fit between a contemporary society and societies in the past, and the analogy is only being pursued here
61 See refs in [n. 37] above, especially Calligas [n. 37]

p. 231x fig. I. 62 See refs in [n. 37] above. The most forceful expression of these views has been in Popham et al. Antiquity 56 (1982), 169-174, but see also AR i981-82, 16. 63 See refs in [n. 37] above, especially AR 1982-83, 14-15. 6 See Calligas [n. 37] above p. 231 fig. i; see also AR 1983-84 p. 17. SSee particularly the criticisms of AJ. MazarakisAinian, 'Early Greek Temples: Their Origin and Function' in R. Higg, N. Marinatos and G. Nordquist (eds) Ear/lv GreekCult Practice(Stockholm 1988), 105-119, esp. p. I16;

and 'Contribution a l'Etude de l'Architecture Grecque des Ages Obscurs' AntCl54 (1985), 5-48 esp. 6-9. MazarakisAinian also has much to say about the function of building A at Vronda and Unit IV.ix at Nichoria; see 'Early Greek Temples' p. io6. Not all those involved in the excavations at Lefkandi think that the large building on Toumba hill is a 'heroon' (See Calligas [n. 37] above p. 232) and indeed I know of no scholar, apart from the excavators, who does. For further criticisms see F. de Polignac [n. I] above p. 92 n. 146. 66 See Strathern [n. 49] above 37-52.

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

351

insofar as it helps to throw light both upon the archaeological record and upon 'Homeric' society. Nonetheless, the difficulties are profound and they will have to be faced squarely. The most serious difficulty is ecological. 'Big man' societies seem to be characteristic of the tropics. They are to be found in those environments which are capable of producing a surplus in agricultural products all the year round."'Famine and scarcity are almost unknown. Now it could be argued that the local environments of both Lefkandi and Kavousi, Vronda are relatively rich (the Lelantine plain is particularly fertile). But the operative word here is 'relatively'. Nowhere in Greece is it possible to produce the kind of year-round surplus that enables Melanesian 'big-men' to pursue the game of competitive gift-giving. This objection is not, however, a fatal one. Implicit in Binford's characterization of the 'big man' system is an economic imperative: the need to ensure a measure of security in the supply of food." A big man can offer his followers some economic security through his exchange contacts. Big men are then, in a sense, 'risk buffering mechanisms'69of a social rather than a technological variety. If there are local shortages, a local big man can 'cash in' his debts with his exchange partners to provide his followers with food in lean periods. Big men who fail to do this are simply abandoned by their followers. Binford's modified big man model makes considerable ecological sense. In the confused conditions following the collapse of the redistributive Mycenaean Palace economy, it would have held considerable attractions. There are however other objections. One is that there is simply too much evidence in Homer for permanent class divisions, for the gulf between noble and commoner, for the 'big-man' model to be even minimally plausible.7o But again this objection is not fatal. It seems clear that, in Homer, good birth is a condition but not a guarantee of high status. The basileus, like the big man, still has to win and maintain followers.7 To do this he has to use the same mix of bribery and oratory.72A third difficulty in reconciling 'big-men' with Homer is that 'big-men' are usually able to rely on quite extensive kinship networks to
SSee Strathern [n. 49] above 4-10. in Geometric Greece (New Haven 1983) and P. Carlier Kingship en Gr&ce avantAlexandre La Rovauti (Strasbourg 1984). To my mind both works suffer from what I would call an 'evolutionary fallacy'. Both authors expect the meaning of a word to evolve in an orderly fashion, from the qa-si-re-u ('chief') of the Mycenaean tablets to the Persian Great King, and for the word to retain a clear single meaning in any one time period. Hence we have Carlier's ingenious suggestion that, in Homer, basileus means king in the singular but nobles in the plural. For some, this may help to explain why the io8 suitors in the Odyssey are termed basileis and why the dorophagoi basilees that Hesiod (Op. 263-264) refers to appear, not to be kings, but members of a local aristocracy. But to me such inconsistencies are an indication of the ambiguity and flexibility of the term basileus,which can mean 'king', 'chief, 'noble', 'lord', or 'big man' according to circumstances. The flexibility of the term basileusis paralleled in modern English usage by the term secretary, which can mean anything from a personal clerk ('my secretary') to a great officer of state, such as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 72 For 'big men' and oratory see Sahlins [n. 49] above
and Binford [n. 5o] 215-220.

SI am referring here to the school of economic archaeology that is concerned in particular with the social mechanisms of minimising risk, notably the work of Paul Halstead. See P. Halstead and J. O'Shea, 'A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed: Social Storage and the Origins of Social Ranking' in A.C. Renfrew and SJ. Shennan (eds) Resources and Exchange Ranking, (Cambridge 1982), 92-99. " Though not everyone believes that terms such as aristeus,agathos, cheironor kakos denote class divisions or distinctions of birth. See George M. Calhoun, 'Classes and Masses in Homer' CP 9 (1N934),192-208 & 301-316; see also A.G. Geddes, 'Who's Who in "Homeric Society"' CQ 78 (1984), 17-36. 7 For the importance of 'good birth' see Finley I10 59-6o and Qviller [n. 43] above 116-120. On the importance of assemblies and oratory see Qviller [n. 43] above, Murray [n. 57] above and Finley 1O0 p. 82. Needlss to say, the Iliad is full of assembly scenes and public speeches by the basileis. It may be useful here to discuss the term basileus, usually translated as 'king'. This has been the subject of two recent monographs, R. Drews Basileus: The Evidence to

" See Binford [n. 5o] above 215-220.

352

JAMES WHITLEY

build up any kind of following.73 Kinship networks in Homer are notoriously truncated basileisrarely rely on their kin for anything at all. There are two answers to this problem. One is that the institution of the symposion amongst Dark Age societies may have played a in of that similar role to ethnographically observed 'big-man' societies.74 In this kinship way the structure (if not the content) and thus the explanatory utility of the 'big man' model can be preserved. The second reason is that the 'kinship problem' is one that is encountered in every attempt to improve our understanding of Homeric society by the use of ethnographic analogy. Either Homeric soceity is unique, or, for various literary reasons, the Homeric poems systematically downplay the importance of kinship.75 These problems will be considered further below. In any case, if my analysis is correct, it seems that 'big-man' systems were characteristic of the early Dark Age (the 12th to ioth centuries B.C.). Societies of this type were then less likely to have been familiar to the eighth-century poets responsible for the composition of the Homeric poems.76 Even so, the archaeological evidence seems to indicate that small-scale communities similar to the big-man type did persist into (or rather tended to re-appear until) the eighth century in Greece. Emborio seems to be a community of this type.77 I am not arguing for a uniform and universal Dark Age society. The 'big-man' model is only applicable in certain times and certain places. It is not appropriate for all the 'unstable' settlements, such as Zagora or Dhonoussa.78 It is particularly unsuitable for the large, permanent communities of Athens, Argos and Knossos. It is to these 'stable' settlements that we now turn. IV.

STABLE SETTLEMENTS AND THE 'NURISTAN'

MODEL

Although in many respects the stable settlements of Dark Age Greece have much in common, there is no single social model that is appropriate for all of them. One particular ethnographic analogy, that from Nuristan, does seem to suit Athens particularly well, but it cannot be made to fit the situation in either Argos or Knossos. Stable settlements were as diverse in their social structure as were those of the 'unstable' variety. Stable settlements do however share a number of common features which distinguish them from the 'unstable'. One such feature is the stability of their cemetery areas. Such stability is particularly noticeable in Athens,79 where the cemetery on the South bank of the Eridanos in the Kerameikos continues in use from Protogeometric times until the third
7 See Sahlins [n. 49] above p. 291: 'The rising big man necessarily depends initially on a small core of followers, principally his own household and his closest relatives.' 74 This is obviously the solution favoured by Murray [n. 57] above. 5 It is at least curious, though, that Homer regularly uses kinship terminology (phylonand phritre) to describe non-kin political relations; see Iliad ii, 362-363, 668; ix, 63-64; see also W. Donlan, 'The Social Groups of Dark Age Greece' CP 8o (1985), 293-308. This suggests that Homer's audience were perhaps more at home with kinship terminology than the poems would otherwise suggest. 76 This is of course to assume that the poems were indeed composed in the late eighth century B.C., and that they were essentially 'Ionian'. For dating see R. Janko HesiodandtheHymns(Cambridge 1982), esp. 228-231 Homer, and Morris [n. 16] above 91-94. For the latest on the Ionian poetic tradition see M.L. West, 'The Rise of the Greek Epic'JHS io8 (1988), 151-172. 77 For Emborio, see Boardman [n. 33] above and remarks in Mazarakis Ainian [n. 65] 'Early Greek Temples' Io--I1I1. 71 See refs in notes 30 and 31 above and Mazarakis Ainian [n. 65] 'Early Greek Temples' io9-Ii. 7 For Athens generally see Morris Burialesp. 72-96 and Cavanagh [n. 24] above. See also AJ.M. Whitley Style, in DarkAge Greece BurialandSociety (Cambridge Ph.D. 1986) [hereafter Whitley Ph.D.], 96-250.

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

353

century B.C.8o The cemeteries at Kriezi Street8"and Erechtheion Street82 also last right through the Dark Ages. In Knossos the situation is similar.83The Fortetsa cemetery84and the North Cemetery85 remain the major cemetery areas from Subminoan times until the end of the seventh century B.C. These facts suggest that the inhabitants of both these sites possessed a notion of continuity that did not depend upon the transient authority of a big man. For Athens, Ian Morris has noted long term continuities in the use of what he terms 'grave plots'. Grave plots are subdivisions of a cemetery, a group of graves that probably represent the burial area of a particular burying group.86These grave plots were used over a number of generations, sometimes over a number of centuries. This is not to resurrect the discredited notion of the genos.87It is simply to infer that the individual, constituent units of Athens were kin groups of roughly equivalent size and status, and that Athens was a community where some kind of status could be passed down between the generations. Was there then an equivalent to the 'grave plot' in other stable settlements? In Knossos, where collective interment in chamber tombs was the usual burial practice, the chamber tombs themselves may be seen as the equivalent of the Athenian grave plot. But the evidence for continuity of use at this level is not so marked. Of the 126 collective tombs which have been excavated, only 5 were in continuous use from the ioth to 8th centuries, and only 25 from the 9th to 8th centuries. The majority of tombs, seventy-eight (78) in all, were in use for only a single century or less.88 In Knossos it seems that, insofar as continuity between the generations was important, it was more important at the community rather than the family level. There is in any case little positive support for the widespread notion that the collective tombs of Knossos were in any sense 'family tombs'.89 The relatively late appearance of 'family' tombs or cemetery areas in Knossos compared to Athens is only one of the ways in which these two communities differed from one another. Some of these differences may appear superficial. Athens appears to have been a low density, Knossos a high density site.90 When, in the tenth and ninth centuries, cremation
8o For the Kerameikos generally, see W. Kraiker and K. IV I (Berlin 1939), K. KbiblerKerameikos Kiibler Kerameikos VI.i V (Berlin 1954), Kerameikos (Berlin 1943), Kerameikos (Berlin 1959), Kerameikos 17.2 (Berlin 1970) and Kerameikos VII.i (Berlin 1976). For criticisms of Kubler's approach, see R. Hachn.ann's review of Kerameikos V in GGA 215 (1963), 47-63. For recent re-interpretations of the zu den Kerameikos cemetery, see G. Krause Untersuchungen am Eridanosin Athen(Hamburg 1975) and Nekropolen dltesten Morris Burial 72-74, 81-85, 129-132 & 152-153. ' For Kriezi street, see O. Alexandri AAA i (1968), 20-30; ADelt 22 B Chr(1967), 92-96; ADelt 23 B Chr(1968), 20-27 & 67. For Erechtheion street, see ADelt 19 B Chr (1964), 87; 812 ADelt 20 B Chr(1965), 84-87; ADelt 22 B Chr(1967), 55-7 & 78; ADelt 23 B Chr(1968), 55-56; ADelt 29 B Chr(1973/74), 131-132; see especially M. Brouskari Apo ton Athenaiko Kerameiko tou 8ou Aiona pro Christou(Athens 1979) and 'A Dark Age Cemetery in Erechtheion Street, Athens' BSA 75 (1980), 13-31. 8 For Knossos see Hood and Smyth [n. 29] above 16-i8 and Whitley Ph.D. 251-353. 84 For the Fortetsa cemetery, see J.K. Brock Fortetsa: GreekTombsnearKnossos(Cambridge 1957), hereafter Earvly Fortetsa. 8 For the North Cemetery, see H.W. Catling 'The

Knossos Area 1974-76'; AR 1976-77, 3-23 and 'Knossos 1978' AR 1978-79, 43-58; see also L.H. Sackett, 'A New Figured Krater from Knossos' BSA 71 (1976), 117-I29. 86 For burial plots see Morris Burial 72-74 &92-93; the best example of a 'grave plot' is probably the Areopagus cemetery published by E.L. Smithson 'A Geometric Cemetery on the Areopagus: 1897, 1932, 1947' Hesperia 43 (1974), 325-390. 87 For the whole question of the genos and the alleged 'tribal' structure of Archaic Athens, see F. Bourriot Recherchessur la Naturedu Genos(Paris 1976) and D. Roussel Tribu et Citi (Paris 1976). After the criticisms of these two scholars, the whole question of the social organisation of Archaic Athens, and the role of kinship as an organising principle, is now an open one. "8See Whitley Ph.D. 275-281. 89 See Whitley Ph.D. 275-281. For a physical anthropologist's view, see Jonathan Musgrave's remarks in J.N. Coldstream, P.J. Callaghan and J. Musgrave, 'Knossos: An Early Greek Tomb on Lower Gypsadhes Hill' BSA 76 (1981), 141-165 esp. 163. 9o For comparisons of the densities of the two sites see Whitley Ph.D. o107-I II (Athens) and 263-267 (Knossos); see also Morris Burial 62-69 for Athens and Hood and Smyth [n. 29] above for Knossos.

354

JAMES WHITLEY

was the normal burial 'rite' in both places, single grave burial was the norm for Athens, whereas in Knossos interment in collective tombs prevailed. But there are some differences which are not quite so superficial. The manner in which material culture was produced, used and disposed of in these two communities indicates that they had fundamentally distinct social structures. Changes in burial customs, pot styles and depositional practices are structurally related in both communities, and these parallel but divergent developments each follow a particular social logic. To argue this case, I shall have occasion to refer to some recent (and not so recent) developments in social archaeology, in particular to what has become known as 'contextual archaeology'.'-I In my discussion of Athens and Knossos I will concentrate mainly on the evidence from the cemeteries. The reasons for this are partly practical. Little settlement evidence has survived from either site. Most of the settlement evidence from Athens92 and (to a lesser extent) from Knossos93 comes from filled-in wells. Most of our information about the material culture of either Athens or Knossos, including most of our complete pots, comes from graves. There are moreover sound methodological reasons for concentrating upon cemeteries. Burials are the only archaeological context where materials are associated directly with individuals and in aggregate with society. This makes the statistical analysis of burials a particularly fruitful exercise for social archaeologists. Since the I96os there has been a continuous refinement in the statistical methods used in the social analysis of cemeteries.94 These studies have, more often than not, followed the pioneering work of Binford95and Saxe,96 and have shared their assumption that 'mortuary variability' reflects social organisation in a fairly direct way. As many critics have noted,97 cemeteries are an indirect, not a direct, representation of society, mediated by ideology, shared beliefs, and the needs and interests of the buriers (that is, the burying groups). The representation that a society makes of itself in death is however usually flattering rather than the reverse, and such a representation tells us much about the collective habits and values of particular societies. When the pots come from graves, pot styles, and the choice of
91 The seminal works in 'contextual archaeology' are in Action(Cambridge 1982), ThePresent lan Hodder's Symbols Past (London 1982) and ReadingthePast (Cambridge 1986). The practical implications of contextual archaeology have been brought out by many of his students; see articles in I. Hodder (ed.) The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings(Cambridge 1987). 12 For the settlement evidence from Athens, see again Morris Burial 62-69. For filled in wells, see E.T.H. Brann The Athenian and Protoattic Agora VIII: Late Geometric Pottery (Princeton 1962) esp. p. io8 and 'Late Geometric Well Groups from the Athenian Agora' Hesperia 30 (1961), 93-146. 93 For settlement evidence generally see Whitley Ph.D. 258 & 263-267 and Hood and Smyth [n. 29] above 16-18. For wells see J.N. Coldstream, 'A Geometric Well at Knossos' BSA 55 (1960), 159-71. There is in fact much more direct evidence for Dark Age settlement at Knossos, but it has not been published in such a way to make it readily intelligible as settlement evidence. See J.N. Coldstream, 'Knossos 1951-61: Protogeometric and Geometric Pottery from the Town' BSA 67 (1972), 63-98; L.H. Sackett, 'Post Minoan Occupation above the Unexplored

Mansion' AR 1972-73, 62-7 I; and P.M. Warren AR 1982-83, 63-87 & AR 1983-84, 124-129. " There is an interesting difference between American and British researchers in this field. Compare Joseph R. Tainter's 'Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems' in M.B. Schiffer (ed.) Advancesin Archaeand Theory (New York 1978), 105-41 with the ologicalMethod more empirical work of Susan E. Shennan, 'The Social Organisation at Brand' Antiquity49 (1975), 279-288 and F.R. Hodson, 'Quantifying Halstatt: Some Initial Results' American 42 (1977), 394-412. Antiquity 9, Lewis R. Binford 'Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential' in Binford An Archaeological Perspective
208-243. " A.A. Saxe Social Practices(Ann Dimensions of Mortuary Arbor Ph.D. I970). 7 For criticisms of Binford and Saxe, see M. Parker Pearson, 'Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Case Study' in I. Hodder (ed.) Symbolic and Structural (Cambridge 1982), 99-113, and Archaeology Social Relationsand the Interpretation of E.J. Pader Symbolism, Mortuary Remains(Oxford B.A.R. 1982); see also Whitley Ph.D. 33-54.

(New York1972),

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

355

particular motifs on burial urns, must be viewed as part of the collective mortuary representations of past societies. There are significant correspondences between the character of the pot styles and the overall pattern of mortuary representations in both Athens and Knossos.98 Neither burial nor pot style reflect society, but they do betray its social habits and register its material values. If the differences between the symbolic forms in Athens and Knossos indicate fundamental differences in social form, then a comparison of developments in both pot style and mortuary representations in the two communities is clearly in order. Developments in these two communities seem to have run in opposite directions. In Knossos, from the eleventh century until the eighth, eclecticism is the only rule. If Knossian pot style can be said to develop, then the transition from Subminoan to Protogeometric to Protogeometric 'B' and Early Geometric can simply be characterised as the sudden addition, first of Attic, then of Oriental motifs to an existing Cretan repertoire.99Knossian potters and painters were eager both to experiment and to adopt motifs and forms from other places, sometimes producing a bewildering mix of the Attic and the Oriental. Perhaps the best way to illustrate this eclecticism is to consider the style of some late ninth century vases, where the pot is decorated on one side with 'Atticising' Geometric decoration and on the other in the 'Orientalising' Protogeometric 'B' style.'00 As the aesthetic vocabulary becomes richer, so the overall stylistic syntax becomes more complex. A tendency towards exuberant prolixity, an almost manic desire for variety, for 'distinction' is the only logic that can be discerned in the Knossian sequence. Only in the shapes of pottery can any degree of local conservatism be distinguished. Knossian shapes, which are almost entirely of local origin, are common to both painted and plain wares.l01 Eclecticism is not a characteristic which is confined to pot styles. It extends to the burial assemblages. In Knossos, at any period between the Subminoan and the late eighth century B.C., there are no two grave assemblages which are sufficiently alike to warrant any special label. Each grave assemblage is different. In Knossos the richest interments are not necessarily those in the most highly decorated pots. Indeed many of the best furnished interments are those cremations placed in plain undecorated urns. But this is only a peculiarity of some interments; it is not a general rule. There is moreover no inverse correlation between the exuberance of decoration on an urn and the 'wealth' of the grave assemblage.'o2 It is simply that combinations of artefacts and pot forms do not resolve themselves into types of burial assemblage before the late eighth century B.C. Combinations of artefact types do not recur. There are no recurrent patterns. Instead, in almost every period before the late eighth century, there is a continuum of variation, with almost every conceivable combination of artefact, pot style, and motif. The nearest thing to a recurrent burial assemblage is the tendency for weapons to be found with young males.'o3
" This is the central argument of my Ph.D. thesis. What follows is essentially a summary of this. " For Subminoan and Protogeometric in Knossos, see Desborough PGP 236-250 and GDA 57-63 & 225-234. For Protogeometric 'B' and Early Geometric see Coldstream GGP 234-241 and GG 68-70o& 99-102. Generally see Brock Fortetsa esp. p. 143 and Whitley Ph.D. 282-324. 5"' See J.N. Coldstream, 'A Protogeometric Nature Goddess from Knossos' BICS 3 (1984), 93-o104. "" This fact is not clearly brought out in most of the standard publications, not even Fortetsa. Examples of coarse' vessels used as urns from the Fortetsa cemetery at Knossos include the coarse krater Fort. 159 [tomb XI, 6], the coarse necked pithos Fort. 291 [tomb LST, 5] and the coarse straight-sided pithos Fort. 499 [tomb X, L3]. See Whitley Ph.D. 282-337, esp. 295-296. 102 Again, see Whitley Ph.D. 282-324 & 350-353. "o Male interments with weapons have been identified in the North Cemetery, based on Jonathan Musgrave's examination of the bone material. Examples include the interment in Teke tombJ, vessel no. I and KMF tomb 285, vase no. 61. See refs in [n. 85] above.

356

JAMES WHITLEY

But these grave groups do not form a coherent grave type, as there is no tendency for weapons to occur with a particular pot type or decorative element. Still, these 'warrior graves' are, apart from eclecticism, the only persistent feature of Knossian burial forms. In almost all respects, Athens in the tenth and ninth centuries is the reverse of Knossos. Differences are manifested in almost all symbolic forms. The evolution of Attic Protogeometric and Geometric pottery is anything but eclectic. Whereas Knossian potters and painters were always eager to adopt any motif that came to hand, Athenian pot painters were always sparing and cautious in their use of new motifs. Motifs are introduced gradually and are almost always of local origin. Conventions in the syntax of decoration, in the principles governing the arrangement of motifs are scrupulously observed. Modifications only become apparent gradually. Innovations are introduced into an The parsimony which is the existing idiom without the overall balance being upset.1'04 most distinctive feature of the Athenian sequence is already evident in Protogeometric times. The typical motifs of the period are the compass drawn circles and semi-circles, which tend to occur on the shoulder or the belly of the larger vessels. The characteristic Attic fine-ware shapes are also established in this period, in particular the vessels used as cremation urns: the neck- and belly-handled amphoras.'05 It is a pecularity of the Athenian sequence that fine ware and coarse ware shapes are distinct.106 These characteristics become even more pronounced in the ninth century, the period when the Geometric style proper was invented in Athens. The shapes invented in Protogeometric times are retained (with a few additions) and enlarged. It is in this period that the canon of Geometric motifs is established. These motifs are initially confined to and then elaborated around distinct zones: the neck, the belly and the handle zone. The Early Geometric and Middle Geometric I styles are sparing in their use of ornament; the decoration is never allowed to spread over the whole vessel. Order and clarity are the outstanding features of ninth-century Attic pots."17 Order and clarity: such characteristics are not confined to pots and their decoration, but extend to other symbolic forms, in particular to the burial assemblages. In Protogeometric times, rules are established defining certain burial types. Whereas children's burials are almost always inhumations, adults are cremated. Men are usually interred in neckhandled amphoras, women in belly-handled amphoras.108 Female burials are almost always accompanied by dress pins of iron or bronze, and occasionally a fibula. Female burials are usually 'richer' than male, and this remains a characteristic feature of Athenian burial customs until Late Geometric times.109 Though both neck- and bellyhandled amphoras are decorated in clearly different manners, no close correlations are evident between artefact types, the age and sex of the deceased, and the decoration of the amphoras."o In the ninth century, such correlations do become evident. Particular motifs are found in regular, recurrent association with particular pot and metal artefact types. Certain
0o This is again part of the argument of Whitley Ph.D., see especially 126-131 and 135-250. But it is also implicit in Coldstream's study of Attic Geometric; see GGP 8-1iIi esp. 8-28 and GG 26-35, 55-63, 73-81 & 110-123. "~ See Desborough PGP 1-126 esp. 5-37 and GDA

145-158.

V plates For Attic corase ware shapes see Kerameikos 154-156.

"'7Again see Coldstream GGP 8-21 and GG 26-35 & 55-63; see also Whitlev Ph.D. 168-171. 1o08 This was first noted by Desborough PGP 5-6 but see also Whitley Ph.D. 151-165. 109Examples of rich Protogeometric female burials 1 95-98, include Kerameikos PG4 and PG5, see Kerameikos IV 39-41 & 44-46. and PG39 and PG48, see Kerameikos S1" See Whitley Ph.D. 15-165.

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

357

'burial types' make their appearance. One of these is the so-called warrior grave; interments in neck-handled amphoras where the iron sword is 'killed' around the amphora."' Another is the 'rich female grave': cremations of middle-aged women in belly-handled amphoras, which are usually accompanied by a large number of grave goods and precious objects. These graves resemble one another not simply because their assemblages include a similar range of pottery items, precious objects, exotica and metal artefacts (bronze fibulae, dress pins, gold rings, etc.) but also because the urns from these burials are decorated in a distinctive manner.112 All three of these belly-handled amphoras are decorated with the double concentric circle and cross motif, a motif which is to be found on the kraters which mark the richer male graves of this period"3 and which remains, in modified form, a distinctive element in the decoration of the early eighthcentury 'Dipylon' vases."l4 Clarity of symbolic expression and exclusivity seem to go together in this instance. This symbolic exclusivity may be seen as providing support for Morris' contention that access to formal burial was restricted to an 'elite' during this period."' If the principle of exclusivity extends to ninth-century symbolic forms, then it is not surprising that access to exotica, the right to formal burial and to the use of certain artefacts and motifs had become the preserve of a particular stratum of society. How small or large this stratum was is a matter of dispute, and perhaps the term 'aristocracy' would be a misnomer. Ethnographic analogies can be used to show that this 'elite' could represent a very large segment of the population (see below). But it is at least clear that a class had emerged that defined itself not so much on the extravagance of its display, but on its ability to channel the flow of exotic goods, and to restrict access to certain symbolic privileges. This pattern of social and stylistic rationing does not hold for everywhere in Greece in the ninth century. Clearly it cannot hold for Knossos, but Knossos is no exception in this respect. Tables I, 2, 3 and 4 show the rate of deposition (in absolute number) for bronze, gold, weapons and other items in Athens, Argos, Lefkandi and Knossos respectively. It is clear that the 'depositional practices' of these four communities differed widely from one another, and varied from century to century. In Knossos, the deposition of weapons and bronze remains steady throughout the Dark Ages (though there is a slight decline in the deposition of valuables). In Argos, much the same is true, although there is a spectacular increase in the number of weapons deposited in the eighth century, the period of the

.. Examples of such graves include the 'Areopagus Warrior Grave', D 16:4, see C.W. Blegen, 'Two Athenian Grave Groups of about 9goo B.C.' Hesperia 21 (1952), 279-294; the grave at Ayios Markos ADelt 19 B Chr(1964), 54; and the grave at the junction of Mitsaion and Zitrou streets ADelt 21 B Chr (I966), 85. ' Examples of such graves include grave G41 in the V 235-236 & plate 46; grave H Kerameikos, see Kerameikos 16:6 in the Agora, see E.L. Smithson, 'The Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady circa 85o B.C.' Hesperia 37 (1968), 77-I i16; and Kriezi street grave XII, see O. Alexandri AAA I (1968), 20-30. The cremated remains from both Agora H 16:6 and Kerameikos G4i have been examined by physical anthropologists, and both appear to be the remains of middleaged women.

113 For example Kerameikos graves G2 and G43, see Kerameikos V 210-212 & 238-239 & plates 17 & 22. 114 See for example the circular motifs (Kreisornamente) on Athens NM 803, 804, 8o6 & 990 and New York 34.11.2. These are (or will be) illustrated in A.J.M. in DarkAge Greece Whitley StyleandSociety (Cambridge 1991) and are also illustrated in Whitley Ph.D. For circular motifs and other forms of Geometric decoration, see also N. Himmelmann-Wildschutz 'Der Miander auf geometrischen Gefaissen' MarbWPr1962 (1962) 10-43 and 'Uber einige gegenstiindliche Bedeutungsm6glichkeiten des friihgriechischen Ornaments' AbhMainz Nr. 7 (1968), 259-346. "s See Whitley Ph.D. 166-93 and Morris Burial 79-81, 122-125 & 147-151.

358
TABLE I .

JAMESWHITLEY in Dark Age Athenian graves of metaland othervaluables Deposition Gold/Silver 8 Ivory I o 4
0

Period SM PG EG/MGI MGII/LGI LGII

No. of graves
171

Weapons

Bronze 44
41

194 77 68
141

16
22

7
33
27

39
25

8 o

14

13

TABLE 2.

in Dark Age tombs from Argos of metalandothervaluables Deposition Weapons

I 2

Period SM

No. of graves 19 50
28
22

Gold/Silver o o 9

Obeloi o o o

Bronze 13 17 36
29

PG
GA (EG)

GM (MG)
GR (LG)

o
4

o
27

46

14

38

de l'Argolide Abbreviations from P. Courbin La Ceramique (Paris 1966):giometrique GA Geometrique Ancien (equivalent to Early Geometric) GM Geometrique Moyen (equivalent to Middle Geometric) GR Ge'ometriqueRecent (equivalent to Late Geometric)
TABLE

3.

in Dark Age tombsin Lefkandi of metalandothervaluables Deposition Weapons

o

Period SM
PG SPG

No. of graves
23

Gold/Silver 4
20

Ivory I
2 2

Bronze
42 52

46 76

14
o10

99

88

TABLE

4.

in Knossos in darkage tombs of metalsand othervaluables Deposition Weapons 4

12

Period Smin E/MPG LPG/ PGB/ EG

Interments 30 (14) 72 (35) 76 (41)

Gold/Silver 1o

Ivory 7
0

Bronze
23

13
5
I

28

i8
20

o0 I o

17
10 o10

MG
LG/ EO

72 (43)
107

(59)

i6

The number of weapons and other categories of objects is not an absolute total, as it is in the other tables, but grave groups is merely represents the total from all reconstructable grave groups. The total of reconstructable brackets without number is the interments of number minimum the in (both under brackets; given 'interments'). Further information is given in Whitley Ph.D.

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

359

Argive 'warrior graves',16 at the very time when the deposition of weapons in graves in Athens was on the decline. Athens and Lefkandi represent the most interesting divergent cases. In Lefkandi in the ninth century (SPG), both the number of graves and the numbers of gold items deposited increase exponentially."'7 Such an increase surely indicates a spiral of competition in funerary display, leading to the disposal of ever greater quantities of valuables. In Athens in the ninth century, the number of interments declines just as the number of both weapons and gold and ivory valuables deposited in graves increases. This suggests exclusivity, and shows how exclusivity can act as a brake on competitive display: far fewer valuables are deposited relative to the number of graves. The argument then is that elites, in some instances, tend to limit competitive display. Stylistic exclusivity and the rationing of valuables and exotica may be a more of an 'elite' trait than the ever more lavish funerary displays which seem to be found at Lefkandi. In ninth-century Athens an 'elite' seems to have gone to some lengths to exclude other groups, not simply from access to obvious valuables such as gold or ivory, but also from access to the use of certain decorative items, particularly high status symbols. This kind of stylistic rationing is something that may be observed in contemporary societies studied by anthropologists. One such is the society of the Waigal Valley communities, in 'Nuristan' (now part of Afghanistan), studied by Schuyler Jones."8 As Oswyn Murray has noted,"'9 there are numerous parallels between the values and institutions of these communities and those of 'Homeric Society'. Both societies are patrilineal, patriarchal and predominantly agricultural. Both societies are also intensely competitive, and in both societies a man's honour is as precious to him as his possessions. In Nuristan, honour is acquired both through prowess as a warrior or a hunter, through giving lavish 'feasts of merit', and, later on in life, through publicly acknowledged skill as a mediator or negotiator.120Status in Nuristan is partly achieved, and partly inherited. To compete with others for prestige as warrior or feast-giver, one has to be a member of the agricultural atrozanclass, who constitute the majority. One also has to be a descendant of a family whose male members have achieved honour in their own right. But the divide between honourable and dishonourable atrozanis not as great as that between atrozanand the two lower castes: sewalaand bari. It is the artisan bariwho produce nearly all of the local material culture. As in Homer, there is an ambivalent attitude towards these artisans; their works are admired, if good, but their status and occupation are irredeemably inferior. The most striking correspondences are however not those between the institutions of Nuristan and those of Homeric society, but between the use of material culture in ninth-century Athens and amongst these present-day pagans. Both societies (considered in an ideal 'ethnographic present') have geometric, largely non-figurative art styles. Moreover there exists in Nuristan a system of social rationing in the use of symbolic tokens, a maintenance of the exclusivity of certain items and motifs and a strict regulation of symbols according to rank. As Jones records:'" For graves in Argos generally, see R. Hiigg Die Grdber Boreas 4.1 (Uppsala 1974) and P. Courbin Tombes derArgolis dArgos (Paris 1974). For warrior graves see P. Giometriques Courbin, 'Une Tombe G6ometrique d'Argos' BCH 8i (1957), 322-386 and R. Higg, 'Burial Customs and Social Differentiation in 8th Century Argos' in Hiigg (ed.) The B.C. (Stockholm I983), Greek Renaissance of theEighthCenturyv 27-31. For ninth-century bronze, gold and iron finds from Lefkandi see Popham et al. Lefkandi I, 218-225 & 231-264; Antiquity 56 (1982), 169-174; BSA 77 (1982), 213-248; AR 1984-85,15-16; AR 1986-87, 12-14; and AR 1988-89, 117-129. For an alternative interpretation of 'depositional practices' at all these sites in the Dark Age, see Morris Man n.s. 23 (1989), 502-519"' S. in Nuristan(London 1974). Jones Men of Influence 119 Murray [n. 57] and [n. I] p. 68 above. 120 .Jones [n. 118] above 61-91 & 165-204.

360

JAMES WHITLEY

Morethanmeredecoration, these musthavebeenearnedbeforethey can be kosmeasures. thewooden mine] displayed."' [emphasis In these communities decoration has a direct relationship to status. Jones goes on to provide us with some insight as to how this system of symbolic rationing was enforced in the following anecdote:'In Nisheigrom [a village] ... there was an old atrozanwoman who took it upon herself to see that only the correct symbols were displayed on the clothing of her fellow villagers. She would go to the houses of the bari craftsmen to see what they were making and demand to know for whom each item was intended. She knew exactly what feasts and other great deeds had been achieved by each and every family in the village, for it was she who recited the genealogies and enumerated the life accomplishments of men at funeral ceremonies. It is even said that if she encountered a man or woman bearing unearned symbols, the offending garment was forcibly removed on the spot.'122

'The geometric designs which appear on the wooden panels to the right and left of the door of the ama, on the door itself, and on the clothing of men and women, represent the ranks and titles achieved by the head of the family. Other geometric designs or symbols of rank appear on the wooden bowl of the tripod table and

It is by such crude but effective means that symbolic privileges are maintained in these societies. The coinage of decoration is never debased. Jones does not record whether such rationing extended to the large and highly visible wooden grave monuments, although it is to be expected that they would. Certainly, as in ninth century Athens, funerals were great occasions, and particular lineages maintained separate 'grave plots'.'23 In both these societies material culture is clearly related to the dominant values of the community: competition for honour and a need to display one's status, but at the same time to prevent a kind of 'symbolic inflation' of valued tokens. Art and decoration have a direct and unambiguous meaning, referring to social rank. The value, and thus the meaning, of tokens is strictly enforced. But if the Nuristan analogy fits both Homeric society and ninth-century Athens, it remains difficult to apply to any other region or period of the Dark Age world. In particular, it is difficult to relate the strict rationing of Nuristani symbols to the wild fancies to be found in the decoration of ninth-century pottery from Knossos.' 24 Nor can the Nuristani model be invoked to explain the extraordinary profligacy in the disposal of gold items in graves in ninth-century Lefkandi.125 These differences are not merely ones of style or fashion, but betray fundamentally different social habits. But, if there is no ready ethnographic analogy at hand to explain the situation in either ninth-century Lefkandi or Knossos, how can we begin to explain these differences? Part of the explanation may lie in simple geography, and the relative position of Athens and Knossos vis 5avis the Levant. Knossos is much closer to the Levant than Athens. Whereas Athens can only ever be the terminus of a trading network, the harbours of Knossos would have provided useful anchorages, convenient for any trader wishing either to trade with the Aegean or further West. There is much to indicate that Knossos was indeed in contact with the Levant from a very early date.'26 One reason for Phoenician
121 Jones [n. II8] abovep. 184. '122Jones [n. I18] above 184-185. Waigal valley material culture is further discussed in S. Jones 'The Waigal "Horn Chair"' Man n.s. 5 (1970), 253-257. 123 See Jones [n. i i8] above p. I119. 124 See refs in notes 99, Ioo and ioi above. 125 For gold objects in Lefkandi graves, see LefkandiI
101-207, 217-225 & 417-422.

See also Popham et al. BSA 77

and AR 1988-89, 117-129. (1982), 213-248 126 For example the bronze bowl inscribedwith 1976-77, 3-23 and M. Snycer, 'L'Inscription

Phoe-

nician characters found in Teke tomb J; see Catling AR

Phtnicienne

de Tekke, pres de Cnossos' Kadmos 18 (1979), 89-93.

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

36 I

activity in Crete'27 may have been not so much to do with Crete itself, but to a Phoenician interest in West Mediterranean metals, particularly from Sardinia.'28 One consequence of this is that the social groups within Knossos would find it much less easy to control the flow of Near Eastern exotica. The position of Athens and Knossos with regard to the material culture of the Levant can then perhaps be compared with the position, at a later stage in history, of the sixth-century Iron Age communities of Transalpine Europe and other communities closer to the Western Mediterranean coast with regard to Greek and Etruscan prestige goods. The degree to which elites could control access to Mediterranean exotica has been seen by many prehistorians as one of the keys to understanding social change in this region. Rowlands for example has this to say when describing the communities of the Mediterranan coast:'To the South of the Western Hallstatt chiefdomsand nearer to the true centres of consumptionand demandfor Central Europeanproducts,a differenttype of polity would have emerged.Here it would not have been possible to maintainpolitical controlover access to foreignluxury or status items, since even individualswould have been able to enter . . . into exchangewith externaltradersfor these low-ranking and competitivesystem would have been generatedin which items. Hence a far more commercialised not be maintained could domination by controlling monopolyaccess, but ratherwould depend on political
straightforward estimations
12 richerthan its rivals.'

of wealth as each household, lineage or clan competed and struggled to become

This description may appear a little overdrawn, and perhaps unnecessarily simplifies a more complex picture. It may however (if Athens is substituted for Hallstatt and Knossos for the communities to the South) also apply in our case. The very distance of Athens from the main areas of Phoenician trading activity made it easier for an Attic elite to control the flow of exotica, and so to re-define their social order on the principle of exclusivity. Such an option was not open to the competing groups of Knossos, which perhaps explains their inability to create any effective symbols of hierarchy. Instead they indulged in the 'bourgeois' stylistic game called distinction, where each burying groups strove to outdo the others in the outlandishness, if not the actual expense, of its funerary display. V.
HOMER, ETHNOGRAPHY AND ARCHAEOLOGY

In presenting two possible analogies for Homeric society, I am not suggesting that we can use either of them to reconstruct, in all its details, any of the societies of Dark Age Greece. There can never be an exact correspondence between a modern and ancient society. In any case, the two models do not contradict one another, since I am not trying to impose an
127 For Phoenicians in Crete generally, see J. Shaw 'Phoenicians in Southern Crete' AJA 93 (1989), 165-183, with references. 28 For Levantine interest in Sardinia, see D. Ridgway, 'Archaeology in Sardinia and Etruria' AR 1979-8o, 54-62; 'Archaeology in Sardinia and South Italy' AR 1988-89, 130-136; and 'Sardinia and the First Western Greeks' in II (Ann M.S. Balmuth (ed.) Studiesin Sardinian Archaeology Arbor 1986), 172-185. Recently one of the finds from the Khaniale Tekke tombs has been identified as being of Sardinian origin; see L. Vagnetti, 'A Sardinian Askos from

Crete' BSA 84 (1989), 355-360. It is difficult to imagine how this object might have reached Knossos, unless it came in a Phoenician ship. For the Khaniale Tekke tombs generally see R.W. Hutchinson and J. Boardman BSA 49 (954), 215-228; and J. Boardman BSA 62 (1967), 57-75These tombs contain much material which is clearly of Levantine inspiration, if not of Levantine origin. 129MJ. Rowlands, 'Kinship, Alliance and Exchange in the European Bronze Age' in J. Barrett and R. Bradley and Society in the British Later Bronze Age (eds) Settlement (Oxford B.A.R. 1980), 15-55 esp. p. 31.

362

JAMES WHITLEY

unwarranted uniformity on the Dark Ages. Ethnographic analogies have been used simply to throw some oblique light on some of the material peculiarities of the local societies of Dark Age Greece. There is however one basic problem in connexion with all the ethnographic analogies I have used so far.'30 These analogies have all been taken from societies which are usually classed by anthropologists as 'tribal'.'3' In these societies the basic organizing principle is kinship. In Melanesia, 'big men' can only begin to build up a following by relying on the loyalty of their kin.'32 In Nuristan 'men of influence' work through the existing system of lineages and clans.'133Yet in Homer kinship, or at least kin relations beyond the immediate nuclear family, appear curiously unimportant. Only Priam has an extended family and a large number of relations upon whom he can rely.'34 Odysseus has no cousins, nor indeed any closer kin, to help him regain his wife, house and kingdom.'135 There are two possible solutions to this question. The first is to say that analogies with 'tribal' societies are inappropriate, and that we should be looking for 'Homeric' parallels in present-day peasant (and pastoral) societies. It is something of a commonplace amongst classicists to refer to Hesiod's world in particular as being a peasant society. Only rarely have historians acknowledged that there was a case that had to be made.'36 But present-day peasant societies are, according to most anthropological definitions, the products of an urban, and usually literate, civilization. Some anthropologists stress the others emphasize the dependence of peasants on an urban economy and the market;'137 to a the within subordination larger state.'38 According anthropologists, peasant peasants' societies, unlike tribal societies, cannot be autonomous. This makes any peasant society a poor analogy for Greece in the Dark Ages. To be sure, Dark Age Greece was in contact with the Levant, but was not dominated by it. Whatever else we may be uncertain about, we can be fairly certain that the communities of Dark Age Greece were autonomous, dependent neither on the urban centres of the Near East nor on the state. Millett and Walcot have tried to circumvent this problem by re-defining the term 'peasant society'. Peasants have been transformed into subsistence agriculturalists, tied to a particular piece of land, and consequently adhering to a particular set of 'peasant values'.'13 The arguments in favour of 'peasant values' are difficult to address, since they rely on a
1" These being the Kachin, the 'big man' societies of Melanesia, and Nuristan. '" For the definition of a tribal society, see Sahlins [n. 22] above 1-13. 1:2 See Sahlins [n. 49] above p. 291: 'The rising big man necessarily depends initially on a small core of followers, principally his own household and his closest relatives:' 3:: See.Jones [n. i1i8] above 118-142 & 62-9I. " For Priam's family generally, see II. vi 242-252; for his numerous sons, see II. iv 499; v 159, 462-463; viii xii 93-95; xvi 737; xx 8o; xxi 34-35, 301-305; xi o101-10o4; 97; xxii 46-48, 746-748; for his son-in-laws II. xiii 170-173, 363-367. Generally see Finley iO0 127. "3The small size of Odysseus' kin group is emphasised in Od. xvi 117-120. Halverson [n. 43] above would of course argue that Odysseus is not trying to regain his kingdom, merely his wife and his possessions. and Modern(ManSc P. Walcot Greek Peasants,Ancient chester 1970) and P.C. Millett, 'Hesiod and his World' PhilologicalSociety210 (1984), Proceedings of the Cambridge

84-115. These works are exceptional in making good use of ethnographic analogies, and in realising that there is a case that has to be made. 137 See Robert Redfield The Primitive Worldand its Trans(Ithaca 1953), 26-53, esp. p. 31: 'There were no formations peasants before the first cities'; and R. Redfield Peasant and Culture Society (Chicago I956), 23-39. 13 See Eric R. Wolf Peasants (Englewood Cliffs NJ 1966). Wolf is particularly insistent on this point: 'a peasantry always exists within a larger system' (p. 8); 'Not the city, but the state, is the decisive criterion for civilization and it is the appearance of the state which marks the threshold of transition between four cultivators in general and peasants. Thus it is only when a cultivator is integrated into a society with a state - that is when the cultivator becomes subject to the demands and sanctions of a power-holder outside his social stratum - that we can appropriately speak of a peasantry' (p. Ii). 1:1)See Walcot [n. I136]above and Millett [n. 136] above 90-93.

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

363

particular (and contentious) interpretation of a certain passage in Hesiod.140 However, if being 'tied to the land' is to be the defining characteristic of peasants, it would be difficult to explain the apparent instability of many Dark Age sites (particularly Lefkandi and Kavousi). Much of the population of Dark Age Greece seems to be much more mobile than Millett's peasant model will allow, and it might be well to remember that Hesiod's father himself came from Kyme in Ionia."'' Along with modern peasants, modern-day pastoralists, particularly the transhumant Sarakatsani, have been seen as providing a good modern analogy for Dark Age economy and society.'42 But to this again there are weighty objections. For one thing, modern day pastoralists are no less dependent on the state and the market than are modern-day peasants. Indeed, reading Campbell's Honour,Family and one gets the impression that they are much more dependent. Neither the modern Patronage nor the modern pastoralist is autonomous, surely the sine qua non of any useful peasant with the Greek Dark Ages. Secondly, it has yet to be demonstrated that analogy transhumant pastoralism is a viable economic strategy in the more arid and less rugged regions of Greece, such as the areas around Knossos, Athens and Lefkandi. Transhumant pastoralists may have existed in the Pindus mountains and in the more mountainous regions of the Peloponnese during the Early Iron Age, but, even if they did, this would only re-inforce the general argument for diversity. The second possible answer to this puzzle is that Homer systematically underplays the role of kinship in the poems, for essentially literary reasons. The Iliad and the Odyssey do not concern themselves with the day-to-day activities of the common man. They are concerned with heroes. The hero is not so much a semi-divine but a super-human figure, a mortal living, acting and dying in a time when the gods were closer to men than they were in Homer's or Hesiod's day, the like of which cannot be found in the present 'age of iron'.143This concern with heroes distinguishes the Homeric poems from more 'realistic' epics.144The heroic ideal demands that heroes act alone, and do not rely on their kin. Odysseus' homecoming is all the more heroic because he can depend only upon his son and himself to rid his house of the suitors. This solution is not entirely satisfactory, since Homer has quite a lot to say about other social institutions. Chief amongst these are: gift exchange, where two leaders cement ties of friendship by an exchange of gifts; guest friendship, perhaps better referred to as 'ritualized friendship'145(an institution clearly related to the practice of gift exchange); and marriage. What do they have in common? These are all institutions which serve to
140

Hesiod

Op. 11-26,

the Eris passage.

I would

not

disagree with Walcot and Millett that Hesiod in the W'orks andDays does stress self-sufficiency as an ideal, but I would argue that this is not an ideal which is confined to peasants. "' See Hesiod Op. 633-638. 112 See especially A.M. Snodgrass An Archaeology of Greece
(Berkeley 1987),
I7o--210.

The

Sarakatsani

have

been

vividly described by John Campbell Honour, Family and

Patronage (Oxford 1964). 111This view is only made explicit in Hesiod Op. 156-173. The hero in Homer is a slightly more complex

figure: a hero, though mortal, achieves a kind of immortality through his actions, through living up to the heroic ideal; in dying he achieves kleos and somehow comes to equal the gods while remaining mortal. This paraphrase

cannot however do justice to the more sophisticated arguments of G. Nagy The Best of the Achaeans(Baltimore 1979) and J. Griffin Homeron Life and Death (Oxford 1980), esp. 81-102. 141 Contra Finley 14WO 26-50. I am thinking here of the Yugoslav poems recorded by Parry and Lord; see A.B. Lord TheSingerof Tales (Cambridge Mass. 1960). See also Morris [n. i6] above 83-94. 14: See M.I. Finley W1O io8-141 and 'Marriage, Sale and Gift in the Homeric World' in Economy and Societyin Ancient Greece(Harmondsworth 1983), 233-245. For 'ritualised and the Greek Friendship friendship' see G. Herman Ritualised State(Cambridge 1987), esp. 1-13 & 164. Herman notes on p. 164: 'in the Homeric world, friendship ... was, apart from marriage, the only bond to create enduring obligations between peers.

364

JAMES WHITLEY

create bonds between individual 'aristocrats' and aristocratic families who are not related by ties of blood. They all operate within the upper stratum of society. More importantly, they are institutions which, like those of the Kachin, cut across ethnic, linguistic and social boundaries. Gift exchange can even take place between opponents on the Guest battlefield, between leaders whose fathers shared a bond of guest-friendship.'146 can be of established between forms ritualized other any two friendship) friendship (and men who are leaders of their own communities. It does not matter whether the two basileis in question would have been classified by anthropologists as 'big men', chiefs, 'men of influence' or kings, so long as the two people involved recognise each other as equals and are recognised as leaders within their own society. If sense can be made of Homeric marriage institutions,147 marriage (that is, aristocratic marriage) can be viewed in the same light, as a means of forming alliances between high-ranking families from different communities. These institutions are thus in a sense trans-cultural. In order to understand the logic of their operation, we need not assume that the society of Dark Age Greece was coherent in all its parts. On the contrary: these institutions must be seen as a solution to the fragmentation of Dark Age Greece, a means by which contact could be established and maintained between societies of a very different kind. Such institutions are not so much characteristics of a single society, but of a single system or of a single 'interaction sphere'.148Leaders in Dark Age Greece would necessarily have had to have quite different bases for their authority, but would still be obliged, if only out of self interest, to enter into relations of exchange or competition with leaders from other societies. Homer then does not so much depict a society, if by that we are thinking of something in the Dark Ages analogous to Athenian society in, say, the fourth century B.C. Rather he depicts those institutions which are relevant to the conduct of aristocrats, leaders and heroes; that is, those institutions that enabled leaders from different communities to act as if they were all equal members of an inter-regional aristocracy. On the structure of local societies, such as Ithaca, he is hazy. If we are seeking a Classical analogy to the institutions Homer describes, we shall not find it in the civic customs and regulations of fifth- or fourth-century Athens. Rather we should look to 'what Alcibiades did and suffered', that is to those international, aristocratic institutions which enabled this unusual politician to play Persian against Athenian against Spartan, all to his own advantage.'49 'Homeric society' is then only partly a conflation of elements taken from local, late Dark Age societies. Insofar as it is grounded in reality, Homeric society refers to the pan-Aegean world of 'aristocratic' exchange and competition. How might we date this society, this emerging interaction sphere? The composition of the epics themselves is now generally dated to the end of the eighth century.'50 As for the institutions that are alluded
6 For example the exchange of armour between Glaukos and Diomedes II. vi 212-236. Of course, Glaukos gets the worst of this deal, but it does serve to illustrate the importance of 'ritualised friendship' amongst the international aristocracy. See Herman [n. 145] above p. i. 'i For Homeric marriage see Finley [n. 145] 'Marriage, Sale and Gift' above; see also W.K. Lacev, 'Homeric hedna and Penelope's kvrios'JHS86 ( 1966), 55-68 and TheFamilyin ClassicalGreece (Ithaca 1968), 33-50. 148 The term 'interaction sphere' was coined by prehistorians of the American Middle West to describe the curious phenomenon of the Hopewell, but it is also clearly applicable to other times and places. For the original term, see J.A. Caldwell, 'Interaction Spheres in Prehistory' in Studies(IlliJ.A. Caldwell and R.L. Hall (eds) Hopewellian nois State Museum Papers no. 12 1964), 133-143; for its wider application, see articles in C. Renfrew and J. Cherry and Socio-political (eds) Peer Polity Interaction Change(Cambridge 1986). 14' For the career of Alcibiades, and his shrewd use of ties of xenia, see Herman [n. 145] above 7-8, I 6-118 & 147-151. See Janko [n. 76] above ibid and Morris [n. 16] above 150 91-94.

SOCIAL DIVERSITY IN DARK AGE GREECE

365

to in the poems, I think that we have to allow for some deliberate archaizing, some ' 'distancing effects' on the part of the poet.'15 Archaeology can again be of service here. The material symbols of Homeric society, the items which provide the material index of the rise and fall of a hero in the eyes of his peers, these begin to appear in the ninth century. We can be sure that bronze tripods were being produced in Greece by that time if There are reasons to believe that gift exchange was a well-established not before.'152 institution by 8oo B.C.153 If I were to hazard a guess as to the date of 'Homeric society', 'circa 8oo B.C.' would be it.
VI.
CONCLUSION

There is no necessary contradiction between the apparent coherence of 'Homeric society' and the diversity of social forms that must have existed in Dark Age Greece. This diversity is not attributable to Greece's isolation in this period. There is plenty of evidence for contact between Greece and the Levant from the ioth century B.C. onwards.'54 Rather, the local societies of Dark Age Greece were different, in part at least, because they chose to be. This fact has been appreciated by many archaeologists for some time, yet its historical implications have rarely been fully brought out. The diversity of Dark Age Greece was the source of the diversity of Archaic Greece, and it is to this amongst other things that Greek culture owed much of its early vigour.
JAMES WHITLEY

" See Morris [n. i6] above 89--go9 & 97. For the production of bronze tripods see Snodgrass DAG 275-286. Most British (but not most German) archaeologists tend not to believe that tripods in bronze were continuously produced throughout the Dark Ages. The earliest datable evidence for their production is the moulds' deposit from Lefkandi, datable to circa goo B.C.; see Catling in LeJkandi 1 93-97. Most bronze tripods appear to be of eighth century date, and have been found chiefly in sanctuaries, particularly Olympia; see MI. Maas Die Geometrischen vonOlympia:OlForsch Dreiffisse I (Berlin 1978). See for example J.N. Coldstream, 'Gift Exchange in -, the Eighth Century B.C.' in Higg (ed.) The GreekRenais152

sanceof the Eighth Century B.C. (Stockholm 1983), 201-207. '54This has been confirmed by the discovery of Protogeometric, SubProtogeometric and Geometric Euboean pottery at Tyre; see J.N. Coldstream and P.M. Bikai, 'Early Greek Pottery in Tyre and Cyprus: Some Preliminary Comparisons' RDAC 1988:2 (1988), 35-44. There are of course numerous finds of Levantine objects from Lefkandi; see Popham et al. LefkandiI, 217-264; BSA 77 AR 1988-89, 117-129. For early Levantine 213-28; (1982), contact with Knossos, see refs in [n. 121] above; for ninth-century Athenian contacts with the Levant see Coldstream GG 55-63.