assemblage home > previous issues > issue 6 contents

ISSN
August 2001 Issue 6
1365-3881
Contents

Editorial
Christiane Meckseper, Helen Evans, Tim Allen

Research Papers
The Archaeology of the clay pipe and the study of smoking
Craig Cessford

Tavernas in ancient Greece c.475-146BC: an archaeological perspective

Clare Kelly-Blazeby

Academic performances, artistic presentations

Yannis Hamilakis, Mark Pluciennik, Sarah Tarlow

Some observations on the concept of 'embedded' and 'disembedded' economies in

archaeological discourse
Chris Cumberpatch

In Defence of the 'Natural Attitude': charting a return from the madness of interpretation
David Webster

A return from madness or a retreat into Cartesianism?

A reply to Webster
Julian Thomas

The unbearable lightness of a Heideggerian meditation: hermeneutic failings and the idle
content of would-be avant-garde theorising
A reply to Thomas
David Webster

Churches as pre-historic ritual monuments: a phenomenological perspective

from Somerset
Nick Corcos

Opinion
'Power of Place': Critique and response
Chris Cumberpatch

Past Conference review:

SOMA 2000
the results of the symposium in retrospective - with abstracts of the papers
Giorgos Vavouranakis and the various conference participants

Reviews
Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond
edited by Andrew Fairbairn
Helen Evans
Raising the Dead: The skeleton crew of King Henry VIII's
Great Ship, the Mary Rose
by A.J. Stirland
Malin Holst

Human ecology and Neolithic transition in eastern County Donegal, Ireland: The Lough
Swilly Archaeological Survey
by Michael Kimball
Caroline Wickham-Jones
Blood Red Roses: The archaeology of a mass grave from Towton AD 1461
edited by Veronica Fiorato, Anthea Boylston, Christopher Knüsel
Mark Brennand
Geographical information systems and landscape archaeology
edited by Mark Gillings, David Mattingly, Jan van Dalen
Graham McElearney

Contagious Ideas: On evolution, culture, archaeology and Cultural Virus Theory

by Ben Sandford Cullen
Jennie Hawcroft

Top assemblage home

assemblage - the Sheffield graduate journal of archaeology

assemblage@sheffield.ac.uk
Research School of Archaeology and Archaeological Sciences
University of Sheffield
2 Mappin Street
Sheffield S1 4DT
Tel: (0114) 222 5102 Fax: (0114) 272 7347
updated: 14.8.2001
by: Christiane Meckseper
following committee. Postgraduate students however, are bound to leave their
departments after finishing their studies. This fact made an account of the practical
issues we faced, when we organised the venue at Sheffield, seem necessary for future
reference.

Organising SOMA was a year-round effort, with a few critical moments. First, we had to
prepare a proposal in order to apply to organise the event. This application had to be
ready one year before, at SOMA 1999. Then, the first call for papers had to circulate
before May, during term-time. The second call had to be out after September, again
within term-time. We had to organise the abstracts in sessions during Christmas
holidays and work hard at least two weeks before the symposium, preparing the folders
with the abstracts and the rest f necessary documentation, making final arrangements
for the lecture theatres, A/V equipment and catering for the Friday reception and Sunday
lunch. In addition, there was a daily email communication with people asking for
information. Finally, the preparation of the abstracts for publication was another
demanding task.

The above required a devoted group of three people. G.Vavouranakis, D.Catapoti and
M.F.Lane started the effort. When we got tired half way through, we were almost
substituted by E.Nodarou and M.Catapotis. During the final two weeks and during the
symposium, fourteen people were involved in order to ensure that the event run
smoothly. We also had full support by all the staff members in the department,
particularly our supervisors, the head of the department and of course the departmental
secretary. The budget was our main concern. We managed to decrease costs by
communicating through email, advertising the symposium through various discussion
lists, and printing at free access printers. Part of the costs was covered from a
departmental grant, and another part from the bookfare profits. Folder fees made sure
that we could even pass a small amount of money to the next organising committee.

SOMA: assessing the principles.

SOMA is a fragile event, being organised by postgraduate students, without any
permanent supervising committee. Hence the main principles of the symposium have
been up to now handed down from one organiser to the other. This part presents the
Sheffield approach to these principles, for future reference.

SOMA is about the whole of the Mediterranean, and not about selected parts of its
archaeology. The hosts should encourage all contributions, despite their own particular
research interests. The Sheffield venue saw two trends, a major one towards Aegean
prehistory, and a minor one towards Western Mediterranean archaeology. Such trends
should arise out of the participants themselves and not be imposed a priori. In addition,
they should not be used to intimidate other people, either directly or indirectly. The
SOMA hosts have a specific duty for preserving the holistic and dynamic character of
the event.

SOMA has to be specifically designed for the needs of postgraduate students, whose
research is not necessarily at the final stage. Contributions in the form of finished
papers are absolutely welcome, but they should not discourage others to come and
share their thoughts about their topic in progress. Furthermore, the tight limit of
completing a PhD within three years - at least for people in the UK - has important
repercussions on the range of activities a postgraduate can attend and the ways in
assemblage home > issue 6 contents> SOMA front page

Read SOMA 2000 - Sheffield Abstracts

SOMA 2000 : the results of the symposium in

retrospective

Giorgos Vavouranakis

F.Braudel argued once that the Mediterranean is not necessarily a single entity, being
divided into smaller worlds, each one with its own particular history and cultural identity,
due to the various peninsulas, gulfs and islands that create separate archipelagi and
basins. This fragmentation was in a way reflected within the multivocality of topics and
approaches in the papers and posters presented at the Sheffield symposium. There
was a significant span in space - from the Iberian peninsula to the Levant - and time
(from early prehistory to well after the Middle Ages), not to mention the various
approaches. The latter covered themes like the construction of epistemological
categories and narratives, artefact analysis within the overall study of past technologies
in their social context, the archaeology of death, the use and meaning of symbols and
systems of signification and the study of past environments and landscapes.

As a result, there were no concrete final conclusions, because there was no central axis
to the discussions, except for a common concern on the issue of identity and the ways in
which the latter can be studied through archaeological remains. This atmosphere
prompted John Barrett in his closing statement to wonder what makes all these people
with so diverse background and topics come together and talk? Is there an undoubtedly
pre-existing Mediterranean identity, or are we trying to forge it for specific reasons? Is
such a venture viable, given the prominence of regional studies and the apparent
fragmentation and why?

An apparent answer is that the Mediterranean is like a coin with two sides. Apart from
any regionalism, there have been cases where this sea basin was considered as a
whole. Whether it was about the Roman propaganda of the mare nostrum, the piratical
ventures of the 17th - 18th century AD, or a common appreciation for the sun, olive oil
and wine, common ground has never been absent. There has always been significant
traffic within the great green sea. This interaction has resulted into the movement of
people, objects and ideas leading to shared ways of life. The Mediterranean is a
multivocal and dynamic area and it is this dynamism that SOMA wishes to bring within
archaeological discussion. Hence, any regional diversity is not to be feared or
eschewed, but rather considered an arena for dynamic exchange of ideas from which
everybody has to gain something, either as direct feedback, or as a widening of
horizons. As organisers of the Sheffield venue, this is the spirit with which we perceived
of the various discussions.

Organising SOMA
SOMA entailed a marathon of practical issues to be solved along the way, and thus a
body of knowledge, which up to now was handed down from previous organisers to the
which such work can be presented. These observations, however, do not hint to a
compromise in the quality of the presentations. On the contrary, standards should be
kept as high as possible. It is the overall character, or spirit, of the symposium that
matters here. While the structure and requirements of a formal symposium should be
maintained, emphasis should be placed upon discussion and exchange of ideas within
a critical but positive atmosphere. In the same vein, the topics of interest announced by
the host should always be flexible, in order to enable people to participate and not force
them into pre-bracketed watertight areas of research. Some inconsistency between the
topics and the abstracts received should be expected and dealt with, by organising
sessions again in a flexible way that will not make any participant - or at least as few as
possible - feel isolated.

Publication of proceedings has been one of the major issues at all SOMA events. It has
to be stated, first of all, that all decisions of similar importance should be reconfigured
during each year’s plenary session. Only the participants themselves can decide
whether they want their contributions to be published. However, the character of the
symposium should always be the top priority. An informal postgraduate forum may
mean that many of the contributors cannot afford to present finished papers, either
because their ideas are still in a rough form, or because they may be bound to change
within the next couple of years. In addition, work in progress cannot usually stand
external reviewing, which is usually required for printed volumes. This is due to the form
and structure of the texts and not because of the brightness of ideas or contents in
general. Such strategies would inevitably lead to publish a selection of papers, thus
altering the character of the symposium. Although the trend towards publication has to
be respected, this should not convert SOMA from a discussion forum into a static ground
for publishing papers only. Flexibility should always be kept in mind.

The Sheffield approach to the issue was a publication of extended abstracts in

electronic form, i.e. in the “assemblage”. We thought that an abstract is small enough to
be afforded by most postgraduates in terms of time and effort. Secondly, nobody was
forced to give an abstract. Whoever decided to submit one though had the chance of
making his topic of interest known, without having to expose ideas which may still be
premature, in full extent. These abstracts have indicative character and their publication
is supposed to promote further discussion and exchange of ideas by giving the
opportunity to people to make their ideas known to a wider public, while letting this
audience to contact them for any details too. A publication in assemblage fulfils all
formal requirements, since there is an ISS number. However, electronic journals are still
more flexible ways of academic communication than printed volumes, which look more
like casting in stone. In addition, “assemblage” is the offspring of postgraduate effort,
and hence the perfect place to accommodate another postgraduate event.

Read SOMA 2000 - Sheffield Abstracts

SOMA 2001 - Liverpool

SOMA 2002 - Glasgow

Giorgos Vavouranakis is currently writing up his PhD thesis about burials and the
landscape of Bronze Age Crete, in the Department of Archaeology & Prehistory,
University of Sheffield.

Top Issue 6 contents assemblage home

assemblage - the University of Sheffield graduate journal of archaeology

assemblage@sheffield.ac.uk
Research School of Archaeology and Archaeological Sciences
University of Sheffield
2 Mappin Street,
Sheffield S1 4DT
Tel: (0114) 222 5102 Fax: (0114) 272 7347
page updated: 16.2.2002
assemblage home > issue 6 contents> SOMA

SOMA 2000 Sheffield

THE 4th SYMPOSIUM ON MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY
SOMA 2000 was held in Sheffield. Here in association with assemblage SOMA
presents abstracts from the 2000 sessions. We hope these abstracts will provide an
overview of current research themes.

SOMA 2000 SESSIONS AND PAPERS

UNDERSTANDING THE PAST
(Discussants: Despina Catapoti and Olia Peperaki)

Ellen Adams (University of Cambridge): History of Minoan Studies: Perceptions of

Homogeneity in Neopalatial Crete.

Maria Relaki (University of Sheffield): Social Arenas in Minoan Crete: Mesara in the
Bronze Age.

Dorella Romanou (University College London): An Approach to Social Organisation on

the Micro-Scale: The Households of Minoan Mallia, Crete.

Michaël Jasmin (Paris 1 Sorbonne): The City-State Political System in the Late Bronze II
and Iron Age I in South Palestine.

Eduardo Sànchez-Moreno (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid): Some Models of

Cultural Contacts in Iron Age Iberia: Hospitality and Inter-Regional Diplomacy.

Erik van Rossenberg (University of Leiden): Discorsi Coll'eta del Bronzo: Making
Conversation with the Bronze Age.

SYMBOLS IN ACTION
(Discussants: Ben Chan and Giorgos Vavouranakis)

Konstantinos Galanakis (University of Birmingham): The Secret World of the Minoan

and Mycenaean Religious Imagery: Reconstructing a Late Bronze Age Aegean Ritual.

Georgina Muskett (University of Liverpool): The Shaft Grave Masks: An Interdisciplinary

Approach.

Helena Tomas (University of Oxford): The possibility of Grammatical Cases in Linear A

Inscriptions.

Michael Lane (University of Sheffield): Textures and Surfaces, Words and Maps: Linear
B as Material Culture and Practice.

Zinon Papakonstantinou and Garrick Thomas (University of Washington): Religion and

Aristocratic Ideology: The Archaic Greek Temple Reconsidered.

Anne Wright (University of Oxford): The Cost of Honours in Classical Athens.

Michael Turner (University of Sydney): Dionysos: Herakles and the Geranomachia.

Katerina Panagopoulou (University College London): ‘Cross-Reading’ Images:

Iconographic ‘Debates’ Between the Antigonids and the Ptolemies During the Thrid and
Second Centuries B.C.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF DEATH

(Discussants: Krysti Damilati and Dora Georgousopoulou)

Heinrich Hall (University College Dublin): A New Look at Neolithic Cave-use in Crete.

Giorgos Vavouranakis (University of Sheffield): Still Haunted by the Palatial Ghosts.

Brandi Carrier (Univeristy of Sheffield): The Dead in Social Reproduction: Aspects of

Minoan Religious Iconography.

Chrysanthi Gallou (University of Nottingham): Decorated Façades and Wall Paintings in

Mycenaean Chamber Tombs.

Ioannis Georganas (University of Nottingham): Early Iron Age Tholos Tombs in

Thessaly.

Kirsten A. Gay (University of Tübingen): Lycian Sarcophagi in the Necropoleis of

Kyaneai, Central Lycia: A Question of Typology and Distribution.

EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES
(Discussants: Mihalis Catapotis and Maria Relaki / Elli Hitsiou and Eleni Nodarou /
Peter Tomkins and Emma Wager)

Smadar Gabrieli (University of Sydney): Kitchen Ware - The Definition of Intent: An

Example from Metaponto.

Evangelia Dafi (University of Birmingham): Amphorae and Exchanges in Southern

Aegean in the Late Roman-Early Byzantine Period: New Evidence from Thera.

Georgios Manginis (School of Oriental and African Studies, London): Hagia Koryphe
(Gebel Musa), Sinai, After the Coming of Islam: Pottery Evidence.
Mihalis Catapotis (University of Sheffield): The History of Metal during the Bronze Age in
Crete.

Dimitris Pappas (University of Crete): Constructing the Aegean Late Bronze Age Wall
Paintings.

Peter Tomkins (University of Sheffield): Isolation or Interaction? The Community at

Knossos and the Wider Social Landscape of Early Neolithic Crete.

Jenny Shiels (University of Glasgow/ University of Edinburgh): Replicating the pottery

production process: New Insights into Technology, Technique and Tradition in Cypriot
Pottery.

Paraskevi Stamataki (University of Southampton): Store, Stir and Serve: Do we Know

what Minoan Domestic Pots were used for?

Despina Catapoti (University of Sheffield): Comsuming Ojects, Worlds and Ideas:

Towards an Understanding of the Role and Significance of Craft Goods in Early Minoan
II Crete.

Angela Gray (University of Oxford): Consumption Patterns at the Early Iron Age Sites of
Lefkandi (Euboea) and North Knossos Cemetery (Crete).

Ina Berg (University of Cambridge): Phylakopi on Melos: Local Response to Minoan

Influence.

CONSTRUCTING CATEGORIES AND NARRATIVES

(Discussants: Mel Giles and Giorgos Vavouranakis)

Mercourios Georgiadis (University of Liverpool), The Ethnic Identity of Death in the

Southeastern Aegean During the LH III Period.

Natasha Leriou (University of Birmingham): The Hellenisation of Cyprus: Constructing

an Archaeological Narrative.

Kirsi Lorentz (University of Cambridge): Infant Archaeology: From Material Culture to

Culturally Graded Processes of Maturation.

Elena Isayev (University College London): The Threat of Modern Music Culture and
Ethnic Identity in the Context of South Italy.

Johanna Tzanidaki (University of Southampton): European, Greek, Italian: Three

Identities or Simply One?

RECONSTRUCTING ANCIENT LANDSCAPES: AN INTER-DISCIPLINARY

APPROACH
(Discussant: Michael Lane)

Gianna Ayala (University of Cambridge): Landscape change and the prehistoric

occupation of North-Central Sicily: a preliminary report.

Caroline Hall (University of Sheffield): Tree-Rings: Using them to Understand Woodland

Management Practices in the Pindos Mountains of Northwest Greece.

Antoon Cornelis Mientjes (University of Wales, Lampeter): The Archaeological

Landscape of Sub-recent Pastoralism on Sardinia (Italy): Some Reflections on the
Relevance of Ethnohistory for Regional Archaeological Research in the Mediterranean.

Eleni Nodarou (University of Sheffield): Geoarchaeology within the Site or why do we

keep all these Bags of Dirt.

POSTER SESSION
Matthew Fitzjohn (University of Cambridge): Investigations of Indigenous - Colonial
Interaction in Sicily during the First Millenium BC.

Doortje Van Hove (University of Southampton): Long term modelling of Material and
Symbolic Environments: A GIS Reconstruction of Southern Italy.

Copyright rests with the individual authors.

Top Issue 6 contents assemblage home

assemblage - the University of Sheffield graduate journal of archaeology

assemblage@sheffield.ac.uk
Research School of Archaeology and Archaeological Sciences
University of Sheffield
2 Mappin Street,
Sheffield S1 4DT
Tel: (0114) 222 5102 Fax: (0114) 272 7347
page updated: 15.2.2002
assemblage home > issue 6 contents> Vavouranakis

Still haunted by the palatial ghosts

Giorgos Vavouranakis

Research School of Archaeology & Archaeological Science, University of Sheffield,

Westcourt, 2 Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 4DT.
E-mail: g.vavouranakis@sheffield.ac.uk

The poor Cretan burial record of the first half of the second millennium BC (Middle
Minoan IB - Late Minoan IB) is the “ghost” of Minoan prehistory. Around thirty
protopalatial and thirty more neopalatial burial sites contrast to both the rest of the
contemporary sites and burials from other periods. In addition, the way of interment itself
left very few traces, with the dead body crouched in a clay coffin (larnax or pithos), with
very few accompanying objects and placed in the ground without any prominent
markers.

This paper wishes to review current approaches on the issue. These burials cannot be
a mere reflection of social phenomena of urbanism and individualism, brought about
with the emergence of the Minoan palatial elites (see Branigan 1970: 178). On the other
hand, the shift in burial customs cannot be considered within an isolated field of
supernatural beliefs about death either (see Petit 1990). Instead, we should see the low
visibility of these monuments from a more holistic point of view, as part of the overall
landscape. This landscape drew together diverse issues and values, from the most
mundane problems of everyday land use, to overarching cosmologies (Barrett 1999).
The burials were part of this network of movement around and between different areas
of the landscape and at the same time different fields and sets of value and practice.

The protopalatial period can be described as “open”. The greater scale of agricultural
exploitation, in accordance to the intensified networks of social interaction (Halstead
1982), changed Crete. The prepalatial landscape punctuated with certain points of
reference (settlement and cemetery) became more of a continuum, encompassing a
wider variety of human presence (peak sanctuaries, roads, watchtowers, settlements,
palaces). The increasing open dispute or even conflict that possibly lead to the
formation of the palaces (Watrous 1994: 718-722), created significant fluidity of choices
and readings of the same landscape. However, this openness of human activity was
expressed through a vocabulary where human intervention became second to the
existing form of the world and the way it appeared to the Cretans. This is implied by
“naturally” demarkated peak sanctuaries and pottery decorated with naturalistic motifs.

The tombs were probably part of the trajectory that forged a new perception of “nature”
and the world. They became less visible to give way to the “natural” prominence. The
emphasis thus shifted from past to present and from the periodically visited cemeteries
to the quotidian rhythms of life. Maybe it became more important to wear a dagger, than
being buried with it, and work the land than protect it as an ancestor.

The neopalatial period saw everyday reference points like the palaces, the sanctuaries
and roads acquire more elaborate architectural form, while new ones, the villas, added
to the same trajectory. This institutionalisation followed an opposite direction with the
tombs, which become even less visible. A few exceptions can be approached as an
effort to borrow resources from the field of death and burial to make more effective
claims in other arenas of action.

Finally, the above interpretative specificities do not claim to be exclusive. Other

readings could have been enabled too. The main aim of the paper was to show that
even negative evidence can be used fruitfully. This can be achieved through a holistic
approach beyond past categorisations between classes of materials and isolated,
general social processes.

References
Barrett, J.C. 1999. Chronologies of landscape. In The archaeology and anthropology of
landscape: Shaping your landscape. Ucko, P. and Layton, R. (eds). London: Routledge,
21-30.

Branigan, K. 1970. The foundations of palatial Crete. London: Routledge.

Halstead, P. 1992. Agriculture in the Bronze Age Aegean: towards a model of palatial
economy. In Agriculture in Ancient Greece. Proceedings of the seventh international
symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16-17 May, 1990. Wells, B. (ed).
Stockholm: Acta Instituti Regni Sueciae Series in 4o, XLII, 105-117.

Petit, F. 1990. Les jarres funéraires du minoen ancien III au minoen récent I. Aegaeum
6, 29-57, pls. VII-XV.

Watrous, L.V. 1994. Review of Aegean prehistory III: Crete from the earliest prehistory
through the protopalatial period. American Journal of Archaeology 98, 695-753.

Back to SOMA 2000 abstracts

Top Issue 6 contents assemblage home

assemblage - the University of Sheffield graduate journal of archaeology

assemblage@sheffield.ac.uk
Research School of Archaeology and Archaeological Sciences
University of Sheffield
2 Mappin Street,
Sheffield S1 4DT
Tel: (0114) 222 5102 Fax: (0114) 272 7347
page updated: 14.2.2002