Archaeological approaches on Attic Early Iron Age Society

Introduction

The following information comes from the author's PhD thesis on Attic Geometric and Orientalising pottery. This is an isolated article that presents an overview of archaeological approaches to Attic Early Iron Age society. It must be clarified that not all approaches relate to the study of decorated pottery; however, they provide the background for any discussion of the production and consumption of Attic finewares and the changing social demands of the Geometric and Orientalising periods.

Archaeological studies on Attic Early Iron Age society

The first attempt to produce a full archaeological volume on Early Iron Age decorated pottery was by Vincent Desborough (1952), who noted two important things: firstly, that the Protogeometric style was not homogeneous all across Greece but followed regional variations; secondly, that Athenian workshops exercised strong influence not only in Attica but also on many other Greek regions, with which they developed and maintained frequent contacts (1). He was also the first to note the deliberate use of specific amphora shapes in relation to the gender of the deceased in Attic Protogeometric burial rites: neck-handled amphorae for males and belly-handled amphorae for females (Desborough 1952, 5-6). After him, Kübler (1954) noted the social significance of drinking vessels placed in separate trenches (Opferrinnen) (2) in Late Geometric adult inhumations at Kerameikos, and also the prevalence of miniature vessels in infant burials of the same period.

In the most extensive archaeological volume on Greek Geometric Pottery, Coldstream (1968) followed Desborough (1952) in discussing the local variations of Early Iron Age styles. Coldstream (1968, 332) argued that the existence of numerous yet connected Geometric styles across the Aegean showed that there must have been decentralisation after the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial system. Coldstream (1968, 332-3) saw a gradual shift from the homogeneity of Mycenaean styles towards the variety and diversity of local Geometric styles, and rejected Desborough’s (1964) view of a clear break in ceramic traditions during the 11th century BC. Despite regional diversity, he suggested that there must have been some sharing of ideas through the travel of potters or the export of pottery, resulting in reproductions of foreign originals in local clays (Coldstream 1968, 332-4).

Smithson (1968, 96) was the first to note the symbolic role of the shapes of Athenian decorated fineware and their possible connection to social class. She suggested that a long, narrow ceramic chest with a lid surmounted by five model granaries in a row, placed in the Middle Geometric Tomb of the Rich Athenian Lady at Areopagus, was possibly the wealth badge of the Pentakosiomedimnoi. According to Aristotle’s Athenaion Politeia (3, 1), this was the highest social class of early Athens (Smithson 1968, 96-7). Despite this interesting explanation, it is highly unlikely that the class system Aristotle discussed existed in Athens during the 9th century BC.

The 1970s were a new period in Greek archaeology due to the contributions of Anthony Snodgrass (1971) and Colin Renfrew (1972). Archaeological interest gradually shifted from typologies and styles towards why and how complex social structures emerged from less complex tribal communities (Whitley 2001, 55). In his critique on previous studies on decorated pottery by Desborough (1952), Kübler (1954), Cook (1960) and Coldstream (1968), Snodgrass (1971) argued that they limited research in providing a relative chronological framework, in showing local differences in style and in describing some social and economic influences; however, once pots were used to shape the whole picture, this became dangerous (Snodgrass 1971; 2000, 27-8). Even though Snodgrass᾽ (1971) contribution in ceramic studies was limited, he made a clear point that pottery could not be used as the sole means of exploring the Greek past.

Similar to Snodgrass (1971), Nicolas Coldstream (1977) published a comprehensive study of Greek Early Iron Age material culture. He (1977; 2003a, 107) examined the ‘Greek Renaissance’ of the Late Geometric era and suggested that there was a network of aristocratic patrons who demanded gigantic vessels to stand on their graves. In his second edition of The Dark Ages of Greece, Snodgrass (2000, 413-14) argued against Coldstream (1977; 2003a, 107) that the so-called ‘Renaissance’ of Late Geometric figurative decoration was probably symbolic. The connections between material culture and aristocracy had also been discussed in a similar manner by Jeffery (1976, 101) for the Archaic period. Coldstream (1970; 2003a, 110) suggested that Late Geometric funerary vessels depicted scenes related to aristocratic social views, and that by the end of the Geometric period there was “a marked contrast in quality between large and small shapes, perhaps a symptom of widening social distinctions” (Coldstream 2003a, 135). Coldstream (1977; 2003a, 295-302) also stressed the role of the Phoenicians and Greek-Levantine contacts, which provided the ideological context for such artistic representations.

In his Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek State, Snodgrass (1977) introduced a new discussion of the rise of the Greek polis based on studies of settlements, cemeteries, and demographic expansion. Snodgrass (1977, 19) argued that the regional uniformity of pottery decoration in large and thinly populated areas was the result of tribal organisation within the community. For example, the people of Early Iron Age Mycenae decorated their pottery in much the same way as those of Troezen (40 miles away), yet differently from those of Kleonai (only 10 miles away). This pattern indicated communities based on tribes and kinship. By contrast, the uniformity of Attic styles of the 8th century BC, recovered in different cemeteries between Anavyssos and Kerameikos, was explained as the effect of the polis’ urban core imposing its own popular styles on the people of its rural periphery (Snodgrass 1977, 19-20). In later years, Morgan & Whitelaw (1991) analysed the distribution of Argive pottery in the Argolid plain and concluded that the formation of the Argive polis and Argive hegemony occurred in the 8th century BC. Their conclusions contrasted with those of Snodgrass (1977, 19), who observed diversity of ceramic styles in the Argolid plain during the same period.

Merle K. Langdon (1976) noted an increase in fine pottery during the late 8th/early 7th century BC at the sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Hymmetos near Athens, by contrast with pottery dedications of the previous three centuries. Snodgrass (1980, 104-5; 2006, 257-67) noted a similar increase in bronze dedications at other sanctuaries, such as Delphi, Olympia, and the Athenian Acropolis, during the same era. He explained that during the rise of the Greek polis, ritual activity shifted gradually from burial sites to sanctuaries, which became the new focal point of local communities. In later years, De Polinac (1984, 84) argued that this did not necessarily imply an abandonment of competition amongst individual aristocrats, as evidenced in burials of the Late Geometric period. Instead, sanctuaries became an arena of externalised competition through which a more coherent social structure was about to emerge (De Polinac 1984, 84).

In 1987, Ian Morris published his book Burial and Ancient Society. He argued that the rise of visible burials during the Attic Late Geometric was not due to demographic expansion, as previously suggested by Snodgrass (1977), but to political struggles over citizenship (see Chapter 8). Major fluctuations in the archaeological record, particularly c.760 BC and 700 BC, were the result of competition amongst the nobles (agathoi) and the non-elites (kakoi), who did not always possess the same access to formal burial (Morris 1987, 94-6). In his opinion, the idea of the polis emerged during the 8th century BC as a result of social struggles in communities that were already highly stratified (Morris 1987, 1).

In his Style and Society in Dark Age Greece, Whitley (1991, 44) argued against Morris (1987) that Morris's model of a stratified society for Dark Age Athens presupposed the emergence of a slave society in accordance with the Classical polis model as early as the 8th century BC. By contrast to the distinct political stratification suggested by Morris (1987, 1), Whitley (1991, 11) argued in favour of a rank social order similar to the Nuristan model described by Jones (1974). This model was the result of major social changes related to gender, wealth and status that began during the 9th century BC. Such changes gradually led to the rise of competing elites and finally to the collapse of elite ideologies during Late Geometric II (c.735 BC) (Whitley 1991, 182-3).

Furthermore, Whitley (1991, 182) suggested that male-female distinctions became visible in the Athenian archaeological record as early as the Protogeometric period, while they declined towards the end of the 8th century. In later years, osteological analysis of the material from the Tomb of the Rich Athenian Lady (c.850 BC) showed that the female occupant of the tomb was pregnant. In their analysis, Liston & Papadopoulos (2004) suggested that the tomb might not have been associated with the female but with the neonate; therefore, they suggested that gender distinctions in Early Iron Age Athens might have been more complex than what we might think today. Finally, Langdon (2008, 63) argued against Whitley (1991, 182) that Late Geometric iconography implied a reaffirmation of gender distinctions around LGII, if not earlier.

With regard to Attic Geometric finewares, Whitley (1991, 11-12) saw that the shape and decorative elements of the pottery found in grave assemblages played an important role in social demarcation. Certain types of vases and decoration were to be found only in Attic graves, and at the same time, not only the selection but the entire production of such vases must have been stimulated by the social requirements of the occasion and the interests of the buriers. The decorative forms of the pots were as much a result of social demand as of technical or artistic accomplishment. The course of style's development was therefore intimately connected with social changes, and there was a social logic behind its development (Whitley 1991, 11-12).

With regard to 7th-century BC finewares, Whitley (1994b) argued that the Orientalising style in Attica was reserved for high-status contexts and liminal occasions (e.g., burial ceremonies). This use reflected a conservative, rather suspicious attitude towards the exotic society, yet at the same time this society appeared attracted to and caught up in the Orientalising world (Whitley 1994b, 65). Prior to this study, Osborne (1988; 1989) had argued that the consumption of Orientalising finewares in Athens and Corinth differed due to the distinct social and political structures of the two poleis. Coldstream (1996) expanded this argument and noted further complexity in the patterns of fineware consumption through the study of Attic Geometric imports found in burials at Knossos and Lefkandi. All studies noted that fine ware consumption during the Early Iron Age was shaped by different social notions circulating across Greek regions.

Whitley (2000, 223) suggested a different perception of gender in the Athenian society during the 9th century BC. This distinct perception was expressed through the deposition of elaborate, highly symbolic artefacts in adult female graves, similar to those found in adult male graves. In a re-evaluation of this phenomenon, Whitley (2015) added that this perception did not exist in other parts of the Greek Early Iron Age world, despite the fact that characteristically Athenian artefacts used in such burials (e.g., belly-handed amphorae) were already exported to other regions such as Argos and Knossos. Attic rich female burials gradually disappeared during the late 8th century BC, and by the beginning of the Archaic period, gender divisions conformed to the general pattern observed in the rest of the Greek world: between adult males and children (Whitley 2000, 229-30). Pappi & Triantaphyllou (2011, 721) noted similarities between Argive and Athenian Late Geometric burials, particularly in the increase in subadults and neonates. They suggested an increase in social status and interest in the social identity of children, connected to the decrease of female burials in both regions (Pappi & Triantaphyllou, 2011, 722).

Whitley (2000, 230) also argued that the disappearance of rich Athenian female burials in the late 8th century BC was not due to the rise of a collective male hoplite identity related to the first formation of the polis. As previously demonstrated by Osborne (1989) and Whitley (1994b), Athens was by no means a normal or progressive city during the 7th century BC. Instead, he suggested that this disappearance must be treated as a paradox (Whitley 2000, 230-1). By contrast, Langdon (2008, 242-4) argued that Late Geometric iconography implied the masculinisation and manhood ideology of the Athenian society during the middle of the 8th century BC in relation to the rise of the polis. This resulted in the establishment of male-defined social roles for females, projected through pictorial arts.

In relation to political structures and social power, Lemos (2006, 516) argued that Late Helladic IIIC and Submycenaean burials demonstrate that Early Iron Age Athens lacked an urban centre. Instead, it was divided into small villages, composed of members of the same lineage, each with a small number of leaders of equal status. This fragmentation of the political landscape did not encourage funerary display to the same extent as it did in Lefkandi. The reliance on local resources in Athens led to the formalisation of funerary rites, in contrast to Lefkandi, where local competition and internal conflict occurred between power groups seeking to gain control of the entire region (Lemos 2006, 526-7).

At this point, special mention needs to be made of the Greek Archaeological Services, which intensified their work during rescue excavations conducted from 1992 onwards, either for the construction of Athens’ Metro and Tram network or for preparations for the 2004 Olympic Games. Such excavations produced new assemblages of Attic Early Iron Age pottery from graves and other deposits at central Athens (3), the Athenian suburbs, and the broader region of Attica (4). The material produced from such excavations offered evidence that challenged previous views on Attic Geometric society (Alexandridou, forthcoming), particularly in relation to the isonomia that was supposed to have existed in Attica towards the end of LGII, as originally supported by Morris (1987, 205).

More specifically, Laughy (2010, 49-53) argued that the increase and variability of LGII burials suggested that lower social classes were able to practise funerary rites previously restricted to the upper social classes, namely the aristocrats. However, the existence of a class system according to the Marxist sense in Early Iron Age Athens is highly unlikely. In an earlier publication, Duplouy (2006) preferred the term' social groups' and questioned the existence of hereditary prestige among Athenian aristocratic elites. Furthermore, Laughy (2010, 49-53) argued that the LGII was characterised by an increase in social status among non-aristocratic groups, which probably gained power and wealth through various economic activities. This was more evident in the Attic countryside. In addition to this point, the analysis of ceramic evidence from the Geometric cemetery of Kiphisia by Schilardi (2011) raised the question of whether there was a form of LGII isonomia that could support Morris's (1985, 205) claim. Based on burial patterns, Schilardi (2011) argued that the elites of the LGII periphery probably maintained their status and power compared to those buried in central areas such as Kerameikos.

Coldstream (2011) offered a new perspective on the function of Geometric pottery in Attic burials. He argued that the enlargement of ceramic funerary vessels in Athens during the Late Geometric period was accompanied by the idea that the pot was meant to serve as the final resting place of the person associated with the grave; therefore, the pot should have been produced at full human size. This idea continued during the Archaic period, and only then were ceramic vessels replaced by equally large marble stelae. Furthermore, during LGII, there appeared an increase in large grave markers outside Athens. By contrast to the increasing economic power of peripheral elites suggested by Laughy (2010, 49-53), Coldstream (2011, 804) attributed this phenomenon to the colonisation of the Attic countryside by noble Athenians. A different ‘colonisation’ of the Attic countryside was suggested in an iconographic analysis by Vlachou (2011b), who detected a regional originality of Attic Geometric vases from Marathon. Vlachou (2011b, 822) argued that sometime between LGIb and LGIIa there was a movement of Athenian craftsmen towards the countryside, which coincided with the rise of rural elites suggested by Laughy (2010) and Schilardi (2011).

A major problem in the study of Attic Geometric finewares to this day is that scholars often associate them with burials. This gives the impression that ceramic studies are useful for understanding society only in relation to its funerary practices. In fact, there is little interest in determining whether such vessels could have served other, more practical, commercial or social functions outside burials, which would also have added to our existing knowledge of fineware production. In a recent study, Simantoni-Bournia (2011) questioned the functionality and pottery consumption in Geometric Athens and demonstrated that potters shifted from meeting established consumer demands to personal experimentation. This was noted with regard to the production of playful vessels, such as multi-storeyed skyphoi, whose function remains unknown. The aim of the articles on this website is to offer another perspective by examining Geometric and Orientalising finewares as technological products.

Notes

1. Protogeometric contacts and trade were investigated again by Murray (1975).
2. A full discussion and summary of previous work on offering trenches has recently been published by Alexandra Alexandridou (2015).
3. Relevant publications include: Chatzipouliou (1992, 30); Orphanou (1993, 37; 1998, 68); Baziotopoulou & Drakotou (1994, 34); Eleutheratou (1997, 35); Zachariadou & Kavvadias (1998, 55); Kaza-Papageorgiou (2000, 105); Lykouri-Tolia (2001-4, 254-5); Iliopoulos (2001-4, 214-6); Tsirigoti-Drakotou (2001-4, 259); Pologiorgi (2003-9).
4. Relevant publications include: Papangeli (1992, 36-8; 1997, 60; 1999, 87; 2004); Kyriakou-Zapheiropoulou (1993, 42; 1994, 48); Kaza-Papageorgiou (1993, 70; 2001-4, 473); Platonos-Giota (1994, 72; 1997, 90; 1999, 111; 2001-4, 404-5); Agallopoulou (1994, 76); Kakavogianni (1999, 115; 2001-4, 336, 344-5); Kakavogianni & Ntouni (2001-4, 340-1); Oikonomakou (2001-4, 375-6). Other studies on Early Iron Age Attica include the work of Muskalla (2002); Xagorari-Gleissner (2005) on the Geometric necropolis of Merenda; Vlachou (2010) and Charalambidou (2011) on wheel-made finewares from Oropos; and Demetriadou (2012) on Athenian topography, cemeteries and habitation areas between the Submycenaean era and the end of the Archaic period.