1. APPENDICE Ioannis Moschos * EVIDENCE OF SOCIAL
RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION IN LATE HELLADIC IIIC ACHAEA AND
MODES OF CONTACTS AND EXCHANGE VIA THE IONIAN AND ADRIATIC SEA The
subject of this paper has two basic themes which, as will be shown
later, are very closelylinked, interdependent and related (Marazzi
2003, p. 108). This is due to the fact that availablespace, human
activity and the economy in an organized society evolve in a way
that is analogousto the societys character and structure; while
space, environment and circumstances sometimescreate decisive
factors, which impose themselves on society. Before examining
Achaeas place in the long-distance travels and large scale trade,
it would beuseful to have some knowledge of its social and
administrative organization, as much as this canbe achieved, by
deciphering the archaeological data. The importance of this
framework for seaand land trade is clearly reflected in the
organization of the trade of the palatial period. Achaea is part of
mainland Greece in the North-Western Peloponnese.1 It faces
westward;however, in the Mycenaean period it was at the edge of a
basically eastward-looking world. WesternAchaea had the privilege
of controlling the seaways of the Ionian Sea (Kolonas 1998a, p.
470),whereas Eastern Achaea lies at the junction of land roads from
the Eastern Peloponnese and CentralGreece.2 The diverse relations
and contacts of each area in Mycenaean times confirm this view. To
be more precise, until the LH IIIB period, Aigialeia in the East
appeared to be closer to theArgolid, Korinthia and the Eastern
Peloponnese, and this is also reflected in the Ships Catalogueof
the Iliad.3 After the decline of the mainland centres, relations
and contacts with the northernregions of Phocis and Phthiotis,
across the Corinthian gulf, become more intense,4 in the context *
Eforia Proistorikn kai Klassikn Archaiotiton, Patra. I want to
express my warmest thanks to Michalis Gazis, Georghia Kotsiopoulou
and Georghia Merti for translating thistext and to Tina McGeorge
and Christine Barton for revision. My thanks go also to Reinhard
Jung for the discussion and theuseful comments on this paper. 1
Anderson 1954; Vermeule 1960, pp. 1, 19-20; Papadopoulos 1978-79,
pp. 21-22; Kolonas 1998a, pp. 468-469;Mountjoy 1999, p. 399;
Gadolou 2000, pp. 44-46; Moschos 2002, pp. 17-20; Id. 2007b, pp.
14-15; Rizio 2004, pp. 61, 63;Kolonas forthcoming. 2 Mountjoy 1990,
pp. 254-256; Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1998, pp. 156-157; Ead. 1999, p.
279; Eder 2003a, p. 41; Ead.2007a, pp. 89, 95ff., fig. 8;
Petropoulos 2007, p. 264. 3 Il. B 198-204 and 569-580; 203;
Anderson 1954, p. 72; Hope Simpson, Lazenby 1970, pp. 69, 98;
Papadopoulos1991a, pp. 32, 36; Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1998, p. 8;
Moschos 2002, p. 19, note 10; Id. 2007b, p. 15; Eder 2003b, pp.
304-306; Petropoulos 2002, pp. 143-144; Id. 2007, p. 264. 4 Eder
2003a; Petropoulos 2007; some stirrup-jars from Delphi (Mountjoy
1990, fig. 25; Mller 1992, p. 470, figs.13, 3 and 14 left) and
Medeon (Mountjoy 1990, fig. 25) show connections between Western
Achaea and Phocis during the LHIIIC Late period, probably through
Aigialeia region. See also infra, note 85. Western Achaea was in a
particular way connectedto Elateia, in which has been detected the
presence of LH IIIC Achaean imported pottery (Eder 2003a, p. 42,
fig. 2b; Deger- 345
2. Ioannis Moschosof the so-called Western Mainland Koine5 the
regions referred to form the eastern part of theKoine. Relations
with Western Achaea intensified during the same period as well.6
Western Achaea presented a cohesive and robust cultural identity
from the beginning of theMycenaean period7 and, in any case, most
obviously after LH IIIA, displaying the features of thewestern
coastline of the Peloponnese (Mountjoy 1999, p. 403;
Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2003, p.439). During the LH IIIC period the
cultural and social features were rapidly transformed andacquired a
clearly local character (Mountjoy 1999, p. 404; Moschos 2002; Id.
forthcoming), thusmaking of the region the heart of the Western
Mainland Koine. This unity extended geographi-cally, with cultural,
economical and political consistency, in the region of Patras, of
Dyme, ofKalavryta and in the north-western part of Arcadia, from
Palaiokastro and along river Alpheiosup to todays North-Western
Elis (Rizio 2008, p. 400). Judging from the very few excavationdata
that we have at our disposal, Aigialeia is not included. In this
large geographical and culturaldistrict of LH IIIC period, which I
prefer to call Territory (Moschos 2002, p. 15), there
weregeographical areas which formed provinces that were politically
viable (Moschos 2002, pp.17-20; Id. 2007a, p. 285ff.).Achaea during
the crisis years This development was undoubtedly due to the
medium-term and long-term beneficial results ofthe decline of the
centralized power of the large Mycenaean centres.8 Among the sites
destroyedby fire was Teichos Dymaion,9 the fortified alleged
administrative centre of the region. We shouldJalkotzy 2007, p.
133f., figs. 1, 4; 1, 8; cf. Dakoronia 1993, p. 30, fig. 7)
pointing out, consequently, the presence of a widetrade net from
Elis towards Phocis, Boeotia and Phthiotis already during the LH
IIIA-B period; cf. Papadopoulos, Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2006a, p.
711; Bchle 2007; Eder 2007a. Land routes towards the east and
south-east of Aigialeia also existedas is clear from several
Achaean exported objects at Corinthia and Argolid: for an Achaean
stirrup-jar from Argos see Deshayes1966, pl. LX: 8-9; cf. Mountjoy
1990, p. 267ff., fig. 25. Another stirrup-jar and two lekythoi from
Tripolis Str. at Argos arelocal imitations of the Achaean Phase 6a
style (see infra); see Kanta 1975, pp. 265-266, figs. 11-12. For
Achaean pottery inTiryns see Schfer 1971, p. 66 (no. 15), pls. 35,
39; Podzuweit 1983, p. 383, fig. 3:3. For a stirrup-jar of the
Achaean Phase6a style at Prophitis Ilias ChT cemetery, see infra,
note 88. For a hydria from Korakou, see Rutter 1974, p. 363, fig.
141. It isnoteworthy that the total amount of pottery comes from
Western Achaea, so we can assume that in the wider region arrived
aland trade net, that started from Elis. 5 Papadopoulos 1978-1979,
p. 182; Id. 1991a, p. 32ff.; Id. 1995, with refs.; Id. 1996;
Deger-Jalkotzy 1991b, p. 28;Mountjoy 1999, pp. 54-55;
Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1998, pp. 102-103; Souyoudzoglou-Haywood
1999, pp. 73-75; Eder2003a, p. 43; Papadopoulos,
Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2004; Moschos 2007a, p. 285. For the term
Koine see the discussionin Thomatos 2007, pp. 320-322. 6
Petropoulos 2007, p. 264; the newly discovered Naue II sword of
type A/Cetona at Nikoleika (ibid., pp. 260, 262, fig. 87)with
strongly Italian-related characteristics might be imported from
Western Achaea; see Moschos 2002, p. 29, note 69; add
alsoPapazoglou-Manioudaki 2003, p. 440, note 90; Petropoulos 2006,
p. 41; Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, p. 160. Two LH IIIC Latestirrup-jars at
Nikoleika are imported from Voudeni; see Moschos 2007b, p. 43;
Petropoulos 2007, p. 258, figs. 12, 56, 59. 7 As would appear from
the use of tumuli customs and pottery ware, which are common in
Messenia, Elis and Achaea; seeMoschos 2000a. For the Early
Mycenaean period in Achaea see Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1998; Ead.
1999; Mountjoy 1999,p. 403; Dietz, Stavropoulou forthcoming.
According to Papazoglou-Manioudaki (1998, p. 155), during the Early
Mycenaeanperiod, Achaea was placed culturally in North-Eastern
Peloponnese. 8 Deger-Jalkotzy 1994, p. 14; Ead. 2006, p. 168;
Moschos 2002, p. 32; Eder 2003a, p. 37, note 2 (with refs. for the
topic);Ead. 2007b, pp. 42-43; Maran 2006, p. 143. For the crisis
caused by the destructions, in general, see Vanschoonwinkel
1991;Drews 1993, p. 22ff.; Mazarakis-Ainian 2000, pp. 35-42. 9
Moschos 2002, p. 20, note 12 (D1), with selected refs.; also add
Kolonas 1998b, pp. 287-288, pl. 110; Id. 2006, pp. 219-346
3. SOCIAL RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTIONnot, however, be
certain that the fire did destroy the central power in this
concrete site, since, sofar, there have been no excavation data to
indicate the existence of a palatial building at TeichosDymaion.
Indeed, it seems more likely that the fortifications purpose here
was partly to protectthe villagers and products of the vast
surrounding plateau10 and partly to control the Ionian Seatrade
routes. The ruins of the old administrative centre should be sought
elsewhere.11 A corroborating fact to this view comes from the new
excavation data in the entire region. Afterthe collapse of the
palatial administrative system, Achaea witnessed not only the
indirect reper-cussions of the unrest, but had first-hand
experience of disaster with the fire at Teichos Dymaion,even if the
direct target, in the latter case, was not the central power. But
Teichos Dymaionis not the only ravaged site in Western Achaea. The
on-going excavation at the Mycenaeansettlement of Aghia Kyriaki12
in Patras, to which belonged the extensive cemetery of
Voudeni,13reveals a vast fire destruction during this period and a
short abandonment of the settlement; sothe plan of the settlement
remains consistent after the rebuilding on the ruins. We are not
able yetto date this destruction with accuracy because the
excavation is in process and the material is stillbeing studied.
The settlement of Pagona14 near Patras was destroyed by fire during
the LH IIIA or IIIBperiod, according to the preliminary reports.
Two pots from the destruction level appear in thesepublications.
The first one is a Group B deep bowl in fragments (FS 284)
(Stavropoulou-Gatsi1998, p. 519, fig. 9; Ead. 2001, p. 35, note
14), which finds a good parallel in LH IIIB 2 contextat Mycenae,
Lion Gate (Mountjoy 1999, p. 150, fig. 39, 297). The other one is a
fragmentary FS175 stirrup-jar with FM 18 flowers, a shape which is
the earliest known example in Achaea. FS175 stirrup-jar is the most
common shape from LH IIIC Middle onwards but it is not present
inearlier tomb contexts. It is probably an import and its date can
be placed within the transitionalLH IIIB 2/LH IIIC Early phase,
which falls partly in Achaean Phase 1 (see infra). Althoughwe have
to wait for the final publication, there is some evidence to
support a later date for thedestruction at Pagona settlement. As in
Aghia Kyriaki, the habitation continued soon after thedestruction
(Stavropoulou-Gatsi 2001, p. 35; Stavropoulou-Gatsi, Karageorghis
2003, p. 97). Thesettlement of Chalandritsa15 was not ravaged by
fire at the end of LH IIIB or at the beginningof LH IIIC Early,
which perhaps indicates that some important settlements managed to
escapedestruction. The aforementioned indications in combination
with the information we have collected from thecemeteries, and
predominantly by the study of the evolution of the local pottery
production, lead us,221, figs. 7-12; Kolonas, Gazis 1999, pp.
279-280, figs. 24-27; Rizio 2004, p. 61ff., fig. 5; Id. 2008, p.
402; Moschos 2007b,pp. 14, 25, 27, figs. 19-20. 10As in the case of
Gla, see Iakovidis 1992, p. 615; Id. 1995, p. 76; Id. 2001, p.
149ff. 11Moschos 2002, p. 31; see also Dickinson 2006, p. 25. If
such a hypothesis is proved to be true by the future
excavationsdata, we have to search for other reasons that led to
the destruction. 12Moschos 2007b, p. 21; Kolonas forthcoming. For
recent excavations on other plots see Stavropoulou-Gatsi 1994,
pp.221-222; Stavropoulou-Gatsi et alii 2006, p. 84; Blackman 2000,
p. 46. For the character of habitation sites in Achaea seein
general Rizio 2008. 13Moschos 2002, pp. 17-18, note 7 (P4), with
refs.; also add Kolonas 2006, pp. 217-219, figs. 1-6; Moschos
2007b, pp.19, 21, figs. 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13. 14See Moschos 2002, pp.
17-18, note 7 (P8), with refs.; also add Id. 2007b, p. 21, fig. 14;
Stavropoulou-Gatsi,Karageorghis 2003; Stavropoulou-Gatsi et alii
2006, pp. 83-84, fig. 2. 15See Moschos 2002, pp. 17-18, note 7
(P28); also add Id. 2007b, p. 33, figs. 28, 20; Kolonas, Gazis
2006; Kolonas 2006,pp. 225-226, figs. 24-27. 347
4. Ioannis Moschoswithout any doubt, to the conclusion that
central power in Western Achaea had collapsed regardlessof the
destruction of Teichos Dymaion and that the province of Patras was
already more power-ful by the time of the Teichos destruction
(Moschos 2007b, p. 9; Id. forthcoming). Furthermore,Patras and Dyme
already had different courses before the destruction and were not
affected in thesame way by that large scale destruction. This
diversification continued as the evolution of thetwo provinces was
different until the beginning of the LH IIIC Late period. The
province of Patrassurpassed Dyme in importance. In my view, there
is enough evidence to support the assumptionthat in Western Achaea
the social, economic and administrative restructuring had already
begunrapidly during the final LH IIIB period and obviously before
the Teichos destruction.16 The consequences of the catastrophe in
Achaea were not as grave (Moschos 2002, p. 32; Eder2006, p. 557) as
those in the large mainland centres and there is some evidence to
support this,including the enduring external relations of the
region. It is also true that the population was notforced to leave
their homes, even if a decline in the number of dead has been
documented in the LHIIIB cemeteries, a fact that could be partially
attributed to a misdating of the pottery, perhaps becausewe are
still unable to distinguish and attribute local elements in the
pottery of this period.17 On the contrary, Achaea received a number
of refugees, which means that conditions herewere favourable for
people having just fled from a disaster. But neither Achaea nor
Cephaloniawere flooded with refugees during this period. In
Voudeni, the best documented cemetery ofthe region, hardly any new
tombs were opened in the LH IIIC, much fewer than during the LHIIIA
2-B period, despite the availability of suitable bedrock (Moschos
2002, pp. 31-32; Kolonasforthcoming). We encounter the same
situation in other cemeteries of Achaea of which we haveenough
data, such as at Spaliareika, Portes, Mitopolis, Kallithea and
Klauss. It is evident that theexisting size of the cemeteries was
adequate for the needs of the population using them. In
thatrespect, the newcomers must have quickly integrated with the
local population of Achaea and hadonly a marginal impact on the new
social and administrative re-organization, although its originshave
to be sought partly in this group, as we will encounter further on.
It is almost certain that refugees had already reached Achaea and
Teichos before its destruction(Moschos forthcoming; Kolonas
forthcoming). LH IIIB 2 pottery from the Argolid has been foundin
coastal sites of Achaea,18 even in the destruction level of Teichos
Dymaion.19 In the cemeter-ies of Voudeni and the town of Patras
this imported pottery accompanied warriors provided withdaggers.
These burials are among the wealthiest of this phase and give us a
fragmentary picture ofthe military organization in the region,
perhaps even of the social structure, at the time of
generaldestructions or even in the very early post-destruction era.
16Moschos 2007b, p. 9; Id. forthcoming. The Palaces economic power
and organization were already on the decline beforethe destruction,
see Deger-Jalkotzy 1998a, pp. 106-107, with refs. 17During this
period a local pottery style is recognized even in Cephalonia,
although there is a small number of vases; seeSouyoudzoglou-Haywood
1999, p. 72. 18From newly excavated tombs at Voudeni. From Aigion,
see Papadopoulos 1976, pp. 18-19, pls. 50, 58 (BE 675); cf.
Id.1978-1979, p. 177; Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1993, p. 211. At
Nikoleika (LH IIIB), see Petropoulos 2007, p. 257, fig. 51. 19Three
stirrup-jars, see Mastrokostas 1965b, p. 132, pl. 170-;
Papadopoulos 1978-1979, fig. 95g; Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1993, p.
211. Several sherds from the ongoing restoration program at this
site. A similar vase at Peukes, Elis, witha dumpy shape and narrow
base, see Vikatou 2001b, pp. 104-105, fig. 45. Also at Porto
Perone, Taranto, see Lo Porto 1963, p.335, fig. 51; Vagnetti,
Bettelli 2005, p. 294, II.151. For a parallel at Midea see
Demakopoulou 2007a, fig. 20; from Mycenae,see Mountjoy 1999, fig.
37, 285.348
5. SOCIAL RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION Tab. 1. - Table of
the Achaean Phases 1-6, according to local pottery styles and their
development. During this particular phase the pottery production
acquired evident local features that are easyto distinguish. This
early local production composes, in terms of style, a special
group, whichchronologically is placed in LH IIIB Final and is
unfolded over the so-called transitional LHIIIB/C phase. This
stylistic pottery group came to an end during the early part of LH
IIIC Earlyand we would say that it comes into completion around the
time of the destruction of Teichos.Nevertheless, this is not the
fact that contributes to the closure of the specific stylistic
group, asit did not have a decisive effect on the situation in
Patras province, because the latter had alreadytaken its own
development. I strongly believe that this is something that we
should look for inthe province of Patras, and for the time being we
are ignoring it, assuming that it existed.20 Thisstylistic group of
pottery, which has clear time limits and helps us out with the
chronologicalarrangement of Achaean pottery, I have named Achaean
Phase 121 (tab. 1). In this very early phase the internal
influences had two basic characteristics, whichseem to have
crucially affected the social and organizational structure, on a
political andeconomic level. The first and more obvious
characteristic, which has to be seen as a part of thephase, was the
continuation of the Argive palatial effect after the end of Argive
palaces, in a post-destruction transformation, which very soon fell
into decline or acquired local features. ThisArgolid horizon or
circle can be seen either as a result of the infiltration of
newcomers or refugeesor as protracted local view of decadence. The
emerging local elite found the bases of its power inthis horizon,22
contributing to the selected survival and perpetuation of palatial
practices, mainlyin matters of prestige,23 marginally in matters of
political administration and in no way in matters 20This approach
is expected to help the study of the stratigraphic sequence in the
settlement of Aghia Kyriaki. 21See Moschos forthcoming. For pottery
of this phase at Klauss see Paschalidis, McGeorge in this volume.
22See also the case of Tiryns in Maran 2006, p. 143-144; cf.
Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, p. 175; I am under the impression that
inAchaea there has not been any attempt to set up an authority
analogous to the palatial administration system, either in this
phase oreven during the next ones. In this phase we are dealing
with a barren neo-elitist demeanour or with the arbitrary use of
declinedsymbols, which are not necessarily connected with an effort
to establish an old form of authority in the new era. This kind of
authorityon a political and administrative level had no more
grounds. This demeanour might be analogous to the one of the
palatial period,but becomes even more apparent in the post-palatial
period. The quick abandonment of that evidence and the subsequent
emergenceof new and original features which define the elite in the
following phases reveal that this early stage had very little in
commonwith the palatial authority, and as transitional should be
related to the development and formation of the next phase model.
23The adoption of status symbols is also claimed for Cyprus during
the 13th c. while the imports from Argolid had decreasednoticeably
due to problems which led to destructions; see Cadogan 2005, p.
320. 349
6. Ioannis Moschosof economic organizational structure. It is
safe to say that this characteristic lent a conservativeaspect to
the form of power of this phase. However, this does not define its
overall form, whichseems to be versatile enough and far away from
todays boundaries of our knowledge. The second and more persistent
characteristic that we can distinguish is the unambiguousparallel
local development, which resulted from the lack of the old
administrative system andallowed more freedom. This local horizon
or circle can be seen either as a time of regenerationand
restructuring for all levels of society or as a time when ordinary
people found their voice inthe new era. The Minoan pottery found in
a warrior burial provided with a dagger in Patras24 and thetwo
bronze ladles with Minoan parallels in a wealthy warrior burial
with a Dii type dagger atVoudeni25 reflect the fact that voyages
from Crete to the Ionian Sea had already been re-organizedafter the
collapse and, in my view, even before the Teichos destruction. This
is also apparent inthe warrior burial of Voudeni, which was
accompanied by pottery with very early local featuresof Phase 1
that can be placed within LH IIIB Final. The presence of an elite
in Achaea in this early period is ascertained. To this early
classbelonged the two aforementioned warrior burials provided with
dagger in Voudeni and in Patras,one burial in Mitopolis26 and
probably one more in Klauss,27 both furnished also with daggersof
Sandars type D. A warrior burial accompanied with a dagger of an
unknown type comesfrom a large chamber tomb at Aghiovlasitika
[Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1983, p. 127; for refs.see Moschos 2002, p.
20, note 12 (D7)], in which the pottery dates to the LH IIIB-C
period. Twomore daggers of Sandars type E come from near Patras
(Sandars 1963, p. 149; Papadopoulos1998a, pp. 20-21, nos. 91, 92,
pls. 13, 91; 14, 92) but their dating is not certain (LH II-III)
and theyare probably connected with the palatial period, as well as
the two type E daggers from Aegeira(Papadopoulos 1998a, pp. 15, no.
66; 23, no. 104; pls. 9, 66; 16, 104; Kontorli-Papadopoulou2003,
pp. 38-39, 45, figs. 22, 23; pl. 16, 1-2). The Mitopolis warrior
burial was also accompanied by two bronze spearheads of
Italian-related typology.28 The imported Italian razor of the type
Scoglio del Tonno from Klauss (infra, note158; Paschalidis,
McGeorge in this volume), a unique item in Greece, is contemporary
to Achaean 24For the Patras warrior at Germanou Str. and its
imported stirrup-jars from the Argolid and Crete, see
Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1993, pp. 211-212 ( 3945, 3946, 3949), fig.
2-, pls. 23a-b, e-f, 24b; cf. Hallager 2007, p. 192, fig.
3d;Moschos forthcoming. For a preliminary reference to the dagger
see also Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1994, p. 200, note 178. 25Voudeni,
ChT 21. The warrior burial is accompanied by stirrup-jars imported
from the Argolid and other local imitations;see Kolonas
forthcoming; Moschos 2007b, figs. 6, 12; Id. forthcoming. A close
parallel for this warrior burial comes fromGypsades, Knossos (LM
IIIB); see Grammatikaki 1993, p. 448, pl. 139,. For Dii type
daggers in the Aegean see Sandars1963, pp. 130-132, 148f.;
Driessen, MacDonald 1984, p. 73, fig. 3. For an imported F dagger
at Surbo, Lecce, see Macnamara1970, p. 242, fig. 1, 1; von Hase
1990, pp. 93-94, fig. 8, 1, with refs. (note 29). Its date is not
so clear (LH IIIB or IIIC Late), seeBranigan 1972. The Surbo sword
could bear witness to Cretan-Italian contacts, not necessarily
Mycenaean (Hallager 1985,p. 294). Another F type dagger from
Dessueri, Sicily, is of later date, see Sandars 1963, p. 151, pls.
25:41, 28:68. A miniatureF type dagger from Pantalica Nord, Sicily,
see Sandars 1963, pp. 151-152, pls. 25, 43, 28, 69; Tanasi 2004,
fig. 5c. 26It should probably be attributed to LH IIIB Final; see
Kolonas, Christakopoulou 1996, p. 236; Christakopoulouforthcoming.
Among the pottery is a small piriform jar typical of Phase 1
decorated on the shoulder with solid triangles, whichis again a
Minoan feature. 27Papadopoulos 1988b, p. 36, pl. 30; Id. 1998a, pp.
18-19 (no. 80A). According to the kind information of C.
Paschalidis,it comes from a pile of pushed aside bones among which
there was pottery of LH IIIA 2, LH IIIB and of Achaean Phase 1.
Itseems more likely that it belonged to the more recent secondary
burial. 28For solid-cast spearheads in Italy see Pacciarelli
2006.350
7. SOCIAL RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTIONPhase 1 as it was
found in a burial of this phase. Moreover, at the same phase
belongs the Pertosadagger from the destruction level at Teichos
Dymaion,29 which also demonstrates the interest inwestern
technologies.30 The concern for the acquisition of luxury objects
like a Pertosa dagger isknown from the late palatial period or
slightly later, in the Argolid region (Mycenae, Tiryns, Nemea),in
Messenia, as well as in the Cyclades (Naxos, Melos), although in
most cases their date is notclear.31 Of great interest is the
Pertosa dagger from Dodone (Papadopoulos 1998a, p. 30, no. 140,pl.
22, 140), which unfortunately we cannot correlate chronologically
with the Achaean example.In any case, the pursuit of obtaining a
luxury or exotic item could be associated with thepalatial period,
and this effort could be an impact from the palatial aspect of
power.32 As an analogousremnant could be considered the use of
daggers which seem to have accompanied the lower ranksof the
palatial power, although there is not enough evidence to support
convincingly such anopinion. In addition, the short swords
represent perhaps even better than long ones the strength andthe
courage of their possessors in hand-to-hand combat, so that we can
infer that their presence inthe tombs had also another meaning:
they emphasized or stressed the particular characteristics oftheir
possessors, a tactic consolidated from the Middle IIIC period
onwards with the use of otherobjects or other means. The preference
or quest for luxury items or special imitations from a greater
area, from Creteto the East up to Italy to the West, appears to
have been a very important activity to the elite, asit is reflected
on the funerary customs. This activity reveals the size of the
contacts as well as thesize of the trade in this early phase.
Similar warrior burials with short swords have been discovered in
Elis,33 Aetolia34 and 29Mastrokostas 1965a, p. 104, fig. 130; Id.
1965b, pp. 134-135, fig. 177; Papadopoulos 1998a, p. 29, no. 136,
pl. 22,136; Papadopoulos, Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2000b, p. 144, pl.
36, 1-2; Borgna, Cssola Guida 2004, pl. VI:1; Oikonomidis2006, p.
146ff., fig. 5, 1; Jung 2006, p. 204, pl. 18, 1. It is not imported
from Italy, see Jung, Moschos, Mehofer forthcoming. 30Relations
between Italy and Greece during Bronzo Recente/LH IIIB Final or at
the transitional LH IIIB 2-LH IIIC Earlyphase arise from the
stirrup-jar from Porto Perone (see supra, note 19), probably from
the F type dagger from Surbo, Apulia (seesupra, note 25) and
pottery from Broglio di Trebisacce, Torre Mordillo and Rocavecchia;
see Jung 2005, pp. 479; Id. 2007b. 31For the topic see Matthus
1980b; Harding 1984, pp. 172-173; Schauer 1985; von Hase 1990, p.
95, fig. 9; Bettelli1999, p. 469, fig. 4; Vagnetti 2000, p. 317;
Jung 2005, p. 477; Id. in this volume. 32For the symbols of
authority in palatial period, see Maran 2006, p. 128, note 8, with
refs. Luxury items of palatial times thatcould be associated with
Italy and Central Europe are: the gold diadem from the citadel at
Pylos (Blegen et alii 1973, p. 16, pl.108d; Bouzek 1985, p. 170);
the violin-bow fibulae of LH IIIB 2 date [Kilian 1985, pp. 152
(VA1), 154ff., fig. 2:VA1]; the NaueII type ivory hilt plates and
the mould for a winged axe from Mycenae (LH IIIB Middle), as
examples of locally made items (Jung2005, pp. 476-477, notes 25,
26, with refs.; Jung 2006, pp. 177-179, pl. 15, 1-2); the Pertosa
type dagger from Nemea-Tsoungiza(Papadopoulos 1998a, p. 29, no.
137, pl. 22, 137); probably, some of the other Pertosa type daggers
(see supra, note 31); a NaueII type sword from Mycenae (Jung,
Moschos, Mehofer forthcoming); the well-known, early examples of
Naue II swords of typeA/Cetona in Aegean and Cyprus (Jung 2005, p.
476, pl. 106j, with refs.). In the bibliography is also mentioned
an unpublishedbronze hemispherical cup from Mitopolis, Achaea, of
LH IIIA-B date (Matthus 1980a, p. 279ff.; Bouzek 1985, p. 52).
33From Kladeos, Trypes, of LH IIIB-C date; in fact it is the same
with the Mitopolis dagger (Sandarss type D); seePapadopoulos 1998a,
p. 19, no. 80C, pl. 11, 80C. From Miraka, Sandars type E (ibid.,
pp. 23-24, no. 109, pl. 17, 109); from Pisa-Lakkofolia, Sandars
type E (ibid., p. 24, no. 110, pl. 17, 110); from Olympia (Sandars
type F?) (Vlling 1994); two from AncientElis of Sandars type F and
G (Submycenaean) (see Papadopoulos 1998a, p. 26, no. 123, pl. 20,
123; Eder 1999a, pp. 264-266;Ead. 1999b; Ead. 2001, pp. 77-85,
figs. 24-25, pls. 3a:4, 4c:2, 13a,b); a partly preserved dagger is
reported from Aghia Triada(Arapogianni 1991, p. 133); recently,
four daggers of unknown date and type have been found in the
locality of Spilia Arvaniti(Moutzouridis 2007, pp. 97, 99). 34From
Lithovouni, Makryneia, Sandars type F (Papadopoulos 1998a, p. 28,
no. 131, pl. 21, 131); it dates from theLH IIIB-C, but the presence
of two fibulae in the chamber might be an indication for LH IIIC
Late date or even Early 351
8. Ioannis MoschosCephalonia,35 but the excavation data are not
always enough to attest that some of the daggers arecontemporary
with the Achaean ones. At the present time, it is very difficult to
relate them withthe existence of an analogous early elite in these
regions. The presence of these sort of weaponsin warrior burials in
Epirus,36 Central Greece37 and in the aforementioned regions, in
some casesalready by the LH IIIA, continues until the Submycenaean
period.38 In combination with thesimultaneous absence of Naue II
type swords from Aetolia and Cephalonia39 and with only twoexamples
from Elis40 and one from Akarnania (Stavropoulou-Gatsi 2008), this
fact indicates theiruse as highly prestige items of power during
the LH IIIC period, through a possible conservativetradition. This
tradition goes back to the palatial period and clearly survives
from the link thatwas established in Achaea in Phase 1; in addition
to everything else, it constitutes the echo ofthe early phase of
the Achaean elite. As far as we know from todays evidence, after
Phase 1 the Aegean long and short swordsdisappeared from Achaea. It
seems that the Naue II type swords replaced this type of
weaponryfrom LH IIIC Middle onwards, a fact that does not apply to
such a large extent to the rest of North-Western Greece. This means
that the warrior burials with Aegean swords or daggers, apart
fromAchaea, are not less important than the ones which bear Naue II
type swords within Achaea. Inall probability their only difference
is the type of weapon that they carried and the effectivenessof
each one of them in operating it; and always according to weapon
quality.The LH IIIC period and the social organization From the LH
IIIB 2 Final to the beginning of the LH IIIC Developed phase, apart
from thedestructions at Aghia Kyriaki, Pagona (?) and Teichos
Dymaion, Achaea appears to have followeda path of internal changes,
within a mostly peaceful environment. With the completion of the
features of Phase 1 at the beginning of LH IIIC Early, the
twomentioned horizons (e.g. the continuing Argive tradition) had
already transformed rapidly andthey constituted together a local
formation with two different centres of progress. These
twoSubmycenaean. Recently, a F type sword was found in an extremely
rich warrior burial at Kouvaras (Akarnania) of LH IIICLate or Early
Submycenaean date (Stavropoulou-Gatsi 2008). 35Two from Diakata and
one from Lakkithra, all of Sandars type F (Sandars 1963, p. 151;
Souyoudzoglou-Haywood1999, p. 77, pl. 20: A 837a, A 1167); the
daggers from Diakata are of LH IIIC Late date or Early
Submycenaean; a G typedagger is believed to be from Ithaca (LH IIIC
Late or later) (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, p. 49, no. 103, pl. 19, 103;
cf. Driessen,MacDonald1984, pp. 62-63, 74, fig. 6. P. Kalligas
[1981, p. 82] suggests a Cephallenian origin). 36Several LH IIIB-C
daggers of Sandars types E, F and G. From Mazaraki, Zitsa, see
Papadopoulos 1998a, p. 27, no. 128,pl. 21, 128; from Kalbaki,
ibid., p. 26, no. 119, pl. 19, 119; from Kastritsa, ibid. p. 26,
no. 120, pl. 19, 120; from Elaphotopos,ibid., p. 26, no. 122, pl.
20, 122; from Dodone, Carapanos Collection, ibid., pp. 25-26, no.
118, pl. 19:118; from Mesopotamos,ibid., p. 26, no. 121, pl. 19,
121; cf. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, p. 82ff.; a LH IIIC date is
suggested by Desborough (1972b, pp.95-97); a dagger from Paramythia
dates back to LH IIIA 2 (Papadopoulos 1998a, pp. 22-23, no. 102,
pl. 16, 102). 37Gonnoi, Dranitsa, Hexalophos, Elateia, Delphi; for
references see Eder 1999a; Ead. 1999b; Ead. 2001, p. 77ff. 38The
two daggers from Ancient Elis (supra, note 33), perhaps the two
from Diakata and the one from Ithaca (supra, note 35). 39For two
fragments of a possible Naue II type sword at Polis, Ithaca, see
Catling 1956, p. 118, no. 29; Wardle 1972, p.238;
Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999, p. 108. 40From Alpheiousa without a
clear context, see Vikatou 1996, p. 194, pl. 62; one more is found
in Elis, as I was kindlyinformed by O. Vikatou. Other types of
swords that were known in the region, two swords from Lakkathela
near Daphni, oneof Sandars type C, are briefly reported (LH IIIA)
(Arapogianni 1998, pp. 225-226, pl. 92); a sword at Aghia Triada
from awarrior burial with spears, a razor and phialae (Whitley
2003, p. 37, fig. 65).352
9. SOCIAL RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTIONcentres are easy to
distinguish in the local pottery. They evolved together, sharing
their ownfeatures. Then each one modifies or develops the borrowed
elements and this is how they fol-low together an unceasing
creative cycle. Even though someone who studies the pottery of
thisspecific phase is under the impression that it has homogeneous
features, nonetheless the two dif-ferent approaches coexist, and
disappear only when in other parts of the Mycenaean world LHIIIC
Developed has already started. Together, they form the Early
Achaean Style (Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1994, p. 189ff.; Mountjoy
1999, p. 404; Moschos 2002, p. 24, fig. 7), which prevailedin the
province of Patras and influenced the pottery production at Dyme,
at Kalavryta and as far asElis. This stylistic group that has clear
time limits, I have named Achaean Phase 241 (tab. 1). On a social
and administrative level, stability emerged with Phase 2 and
probably there was adevelopment in the establishment of new forms
of administration. However, the information thatwe have from the
cemeteries is hardly enough, mainly because of the small number of
primaryburials,42 so that the particular phase appears obscure on
evidence level. A characteristic of thisperiod is the absence of
burials that could have been connected with the superior
administration,social organization or military hierarchy. An
analogous image is to be seen in the rest of theMycenaean world.
Despite of the fact that we do not have enough evidence in Achaea,
howeverit would be intriguing to associate the absence of the elite
with the consequences of the localdestructions of the previous
phase. The Naue II type swords are still unknown in the area, which
means that at least the localworkshops never became active in this
sector, whereas the objects of Italian-related typology that weknew
from the previous phase, either are not as many as in Phase 1 or we
do not have safe evidencein order to determine their date. To be
precise, there is no such object that can be dated with safetyto
Phase 2 and in my opinion we do not have any more artifacts of
Italian typology or Italian originin Achaea, a fact that may be
connected with the distinctive absence of the elite from the
tombs.It appears that after the destruction of Teichos Dymaion or
more likely after a similar destructionin the province of Patras
(Aghia Kyriaki and Pagona?), a temporary turmoil on local level
wascaused, which had as an obvious effect the interruption of
contacts with the Central Mediterranean;nevertheless the contacts
with the Aegean were continued. It looks as if the technologies
ofCentral Mediterranean origin were taken away from Achaea, as they
did not have the time to beconsolidated in the brief Phase 1 and
did not constitute a rooted and integral part of the local
metallurgyproduction. This interruption probably suggests that the
contacts in Phase 1 were, in particular, ofindirect Italian origin
and the role of the refugees from the Argolid has already been
highlighted.It would not be perhaps far from the truth to point out
that the Italian technologies and the CentralEuropean contacts with
the palatial centres have partly come with the refugees that
reached Achaeain Phase 1. On the other hand, the sudden absence of
rich burials that would be attributed to the local elitepossibly
has to do also with the aversion to social ostentation through
burial customs and archi-tecture, e.g. the aversion to the way
which was known and still fresh from the palatial period.Whatever
the reason was, the absence of burials like the ones that existed
in the previous phase,perhaps, gives a good indication that during
the LH IIIC Early a modified old cycle of administra-tion was
completed. 41Moschos forthcoming; for Phase 2 at Klauss see
Paschalidis, McGeorge in this volume. 42The classification of
Klauss burials according to the Phase system can be also indicative
of the burials number for eachPhase in the entire Achaea region;
see Paschalidis, McGeorge in this volume. 353
10. Ioannis Moschos The stylistic group of pottery and the
developed or modified Argolid horizon, the criticalattitude towards
ostentation of palatial burial customs, the reduction or absence of
the CentralEuropean features in the local metallurgy, and mainly
the internal evolution of society andadministration, were
definitely being completed at the start of the LH IIIC Middle. As a
result, theperiod which follows shows the greatest prosperity in
Western Achaea. In pottery we detectthe culmination of the Early
Achaean Style and the appearance of the Late or Mature
Style(Moschos 2002, pp. 24-25). Sometimes, the features are so
mixed that it becomes almostimpossible to ascribe a vase to either
style. Together they constitute the general characteristics ofa
specific local style which has to be seen within LH IIIC Middle,
and has to be called AchaeanPhase 343 (tab. 1). Modified survivals
of the Early Style are present for the last time and theycompletely
disappear just before the end of LH IIIC Advanced. The Late Style
now begins to form itscharacteristics, which are completed and
utterly dominate at the end of LH IIIC Advanced;44moreover, it
totally pushes aside the Early Style. The beginning of its
domination is a shortstylistic phase that we can call Achaean Phase
445 (tab. 1), and functions as a transition from LH IIICMiddle to
LH IIIC Late, to which it actually belongs. We could say that in
terms of style it constitutesthe answer of Achaea to the Close
Style which already had an effect on Phase 3 pottery. After the
brief transitional Phase 4 another stylistic phase in pottery
production appeared, whichcovered the greater part of the LH IIIC
Late period and constitutes the Achaean Phase 546 (tab. 1). Itis
the acme of the Late Style and presents the most distinguished
local pottery production of Achaeawith several exports to mainly
neighbouring regions, but also with influences on pottery
productionoutside of Western Achaea and as far as Italy, mostly the
region of Apulia. This phase was over,I believe, shortly before the
end of the traditional Late Phase, as outside factors, perhaps
relatedto the ensuing collapse of the system and the downfall of
Mycenaean civilization, had alreadyappeared. It would be safe to
argue that the LH IIIC Late has no significant or decisive changes
inthe social and administrative realm. If the middle part of the LH
IIIC Middle was the climax of theMycenaean civilization in
Achaea,47 the rest of the period until the end of the LH IIIC
should beseen as the time during which the benefits were enjoyed.
The influence of Minoan pottery on that of the Achaeans seems
considerable during Phases3 and 4, though we lack a more specific
study on the matter.48 Based on pottery production, wecan detect
the settlement of Cretan potters49 somewhere in mountainous Elis,
perhaps in the area 43Moschos forthcoming. For some of the features
of the typology and themes repertoires, as they appear in the more
recentexcavations of Klauss, see Paschalidis, McGeorge in this
volume; see also Deger-Jalkotzy 2007 for similar features
inElateia. 44Early traits of the Mature Style scarcely appear
already by Phase 2; see Moschos 2002, p. 24. 45See Moschos
forthcoming; Paschalidis, McGeorge in this volume. Pottery of this
particular phase exists also in Elateia,for example in a LH IIIC
Middle krater (Deger-Jalkotzy 2007, p. 159, fig. 11); a wheel-made
bull figure from Amyklaion,Laconia, is of the same style
(Demakopoulou 2007b, p. 165, fig. 17). 46See Moschos forthcoming;
Deger-Jalkotzy 2007 (Elateia); for this style at Klauss see
Paschalidis, McGeorge in thisvolume. 47The LH IIIC Middle appears
to be the most important phase in several districts; see Muhly
1982, pp. 19-21; Deger-Jalkotzy 1994, p. 19. 48The Minoan influence
is also proposed for the local production of Italo-Mycenaean
pottery in Southern Italy; seeVagnetti 2003, p. 56f., with refs.
49The workshops presence is of a definitive importance for the
evolution of local styles in Western Achaea and especiallyfor the
formation of Late Style and explains its particular features. I
have already suggested that Minoan craftsmen settled inthe region
and operated a workshop in the congress Archeologia nel
Mediterraneo. Ricerca, Tutela e Valorizzazione delle aree354
11. SOCIAL RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTIONof Olympia, as
Pausanias mentions.50 A conventionally named Mainland Minoan
Workshop oper-ated here from the Middle51 until the Late Phase52
and the beginning of the Submycenaean. Itsproducts were luxury
items including vases of the Octopus Style53 but also imitations of
Minoanvessels that can hardly be identified as local products and
told apart from Minoan imports. Potteryfrom this workshop has
frequently been found at Elis, for example in the cemeteries of
AghiaTriada and Kladeos.54 Also far away from the region of its
production, as in the cemeteries ofKlauss (Mountjoy 1999, p. 427,
fig. 149, 93) and Chalandritsa,55 near Patras, Portes (supra,
notes51, 53; cf. Deger-Jalkotzy 2007, p. 132) and Spaliareika
(Petropoulos 2000, pp. 75, 89, fig. 34, 10434; Moschos 2002, p. 26,
pl. 1, 3) in the Dyme area, Palaiokastro56 in Arcadia, Krokeai
inLaconia,57 Mycenae,58 Elateia (supra, note 49; cf. Dickinson
2006, p. 69) in Phocis and maybeeven as far as Rocavecchia59 in
Apulia. Imitations of its LH IIIC Middle production are
knownarcheologiche nel territorio dellEforia di Patrasso, Sesta
Borsa Mediterranea del Turismo Archeologico, Universit degli
Studidi Salerno, Paestum-Salerno 6-9 novembre 2003 (proceedings
under publication); Salavoura (2005, p. 41) mentions
Minoaninfluences on the Palaiokastro pottery ware which are ...
probably attributed to influences from Laconia or even Messeniaand
it is inferred that Perhaps it is not about imports but about
imitation of a local workshop that adopts Minoan shapes ...
Inreality, the aforementioned regions do not influence the
Palaiokastro Minoanizing pottery in any way, and what the
MainlandMinoan Workshop really adopts are the local shapes. At the
same time, it contributes to the evolution of the local shapes
anddecorative motifs; however the initiative is not taken by this
workshop but by the local ones. The same views about imitation
arerepeated in her PhD thesis (Salavoura 2007, pp. 414, 417,
427-431). In the end (p. 418) she leaves wide open the
possibilityto have been manufactured on the spot by Cretan
craftsmen and finally refers to a workshop (p. 431) that Obviously,
one ormore Minoan craftsmen have worked in it. She also highlights
the accurate view of Dickinson (2005, p. 58) about the presenceof
Minoan craftsmen, although he thinks that the workshop is situated
in Palaiokastro. The last conclusion of Salavoura (2007,p. 431) is
barely coherent with the entire extensive development of the
subject and moreover it is not substantiated by her text.For a FS
175 imported octopus stirrup-jar at Elateia with glass bead inlays
a clear feature of pottery production at Elis seeDeger-Jalkotzy
2007, pp. 131-132, figs. 1, 7; 2, 5. 50The mythical impact of this
installation is preserved in Pausanias who registers the presence
of Kurites in the Olympiaregion: Paus. V, 7, 6 and 8, 1. 51For a
stirrup-jar at Portes see Moschos 2007b, fig. 27; for a
three-legged pyxis and a footed stirrup-jar from Kladeos:Trypes,
Elis, see Vikatou, Karageorghis 2006, figs. 5 ( 8034), 6 ( 8035);
their date is LH IIIC Middle (Phase 3) and notLate (ibid., p. 160).
52Its production in this phase has nothing to do with the Minoan
features of the workshops activity in the Middle phase.Furthermore,
it is clear that in this period there is no direct contact with the
developments in the Cretan pottery. A triple kernoswith a
stirrup-jar and two stirrup-jars-like vessels from Aghia Triada,
Elis (Vikatou 1999, pp. 243-244, fig. 12), belong to itsLH IIIC
Late production. 53An unpublished stirrup-jar from Portes has an
exact parallel at Palaiokastro and without doubt these vases have
beenmade by the same craftsman; see Spyropoulos 1995, fig. on p.
17; cf. Salavoura 2007, pp. 413-414, fig. 109; see also supra,note
49. For other twin vases of the Octopus Style during the LH IIIC
period see Vlachopoulos 2006b, p. 179ff., esp. pp.189-191. 54For
Kladeos, Trypes, see Vikatou 1998, pls. 94 ( 7608), 95 ( 7263), 95
( 7617), 96 (no. 8034), 97 ( 8074), 97( 8070); Mountjoy 1999, pp.
391, 393, 395, figs. 136, 73 (Phase 3), 138, 88 (Phase 4); see also
supra, notes 51, 52, and infra,notes 59, 140; a straight-sided
alabastron from Kaukania (Mountjoy 1999, fig. 138, 85) is an
imitation by a local workshop. 55Among them a partly preserved duck
askos; see Stavropoulou-Gatsi 1995, p. 217, pl. 82. 56See supra,
notes 49, 53. An elaborate FS 175 stirrup-jar with pictorial
decoration and the characteristic Cretan continuedencircling band
around the spout, the false neck base and the handles; see
Salavoura 2007, pp. 396-398, fig. 105. 57A triple askoid vessel of
Phase 5; see Demakopoulou 2007b, p. 166, fig. 19. P.A. Mountjoy
(1999, p. 293) refers tounpublished parallels in decoration from
Palaiokastro. 58Probably a sherd from the body of a two-handled
amphoriskos (FS 59 and not FS 61 as proposed in the publication)
ofLH IIIC Middle date (Achaean Phase 3) (Demakopoulou 1990, p. 344,
no. 323). 59Some sherds of Achaean type storage jar [Pagliara,
Guglielmino 2005, p. 310 (II.200)]. As far as I can see from
thephoto the fabric is the same. Furthermore, the well-known shape
construction in combination with the less successful deco- 355
12. Ioannis Moschosfrom several local workshops in Achaea and
Elis.60 The local elite seems to have been connectedwith this
workshop during the LH IIIC Middle period in the way that was
connected with theaforementioned local Argolid horizon of pottery
production, during the LH IIIB Final/IIICEarly (Phase 1). During
Phase 3, the reconstruction is established. Based on very little
evidence from Phase 2,it is not easy to prove the sequence of these
changes based only on the burial evidence. What wecan understand,
though, is the constant and evolving course of administrative
structures, whichwere certainly completed and established after the
beginning of the LH IIIC Middle. Phase 3 isthe period with the
wealthiest burials in Achaea, found in the cemeteries of
Kallithea,61 nearPatras, and Portes,62 at the border with Elis. The
burials belonged to warriors/officials and wereaccompanied by Naue
II type swords, pottery, bronze implements and weaponry,
includinggreaves. The thing that separates them from other burials
of the same phase which were accom-panied by Naue II type swords
was the precious object that was discovered with them: a
bronzeplated helmet/tiara. The headgear from Portes is
well-preserved (fig. 1). It is cylindrical in shape with an
ovalsection and straight sides. Its preserved height is 0,158m, its
width is 0.187-0.191m and its lengthis 0.23-0.236m. The surface is
beautifully decorated with bronze strips consisting of
horizontalribs that alternate with single horizontal rows of
ornamental rivets that have a hemispherical head.These strips and
rivets are exactly the same as the published ones from Kallithea,
which wereconsidered to be fastened onto a corslet. The two ends
are dressed with wider bronze bands thatbear relief ridges at the
edges. The band of the top is decorated on the face by three
nipples (fig.1a). The lower wide bronze ring of the helmet is known
to Homer as .63ration (quirk, cross-hatched triangle,
semi-circles?) is a distinguishable feature of the Mainland Minoan
Workshop duringPhases 4 and 5. For the use of quirk as a filling
motive in the Minoan pottery, it is suitable the example on the
shoulder of aMinoan stirrup-jar from Ialysos (LM IIIC Early)
(Mountjoy 1999, p. 986, pl. 8f). The quirk with dots was in the
workshopsrepertoire from Phase 3. A good example is to be found on
the belly zone of a stirrup-jar from Kladeos: Trypes, Elis, whichis
a Phase 3 product of the Mainland Minoan Workshop; see Vikatou,
Karageorghis 2006, fig. 6 ( 8035). Of about thesame date (Phase 3
to 4) and from the same workshop is the quirk on a high body
alabastron from Kladeos, see Vikatou1998, pl. 94 ( 7178). As an
influence of the Mainland Minoan Workshop on the local pottery of
Palaiokastro, the samequirk appears on the belly decoration of a
huge stirrup-jar (LH IIIC Late/Phase 5); see Mountjoy 1999, 298,
pl. 1a. For thetriangle see ibid., fig. 149, 92 (Klauss). 60For
example, a stirrup-jar from Spaliareika [Petropoulos 2000, p. 75,
fig. 33 ( 9880)]. Probably from the same work-shop is a juglet from
Klauss (Paschalidis, McGeorge in this volume); few unpublished
stirrup-jars from Voudeni; two of themare also imitating the
yellowish slip. The same is valid for two vases from the newly
excavated tombs at Krini: Zoetada (kindinformation of S.
Kaskantiri). 61Yalouris 1960; Papadopoulos 1978-1979, p. 166, pls.
320a-b, 355c-d, 356a-b; Kolonas 2001, p. 261, note 19;Papadopoulos,
Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2001, p. 134; Moschos 2002, pp. 29-30, fig.
10, 1-2; Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, p. 160;Moschos 2007b, pp. 24-25, fig.
17; its date falls into Achaean Phase 3 and is contemporary with
the warrior burial at Portes.The pedestal stirrup-jar from the
warrior burial at Kallithea (Mountjoy 1999, p. 427, fig. 150, 96)
is typical of this phase and isrelated with the Early Achaean
Style. The introduction of the shape into the Achaean repertoire is
due to the Mainland MinoanWorkshop. This shape is also adopted by
the Mature Achaean Style and survives in Achaean Phase 4, whilst it
is extremely rarein Phase 5; see Moschos forthcoming. 62Kolonas,
Moschos 1995, p. 218; Kolonas 1996, p. 7; Id. 1998a, pp. 474-475;
Id. 2001, pp. 260-261; Id. 2006, p. 223;Papadopoulos 1999, p. 271,
pl. LIXb; Papadopoulos, Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2001, pp. 134, 136,
fig. 24; Iid. 2003, p. 83,figs. 106, 107; Moschos 2002, pp. 29-30;
Id. 2007a, pp. 287-288; Id. 2007b, p. 31; Papazoglou-Manioudaki
2003, p. 440,note 90; Eder, Jung 2005, p. 489; Deger-Jalkotzy 2006,
p. 159. 63Il. 12; 30; 96. For a good parallel of on a sherd from
Mycenae, see Slenczka 1974, pl. 9, 4; Vermeule,Karageorghis 1982,
no. XI.47.356
13. SOCIAL RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION a. b.Fig. 1. -
The helmet of the Portes warrior; a. Front view. b. Side view. LH
IIIC Middle (Achaean Phase 3). h 0.158, w 0.187-0.191, l
0.23-0.236m (Photos by P. Konstantopoulos). 357
14. Ioannis Moschos All these separate strips and bands,
sixteen in total, and the rivets could not be firmly fixedand kept
in position unless they leaned on an inside headgear. Contrary to
our expectations whenreading Homer, we found out that it was not a
leather but a plain straw hat, tightly knitted(fig. 2a). Of course,
it was in the shape of the helmet, that is oval cylindrical. Its
closed top was notsalvaged, however enough evidence was preserved
to assume with absolute certainty that it wascurved, consisting of
the only visible section of the straw hat which was slightly
projecting overthe bronze lining. The curved straw top must have
been shaped like the closest parallel of Portesand Kallithea
helmets in iconography, on a pictorial fragment from Kos, although
the latter issurmounted by a crest of tall rays as the feathered
Philistine head-dress (Vermeule, Karageorghis1982, p. 160, XII.29
on the right; cf. Mountjoy 2005, p. 425, pl. 98f). We could say
that the straw bed is an adaptation to the needs of the design,64
but still a simplevariation of the known helmet of the period with
the fringed frame, which also wear the warriorswhile in action on
the krater of warriors from Mycenae. This helmet is the most
repeated inthe LH IIIC representations and is the only one known in
the Voudeni iconography. It is not atall strange to consider that
we have a common helmet made of straw, such as the majority
ofhelmets of this type.65 In the representations they are seen with
a more curved top and seem almostsquat since there was no reason
for them to be cylindrical. The straw helmet of Portes acquired
acylindrical shape which was known by the helmets of the Sea
Peoples, with unique aim its coating;therefore, it would become a
luxurious and distinguished object. Apparently, this helmet notonly
was intended for use in combat, but it also was used as a
ceremonial emblem of power, aninsigne dignitatis.66 Parallels are
known from Lakkithra, Cephalonia67 (fig. 2b), and Photoula,
Praesos, Crete,68 notidentified until recently. Two fragments of
bronze sheet bands from Phaestos (Savignoni 1904, pp.538-539, figs.
22 and esp. 23; Yalouris 1960, pp. 53, 59) and four others from the
ChT cemeteryat Mycenae (Yalouris 1960, p. 59, pl. 25, 2-3;
Xenaki-Sakellariou 1985, pp. 78, no. 2781; 200,no. 3034, pls. 13,
89) have been identified as belts, parts of corselets and mitrae;
if so, someof them might have been served as the precursors of the
Achaean lined headgears. The entire construction could be described
as according to which wasHectors helmet (Il. 373). It is
reminiscent of the lower part of the Sea People headgear in
thebattle relief in the mortuary temple of Ramses III at Medinet
Habu (ca. 1176-1172 B.C.) nearLuxor (Nelson, Hlscher, Wilson 1930,
pl. 37; Drews 2000, pp. 184-190; Wachsmann 1998, p.169, fig. 8,
10). 64It was also for comfort; a felt or a leather cap (pilos) was
sewn in Corinthian bronze helmets; see Cartledge 1977, p.14. 65On
the use of leather and bronze see the discussion in Mountjoy 2005,
pp. 425-426. Helmets of perishable material seemto be the most
common type in G tombs until the end of the 8th c. B.C.; see
Lorimer 1950, p. 233. 66It is not a crown, as has been recently
suggested, because its top was not open and that demonstrates
concern for protectionand potential to use it in war operations;
see Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, p. 159; survivals of later date are known;
they can be consid-ered emblems of religious authority, like for
example the ivory statuette from Ephesos that dates back to the end
of 7th cent. B.C.;see Akurgal 1961, pp. 196-197, figs. 155-157. The
representation of a bronze situla with two handles dating to the
6th-5th c. B.C.from Welzelach im Virgental on the Alps shows
analogous decorative traits; see Gleirscher 1991, pp. 51-52, fig.
25. 67Marinatos 1932, p. 39, pl. 16; Moschos 2007a, p. 288. A.F.
Harding (1984, p. 174) wrongly relates the bronze stripesand nails
to a leather cuirass. Analogous was also the identification of the
object from Kallithea in the older publications. 68Platon 1960, pp.
304-305, pl. 241; cf. Kanta 1980, p. 181; Ead. 2003a, p. 180;
Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, pp. 159, 164-165. In the first publications
the object was identified as a bucket.358
15. SOCIAL RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION a. b.Fig. 2. - a.
Portes: The straw bed of the helmet (photo by L. Paulatos). b.
Bronze bands and nails from the hel- met of Lakkithra, Cephalonia
(photo by A. Soteriou). 359
16. Ioannis Moschos The information derived from these two
Achaean burials mostly relates to military organizationand
hierarchy, but it also reflects aspects of the social and
administrative stratification of the LHIIIC Middle phase. As a
matter of fact, we obtain the profound military aspect of the
authoritywhich has been crystallized in the epics by taking the
form of military monarchy. However, eventhere one could validly
claim that this authority is mainly related with the evolution of
the mythand therefore is placed in another sphere, beyond the real
and historic one. The warriors/officialsof Achaea, of Cephalonia
and of Crete reveal that this sphere not only was poetic but also
realand historic.69 Similar data for this specific period are
rarely found outside Achaea. These data cover themiddle part of the
LH IIIC Middle, to which belong the earliest warrior burials with
Naue II typeswords. Analogous burials occurred in the following
Phases 4 and 5 too, so we can argue that onthe basis of this and
other presumptions, the existing model of organization was
operating at leastuntil during the LH IIIC Late and, in my view, at
least as late as Early Submycenaean (Phase 6a,see infra), which is
a transitional era for the formation of substantial changes in the
political andorganizational structures that apply and operate
completely in the Submycenaean period (Phase6b, see infra). The
supreme form of authority that we know of, for the time being, is
related to burials ofwarriors/officials of Kallithea and Portes.70
The warriors with Naue II type swords would havehad a lower rank
and have enjoyed great respect from society.71 Some of them are
accompaniedby jewellery and objects of personal use, while other
weapons, more often spear heads, as wellas implements such as
knives, composed the standard equipment. The pottery that
accompaniedthem was sometimes of an excellent quality and it is
likely that its acquisition cost even more.These warrior burials
find their close parallels in Eastern Crete and in a cremation
burial atFrattesina Narde72 (T 227), which seems to be the richest
in Italy. A line of warriors on foot like the above mentioned is
depicted on the krater of Thermos(Wardle, Wardle 2003, p. 150, fig.
3), which comes from the Painter of the warriors, with Naue IItype
swords of the Voudeni workshop.73 All the warriors seem to belong
to the same rank and bear 69... may well be viewed as a step along
the line of development from Mycenaean qa-si-re-we to the Homeric
basileis(Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, p. 176); cf. Eder, Jung 2005, p. 486;
Eder 2006, p. 572. For Homeric basileis see Barcel 1993, pp.32-35,
55-71. 70... the most important burials are those of the
well-greaved warriors of Kallithea and Portes, which belong not to
ordi-nary soldiers but to high-status militant Mycenaeans
(Papadopoulos, Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2001, p. 134); cf.
Moschos2002, p. 30. 71So far, the total number of the Naue II type
swords in Achaea adds up to 17. Five of these are still to be
mentioned inreports. For the published ones, see Catling 1956, pp.
111-112, nos. 6-8; Vermeule 1960, pp. 14-15; Yalouris 1960, pp.
43-44,pls. 27, 1-2, 31, 1-2; Papadopoulos 1978-1979, p. 166, figs.
320, 355c-d, 356; Id. 1984, p. 221ff., fig. 2, pl. 29; Id. 1991b,
pp.81, 83, pl. 48; Id. 1999, p. 268ff., pls. 56d, 57b, 58a-d;
Bouzek 1985, p. 122ff.; Petropoulos 1990c, p. 133; Id. 2000, pp.
68f.,73f., fig. 41; Id. 2006, p. 41; Id. 2007, pp. 260, 263-264,
fig. 87; Drews 1993, p. 203; Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1994, pp.
177-182, figs. 3-6, pls. 26a-c, 27a-b, 28a; Kolonas 2000, p. 96,
fig. 3; Id. 2001, p. 261; Papadopoulos, Kontorli-Papadopoulou2001,
p. 134, figs. 22, 23, 28; Moschos 2002, pp. 29-30, fig. 10, pl. 1,
4; Id. 2007a, pp. 287-288; Eder 2003a, 38-41; Eder,Jung 2005, pp.
490-491, pl. 107; Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, pp. 157-161, 165ff.; Jung
2006, p. 204ff.; Vlachopoulos 2006a, p.260; Paschalidis, McGeorge
in this volume. 72Salzani 1989, pp. 16-17, 38-39, figs. 16-17; LH
IIIC pottery from the site has been imported from Western Greece;
seethe discussion in Eder 2003a, pp. 44-45, note 60. 73Kolonas
forthcoming; Dietz, Moschos 2006, p. 60. For other warrior
illustrations during LH IIIC, see Eder 2003a, p.39, note
10.360
17. SOCIAL RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTIONNaue II swords in
leather scabbards, with leather strings74 attached to them. The
swords are placedaround the shoulders, in a similar manner to that
described by Homer concerning Agamemnonand Achilles (Il. 29, 372).
They wear a short fringed chiton and details were rendered byadded
white, as in Voudeni, too. Unfortunately, the depiction of their
leader was not salvaged, ifthere was one, but we still get a pretty
clear picture of how members of the Achaean elite wouldappear on
formal occasions. I have the impression that the theme of the
aforementioned depictionis completely different from the departure
of warriors on the well-known krater of Mycenae;75 itis exclusively
related to the escort of warriors to a burial ritual.76 The most
important part of thedepiction, perhaps, was on the other side
(prothesis or ekphora of the dead?). The above stratification
reflects social ranks on a local level. The forming of military
ranks,with a corresponding social and administrative background,
has to be considered a fact inperipheral settlements or groups of
peripheral settlements (Moschos 2002, pp. 29-30; Id. 2007a, p.285;
cf. Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, p. 169). These settlements do not seem to
be anything other than theones that Pausanias preserves when he
mentions the according to komas settlement facilities inAchaea.77
He refers to the number of 12 komae, a term that is used in a
political context. This factindicates a larger number of settlement
facilities or the administrative coalition of
neighbouringfacilities into a kome, according to geographical
criteria. On the other hand, the number 12 maynot be random, since
it implies the perfection, completion and adequacy, in order to
attach or toinsinuate upright descriptions concerning that system
of political administration. The potentialpolitical geography and
the partition in small political and administrative units, as a
model thatis also implied in the myth, appear to be the most likely
scenario for the LH IIIC Achaea and theeven farther Cephalonia.
Elsewhere I have referred to the possibility that all these small
LH IIIC administrative units,which have the form of a self
governing geographical demographic cell, consist of a tight
admin-istrative set under the form of provinces.78 This notion was
already implied from the very begin- 74Traces of leather strings
were probably found at Spaliareika; M. Petropoulos (2000, p. 76)
refers to 22 very small bronzehemispherical heads; I believe that
they were attached at the edge of the strings. 75Vermeule,
Karageorghis 1982, pp. 130-132, XI.42; Sakellarakis 1992, pp.
36-37, no. 32. Its correlation with thefunerary customs is
suggested by some scholars. It is characteristic the fact that the
warriors carry spears and not Naue II typeswords, as they do in
Voudeni and in the krater of Thermos. The same goes for the sherds
of a krater depicting a chariot fromMycenae (one sherd in NAM, see
Catling 1968, pl. 23, 19-19; cf. Sakellarakis 1992, p. 34, no. 28).
Its decoration is enlistedto the same iconographical and stylistic
group of Voudeni. For another scene of a warrior who carries a
spear and not a Naue IItype sword from Mycenae see Sakellarakis
1992, p. 35, no. 40. Rail chariot warriors from Tiryns are armed
with one or twospears; see Kilian 1982, p. 414, fig. 27; Gntner
2000. It might not be accidental that, so far, warrior burials with
Naue II typeswords have not been discovered in Argolid; see
Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, pp. 152, 168, 172. The three known swords of
Mycenaecame from the excavations of the Acropolis and Tsountas
Hoard, the two swords from Tiryns were found in the Tiryns
Treasure;see Catling 1956, pp. 109-111, nos. 1-5; Koui et alii
2006. An exception could be the Schliemanns sword, which might
havecame from a grave. A Naue II type sword is carried by the
warrior in a fragmentary depiction at Lefkandi-Xeropolis: see
Popham,Sackett 1968, fig. 39. 76The correlation of warriors with
burial customs is evident in the painted stele at Mycenae: see
Vermeule, Karageorghis1982, pp. 132-134, X.43; Immerwahr 1990, pp.
151ff. and 194; once again, they carry spears. 77Pausanias 7.1.1-9;
6.1-2. See Moschos 2002, p. 30; cf. Deger-Jalkotzy 1998b, pp.
124-125; Ead. 2006, p. 174 (sheprefers the political term damos).
78Moschos 2002, p. 17ff.; Id. 2007a, pp. 285-286, 289; S.
Deger-Jalkotzy (1999, p. 129) claims that during the LH IIICperiod
the political maps ... have been characterized by independent
small-scale polities whose territories were in accordancewith the
geomorphological conditions of Greece. 361
18. Ioannis Moschosning, when the delay of the Dyme province
was mentioned in comparison with the one of Patrasand the start of
re-organization of the latter before the destruction of Teichos.
For this reason it issound to claim that the new administration
system was put into practice right after the destructionsof the
Mycenaean world. This phenomenon could be simply interpreted as
further development ofthe palatial administration system, in which,
basically for economic reasons, there were limitedperhaps, but at
all events, clearly regional centralized administrative
responsibilities to individualsand peripheries, where tholos tombs
were found.79 This situation must have led during LH IIIB tothe
formation of local elites whose characteristics on power level
should have been different fromthe ones that characterize the LH
IIIC period. Achaea, as a district of the Mycenaean world, awayfrom
the powerful Mycenaean centres, should have implemented more
profoundly a centralizedstructure of this decentralized
administrative system during the palatial period. The
geographicalbase of administration was already there but after the
collapse its course was different from thepalatial model. This base
of administration and its utterly altered survival are also the
main reasonwhich makes us believe that Achaea was less affected by
the direct consequences of the palatialadministration system
collapse at the end of the 13th century. The presence of a local
elite in LH IIIC Achaea has already been assumed, but its position
in theregional scheme of administration remains unknown, as are the
shape and form of central admin-istration. What we can be certain
of is that power seems to be dispersed to the periphery,
wheremilitary command has been assumed on a local level.
Nevertheless, the military commanderwould, certainly, have enjoyed
a broader authority of political and administrative nature. In
Cephalonia the administrative and social framework seems to be
similar to that of Achaea.In the aftermath of the destruction of
the palaces, the island experienced widespread development,which is
mainly reflected, but not exclusively, in the increased population
and general prosperity,as documented by the burial evidence. LH
IIIC Late is clearly the wealthiest and most importantperiod
(Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999, p. 137ff.; Moschos 2007a, pp. 278-281,
284ff.), a timededicated in Achaea to the enjoyment of the benefits
that the new order had offered. I shouldalso mention that power in
Cephalonia appears to be decentralized during the LH IIIC
period,probably separated into two to four organized cells of
population or provinces (Kalligas 1995, pp.2-3; Soteriou 1995, p.
91; Moschos 2007a, pp. 279-280, 285ff.). Fragments of a
helmet/tiara fromthe cemetery at Lakkithra (supra, note 67) (fig.
2b) reveal here the presence of local elite withmilitary and even
political power. In the light of this evidence we have two
different, mutuallydependent, geographic regions with a similar
model of administration and power. On a regionallevel, the islands
maritime role seems to have been promoted during this period. It is
not onlypassing ships that bring wealth, but the fleet of the
Cephallenes themselves, which follows the trendsand advantages of
the new era. This is also reflected by the presence of the exotic
amber80 whose 79Regarding the topic see Thomas 1995, pp. 353-354.
As far as the tholos tombs are concerned in Achaea, see
Moschos2002, pp. 27-28, notes 7, 51, with refs.;
Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2003; add also a newly excavated tholos tomb
at Portes(unpublished). 80There are at least 65 beads; see
Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999, pp. 84-85; cf. Marinatos 1932, p. 42;
Harding,Hughes-Brock 1974, p. 160; Eder 2003a, p. 47; Ead. 2006, p.
558, with refs.; Eder, Jung 2005, p. 489; Moschos 2007a,p. 289. One
bead has to be added from ChT at Metaxata (unpublished, Argostoli
Museum, catalogue no. 2065) and threemore from Diakata (AM
catalogue nos. 834 and 835). The seven beads from Diakata reported
by Souyoudzoglou-Haywood(1999, p. 84, note 545: AM catalogue no.
833) are not all amber beads. The amber trade went on without any
problems duringthe Early Submycenaean and Submycenaean periods, as
it can be seen in beads in ChT at Diakata (Kyparissis 1919, p.
116,fig. 30, 3) and in a bead in a pit grave at Ancient Elis
(Yalouris 1961-1962, p. 125, pl. 146; Eder 2001, pp. 25, 92-93).
For362
19. SOCIAL RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTIONquantity during
this period (LH IIIC) is larger than the amber that has been found
in the rest ofthe Mycenaean world.The Submycenaean period and the
political transformation Teichos Dymaion stands out among the
destroyed fortified sites as in LH IIIC period it thrivedmore than
in LH IIIB (for discussion see Deger-Jalkotzy 1995, p. 375ff.).
This fact, maybe,explains the use of the area not as headquarters
of the palatial authority but for other purposeswhich seem to have
been continued without a hitch after the destruction. Although
these purposeshave yet to be interpreted through excavation, it
seems that they were the reason for a seconddestruction of the site
(Mastrokostas 1965b, p. 121; Papadopoulos, Kontorli-Papadopoulou
2003,pp. 90-91), dating approximately from the end of the LH IIIC
Late. Taking this into consideration,the most important and
recognizable historical event in Western Achaea should not be
consideredto be the confirmation of a synchronization with the
general destruction, which at TeichosDymaion dates between the
transition from the LH IIIB to the LH IIIC Early period
(Mountjoy1999, p. 402) or, in my view, at the end of Phase 1, but
the second destruction that might lead, inthe future, to solutions
in problems of trade, economy and local administration.
Furthermore, this destruction must have been selective or specific
in character, since the exca-vated settlements at Pagona and Aghia
Kyriaki near Patras and Chalandritsa: Stavros (Moschos2002, p. 19,
note 7, P28; Kolonas, Gazis 2006) were not destroyed during this
period. Nonewcomers have come to Teichos Dymaion, nor did the local
population leave after the seconddestruction. All the
above-mentioned settlements continued to exist until the Early
Submycenaeanperiod, as many other settlements in Achaea, according
to data that we have collected from thecemeteries of chamber tombs.
But this disaster has to be seen as an historical fact that had
aneffect on the life of the inhabitants of the region; so that it
could be related to the beginning of anew phase in Western Achaea
(Achaean Phase 6a: Moschos forthcoming; Deger-Jalkotzy 2007,p. 145;
Paschalidis, McGeorge in this volume) and, in accordance with the
archaeological data,could be applied to the whole Territory, but
also to the whole Western Mainland Koine. This phase (Achaean Phase
6a, tab. 1) has to be seen either as an Early Submycenaean periodor
as a slowly declining and lengthening LH IIIC Late. To be more
precise, this transitionalcontemporary amber at Torre Castelluccia
(Apulia), Bar, Kalbaki and Mazaraki, see Harding, Hughes-Brock
1974. Accordingto them (pp. 153, 159) amber is imported to Greece
via the Adriatic trade and, as is stated by Souyoudzoglou-Haywood
(1999,p. 85), the island of Cephalonia ... may even have played an
active part in its distribution on the Mainland; cf. Eder 2003a,p.
48; Eder, Jung 2005, p. 489; Eder (2007b, p. 43) also pointed out
Achaeas active role. Being all these true, however, therelations
between Cephalonia and the Ambrakian Gulf probably indicate that in
the latter there was an important terminal pointfor the dispersion
of this precious material (amber), from Northern and Central Greece
through land routes, or even sea routesvia Apulia to Adriatic
coasts (Ilyria); see Palavestra 2007, for a recent attestation of
the amber routes. For other relations ofthe Southern Adriatic with
Apulia, see Bouzek 1994, p. 229, note 59, with refs. The presence
of Achaea in Loutraki, Akarnania,maybe confirms this view. Other
ports in Epirus, such as Kiperi-Xylokastro and Glykys Limin,
perhaps constituted competitivefinancial places among local
populations and not only for the alleged profitable trade of amber.
This fact maybe justifies themovement of mountaineers groups
towards south, for instance, to Thermos and mostly to Skaphidaki,
Preveza, exactly at thenorthern entrance of the Ambrakian Gulf,
mainly towards the end of the LH IIIC Late. For the amber that
arrived at NorthernGreece via a northern route along the Danube,
but moreover for the significance of the Vardar-Morava and Strymon
valleys andfor the land relations of north and south, see Jung
2007a, p. 221ff.; Videski 2007; Czebreszuk 2007, pp. 367-368; see
also theopposite view in Bouzek 1994, p. 221. 363
20. Ioannis Moschosphase from LH IIIC Late to Submycenaean, in
terms of style, can be detected not only in localpottery, but also
in pottery production in Western Arcadia, North-Western Elis,81
Cephalonia,82Akarnania,83 Aetolia,84 Phocis,85 Phthiotis,86 Eastern
Achaea87 and the Argolid.88 Phase 6a wasbrief and particularly
prosperous, but it is related to the dwindling of the Mycenaean
presence inthe area, as very few sites survive during the entire
Submycenaean period (Phase 6b, tab. 1).89This fact could have been
to some extent the result of the abandonment of the settlements
andcemeteries with the intention of concentrating the population in
selected, already existing settle-ments. A very good example,
without a second one yet in Achaea, is Voudeni which flourishes
fora second time in the Submycenaean period. The system of
provinces was an excellent base for theSubmycenaean development to
a kind of or to an attempt for an early urbanization. The picture
seems to be the same for the Phase 6b in Cephalonia. Out of 31
possibleMycenaean sites on the island, only 4 survive in the
Submycenaean period (Moschos 2007a,p. 281). In particular, these
sites are one in the Same region, one at Pronnoi region andtwo in
the greater fertile region of Krani, so we could claim that every
province continuesits life through an effort that has never reached
the form of urbanization that Athens orLefkandi did. The use of ChT
cemeteries continues here as well as in Achaea and Elis,90but there
is also the case of the cist grave of Karavomylos91 (Phase 6b),
away and outsideof any organized Mycenaean cemetery, which finds
parallels in the organized pit cemeteryat Ancient Elis. For the
time being in Achaea we do not have this phenomenon, that is
theorganization of new cemeteries and the use of cist or pit graves
during the Submycenaeanperiod. 81For the context of cist tombs
1961:7 (13A) from Ancient Elis (two-handled amphora, lekythos,
bronze long pins), see Eder2001, pp. 19-21, 57-59, 69, 86-89, pls.
2c, 10a:a,b, 12b:a,b, 13c:d,e. It is very important that pairs of
long pins start from thisphase in the Territory. At Voudeni ChT
cemetery they can be found from Phase 6b but this is not a
conclusive consideration (L.Kolonas information). 82For instance
two stirrup-jars from Lakkithra (Mountjoy 1999, figs. 165, 54; 166,
64). 83To this phase probably belongs the pottery from the Kouvara
cist tomb (Stavropoulou-Gatsi 2008). 84For the LH IIIC Late layer
at Chalkis, Aetolia, with the matt-painted ware, see infra, note
105. The Bronze phase atStamna (see infra) is partly contemporary
with Achaean Phase 6a. 85A lekythos and a stirrup-jar from Delphi,
Portico tomb (Mountjoy 1999, p. 793, fig. 315, 306, 309). 86For
example a miniature stirrup-jar from Elateia-Alonaki [Dakoronia,
Deger-Jalkotzy, Fabrizii-Reuer 2000-2001, p.142 (T LXII/23), fig.
6a (top)]. 87A stirrup-jar from Aigion: Kallithea (Mountjoy 1999,
p. 435, fig. 154, 116). 88A primary burial at Prophitis Ilias ChT
cemetery in Tiryns makes it quite clear; see Rudolph 1973, pp. 44,
no. 4; 97ff.,fig. 26, pl. 20, 1-2. 89See Moschos forthcoming. Of
this style is a four-handled amphora of Achaean inspiration (or
origin?) from Elateia, seeDeger-Jalkotzy1999, p. 197, fig. 6 left;
cf. Eder 2003a, p. 42. The style survived in EPG pottery in Ithaca
(or is roughly con-temporary?) as also in Stamna, Aetolia. Ithaca:
see for example Benton 1953, fig. 6: P.140, P.145. A partly
preserved lekythos(ibid., fig. 6: P.148) has a short neck and the
handle joined to the rim, common features of the shape in Achaea.
Stamna: thedecoration in a four-handled amphora is a further
evolution of Phase 6b style; see Christakopoulou 2001, p. 160, no.
6, fig.10. The style is also present at Gypsades, Central Crete, in
a belly-handled amphora from tomb VII; see DAgata 2007, p. 98,fig.
16, 1. A recent discussion about the Submycenaean period in Lemos
2002, pp. 7-9. 90For example, at the ChT cemetery in Aghia Triada,
as it is obvious from a bird askos and a unique bottle-like
shapedalabastron, see Vikatou 1999, p. 246, figs. 15, 17; the
alabastron might be a Minoan invention, as similar shapes are known
toCrete from LM IB to LM IIIA 2; see Hallager, McGeorge 1992, p.
20, fig. 16, pl. 20a, with refs. In this phase, similar is thecase
of the cemetery at Elateia with the new rock-cut tombs. 91Moschos
2007a, p. 269, no. 59. The tomb is going to be published in
collaboration with A. Soteriou.364
21. SOCIAL RE-ORGANIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION The model of the
previous phases, e.g. the komas settlement organization, survives
from thebeginning of the EPG period (= Bronze phase) at Stamna,
Aetolia,92 although in Submycenaeanperiod (Phase 6) we detect in
Achaea a shrinkage of the settlements and the developingevolution
of particular others. The afore-mentioned periods should be
considered roughly ascontemporary,93 e.g. the Achaean Phase 6 and
the Bronze phase of Stamna. From a politicalpoint of view, the
establishment of the EPG civilization in the wider area seems to
fall short of astage in comparison to the political situation in
Achaea during the Submycenaean period. Leading towards the end of
LH IIIC Late, the burials with Naue II type swords become
scarce.Moreover, there are neither warrior burials with Naue II
swords of Early Submycenaean date,94nor other burials that could be
related to the elite in this period or during the
Submycenaean.95These are probably the results of the
afore-mentioned smooth administrative changes, whichobviously
affected the interspersed local social ranks, as can also be
detected in the archaeologi-cal record. What has probably changed,
already during the LH IIIC Late, is the attitude of theelite
towards the insignia dignitatis, since the new order had been
established and had becomeaccepted in Phase 3. This might also have
been the result of increased and probably directcontacts with Italy
which took place during the previous and particularly this period,
an areacharacterized by a lack of interest in prestigious objects
in tombs96, unlike what happens in Epirus(for rich warrior burials
see supra, note 36) and Albania (Bejko 2007, pp. 205-207) at the
sametime. An element of decisive importance is that, in contrast to
Phase 2, the present absence of elite,which is rather accidental
and primarily attributable to the so far scarce excavation data of
thisperiod in Achaea, is not combined with the absence of contacts
with the Italian peninsula, becausethese contacts do not seem to
have been interrupted or retreated in any way. This is the picture
that is formed up to now on political and social level, but I
believe thatit should be considered as temporary. We are still
missing in Achaea the links to the EarlyProtogeometric period,
whereas in the area of Stamna in Aetolia the warrior or elite
burials97 are 92A kind contribution of J. Christakopoulou, who
studies the extensive cemetery. 93Such a supposition probably
includes Ithaca and the North-Western Arcadia as well, apart from
the theories of margin-alization and slow evolution; see
Spyropoulos, Spyropoulos 1996, p. 28. 94This might be an
unfortunate outcome of excavations. Naue II type swords of Early
Submycenaean date are to be expectedin the future excavations in
Achaea. This is clear from the Kouvaras warrior burial of about the
same date; see Stavropoulou-Gatsi 2008. 95Two iron knives from ChT
4 at Vrysarion (Kalavryta region) along with a hand-made jug could
be of Submycenaean oreven EIA date; see Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1982,
p. 150; Ead. 1999, p. 269; Gadolou 2000, p. 381. I am not sure
whetherit is worth while to consider these knives as prestige items
of a significant elite burial. Two more iron knives have been
foundat Teichos Dymaion. They date back to LH IIIC, but keeping in
mind the mixed levels we cannot be certain even if there areindeed
Mycenaean objects; see Papadopoulos 1978-1979, pp. 156, 158. They
have been considered of Cypriot origin or asproves of Cypriot trade
in the region; see Papadopoulos 1985, pp. 145-146; Eder 2006, p.
559. Three iron spearheads havealso been found at the ChT cemetery
in Trapeza near Aigion; see Papadopoulos 1978-1979, pp. 163-164.
For iron knives andspearheads at EIA, see Georganas 2005, pp.
66-68, with refs. Iron was not known in Achaea until the
Submycenaean or moreprobably EIA, not even for decoration purposes
or ornaments, although iron has reached neighbouring areas, such as
SouthernPeloponnese and Central Greece, already by the palatial
period; see Demakopoulou 1967, p. 198; Ead. 1968, p. 38;
Filippaki,Symeonoglou, Faraklas 1967, p. 228. The first iron finds
in Achaea belongs to the second stage of Snodgrass typology forthe
development of the IA, e.g. as a working metal for weapons and
tools with the bronze being dominant for practical imple-ments; see
Snodgrass 1980, pp. 336-337. 96Eder, Jung 2005, p. 490. A rich
warrior cremation from Frattesina Narde is an exception and it
rather presents Aegeansimilarities according to the burial gifts;
see supra, note 72. 97The bronze swords of Naue II type survive at
Stamna before they were replaced by the iron ones (kind information
of L. 365
22. Ioannis Moschosspread with an even more special eagerness
towards the ceremonial part of the funeral. To thissetting is also
placed the cremation of dead, a custom that is exclusively
restricted to the mostimportant members of the community.98 We are
now decoding and approaching this fact in the LHIIIC period in
Achaea too, with the evident abandonment of the monumental burial
architectureand the more clearly presented strengthening of the
funerary ceremony during the period, whichhas acquired the
characteristics of a more than ever powerful social demonstration
and exposuresuch as the chariot races,99 the elite hunt,100 the
prothesis and ekphora of the dead,101 inaccordance with the
mourning custom (Iakovidis 1966; cf. infra, notes 136, 137) and
particularlywith the funeral songs,102 which had to be consacrated
to the life and the exploits of the dead, as alsoin very rare
survivals in modern Greece. These elements are imprinted on
pictorial vessels and, tosome extent, constitute burial customs of
the Geometric world too (Ahlberg 1971; Hiller 2006). We should
highlight the fact that the above-mentioned burial customs, in the
course of time,stopped reflecting exclusively the elite burial
practices and during the LH IIIC Late periodKolonas and J.
Christakopoulou). For an iron Naue II type sword at Stamna see
Christakopoulou 2001, pp. 160-161, no. 7,fig. 11. 98An analogous
diversification is probably observed in Italy too; see in general
Angle 2003, p. 119. For the social distinctionof cremations in IA
Greece, see Morris 1999. 99Maybe it w