Academia.eduAcademia.edu
This pdf of your paper in Exchange Networks and Local Transformations belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright. As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web until three years from publication (February 2016), unless the site is a limited access intranet (password protected). If you have queries about this please contact the editorial department at Oxbow Books (editorial@oxbowbooks.com). Exchange Networks and Local Transformations Interaction and local change in Europe and the Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age Maria Emanuela Alberti and Serena Sabatini ISBN 978-1-84217-485-2 © OXBOW BOOKS www.oxbowbooks.com Contents List of contributors....................................................................................................................................................... v Abstracts ...................................................................................................................................................................... vii Preface ...........................................................................................................................................................................xi Introduction: Transcultural interaction and local transformations in Europe and the Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age .............................................................................. 1 Maria Emanuela Alberti and Serena Sabatini 1. Theorising exchange and interaction during the Bronze Age. ........................................................................ 6 Kristian Kristiansen 2. ‘Peripheries versus core’: The integration of secondary states into the World System of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East in the Late Bronze Age (1600–1200 BC) ..........................9 Nikolas Papadimitriou and Demetra Kriga 3. Aegean trade systems: Overview and observations on the Middle Bronze Age ........................................ 22 Maria Emanuela Alberti 4. The Minoans in the southeastern Aegean? The evidence from the ‘Serraglio’ on Kos and its signiicance .................................................................................................................................. 44 Salvatore Vitale and Teresa Hancock Vitale 5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C ...................................................................................................................... 60 Francesco Iacono 6. Malta, Sicily, Aeolian Islands and southern Italy during the Bronze Age: The meaning of a changing relationship ................................................................................................................................... 80 Alberto Cazzella and Giulia Recchia 7. External role in the social transformation of nuragic society? A case study from Sàrrala, Eastern Sardinia, Middle Bronze to Early Iron Age ........................................................................................ 92 Luca Lai 8. Metalwork, rituals and the making of elite identity in central Italy at the Bronze Age–Iron Age transition ............................................................................................................. 102 Cristiano Iaia 9. Indigenous political dynamics and identity from a comparative perspective: Etruria and Latium vetus ................................................................................................................................................... 117 Francesca Fulminante and Simon Stoddart Contents 10. Local and transcultural burial practices in Northern Europe in the Late Bronze Age: Face, house and face/door urns ..............................................................................................................................134 Serena Sabatini 11. Migration, innovation and meaning: Sword depositions on Lolland, 1600–1100 BC ...................................146 Sophie Bergerbrant 12. Long and close distance trade and exchange beyond the Baltic Coast during the Early Iron Age ............156 Juta Kneisel 13. Ceramic technology and the materiality of Celtic graphitic potery................................................................169 Atila Kreiter, Szilvia Bartus-Szöllősi, Bernadet Bajnóczi, Izabella Azbej Havancsák, Mária Tóth and György Szakmány List of Contributors Maria Emanuela Alberti Department of Archaeology University of Sheffield, UK m.alberti@sheffield.ac.uk Bernadett Bajnóczi Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary bajnoczi@geochem.hu Szilvia Bartus-Szöllősi Institute of Archaeological Science Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, szolloszilva@gmail.com Sophie Bergerbrant Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. sophie.bergerbrant@ntnu.no Alberto Cazzella Department of Sciences of Antiquity Rome University “La Sapienza”, Italy a.cazzella@virgilio.it Francesca Fulminante Department of Archaeology Cambridge University, UK ff234@cam.ac.uk Teresa Hancock Vitale University of Toronto, Canada teresa.hancock@utoronto.ca Izabella Azbej Havancsák Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary havancsaki@geochem.hu Attila Kreiter Hungarian National Museum, National Heritage Protection Centre Budapest, Hungary atila.kreiter@mmm.mok.gov.hu Demetra Kriga College Year in Athens, Greece mimikakri@gmail.com Kristian Kristiansen Department of Historical Studies University of Göteborg, Sweden kristian.kristiansen@archaeology.gu.se Luca Lai University of South Florida, USA and University of Cagliarci, Italy melisenda74@yahoo.it Nikolas Papadimitriou Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens, Greece npapad@cycladic.gr Giulia Recchia Department of Human Sciences University of Foggia, Italy g.recchia@unifg.it Serena Sabatini Department of Historical Studies University of Göteborg, Sweden serena.sabatini@archaeology.gu.se Simon Stoddart Department of Archaeology Cambridge University, UK ss16@cam.ac.uk Francesco Iacono Ph.D. candidate, UCL, London, UK francesco.iacono@googlemail.com György Szakmány Department of Petrology and Geochemistry Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary gyorgy.szakmany@geology.elte.hu Cristiano Iaia Heritage Department University of Viterbo “La Tuscia”, Italy cris.iaia@tiscali.it Mária Tóth Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary totyi@geochem.hu Jutta Kneisel Christian Albrechts University of Kiel, Germany. juta.kneisel@ufg.uni-kiel.de Salvatore Vitale Università della Calabria, Italy s.vitale@arch.unipi.it Preface The idea of this volume matured gradually over time, following a series of events. Originally, it was the aim of the editors to promote a large project investigating trade and exchange as a means for the development and expansion of societies in Bronze Age and Iron Age Europe and the Mediterranean. A convenient starting discussion for this project took place at a relevant session at the 14th annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Malta (September 2008).1 The project has not yet materialized. However, following the session in Malta there was general agreement regarding the lack of comprehensive studies on the reciprocal relations between exchange networks and local transformations, particularly those focusing on the later and their speciic dynamics. We decided then to atempt to address this scientiic gap. With an eye to our main areas and periods of interest (the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Mediterranean and Europe) we felt that such a study would beneit from including a large number of regions and chronological horizons. We also agreed on the potentially fruitful results that could arise from overcoming the disciplinary barriers which oten prevent dialogue between archaeologists working in the Mediterranean and in continental Europe. While this problem undoubtedly persists, the channels of communication have been opened, and we feel the present volume represents a signiicant step in the right direction. Some of the articles in the volume were writen by participants in the EAA session in Malta 2008 while others were writen by scholars who were subsequently invited by the editors. During the long editing process2 we have had support from several colleagues and friends. In particular we wish to thank Kristian Kristiansen, who also contributed to the volume, as well as Paola Càssola Guida, Elisabeta Borgna, Renato Peroni and Andrea Cardarelli. As far as the very conception of this book is concerned, thanks must go to Anthony Harding for the inspiring talk right ater the session in Malta 2008. We are also grateful to the organisers of the 14th annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Malta, who made the session possible. In addition, we wish to thank Göteborg University and the Jubileumsfond for its generous support. Of course we also extend warm thanks to all of the contributors to this book – their collaboration has been very stimulating in many ways. We wish to also thank very much Kristin Bornholdt Collins for considerably improving the language of the introductorty parts of this volume. Finally, we would like to thank the publisher Oxbow Books Ltd for taking an interest in our work, and in particular Dr Julie Gardiner and Samantha McLeod for help and support with the publication. Maria Emanuela Alberti and Serena Sabatini 2012 1 2 The original title of the session was: Exchange, interactions, conlicts and transformations: social and cultural changes in Europe and the Mediterranean between the Bronze and Iron Ages. The volume was completed at the beginning of 2011. Therefore, not all bibliographical references might be fully updated. Both editors equally worked on the volume. 5 Westernizing Aegean of LH III C Francesco Iacono Introduction In the last decades Mediterranean archaeology has changed dramatically questioning some of its most basilar assumptions, as for instance the existence of large scale migrations à la Childe and prehistoric thalassocracies à la Evans. Yet despite this, when it comes to the interpretation of large phenomena of cultural change and interaction there are some axioms laying at the very core of the discipline which remain largely unnoticed and therefore almost completely unchallenged. The most persistent and influential among those is undoubtedly that of directionality of culture change, from East to West, from the civilized to the uncivilized. My aim in this contribution is to instil doubts about the inescapability of this trend. Can cultural influence travel the other way round? In order to do that I will deal with an historical context in which the South-East/North-West cultural drit, as Andrew Sherrat (1997) named it, does not really fit with archaeological data. I am referring to the end of the palatial era and the post-palatial period in Greece (LH III B–C), corresponding roughly to Recent and Final Bronze Age in Italy and Bronze D and Halstat A in the rest of Europe (Jung 2006, 216). The title I choose evokes the well known Orientalizing period, a moment in which the cultural osmosis between the Greek ‘West’ and the ‘East’ is said to be at one of its higher point (Burkert 1992; Riva and Vella 2006). The hypothesis that I will provocatively try to explore here by the means of a World System approach, asserts that a similar phenomenon in terms of width and strength of existing connections came about with regions which were located westward and north westward of the Aegean a few centuries before, in the last part of Bronze Age. I will try to show in this paper that after the dissolution of mainland states a contraction occurred in the sphere of cultural influence of the Mycenaean ‘core’, leaving room for a variety of formerly peripheral elements to be accepted and become influential in Greece. World System Theory, concepts and relationships World System (WS) Theory has been already applied by a number of scholars to the analysis of the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean (see Kardulias 1996 with previous bibliography). However I will not blindly adopt the theory as it was developed by Wallerstein in his first seminal work. It will be therefore necessary to introduce some of the basic concepts and relationships entailed by the approach adopted in this paper (Chase Dunn and Hall 1993; Schneider 1977; A. Sherrat 1993; Wallestein 1974). According to this perspective, the traditional relationships of core and periphery are defined by the relative level of capital accumulation, with cores presenting larger amounts (whatever its form) than peripheries (Frank 1993). These roles are of course relational and the same socio-political entity (be it a large polity, a hamlet or as far as the archaeological phenomena are concerned a site) might be a core in relation to some partners and a periphery vis-à-vis a larger core. 5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C 61 As the kind of interaction detectable in the archaeological record always entails a flow of capital (normally in the form of material cultural items), it is possible to analyze in terms of WS dynamics aspects which are oten considered extraneous to economic interaction, such as diplomacy, political marriage and git exchange (Chase Dunn and Hall 1993; 1997; Wilkinson 1987). Methodologically it can be argued that in peripheral areas, privileged possession of material culture items from the core was possibly crucial as it signalled to the wider community the successfulness of local elites in establishing relationships with powerful partners. These items were then employed by elites in the peripheries as prestige goods in processes of competition over economic and political power. Afterwards they would slowly penetrate in the tissue of peripheral societies being adopted/imitated among larger sectors of the population (Friedman and Rowlands 1977; Veblen 1902). Therefore, as a general criterion, it is possible to suggest that the larger the number of artefacts imported and/or imitated in a given area, the stronger is the influence of the core. Naturally enough, systems are never static but continuously remodel and renegotiate their relationships creating cycles of growth and contraction which occasionally end up in major crisis and/or collapse (see Frank 1993; Hall and Turchin 2003; Tainter 1988). As an outcome of these crises former core-periphery relationship can be inverted producing an inversion of cultural influence that can be detected in the archaeological domain. This is possibly what happened to the Minoan/Mycenaean heartland toward the end of the palatial time. One aim of this paper will be that of addressing the effect of this process in a world systemic scale of analysis. In order to do that the first step to be made is assessing the nature of the relationship between the Aegean core and its western peripheries before this major crisis. Sestieri 1988; Vagneti 1983; 1999; Marazzi et al. 1986). The areas that returned the largest amount of Aegean materials are the Tyrrhenian, Sicily and, to a more limited extent, the Ionian arc. Much less intense, albeit already established, appear to have been interaction with the Adriatic area both on the Balkan and on the Italian side.1 In a more indirect fashion Mycenaean influence has been linked to various developments like crat production (introduction of new manufacturing techniques and local imitations), architecture and settlement patterns (MBA fortifications and development of coastal sites in Southeastern Italy) (Vagneti 1999; Levi 2004; Malone et al. 1994; contra Cazzella and Moscoloni 1999). Consumption paterns atested at a key context such as Lipari (Fig. 5.1.2) suggest that, although Mycenaean materials were not restricted to specific areas, some households had a privileged access to foreign materials (Wijnergaarden 2002, 224). Furthermore the use of Mycenaean products as display items has been recorded in funerary contexts in Sicily, for example at Thapsos (Fig. 5.1.3) and in Southern Italy, at Torre S. Sabina (Fig. 5.1.1). In general, it looks as if, at least at some sites presenting the large concentrations of Mycenaean material in their region and that probably acting as main communication nodes with the Aegean world, Mycenaean materials (or, as far as Italy and Sicily are concerned, products contained by these materials) played an active role in societies’ internal competition.2 Overall it is possible to consider LH III A as the moment of maximum expansion of the Mycenaean core toward the Mediterranean. No western elements and/or imports are atested in the Aegean up to this time. As far as the archaeologically detectable materials are concerned, the relationship between the Aegean and the West seems to have been a one-way one (S. Sherrat 1982; 1999; Vagneti 1983; 1999). The Mycenaean WS and the West in LH I–III A Western items in Aegean Bronze Age, previous interpretations I do not have enough space here to discuss in detail the functioning of the Mycenaean core as regards to its western peripheries during the formative and the early palatial period, therefore the following discussion will be unavoidably selective. Excluding the scant evidence of indirect relation offered by a few fragments discovered on the southern coast of Spain (Vianello 2005 with previous bibliography), the main area of Mycenaean interaction westward is represented by Italy (Betelli 2002; Bieti During the more mature phase of the palatial era, corresponding to the subsequent ceramic phase LH III B, something changed. This change, however, is not dramatic and it is possible to fully appreciate its scope only paying the due atention to the big picture. Two new classes of materials of western origin started to be atested in small quantities in Greek assemblages. I am referring to a class of handmade burnished potery, also known as Barbarian Ware 62 Francesco Iacono Figure 5.1 Relations between the Aegean and the Central Mediterranean during LH III A: distribution of Aegean type potery in Italy (ater Vagneti 1999, 140 updated). 1) Torre S. Sabina, 2) Lipari, 3) Thapsos. (Betelli 2002, 117–136; Ruter 1975; Pilides 1994) and to a heterogeneous group of bronze items oten put together under the label of Urnfield Bronzes (Harding 1984; S. Sherrat 2000). These exogenous materials atracted archaeologists’ atention prety soon and up to very recent times their interpretation has been quite regularly (with few notable exceptions: i.e. Borgna and Càssola Guida 2005; Harding 1984; Sandars 1978; S. Sherrat 1981; Small 1990; 1997) ethnically coloured and connected with historical and semi-historical events such as the arrival of the Dorians in Greece or Sea People’s raids across the Mediterranean (i.e. Ruter 1975; 1990; DegerJalkotzy 1977; Kilian 1978; 1985; Bouzek 1985; Betelli 2002; Jung 2006; 2007, 353; Gentz 1997; French 1989). Since the beginning of the last century bronzes, and in particular the Naue II swords, were seen as the archaeological indicators of the coming of the dreadful Dorian warriors from the north (i.e. Milojčić 1948; Desborough 1964; contra Snodgrass 1971, 354–355). Albeit fundamentally recalibrated in their extent, more recent migratory hypothesis still present a culture = people model of explanation which is unsatisfying in many respects.3 My general objection to this sort of argument is that linking directly prehistorical archaeological data with the histoire événementielle is always a hazardous operation. Here I will try to consider western items in the Aegean as indicators of a broader economic relationship. I will focus primarily on Handmade Burnished Ware (HBW) although I will integrate also in the discussion the contextual distribution of Urnfield Bronzes. 5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C Handmade Burnished Ware HBW is a ceramic class atested not only in continental Greece (Jung 2006; Ruter 1990) and Crete (Hallager 1985; Jung 2006; Ruter 1990), but also on Cyprus (Pilides 1994) and in the Levantine area (Badre 2003; Mazar 1985), presenting three distinctive characteristics: 1) This potery was handmade, whilst almost the entirety of ceramic production in the Minoan/ Mycenaean world (including cooking wares) was wheel-made, since long time.4 2) Surface treatment (that is burnishing) as well as some morphological features represented in these pots had parallels in areas external to the Mycenaean world. 3) The relative frequency of this pottery has recurrently proved to be rather low in Greek sites.5 As far as the last point is concerned, it must be noted that although an endless list of comparanda has been proposed in the past for HBW, recent studies (and in particular those from Reinhardt Jung and Marco Bettelli) have demonstrated that there are some morphological elements among many specimen of this class, which clearly refer to handmade production of the central and western Mediterranean, above all to Southern Italy and to a much more limited extent to Northern Greece (Betelli 2002, 117–137; Jung 2006; Kilian 2007, 55–56). Additionally, provenance analyses have revealed that direct imports are not completely absent as perhaps in the case of Lekandi (Lekandi: Jones 1986, 474–476; Menelaion: Whitbread 1992; Cyprus: Jones 1986; Pilides 1994). Puting aside the difference between imports and local imitations (I shall return to this issue later on), what is immediately clear, observing HBW assemblages through time, is that there seems to have been very litle chronological difference between the various shapes atested, as they all seem to have appeared at about the same time in the Aegean. Additionally, although, as noticed long ago by Jeremy Rutter, most of the possible functional categories seem to be represented in HBW, the shapes which truly reach an Aegean-wide diffusion are probably only the large jars (either plain or with finger-impressed and plain cordon) and carinated shapes (bowls and cups)6. As far as decorative techniques are concerned, the most widespread ones are plastic cordons (normally finger-impressed but also plain) which refers to Italian Subappennine traditions and, to a much more limited extent, Barbotine technique, which instead points toward Northern Greece (Fig. 5.2). The largest assemblages recovered so far pertaining to HBW are 63 those of Tiryns (virtually all the HBW shapes are atested here, Fig. 5.2.5) and Chania (Fig. 5.2.6 and Fig. 5.3). This might be due to a recovery bias as both the excavators of Chania and Tiryns were among the firsts in recognizing HBW, but ,it also seems that these two sites did in fact enjoy an important role on this respect. Further, the assemblages of these two sites have many points in common, not only under a typological point of view, but also under a chronological perspective, as in both sites the HBW phenomenon start rather early, that is in LH III B2. From this initial area in the LH/M III C HBW expanded, although with minor intensity, to most of mainland Greece and Crete (Fig. 5.2). This period of expansion is interestingly associated with the growth of the total frequency of HBW at Tiryns and a reduction at Chania (Hallager and Hallager 2000, 166; Kilian 2007, 46, fig. 1). In other words, the HBW package probably appeared as it is in LH/M III B2 in a rather restricted area comprehending the Argolid and West/Central Crete (the only exceptions being a vessel from Athens and a single sherd coming from Nichoria, see Appendix). In the activities underlying HBW as a material correlate large, the use of large containers and carinated bowls seems to have been quite important. Excluding a certain predilection for coastal locales (Hallager 1985), it does not seem possible to recognize particular directives in this process of expansion, although, it is quite interesting to note that the relatively litle explored region of Achaea presents more than one find spot. This is possibly due to the fact that this area was acquiring a notable importance into post palatial period (accompanied possibly by a population growth), but perhaps its western position is not to be ruled out completely as an explanation (Dickinson 2006; Eder 2006; contra Papadopoulos 1979, 183). Western items as evidence of trade in metal As mentioned before HBW is not the only class of ‘western’ items present in late palatial and post palatial times in Greece. In this same timeframe, a quite heterogeneous group of bronze items presenting a close ancestry with European productions oten collectively put under the label of Urnfield Bronzes (UB) starts to be found in the Aegean (eventually becoming quite popular also on Cyprus and elsewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean). Among those items it is possible to find the notorious Naue II sword that will become the standard weapon of the end of the 64 Francesco Iacono Figure 5.2 Relations between the Aegean and the Central Mediterranean during LH III B and C: Distribution of Aegean type potery in Italy (ater Vagneti 1999, 140 updated) and of Handmade Burnished Ware and Urnfield Bronzes in the Aegean. 1) Fratesina, 2) Moscosi di Cingoli, 3) Cisterna di Tollentino, 4) Rocavecchia, 5) Tiryns, 6) Chania, 7) Koubarà, 8) Pellana, 9) Perati, 10) Kommos. Bronze Age all over the Mediterranean, being also converted to iron later on (Foltiny 1964, 255; KilianDirlmeier 1993, 94–106; Sandars 1963, 163), together with other weapons like the Peschiera daggers (Bianco Peroni 1994; Harding 1984, 169–174; Papadopoulos 1998, 29–30) and work tools such as knives (Bianco Peroni 1976; Harding 1984, 132–134). As noted long ago by Anthony Harding, once again the closer typological terms of comparison for most of these items (particularly for weapons) are not to be sought in central Europe, rather in the Adriatic area, either on the Italian or on the Balkan side, the later as in the case of socketed spearheads (for swords: Bieti Sestieri 1973, 406; Harding 1984, 162–165; for spearheads: Snodgrass 1971, 307; in general: S. Sherrat 2000; 84–87). Recent provenance analyses, although occasionally offering ambiguous results, have also proved the existence of direct imports from Italy, as in the case of the warrior tomb that recently came to light at Koubarà, in AetoliaAcarnania (Fig. 5.2.7) (Koui et al. 2006; StavropoulouGatsi, et al. 2009). Again, as with HBW, it is intriguing to note that taking in consideration the distribution of the UB, Argolid, Crete and Achaia have the lion’s share, with a particular concentration of artefacts on Crete and in Achaia (see Appendix). But are HBW and UB in any way related? There is some overlapping between the distributions of the two categories but, to this extent, the evidence is far from being compelling, since they co-occur only at nine sites (see Appendix). A more useful approach to explore this hypothesis entails looking at contextual differences. HBW has been found almost exclusively in setlement contexts (with only two exceptions: a jug from Pellana and another one from Perati, Fig. 5.2.8–9), conversely for UB funerary and cultic contexts are predominant 5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C Figure 5.3 Distribution of features in various Handmade Burnished Ware assemblages. Each feature has been taken in consideration only if atested at more than one site. For a quantitative assessment of the various assemblages see the Appendix. (* buckets are distinguished from bucked shaped jars by their horizontal handle on the rim; ** plastic decoration includes horned, axe and bird handles). (see Appendix). We can at the same time observe that the contexts where bronzes and potery are atested together are exactly, those that can be defined as the exception to the normal rule (Appendix). The same tendency for sites close to the coast which has been noted for HBW is reversed for bronzes, which tend to occur more frequently in inland locations. In order to explain this second negative evidence, it is possible to recall the extremely low value that was normally atributed to potery in LBA (S. Sherrat 1999). As a mater of fact this product was much more likely to be discarded in the place where it was used, whilst the valuable metal artefacts normally had a long life being moved far away from their place of origin. Having established that it is possible to read some sort of link between these two classes of artefacts in the archaeological record, much more difficult remains the assessment of which areas of Greece were chiefly involved in this connection. Although some of the best explored regions of Greece such as Argolid and Crete seem to have played an important role, the discrepancies in the level of exploration of different Greek regions may severely hamper our understanding of distributional paterns. Some considerations are however still possible. For instance it can be noticed that an area that has been intensely investigated such as Messenia has actually yielded relatively litle traces of this western connection. Conversely a region that has been relatively litle explored, such as for instance Achaia, returned a good number of find spots (primarily of UB but also of HBW, see Appendix and map at Fig. 5.2). Therefore, we are dealing with two phenomena concentrated in the same areas, connecting the Aegean world with roughly the same western regions and contextually manifesting themselves in the archaeological record in opposite ways. It is now perhaps possible to construct a general model according to which HBW is more likely to be found in coastal setings whilst metal objects can also penetrate inland, being acquired and used for long periods, eventually being put out of circulation in various ways among which are also cultic deposits and grave offerings. The shit in the frequency of HBW atested from Chania to Tiryns is perhaps indicative of a shit in the role of major node in this exchange, taken up by the Argolid at the beginning of LH III C. The case for a connection between impasto (the Italian name for HBW) and metal has been already put forward in the past by Vance Watrous. This scholar, analyzing the Sardinian material from Kommos (Fig. 5.2.10) in Southern Crete, noticed the coincidence of the diameter of bowls and large jars, suggesting that 65 66 Francesco Iacono the two vessels formed a transport package for metal from the Central Mediterranean Island. His point was strengthened by the fact that large containers similar to those found at Kommos were actually used in Sardinia as container for metal hoards (Ruter 1999; Watrous 1989; 1992, 163–168, 175 and 182). The recent re-dating of the Sardinian material to a horizon of LH III B has made what was happening in Southern (with Sardinian materials) and Northern Crete (with Italian and ‘Adriatic’ materials) even more credibly connected, as Kommos and Chania may represent the outcome of similar, roughly contemporary west–east connections (Ruter 1999; Shaw and Shaw 2006, 674). To conclude, I am proposing that HBW was connected in some way with metal trade. This connection may have been direct, as at Kommos where Sardinian jars were possibly used as containers, or more subtle entailing only the knowledge in the local Mycenaean ‘market’ that the two material categories, namely bronze and potery, were related to each other as well as to the West, the original source of metal. In the first case the increase of popularity of HBW during early LH III C should be considered as a sort of side effect of the popularity of UB and, therefore, HBW would have not been valued as prestige exotic in itself, being primarily concentrated in setlement contexts not far from the break-bulk area of trade. In the second case the potery would have been charged of symbolical significance and because of its visual distinctiveness it may have been even used to signal association with eminent personages involved in trade activities. In this perspective the difference between true imports and local imitation in HBW would cease to be meaningful as the really crucial factor would have not been actual provenance but rather external appearance of the items. It is not necessary to envisage these two possibilities as mutually exclusive alternatives. On the contrary, there are tenuous hints that they probably represented two consecutive stages, as atested by the finds of HBW in funerary contexts (at Pellana, Perati, see Fig. 5.2.8–9 and at Medeon, see Appendix) departing from LH III C. This trade and the acculturation processes entailed by it represented the economic motor behind the phenomenon of the ‘Westernizing Aegean’. In order to make sense of them, however, it will be necessary to place them in a World Systemic frame. From Periphery to Core: the West in LH III B–LH III C In a timeframe comparable to that of the appearance of HBW in Greece, a new trend in the distribution of Aegean type potery in Central Mediterranean can be observed. This new trend is characterized by an increase of the number of find spots in continental Italy, perhaps paired by a relative decrease of atention towards the Tyrrhenian area (Smith 1987; Vagneti 1983; 1999) with the exclusion of Sardinia (for which however at this time, a Cypriot connection has been argued, see Lo Schiavo 2003; Vagneti 1999a). Two areas are chiefly interested by this dynamic, namely the Ionian and the Adriatic. In the Ionian area, evidence confirms a trend already established in LH III A. On the Adriatic side, in LH III B–C, Mycenean potery seems to be atested in relatively modest quantities (oten not more than a handful of sherds), but in a vast number of coastal locales. This new trend is epitomized by the situation of Adriatic Apulia where it is possible to recognize findspots of Aegean type potery placed at a distance ranging from 20–40 km from one another (Betelli 2002, 38). Interestingly, however, most of the potery fragments found in this chronological span did not come from imported vessels, but rather from local imitations, whose production was by now well established in many southern Italian centres (Vagneti and Jones 1988; Vagneti 1999; Vagneti and Panichelli 1994). In the light of this consideration, the distribution of Aegean type potery seems more likely to be related with a development of local maritime activity rather than with a growth of Mycenaean frequentation (Broodbank forthcoming). This process was perhaps also accompanied by a decrease in the use of potery in funerary display, as, at this timeframe, potery is almost exclusively found in setlements (Vagneti 1999, 140). Of extreme importance is, further North, the atestation of Mycenaean potery at the large site of Fratesina (Fig. 5.2.1), placed in a strategic position at the mouth of the Po river. Findings at Fratesina are abundant encompassing not only Mycenaean potery, but also materials which in a European context may be categorized as absolute exotica such as elephant ivory and faience, for which there are clear traces of in-place manufacture activities (Biet i Sestieri 1983; 1996; Bieti Sestieri and De Grossi Mazzorin 2001; Cássola Guida 1999; Henderson 1988, 440–441; Rahmstorf 2005).7 Metals played a capital role at Fratesina, as atested by the recovery of four hoards comprising various types of ingots with a wide Adriatic diffusion as well as numerous finished objects showing affinities with Urnfield productions found in Greece. Among those objects it is worth recalling the Allerona type swords which have been found also in the necropolis pertaining to the setlement (Cássola Guida 1999). Lead isotopes analysis performed on the metals from 5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C Fratesina have returned ambiguous results, as the possible provenience of the copper was to be sought either in Etruria or in the Alpine area (Pearce 1999; Pellegrini 1995). This is not at all surprising as the background of what has been called the ‘Fratesina phenomenon’ is constituted by the area of the so called Terramare, wealthy agricultural embanked sites atesting clear connections (in metallurgy as well as in potery productions) either southward with Etruria and northward with the Alpine area and the Peschiera horizon. It has been recently suggested (Cardarelli et al. 2004, 83) that during the Recent Bronze Age stone weights from the Terramare were in some way related to Aegean ponderal system. However is the very existence of weights that indicates that not only primary production but also trade and convertibility probably had a noteworthy importance for Terramare societies. Weights of the same class as those of the Terramare centres are also atested in Adriatic Italy (Marche and Apulia) in sites that returned Aegeantype materials.8 In an initial phase the Terramare system may well have constituted what Andrew Sherrat (1993) has defined as ‘buffer zone’, namely farming areas linking two chains of exchange, in this case the Alpine-European and the Mediterranean networks (Bernabò Brea et al. 1997; Bieti Sestieri 1973, 1996; Pearce 1999). Aterwards, with the increase of metal circulation importance, during Italian Recent Bronze Age (roughly LH III B–LH III C early in Aegean terms) Terramare area experienced a rapid growth in the size of setlements which eventually ended up in a moment of major crisis towards the end of Recent Bronze Age (Bernabò Brea et al. 1997). To this extent, however, it is important to highlight that the so called Grandi Valli Veronesi system, the group of setlements out of which Fratesina emerged, possibly did not experience a breakdown similar to that of the bulk of the Terramare sites. Here indeed, as indicated by various elements among which the recovery of LH III C middle/late potery mostly of probable Southern Italian manufacture, occupation was protracted also in an advanced phase of the Recent Bronze Age and in a couple of examples to Final Bronze Age (i.e. Montagnana and Fabbrica dei Soci, see Jones et al. 2002, 225, 230 and 232; Jung 2006; Leonardi and Cupitò 2008). Therefore, as suggested by Mark Pearce, in the collapse of the Terramare system, the deep moment of environmental and economic crisis occurring around the end of Recent Bronze Age, may also have triggered a process of site selection on a regional scale, where sites more likely to survive were perhaps those less dependent on autarkic agricultural 67 activity. This is probably the case of the Grandi Valli Veronesi polity where a number of other production are atested (above all bronze but also amber and glass) (Pearce 2007, 103 and 106). At the apex of this process of selection is to be posed the Fratesina phenomenon, manifesting its full range of overseas contacts.9 Similar phenomena of site selection, although more limited in their extent, to those suggested for the Terramare area, can be recognized also in Apulia, starting already at the end of Middle Bronze Age and strengthening towards Recent Bronze Age (Betelli 2002, 39–40; Gravina et al. 2004, 210–211). Apulia indeed probably represented a key area in the trade dynamics entailed by the ‘Westernizing Aegean’. Quite surprisingly this region completely devoid of any metal resources produced from Recent Bronze Age to Final Bronze Age (LH III B/C in Aegean terms) the largest collection of bronze smith hammers in Italy, as well as a large number of stone moulds and metal hoards. Among this last category can be placed a hoard coming from the site of Rocavecchia contained by an impasto jar very close to those contemporarily ubiquitous in the Aegean and composed only by Northern Italian types (Guglielmino 2005, 644–645; 2006; 2008).10 It may be pertinent at this point to ask what was the rationale behind the encounter of the European and Mediterranean trade systems. The answer is that they acted one as complement for the other. In the first net (the Alpine-European), metal circulation and production was growing (as atested for instance by tons of slags calculated for the Late/Final Bronze Age smelting site of Acque Fredde in Trentino, see Pearce 2007, 76–77), whilst in the second circuit the need for metals was endemically high, being propelled by the necessity to maintain an high level of liquidity (A. Sherrat 1993; 2004). The impressive amount of metal circulating in this period in the Alpine-European trade system provided the capital accumulation which is behind the phenomenon of the ‘Westernizing Aegean’. To sum up, it can be argued that the Central Mediterranean phenomena of site selection and import replacement consistently increased during the Italian Recent Bronze Age, showing a new atitude toward exchange. Trade was no longer passively accepted, but rather local communities were now probably actively engaged in and competed for the control of the flow of traded goods. In this process a major role was probably played by societies positioned at the immediate interface of the Mycenaean core. These had indeed the possibility to take advantage of their intermediate position between Northern Italy/Europe 68 Francesco Iacono and Aegean/Eastern Mediterranean. It is extremely likely that these former semi-peripheries, lacking palaces’ control in Greece, for a brief time-span acted as a sort of polycentric core able to invert the east–west cultural drit. Reverberation of ‘Westernizing’ features West–east ‘influence’ interested undoubtedly as first some of the main centres of the Minoan/Mycenaean world that for their nature of large communication/ economic nodes where more likely to catalyze trade. The range of influence of these new precarious western cores, however, should not be overemphasized, as indeed, excluding main trade nodes, their prominence was probably very short, being stronger in the areas of Greece closer to the west such as Achaia. Indeed the existence of a strong relationship between this last region and southern Italy has been already noted on the basis of existing similarities between productions of Aegean type decorated potery (i.e. Fisher 1988, 129–131). Particularly in Achaia, although not only there, western metal artefacts (above all Naue II swords) started to be used as items of display in warriors’ tombs, reproducing a dynamics similar to that atested in the west during Middle Bronze Age (Deger-Jalkotzy 2006; Papadopoulos 1999). Western metal found its way eastward possibly through the Gulf of Corinth. It is very improbable that, even during LH III B when the palaces still existed, the channel used for entering the Mycenaean ‘market’ was the official palatial one possibly regulated by the rules of git exchange and perhaps under the control of the authority of the palace(s). Indeed, the very multiplicity of UB models and shapes atested in the Urnfield Bronzes in Greece, as well as the fact that the bronze was not re-casted in Aegean shapes (which appears to be unusual if we consider the tight control that palatial economies exercised on weapons, see Hiller 1993) tells us that we are dealing with something less formal, which possibly implied the exchange of finished objects or scrap metal, something more similar to the cargo of the Cape Gelidonya ship than to that of the Ulu Burun wreck. We are thus possibly dealing with a different social formation from that constituting the higher level palatial elite (S. Sherrat 2000, 87), an emerging class perhaps formed by low rank (palatial) elite and middlemen such as the so called collectors,11 which in the troubled post-palatial times were able to increase their economic (and possibly political?) relevance by the mean of trade with the West. In Greece for a brief period, bronze shapes, as well as possibly a wider range of material culture which has not come to us, became the material symbol of this new emerging class. Western features during this time span became even fashionable and many elements possibly originated in the HBW repertoire were reproduced in the standard Mycenaean productions. Ruter identified a number of these features (such as for instance the appearance of the carinated bowl FS 240) and, although for some of them it is possible to find an ancestry also in Mycenaean fine production, the chronological coincidence of the emergence of most of these features with the period immediately subsequent to the moment of maximal attestation of HBW remains nevertheless striking (Ruter 1990, 37–39; contra Kilian 2007, 53). Ruter’s point seems even more credible considering some remarkable examples of cultural hybridity such as the Mycenaean carinated bowls surmounted by a Subappennine-looking bull’s head found at Tiryns (Podzuweit 2007, Taf. 59). Excluding Mycenaean potery, however, it is possible to suggest the existence of ‘Westernizing’ elements reverberating in various spheres of post-palatial material culture. For instance the widespread adoption of simple clay spools (for which again parallel is to be sought primarily in Italy) in textile production, used perhaps instead of traditional loom-weights, can be seen as a reflex of the introduction of new textiles in the Aegean (Rahmstorf 2003). A confirmation to this suggestion can be perhaps sought in the adoption or spread of violin bow fibulas and long pins, perhaps indicating the appearance of new ways of fasting clothes and thus of a new fashion (S. Sherrat 2000, 85). A ‘Westernizing’ influence can be read also in the sphere of symbolism and particularly in the diffusion of symbols like the solar boat or the bird-motif on a wide range of media, like knives, Mycenaean decorated potery or golden leaf. There is some discrepancy between the chronology of some of these items and the time of widest diffusion of HBW, as the former normally can be dated from LH III C middle onward. It looks however safe to consider these features as the last residual of the ‘Westernizing Aegean’ phenomenon (Betelli 2002, 146–164; Mathäus 1980; Peroni 2004, 425–427). People behind the system So far I might have given the impression that the hypothesis of the ‘Westernizing Aegean’ is in stark contrast with any foreign presence in Mycenaean Greece, but this is simply not the case. For the dichotomy between movement of people and movement of 5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C goods is a false one, as oten the first one implied at least partially the second one, particularly in prehistoric and ancient times when the time required for travelling was huge and the season available for seafaring limited. In his recent analysis of the HBW corpus from Tiryns, Klaus Kilian suggested that this class of potery was to be related to a small nucleus of people coming from Appennine peninsula residing in Tiryns (Kilian 2007; see also Belardelli and Betelli 1999). This is absolutely likely and the patern of slow absorption of this group of foreigners in Tiryns’ society identified by the scholar adds a considerable historical depth to the dynamics entailed by the ‘Westernizing Aegean’. The question to which I have tried to answer in this work was exactly what was the rationale for this people to be there, and I think that trade is an answer that need to be taken more seriously in consideration. Conclusions In this work I hope to have been able at the very least to cast some doubts on the dominant archaeological narrative which sees the relationship between the Eastern civilization and the barbarian West in Late Bronze Age as sporadic and fundamentally irrelevant. The reason why the importance of ‘Westernizing’ features in the archaeological record of the Aegean have not been fully acknowledged before has primarily to do with the pervasiveness of the ex oriente lux dogma, which still underlies the interpretation of much of the archaeological record of the late prehistoric Mediterranean, even if at a subconscious level. As an example, suffice here to note that the largely accepted notion of a Late Bronze Age metallurgical koinè, albeit highlighting the wide range of the connections established during the last part of Bronze Age, de facto obscures the truly revolutionary nature of this exchange. Indeed, for the very first time in late prehistory, Europe and the western Mediterranean did not constitute a mere passive receiver of innovation but its main origin (Carancini and Peroni 1997; Müller Karpe 1962, 280). Western influences appears to have been for at least some decades a critical factor in the shaping of late palatial/post-palatial cultural milieu and it has been possible to demonstrate their importance only by paying atention to large scale processes of social cultural and economic change in a wide Mediterranean seting. 69 Notes 1 Tyrrhenian and Sicily: Bieti Sestieri 1988; Vianello 2005. Ionian arc: Betelli 2002; Peroni 1994. Balkan side of the Adriatic: Bejko 1994; 2002; Tomas 2005. Italian side: Betelli 2002; Bieti Sestieri 2003. 2 As noticed by Van Wijnergaarden (2002), among Mycenaean materials came to light in Sicily and Southern Italy there is a prevalence of storage vessels. For a different view on Southern Italian evidence see Betelli 2002, 144. 3 Marginal groups in Mycenaean society have been oten indicated as possible bearers of the new western material culture items. For Bankoff these groups where likely to be the ‘slave’ women atested in the well known set of Pylian tablets (Bankoff et al. 1996; Genz 1997). For Eder (1998) HBW was introduced by northern pastoralist groups responsible also for the reintroduction of cist graves in the Mycenaean heartland. For Betelli (2002, drawing upon Drews’ (1993) warfare hypothesis for the fall of Bronze Age societies in the Eastern Mediterranean) instead, HBW and UB were likely to refer to groups of mercenaries hired by various Mycenaean and Near Eastern monarchs during the troubled days of the Sea Peoples. 4 Ruter 1975 contra Walberg 1976. As a consequence of these three criteria it is not possible to consider together with the rest of the HBW phenomenon areas presenting long standing traditions of handmade potery production such as for instance Epirus (Tartaron 2004), Ionian Islands (Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999) and Central Macedonia (Kiriatzi et al. 1997; Hochsteter 1984). 5 To this extent the site of Kalapodi (Felsch 1996), that has oten been mentioned in previous discussion on HBW (i.e. Kilian 1985), will not be considered as part of the HBW phenomenon. Many scholars have noted the peculiarity of this site (e.g. Ruter 1990). The unusual representation of HBW at this context prevent us from advancing any useful comparison with the rest of Greece. Handmade potery at this site constituted almost the 40% of the coarse potery assemblage and is concentrated only in one area close to a kiln. In addition, according to compositional analysis (Felsch 1996, 117–120), the local HBW, although presenting some peculiarities, under a technologic point of view can be grouped without any doubt with the other cooking ware of the site. All these elements, which are unatested in other sites of the Aegean, lead me (in agreement with Ruter 1990) to consider HBW at Kalapodi as the outcome of fundamentally different phenomena from these affecting the rest on the Minoan/Mycenaean heartland which need to be examined in their own terms. 6 Kilian 2007, 72–80; Ruter 1990. It is indeed possible to recognize containers (i.e. various kind of large jars: Catling and Catling 1981, fig. 2; Evely 2006, fig. 2.42.4; French 1989, fig. 4; Hallager and Hallager 2003, 253; Kilian 2007, 9–20; pithoid vessels: Catling and Catling 1981, fig. 4.33; Hallager and Hallager 2000, pl. 67d), vessels made for consuming liquid and solids (i.e. cups: i.e. Evely 2006, fig. 2.42.2–3; jugs: i.e. Andrikou et al. 2006, 176, n. 154; French 1989, fig. 3; Kilian 2007, pl. 18.206; bowls: Hallager and Hallager 2003, 169, pl. 133 d2; Ruter 1975, 70 7 8 9 10 11 Francesco Iacono 21–22, n.8,12) and cooking implements (i.e. Kilian 2007, pl. 21, 261–262). The once remarkable gap in the distribution of Aegean type potery on the coast of Adriatic Central Italy is being slowly reduced by new find spots (i.e. Moscosi di Cingoli and Cisterna di Tolentino, fig. 1.2.2–3), see Vagneti et al. 2006). At Moscosi di Cingoli and at Coppa Nevigata. A stone weight which came to light at Lefkandi looks also morphologically very similar to the Italian pesi con appicagnolo type (see Cardarelli et al 2004, 82 and 87, fig. 3; Evely 2006, 275, fig. 5.5.4). The recent acknowledgement of an early phase of occupation at Fratesina dating to the Recent Bronze Age seems to support the existence of some sort of continuity between the site and the Grandi Valli Veronesi system (Càssola Guida 1999, 487–488). There are a number of comparisons between the impasto repertory retrieved at Rocavecchia and HBW of the Aegean. This is the case, for instance, of an impasto jar with plastic decoration (Pagliara et al. 2007, 338, fig. 38, iv.32) which is closely comparable to a similar vessel from Korakou (Ruter 1975, 18, no.1). Studies by Jean-Pierre Olivier (2001) and Judith Weingarten (1997) have plausibly suggested that these figures were strongly connected not only with production, but also with trade and metal redistribution. It is this the case of collectors involved in oil production/collection and trade (atested also by inscriptions on coarse stirrup jars which at the very least travelled from Crete to Tiryns, see Olivier 2001, 151; Carlier 1993), or of the qua-si-reu of Pylus, whose connection with metal is recorded in the linear B tablets (Weingarten 1997, 530). It is worth of note that possible foreigners are atested among the collectors from Knossos (Olivier 2001). Acknowledgements This article is based on a paper presented at the 14th meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists held in Malta in September 2008. I would like to thank all the people that in that occasion offered several valuable comments as well as Todd Whitelaw, Mark Pearce, Ruth Whitehouse, Riccardo Guglielmino, Andrea Vianello and Michele Massa who in other occasions discussed with me some of the issues treated in this paper. I am extremely thankful to Cyprian Broodbank who had the patience to read and comment a drat of this paper. Needless to say I am the only responsible for any of the views here expressed (as well as for possible errors and/or inaccuracies). Addendum While this chapter was in press a number of analyses have partially confirmed some of the trends tentatively identified in the article. These are primarily the result of the important research project on metal ingots and artefacts by Jung and others (see Jung et al. 2008; Jung 2009, 75) that has supported a possible Italian provenance for some of the metal objects retrieved in Greece (particularly in Argolid and Achaia). Also recent studies have proposed new explanatory hypotheses for the presence and distribution of HBW in Greece (Strack 2007; Lis 2008; Jung 2010) among which are to be mentioned the new syntheses by Betelli (2009; 2011) that endorse a view similar to the one held here. Appendix Find spots of Handmade Burnished Ware (HBW) and Urnfield Bronzes (UB) in Greece. The number ater UB indicates the number of bronze items atested. The number ater HBW instead is an approximate quantitative assessment of the consistency of the assemblage: 1= the potery constitutes a considerable proportion of the overall assemblage, 2= some vessels/ fragments are atested (up to 20), 3= the potery is only atested (one vessel/ fragment), ?= unknown (ater S. Sherrat 2000, updated). Region Site Mycenae Settlement/ Hoards HBW (?) and UB (8) Funerary/Cultual Bibliography UB Bibliography HBW UB (3) Bouzek 1985, 147 no B3; Catling 1956, 111 no. 3; French 1986, 281; Sandars 1963, 151 pl. 25, 37; Schlieman 1878, 144 fig. 221; Tsountas 1897, 110 Pl. 83; Wace 1953, 78 fig. 45, 7. Bouzek 1985, 183 no. 5; French 1989. Grossmann and Schafer 1971, 70, fig. 1; Karo 1930, 135 Pl. 37; Maran 2006; Papadopoulos 1998, 29 no. 139. Belardelli and Betelli 1999; Betelli 2002, 122, 126; Kilian 2007. Argolid and Corinthia Euboea Tiryns HBW (1) and UB (4) Asine HBW (2) Korakou HBW (2) Nemea UB (1) Catling 1975, 9 fig. 11. Corinth HBW (1) and UB (2) Davidson 1952, 200 no. 1522 pl. 91; Stilliwell 1948, 119 pl. 48, 30. Ruter 1979, 391. Lekandi HBW (2) and UB (1) Popham and Sacket 1968, 14 fig.19. Evely 2006, 215 fig.2.42 and Pl. 49; Popham and Sacket 1968, 18 fig.34. Dhimini HBW (2) Frizell 1986, 83 fig. 29 no.298–300. Blegen 1921, 73–74 fig. 104, 105; Ruter 1975. Adrimi-Sismani 2003, 2006, 473, 475, 476–477 fig. 25.7, 25.8, 25.9, 25.10; Jung 2006, Taf. 17. Southern Thessaly Agrilia Volos UB (1) Athens HBW (3) Perati Teichos Dymaion Achaia Aigeira Hochsteter 1984, 336 Abb.55; Jung 2006, 36–37, Taf. 17.7. HBW (?) Helaxolophos Atica Bouzek 1985, 137 no. A2.7, 141, no. 1. UB (1) Bouzek 1985, 141 no. 1. UB (3) Bouzek 1985, 139, nos 5–6; Kraiker and Kübler 1939 173; pl. 52. Immewahr 1971, 141, 258 Pl. 62. HBW (3) and UB (3) Bouzek 1985, 147 no 4.1.3.1. Iakovides 1969 I, 157 No. 35, II, 228; III Pl. 45. .35. Papadopoulos 1979, 227 no. 209 fig. 317c–d. Betelli 2002, 122; DegerJalcotzy 1977, 31 3.4.1, 3.9.2; Mastrokostas 1965, fig. 156, 157. HBW (2) and UB (1) Deger-Jalckotzy 1977; Deger Jalckotzy and Alram Stern 1985, 395, 410; 2006, 7–11; Ruter 1990, note 1. HBW (?) Monodhendri UB (1) Nikoleika UB (1) Portes UB (1) Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, 165–167; Papadopoulos 1999, 271. Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, 160. Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, 159; Kolonas 2001, 260f. Francesco Iacono 72 UB (2) Papadopoulos 1979, 228, nos 222–223; fig. 320, a–b. Patras (Klauss) UB (3) Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, 165; Kyparisses 1938, 118; Papadopoulos 1979, 228, no. 210 fig. 316 d; 1999, 270–271. Patras (Krini) UB (1) Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, 157; PapazoglouManioudaki 1994. Lousika UB (2) Deger-Jalkotzy 2006, 158; Petropoulos 2000, 68, 75. Kangadi UB (2) Papadopoulos 1979, 227–228, no. 209, 221 fig. 317 c, 320 c–d. Gerokomion UB (1) Papadopoulos 1979, 227 no. 204 fig. 316 b. AetoliaAcarnania Koubala UB (1) Macedonia Vergina UB (1) Vardina UB (1) Heurtley 1925, Pl. 19, 2. Mazaraki UB (1) Vokotopoulou 1969, 198 fig. 6. Konitza UB (1) Vokotopoulou 1969, 197 fig. 7. Gardikion UB (1) idem Kallithea Epirus Ionian Islands Arcadia Zagoriou UB (1) idem 184 fig. 2.1. Elafatopos UB (1) idem Dodona UB (1) Bouzek 1985, 149 4.1.8. Polis UB (4) Benton 1935, 72 fig. 20. Metaxata UB (2) Diakata UB (2) Palaiokastro UB (2) Schiste Odos UB (1) Phocis Boeotia Elis Stavropoulou-Gatsi et al. 2009. Petsas 1962, 242, Pl. 146a. SouyoudzoglouHaywood 1999, 42–43, Pl. 21 A1592. Kyparisses 1919, 119, fig. 36; SouyoudzoglouHaywood 1999, 38–39, Pl. 21 A915. Blackman 1997, 33; Demakopoulou 1969, 226. Tsountas 1897, 110 fig. 1. Medeon HBW (?) Pilides 1994, 27. Delphi HBW (3) Thebe HBW (2) Andrikou et al. 2006, 53–54 Pl. 6, 151–156. Agios Ioannis HBW (?) Kilian 1985, 89. UB (2) Perdrizet 1908, 95 no. 456 fig. 126 a 327. Orchomenos UB (1) Catling 1956, 113 no. 10. Olympia UB (3) Furtwangler 1890, 174 no. 1035 Pl. 64; Weber 1944, 146 Pl. 56. Lerat 1938, 201, 205; Reber 1991, 44. 5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C Palaiopyrgos Laconia Menelaion UB (1) Messenia Nichoria Cyclades Grota (Naxos) Chania Crete Catling 1961, 117 no. 9. HBW (3) Catling and Catling 1981. Demakopolou 1982, 117, 176 Pl. 59.135. Mac Donald and Wilkie 1992, 512, 766. UB (1) Kardara 1977, Pl. 7. HBW (2) Pellana 73 HBW (3) Betelli 2002, 122–126; Hallager 1983, XIVb; Hallager and Hallager 2000, 67–69 ,92, 96, 102, 106, 109–110, 114, 116–117, 119, 121; 2003, 68–69, 107–108, 113,136– 137, 161–162, 164, 175, 253; Hallager and Tzedakis 1982, 23 2. HBW (1) Betelli 2002, 122; D’Agata 2001, 346 n. 11; Hallager 1985, 303 note 110. Knossos HBW (?) and UB (1) Agia Palagia HBW (?) D’Agata 2001, 346 n. 11. Kastelli/Pediada HBW (?) idem Tylissos HBW (?) idem Thronos HBW (?) idem Kommos HBW (1) Shaw and Shaw 2006, 674–680; Watrous 1992, Pl. 44, 56, 57, 58. Phaistos UB (1) Milojčić 1955, 156, 163 fig. 1, 13. UB (4) Bouzek 1985, 149, 4.1.8; Pendlebury et al. 1938, 69, 95, 97, nos 540, 645 and 687 Pl. 28, 2. Karphi UB (2) Bouzek 1985, 141 no. 4; Catling 1996, 518, fig. 163 f7 Pl. 277 f7; Evans 1905, fig. 90; Warren 1983, 71 fig. 51. Mouliana UB (6) Catling 1956, 113 nos 13–14 Pl. 9 c; Xanthoudides 1904, 46, 48 fig. Il. Myrsine UB (1) Catling 1961, 117 no. 21; Kanta 2003, 178; Kilian Dirlmeier 1993, 95. Episkopi UB (1) Bouzek 1985, 141 no.4. UB (14) Boardman 1961: 17–18 no. 56; fig. 2; Pl. 9, 4, 5, 6, b–c; Bouzek 1985, 132, 148–149 nos 1, 2–5, 4.1.8. Dictean Cave 74 Francesco Iacono References Adrimi-Sismani, V., 2003, ‘ ϊ ή ό ’ (Mykēnaikē Iōlkos). In A o o άA ά A ώ (Archaiologika Analekta ex Athēnōn) 32–34, 71–100. Adrimi-Sismani, V., 2006, ‘The Palace of Iolkos and its End’. In Deger Jalkotzy and Lemos 2006, 465–482. Andrikou, E., Aravantinos, V., Godard, L., Sacconi, A. and Vroom, J., 2006, Thèbes: Fouilles de la Cadmèe. Les tabletes en linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou, le contexte archéologique: la céramique de la Odos Pelopidou et la chronologie du linéaire B, Pisa. Badre, L., 2003, ‘Handmade Burnished Ware and Contemporary Imported Pottery from Tell Kazel’. In Stampolidis and Karagheorghis 2003, 83–99. Bankoff, H. A., Meyer, N. and Stefanovich, M., 1996, ‘Handmade Burnished Ware and the Late Bronze Age of the Balkans’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9, 2, 193–209. Bejko, L., 1994, ‘Some Problems of the Middle and Late Bronze Age in Southern Albania’, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 31, 105–126. Bejko, L., 2002, ‘Mycenean Influence and Presence in Albania’. In Cambi, N., Cace, S. and Kirigin, B. (eds), Greek Influence along the Eastern Adriatic Coast. Proceedings of the International Conference, Split 1998, Split, 9–24. Belardelli, C. and Betelli, M., 1999, ‘La Raum 127 dell’Unterburg di Tirinto: distribuzione della ceramica pseudominia e HMB’. In La Rosa et al. 1999, 473–474. Benton, S., 1935, ‘Excavations at Ithaca, III’, Annual of the British School at Athens 35, 45–73. Bernabò Brea, M., Cardarelli, A. and Cremaschi, M. (eds), 1997, Le Terramare. La piu’ antica civiltà Padana, Napoli. Betelli, M., 2002, Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspeti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana (Grandi contesti e problemi della Protostoria italiana 5), Florence. Betelli, M., 2009, ‘Handmade Burnished Ware e Ceramica Grigia Tornita in Egeo nella Tarda Eta’ del Bronzo: una Messa a punto’, in Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolici 51, 95–121. Betelli, M., 2010, ‘Italia ed Egeo prima e dopo il crollo dei palazzi micenei: le ceramiche d’impasto e grigia tornita in Grecia e a Creta alla luce delle piu recenti scoperte’. In Radina, F. and Recchia, G. (eds), Ambra per Agamennone. Indigeni e Micenei tra Adriatico, Ionio ed Egeo, Bari. Bianco Peroni, V., 1970, Die Schwerter in Italien (Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, Bd 1), Stutgart. Bianco Peroni, V., 1976, Die Messer in Italien: I coltelli nell’Italia continentale (Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung 7, Bd.2), München. Bianco Peroni, V., 1994, I pugnali nell’ Italia continentale (Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Abteilung VI;Bd. 10), Stutgart. Bieti-Sestieri, A. M., 1973, ‘The Metal Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to 11th cent. B.C., and its Connection with the Aegean’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39, 383–424. Bieti-Sestieri, A. M., 1983, ‘Fratesina’. In Vagneti 1983, 201. Bieti-Sestieri, A. M., 1988,’The Mycenaean Connection and its Impact on the Central Mediterranean Societies’. In Dialoghi di Archeologia 6, 23–51. Bieti Sestieri, A. M., 1996, Protostoria. Teoria e Pratica, Rome. Bieti Sestieri, A. M., 2003, ‘L’Adriatico tra l’Età del Bronzo e gli inizi dell’ Età del Ferro (c.a. 2200–900 A.C.)’. In Lenzi 2003, 49–64. Bieti Sestieri, A. M. and De Grossi Mazzorin, J., 2001, ‘L’avorio dell’abitato protostorico di Fratesina (Rovigo, Italia)’. In Cavarreta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M. and Palombo, M. R. (eds), La terra degli Elefanti. Ati del primo convegno internazionale, Roma,735–736. Blackman, D., 1997, ‘Archaeology in Greece 1996–1997’, Archaeological Reports 43, 1–125. Blegen, C. W., 1921, Korakou: A Prehistoric Setlement near Corinth, Boston/New York. Boardman, J., 1961, The Cretan Collection in Oxford: the Dictaean Cave and Iron Age Crete, Oxford. Borgna, E. and Càssola Guida, P., 2005, ‘Some Observations on the Nature and Modes of Exchange between Italy and the Aegean in the Late Mycenaean Period’. In Laffineur and Greco 2005, , 497–505. Bouzek, J., 1985, The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 29), Göteborg. Broodbank, C. (forthcoming), ‘‘Ships a-sail from over the rim of the sea’: voyaging, sailing and the making of Mediterranean societies c. 3500–500 BC.’. In Anderson, A. and Barker, G. (eds), The Global Origins of Seafaring (McDonald Institute Monographs), Cambridge. Burkert, W., 1992, The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influences on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, Cambridge, Mass. Carlier, P., 1993, ‘Les Collecteurs sont-ils des fermiers?’. In Olivier 1993, 159–166. Carancini, G. and Peroni, R., 1997, ‘La Koine metallurgica’. In Bernabò Brea, M. et al. 1997, 595–601. Cardarelli, A., Pacciarelli, M. and Pallante, P., 2004, ‘Pesi e bilance nell’età del bronzo italiana: quadro generale e nuovi dati’. In De Sena, E. C. and Dessales, H. (eds), Metodi e approcci archeologici: l’industria e il commercio nell’Italia antica. Archaeological methods and approaches: industry and commerce in ancient Italy (British Archaeological Report International Series 1262), Oxford, 80–88. Càssola Guida, P., 1999, ‘Indizi di presenze egeo-orientali nell’Alto Adriatico alla fine dell’età del bronzo’. In La Rosa et al. 1999, 487–497. Catling, H., 1956, ‘Bronze Cut-and-Thrust Swords in the Eastern Mediterranean’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 22, 102–126. Catling, H., 1961, ‘A New Bronze Sword from Cyprus’, Antiquity 35, 115–122. Catling, H., 1975, ‘Archaeology in Greece 1974–1975’, Archaeological Reports 21, 1974–75, 3–28. Catling, H., 1996, ‘The Objects Other than Pottery in the Subminoan Tombs’. In Coldstream, N. and Catling, H. (eds), Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs. Volume II (Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 28), London. Catling, H. W. and Catling, E. A., 1981, ‘‘Barbarian’ Potery from the Mycenaean Setlement at the Menelaion, Sparta’, Annals of the British School at Athens 76, 71–82. Cazzella, A. and Moscoloni, M., 1999, ‘Emergence and Decline of Coastal Setlements in Southern Italy from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age’. In Pearce, M. and Tosi, M. (eds), Papers from the EEA Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997, (British Archaeological Report 717), Oxford, 156–160. Chase Dunn, C. and Hall, T. D., 1993, ‘Comparing World Systems: Concepts and Working Hypothesis’, Social Forces 71, 4, 851–886. 5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C Chase-Dunn, C. and Hall, T. D., 1997, Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems, Boulder, Co. Cocchi Genick, D., 2004 (ed.), L’età del bronzo recente in Italia. Atti del Congresso Nazionale di Lido di Camaiore, 2000, Viareggio. Crielaard, J. P., Stissi, V. and Wijingaarden, G. J. (eds), 1999, The Complex Past of Potery. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Potery (Sixteenth to Early Fith Centuries BC), Amsterdam. D’Agata, L., 2001, ‘Religion Society and Ethnicity on Crete at the End of the Late Bronze Age. The Contextual Framework of LM III C Cult Activities’. In Laffineur, R. and Hägg, R. (eds), Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference Göteborg 2000 (Aegaeum 22), Liège/Austin, 345–354. Davidson, G., 1952, Corinth. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 12 The Minor Objects, Princeton, N.J. Deger-Jalkotzy, S., 1977, Fremde Zuwanderer im spätmykenischen Griechenland, Wien. Deger-Jalkotzy, S., 1983, ‘Das Problem der ‘Handmade Burnished Ware’ von Myk. IIIC’. In Deger-Jalkotzy, S. (ed.), Griechenland, die Ägäis und die Levante während der ‘Dark Ages’ vom 12. bis zum 9.Jh. v. Chr [Akten des Symposions von Stit 1980], Wien, 161–178. Deger-Jalkotzy, S., 2006, ‘Late Mycenaean Warrior Tombs’. In Deger Jalkotzy and Lemos 2006, 151–179. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Alram-Stern, E., 1985, ‘Aigeira-Hyperesia und die siedlung? Phelloe in Achaia’, Klio 67, 394–426. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Alram-Stern, E., 2007, Aigeira I. Die Mikenischen Akropolis Faszikel 3. Vormykenische Keramik. Kleinfunde. Archäozoologische und archäobotanische Hinterlassenschaten. Naturwissenschaftliche Datierung (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 24), Wien. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Lemos, I. (eds), 2006, Ancient Greece. From Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, Edinburgh. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Zavadil, M. (eds), 2007, LH III C Chronology and Synchronism II. LH III C Middle. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna. 2004 (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 28), Wien. Demakopoulou, K., 1969, ‘A Mycenaean Bronze Sword from Arcadia’, A o o άA ά A ώ (Archaiologika Analekta ex Athēnōn) 2, 226–228. Demakopoulou, K., 1982, ϊ ό pό ί ί ί (To Mykenaiko Iepo sto Amiklaio kai ē YE III G periodos sto Lakonia), Ph.D. Thesis, University of Athens. Desborough, V. R., 1964, The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors, London. Dickinson, O. T. P., 2006, The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age, London. Drews, R., 1993, The End of the Bronze Age. Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C., Princeton, N.J. Eder, B., 1998, Argolis, Lakonien, Messenien vom Ende der Mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderung der Dorier (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission. Mykenische Studien 17), Wien. Eder, B., 2006, ‘The World of Telemachus: Western Greece 1200– 700 B.C.’. In Deger Jalkotzy and Lemos 2006, 549–579. Evans, A., 1905, ‘The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos’, Archaeologia 59, 391–562. 75 Evely, R. D. G., 2006 (ed.), Lekandi IV. The LH III C Setlement at Xeropoli (Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 39), Athens. Felsch, R. C. S., 1996 (ed.), Kalapodi. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis, Mainz. Fisher, E., 1988, A Comparison of Mycenaean Potery from Apulia with Mycenaean Potery from Western Greece, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota. Foltiny, S., 1964, ‘Flange-hilted Cuting Swords of Bronze in Central Europe, Northeast Italy, and Greece’, American Journal of Archaeology 68, 247–257. Frank, A. G., 1993, ‘Bronze Age World System Cycles’, Current Anthropology 34, 4, 383–429. French, E. and Wace, A, 1969, ‘The First Phase of LH IIIC’, Archäologischer Anzeiger 84, 2, 133–136. French, E., 1986, ‘Mycenaean Greece and the Mediterranean World in LH III’. In Marazzi et al. 1986, 277—282. French, E., 1989, ‘Possible Northern Intrusion at Mycenae’. In Best, G. P. and de Vries, N. W. M. (eds), Thracians and Mycenaeans, Boston, 39–51. Friedman, J. and Rowlands, M. J., 1977 ‘Notes toward an Epigenetic Model of the Evolution of Civilisation’. In Friedman, J. and Rowlands, M. J. (eds), The Evolution of Social Systems, Duckworth, London, 201–276. Frizell, B. S., 1986, Asine II, Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis, 1970–1974, Fasc. 3: The Late and Final Mycenaean Periods (Skriter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4°, 24.3), Stockholm. Furtwängler, A., 1890, Olympia, die Ergebnisse der von dem deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung. IV. Die Bronzen und die übrigen kleinen Funde von Olympia, Berlin. Genz, H., 1997, ‘Northern Slaves and the Origin of Handmade Burnished Ware: A Comment on Bankoff et al.’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10, 109–111. Gravina, A., Marino, D., Pacciarelli, M. and Tunzi Sisto, A. M., 2004, ‘Italia Meridionale’. In Cocchi Genick 2004, 209–218. Grossmann, P. and Schàfer, J., 1971, ‘Tiryns: Unterburg, Grabungen 1965’. In Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte V, Mainz am Rhein, 41–75. Guglielmino, R., 2005, ‘Rocavecchia: i rapporti con l’Egeo’. In Laffineur and Greco 2005, , 637–650. Guglielmino, R., 2006, ‘Testimonianze di ativita’ metallurgiche e di contati con l’Egeo in un sito costiero del Bronzo finale’. In Adombri, B., Η . Miscellanea di studi in onore di Mario Cristofani, Firenze, 32–50. Guglielmino, R., 2008, ‘Rocavecchia (Le). New Evidence for Aegean Contacts with Apulia during the Late Bronze Age’, Accordia Research Papers 10, 87–102. Hall, T. D. and Turchin, P., 2003, ‘Spatial Synchrony Among and Within World-Systems: Insights From Theoretical Ecology’, Journal of World System Research IX, 37–66. Hallager, B. P., 1983, ‘A New Social Class in Late Bronze Age Crete: Foreign Traders in Khania’. In Krzyszkowska, O. and Nixon, L. (eds), Minoan Society, Bristol, 111–119. Hallager, B. P., 1985, ‘Crete and Italy in the Late Bronze Age III Period’, American Journal of Archaeology 89, 293–305. Hallager, E. and Hallager, B. P. (eds), 2000, The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania 1970–1987. Volume II. The Late Minoan IIIC Setlement (Skriter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 4°; 47:2), Stockholm. 76 Francesco Iacono Hallager, E. and Hallager, B. P. (eds), 2003, The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania, 1970–1987 and 2001. Vol. III:1–2. The Late Minoan IIIB:2 Setlement (Skriter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 4°; 47:3), Stockholm. Hallager, E. and Tzedakis, Y., 1982, ‘The Greek-Svedish Excavations Kastelli Khania’, A o o ά A ά A ώ (Archaiologika Analekta ex Athēnōn) 15, 21–30. Harding, A. F., 1984, The Mycenaeans and Europe, Orlando, Fl. Haskell, H. W., 1985, ‘The Origin of the Aegean Stirrup Jar and Its Earliest Evolution and Distribution (MB III–LBI)’, American Journal of Archaeology 89 2, 221–229. Henderson, J, 1988, ‘Glass Production and the Bronze Age Europe’, Antiquity 62, 236, 435–451. Heurtley, W., 1925, ‘Report on an Excavation at the Toumba of Vardino, Macedonia’, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 12, 15–36. Hiller, S., 1993, ‘The ‘Corridor of the Sword Tablets’ and the ‘Arsenal.’ The Evidence of the Linear B Texts’. In Olivier 1993, 303–314. Hochstetter, A., 1984, Kastanas: Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975– 1979 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa Bd.3), Berlin. Iakovides, S. E., 1969, ή– ί (Perati – To Nekrotapheio) (B ή ή A ή E ί 67 – Bibliothēkē tēs en Athēnais Archaiologikēs Hetaireias 67), Athens. Immerwahr, S. A., 1971, The Neolithic and Bronze Ages. The Athenian Agora. (Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 13), Princeton. Jones, R., 1986, Greek and Cypriot Potery: A Review of Scientific Studies, Athens. Jones, R., Vagneti, L., Levi S. T., William. J., Jenkins, D. and De Guio, A., 2002, ‘Mycenaean Potery from Northern Italy. Archaeological and Archaeometric Studies’, Studi Micenei ed Egeo–Anatolici 44, 2, 221–261. Jung, R., 2006, comparata. Vergleichende Chronologie zwischen der Ägäis und Italien von 1700–1600 (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 26). Wien. Jung, R., 2009, ‘Pirates of the Aegean: Italy – the East Aegean – Cyprus at the end of the Second Millennium BC’. In Karageorghis, V. and Kouka, O. (eds), Cyprus and the East Aegean. Intercultural Contacts from 3000 to 500 BC (A.G. Leventis Foundation), Nicosia, 72–93. Jung, R., 2009a, ‘I “bronzi internazionali” ed il loro contesto sociale fra Adriatico, Penisola Balcanica e coste Levantine’. In Borgna, E. and Càssola Guida, P. (eds), Dall’Egeo all’Adriatico: Organizzazioni sociali modi di scambio e interazione in età postpalaziale (Studi e Ricerche di Protostoria Mediterranea 8), 129–157. Jung, R., Moschos, I. and Mehofer, M., 2008, ‘ ύ ί ό : έ έ ό ύ ά ί ά ά ό ϊ ώ ό ’ (Phonoeúontas me ton ídio trópo: Oi erēnikés epaphés gia ton pólemo metaxý Elládas kai Italías katá tē diárkeia tōn ópsimōn mykēnaïkṓn chrónōn). In Papeitis, S.A. and Giannopoulou, Ch. (eds) Cultural crossfertilization of Southern Italy and Western Greece through History (Region of Western Greece), 85-106. Kanta, A., 2003, ‘Aristocrats-Traders-Emigrants-Setlers: Crete in the Closing Phases of the Bronze Age’. In Stampolidis and Karagheorghis 2003, 183–174. Kardara, C., 1977, A ώ Nά o : K ά ή ά ω A B (Aplōmata Naxou : Kinēta eurēmata taphōn A kai B), (B ή ή A ή E ί 88 – Bibliothēkē tēs en Athēnais Archaiologikēs Hetaireias 88), Athens. Kardulias, N., 1996, ‘Multiple Levels in the Aegean Bronze Age World System’, Journal of World Systems Research 2(2). Electronic journal on World Wide Web; URL htp://csf. colorado.edu/wsystems/jwsr.html. Karo, G., 1930, ‘Schacht von Tiryns’, Athenische Miteilungen 55, 119–140. Kilian, K., 1978, ‘Nordwestgriechische Keramik aus der Argolis und ihre Entsprechungen in der Supappeninfacies’, Ati della XX riunione scientifica dell‘Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria in Basilicata, 1976, 311–320. Kilian, K., 1985, ‘La caduta dei palazzi micenei: aspetti archeologici’. In Musti, D. (ed.), Le Origini dei Greci: Dori e Mondo Egeo, Rome–Bari, 73–95. Kilian, K., 2007, Tiryns XV: Die handgemachte geglätete Keramik mykenischer Zeitstellung, Wiesbaden. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I., 1993, Die Schwerter in Griechenland (ausserhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien (Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abteilung IV, Bd. 12), Stutgart. Killen, J., 2001, ‘Some Thoughts on ta-ra-si-ja’. In Voutsaki and Killen 2001, 161–180. Kiriatzi, E., Andreou, S., Dimitriadis, S. and Kotsakis, K., 1997, ‘Co-existing Traditions: Handmade and Wheelmade Potery in Late Bronze Age Central Macedonia’. In Laffineur, R. and Betancourt, P. P. (eds), TEXNH: Cratsmen, Cratswomen and Cratsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, 1996 (Aegaeum 16), 361–367. Kolonas, L., 2001, ‘Η ή ύ o (Ēleiakē Pylos)’. In Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. and Schauer, C. (eds), Forschungen in der Peloponnes: Akten des Symposions anlässlich der Feier ‘100 Jahre Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Athen’, 1998, Athens, 257–262. Koui, M., Andreopoulou-Mangou, E., Papazoglou-Manioudaki, L., Pritaj-Vevecka, A., Papandreopoulos, P. and Stamati, F., 2006, ‘Study of Bronze Age Copper Based Swords of Type Naue II from Greece and Albania’, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 6, 1, 49–59. Kraiker, W. and Kübler, K., 1939, Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10. Jahrhunderts. (Kerameikos: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen I, Walter de Gruyter), Berlin. Kyparisses, N., 1938, ‘ ή ϊ ί ί ϊ (Anaskaphi Mykênaïkōn nekrotapheiōn arkhaias Akhaïou)’, ή ή ί (Praktika tēs en Athēnais Archaiologikēs Etaireias) 1938, 118–119. Laffineur, R. and Greco, E. (eds), 2005, Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens 2004 (Aegaeum 25), Liège. La Rosa, V., Palermo, D. and Vagnetti L. (eds), 1999, Epi ponton plazomenoi: Simposio italiano di Studi Egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. Roma 1998, Rome. 5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C Lerat, L., 1938, ‘Fouilles de Delphes. Rapport Préliminaire’, Revue Archéologique 12, 183–207. Lenzi, F. (ed.), 2003, L’Archeologia dell’Adriatico dalla Preistoria al Medioevo. Ati del Convegno, Ravenna 2001, Firenze. Leonardi, G. and Cupitò, M., 2008, ‘Il sito arginato dell’età del bronzo di Fondo-Paviani-Legnago. Notizia preliminare sulla campagna di indagine 2007’, Quaderni di Archeologia del Veneto 24, 90–93. Levi, S. T., 2004, ‘Circolazione dei prodoti ed organizzazione della manifatura’. In Cocchi Genick 2004, 233–242. Lis, B., 2008, ‘Handmade and burnished potery in the Eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Bronze Age: Towards an explanation for its diversity and geographical distribution’ in Bachhuber, C. and Gareth Roberts, R. (eds) Forces of Transformation. The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean (Oxbow), 152–163. Lo Schiavo, F., 2003, ‘Sardinia between East and West: Interconnections in the Mediterranean’. In Stampolidis and Karagheorghis 2003, 15–34. Malone, C. A. T., Stoddart, S. K. F. and Whitehouse. R. D., 1994, ‘The Bronze Age of Southern Italy, Sicily and Malta’. In Mathers, C. and Stoddart, S. K. F. (eds), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, Sheffield, 167–194. Maran, J., 2006, ‘Coming to Terms with the Past: Ideology and Power in Late Helladic III C’. In Deger-Jalkotzy and Lemos 2006, 123–150. Marazzi, M., Tusa, S. and Vagneti, L., (eds), 1986, Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo: Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica, Taranto. Mastrokostas, E., 1965, ‘ ή έ ί (Anaskaphi tou Teichous Dymaiōn)’, ό ί (Arkhaiologikon Deltion), 121–136. Mathäus, H., 1980, ‘Mykenische Vogelbarken, antithetische Tierprotomen in der Kunst des östlichen Mitelmeerraumes’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblat, 10, 4, 319–330. Mazar, A., 1985, ‘Excavations at Tell Qasile. Part 2: The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, The Potery, Conclusions, Appendixes’, (Qedem 20), Jerusalem. McDonald, W. A. and Wilkie, N. C. (eds), 1992, Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Volume II: The Bronze Age Occupation, Minneapolis. Milojčić, V., 1948, ‘Die Dorische Wanderung im Lichte der vorgeschichtlichen Funde’, Archäologischer Anzeiger 63– 64,12–36. Milojčić, V., 1952, ‘Das Sethosschwert kein gemeineuropäisches Griffzungenschwert’, Germania 30, 95–97. Milojčić, V., 1955, ‘Einige miteleuropäische Fremdlinge auf Kreta’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentral-Museums Mainz 2, 153–169. Müller-Karpe, M., 1962, ‘Zur Spätbronzezeitlichen Bewaffnung in Mitel Europa und Griechenland’, Germania 40, 255–287. Olivier, J.-P., 1993 (ed.), Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens (Bulletin de Corréspondence Héllenique Supplément 25), Paris. Olivier, J.-P., 2001, ‘Les ‘collecteurs’: Leur distribution spatiale et temporelle’. In Voutsaki and Killen 2001, 139–160. Pagliara, C., Maggiulli, G., Scarano, T., Pino, C., Guglielmino, R., De Grossi Mazzorin, J., Rugge, M., Fiorentino, G., Primavera, M., Calcagnile, L., D’Elia, M. and Quarta, G. 2007, ‘La sequenza cronostratigrafica delle fasi di occupazione dell’insediamento protostorico di Roca (Melendugno, Lecce). 77 Relazione preliminare della campagna di scavo 2005 – Saggio X’, Rivista di Scienze Protostoriche LVII, 311–362. Papadopoulos, T., 1979, Mycenaean Achaea (SIMA 55), Göteborg. Papadopoulos, T., 1998, The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean: I Mainland Greece (Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Abteilung VI; Bd. 11), Stutgart. Papadopoulos, T., 1999, ‘Warrior Graves in Achaean Mycenaean Cemeteries’. In Laffineur, R. (ed.), POLEMOS: Le contexte guerrier en Égée á l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale Université de Liège 1998 (Aegaeum 19), Liège, 267–274. Papazoglou-Manioudaki, L., 1994, ‘A Mycenaean Warrior’s Tomb at Krini near Patras’, Annals of the British School at Athens 89, 171–200. Pare, C. F. (ed.), 2000, Metal Makes the World Go Round: the Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe, Oxford. Pearce, M., 1999, ‘New Research on the Terramare of Northern Italy’, Antiquity 72, 743–746. Pearce, M., 2000, ‘Metals Make the World Go Round: the Copper Supply for Fratesina’. In Pare 2000, 108–115. Pearce, M., 2007, Bright Blades and Red Metal. Essays on North Italian Prehistoric Metalwork, (Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy 14), London. Pellegrini, E., 1995, ‘Aspeti della metallurgia in Italia continentale tra XVI e XI sec. a.C.’. In Christie, N. (ed.), Setlement and Economy in Italy 1500 B.C to 1500 A.D, Oxford, 511–519. Pendlebury, H. J. and Money-Couts, M., 1938, ‘Excavations in the Plain of Lassithi III. Karphi: a City of Refuge of the Early Iron Age in Crete. Excavated by Students of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 1937–39’, Annals of the British School at Athens 38, 57–145. Perdrizet, P., 1908, Fouilles de Delphes V. Monuments figurés, petits bronzes, terre-cuites, antiquités diverses, Paris. Peroni, R., 1994, ‘Le comunità Enotrie della Sibaritide ed i loro rapporti con i navigatori egei’. In Peroni and Trucco 1994, , 831–879. Peroni, R., 1996, L’Italia alle soglie della storia, Rome-Bari. Peroni, R., 2004, ‘Sistemi transculturali nell’economia, nella società, nell’ideologia’. In Cocchi Genick 2004, 411–427. Peroni, R. and Trucco, F. (eds), 1994, Enotri e Micenei nella Sibaritide, Taranto. Peroni, R. and Vanzeti, A. (eds), 1998, Broglio di Trebisacce 1990–1994. Elementi e Problemi Nuovi delle Recenti Campagne di Scavo, Rubbetino. Petropoulos, M., 2000, ‘M ϊ ό ί έϊ ώ (Mykēnaiko nekrotapheio sta Spaliareika tōn Lousikōn)’. In Rizakis, A. D., Paysages d’Achaïe, 2. Dymé et son territoire. Actes du colloque international ‘Dymaia et Bouprasia’, Katō Achaïa 1995. (Meletemata 29), Athens-Paris, 65–92. Petsas, F., 1962, ‘ ή ί ί ί 1960/1 (Anaskaphe arkaiou nekrotaphiou Bergines 1960/1)’, ό ί (Arkhaiologikon Deltion) 17, 1, 218–288. Phelps, W. W., Lolos, Y. and Vichos, Y. (eds), 1999, The Point Iria Wreck. Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 BC. Proceedings of the International Conference, Island of Spetses 1998, Athens, 187–208. Pilides, D., 1994, Handmade Burnished Wares of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 105), Göteborg. 78 Francesco Iacono Podzuweit, C., 2007, Tiryns XIV: Studien zur spätmykenischen Keramik, Wiesbaden. Popham, M. R. and Milburn, E., 1972, ‘The Late Helladic IIIC Potery of Xeropolis (Lekandi): A Summary’, Annals of the British School at Athens 66, 333–336. Popham, M. R. and Sacket, L. H., 1968, Excavations at Lekandi, Euboea, 1964/1966. A Preliminary Report, London. Rahmstorf, L., 2003, ‘Clay Spools from Tiryns and other Contemporary Sites. An Indication of Foreign Influence in LH IIIC?’. In Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. and Papakonstantinou, M. (eds), ‘ έ ό ό «Η έ ϊ ύ ό », ί 1999/2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium ‘The Periphery of the Mycenaean World’, Lamia 1999, Athens, 397–415. Rahmstorf, L., 2005, ‘Terramare and Faience: Mycenaean Influence in Northern Italy during the Late Bronze Age’. In Laffineur and Greco 2005, , 663–672. Reber, K., 1991, Untersuchungen zur Handgemachten Keramik Griechenlands in der Submykenischen, Protogeometrischen und der Geometrischen. Jonsered. Riva, C. and Vella, N., 2006 (eds), Debating Orientalizing: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Processes of Change in the Ancient Mediterranean, London. Ruter, J. B., 1975, ‘Ceramic Evidence for Northern Intruders in Southern Greece at the Beginning of the Late Helladic IIIC Period’, American Journal of Archaeology 79, 17–32. Ruter, J. B., 1979, ‘The Last Mycenaeans at Corinth’, Hesperia 48, 4, 348–392. Ruter, J. B., 1990, ‘Some Comments on Interpreting the Darksurfaced Handmade Burnished Potery of the 13th and 12th Century B.C. Aegean’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3, 29–49. Ruter, J. B., 1999, ‘Cretan External Relations during LM IIIA2–B (ca. 1370–1200 B.C.): A View from the Mesara’. In Phelps et al. 1999, 139–186. Sandars, N. K., 1961, ‘The First Aegean Swords and Their Ancestry’, American Journal of Archaeology 65, 17–29. Sandars, N. K., 1963, ‘Later Aegean Bronze Swords’, American Journal of Archaeology 67, 117–153. Sandars, N. K., 1978, The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, 1250–1150 B.C., London. Schliemann, H., 1878, Mycenae: A Narrative of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns, London. Schneider, J., 1977, ‘Was there a Pre-capitalist World System?’, Peasant Studies 6, 20–29. Shaw, J. and Shaw, M. (eds), 2006, Kommos V: The Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos, Princeton. Sherrat, A., 1993, ‘What would a Bronze Age World System Look like?’, European Journal of Archaeology 1, 2, 1–57. Sherrat, A., 1997, Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives, Princeton, N.J. Sherrat, A., 2004, ‘Material Resources, Capital, and Power: The Coevolution of Society and Culture’. In Feinman, G. and Nicholas, L. (eds), Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, Salt Lake City, 79–103. Sherrat, S., 1981, The Potery of LH III C and its Significance, Sommerville College D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford. Sherratt, S., 1982, ‘Patterns of Contact: Manufacture and Distribution of Mycenaean Potery, 1400–1100 B.C.’. In Best, J. and de Vries, N. (eds), Interaction and Acculturation in the Mediterranean, Amsterdam, 179–95. Sherrat, S., 1999, ‘E pur si muove: Pots Markets and Values in the Second Millennium Mediterranean’. In Crielaard et al. 1999, 163–211. Sherrat, S., 2000, ‘Circulation of Metal and the End of the Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean’. In Pare 2000, 82–98. Small, D. B., 1990, ‘‘Barbarian Ware’ and Prehistoric Aegean Economics: an Argument for Indigenous Appearance’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3, 3–28. Small, D. B., 1997, ‘Can We Move Forward? Comments on the Current Debate over Handmade Burnished Ware’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10, 223–228. Smith, T. R., 1987, Mycenaean Trade and Interaction in the West Central Mediterranean: 1600–1000 B.C. (British Archaeological Report International Series 371), Oxford. Smithson, E. L., 1961, ‘The Protogeometric Cemetery at Nea Ionia, 1949’, Hesperia 30, 147–178. Snodgrass, A., 1971, The Dark Age of Greece: an Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries B.C., Edinburgh. Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, C., 1999, The Ionian Islands in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age 3000–800 BC, Liverpool. Stampolidis, N. and Karagheorghis, V. (eds), 2003, Ploes, Sea Routes. Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th–6th cent. B.C., Athens. Stavropoulou-Gatsi, M., Jung, R., Mehofer, M., 2009, ‘ ́ « ́ » ́ ́ ω ́ ’ (Taphos «Mykēnaiou» polemistē ston Koubara Aitōloakarnanias), Paper presented at the conference “IMMORTALITY: The Earthly, the Celestial and the Underworld in the Mediterranean from the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age” held in Rhodes 28–31 May 2009. Stillwell, A., 1948, Corinth. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. XV. Part I. The Poters’ Quarter, Princeton. Strack, S., 2007, Regional Dynamics and Social Change in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age: a study of handmade potery from southern and central Greece (unpublished Ph.D. thesis), University of Edinburgh. Tainter, J., 1988, The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge. Tartaron, T. F., 2004, Bronze Age Landscape and Society in Southern Epirus, Greece (British Archaeological Report International Series 1290), Oxford. Tomas, H., 2005, ‘Mycenaean in Croatia?’. In Laffineur and Greco 2005, , 673–682. Tsountas, C., 1897, ‘ έ ώ (Metrai kai xiphē ek Mikenon)’, ή ί (Archaiologike Ephemeris) 1897, 7–128. Vagneti, L., 1983 (ed.), Magna Grecia e Mondo Miceneo, Taranto. Vagnetti, L., 1999, ‘Mycenaean Pottery in the Central Mediterranean: Imports and Local Production in their Context’. In Crielaard et al. 1999, 138–161. Vagneti, L., 1999a, ‘Mycenaeans and Cypriots in the Central Mediterranean before and ater 1200 BC’. In Phelps et al. 1999, 187–208. Vagneti, L., Percossi, E., Silvestrini, M., Sabbatini, T., Jones, R. E. and Levi, S. T., 2006, ‘Ceramiche egeo-micenee nelle Marche: indagini archeometriche ed inquadramento iniziale dei dati’. In Ati della XXXIX Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence, Vol. II, 1159–1172. Vagneti, L. and Jones, R., 1988, ‘Towards the Identification of Local Mycenaean Potery in Italy’. In French, E. B. and Wardle, K. A. (eds), Problems in Greek Prehistory, Bristol, 335–348. 5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C Vagneti L. and Panichelli, S., 1994, ‘Ceramica egea importata e di produzione locale’. In Peroni and Trucco 1994, I, 373–413. Vlachopoulos, A., 2008 (ed.), ύ ά ά (Euboia kai Sterea Ellada), Athens. Vokotopoulou, I., 1969, ‘ έ ό ά ό Η ί (Neoi chibōtioschēmoi taphoi tēs YE III B–G Periodou ex Ēpeirou)’, ή ί (Arkhaiologike Ephemeris), 179–207. Voutsaki, S. and Killen, J. (eds). 2001, Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace State (Cambridge Classical Journal Supplementary Volume 27), Cambridge. Veblen, T., (1902) 1994, A Theory of Leisure Class, New York. Vianello, A., 2005, Late Bronze Age Mycenaean and Italic Products in the West Mediterranean: a Social and Economic Analysis (British Archaeological Report International Series 1439), Oxford. Wace, A., 1953, ‘Mycenae 1939–1952’, Annual of the British School at Athens 48, 3–93. Weingarten, J., 1997, ‘The Sealing Bureaucracy of Mycenaean Knossos: The Identification of Some Officials and Their Seals’. In Driessen, J. and Farnoux, A. (eds) La Crète mycénienne: Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale organisée par l’École française d’Athènes (1991) (Bulletin de Corréspondence Héllenique Supplément 30), Athènes-Paris, 517–535. 79 Walberg, G., 1976, ‘Northern Intruders in Myc. III C?’, American Journal of Archaeology 80, 2, 186–187. Wallerstein, I., 1974, The Modern World System. Vol. I , New York. Warren, P., 1983, ‘Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations 1978–82. Part II’, Archaeological Reports 29, 63–87. Watrous, L. V., 1989, ‘A Preliminary Report on Imported ‘Italian’ Wares from the Late Bronze Age Site of Kommos on Crete’, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 27, 69–80. Watrous, L. V., 1992, Kommos III: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete. The Late Bronze Age Potery, Princeton. Weber, H., 1944, ‘Anfgriffswassen’. In Kunze, E. and Schleif, H. (eds), Olympische Forschungen I, Berlin, 146–156. Whitbread, I., 1992, ‘Petrographic Analysis of Barbarian Ware from the Menelaion, Sparta’. In Sanders, M. J. (ed.), o ά ω . Lakonian Studies in honour of Hector Catling, Athens, 297–306. Wijngaarden, G. J., 2002, Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Potery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (1600–1200 B.C.), Amsterdam. Wilkinson, D., 1987, ‘Central Civilization’, Comparative Civilization Review 17, 31–59. Xanthoudides, S., 1904, ‘ ή (Ek Kretes)’, ή ί 43 (Archaiologike Ephemeris 43), 1–55.