Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:12:57.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Late Cycladic Period: a Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

R. L. N. Barber
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Excavation and research in the Cyclades in the last thirty years have added substantially to the body of evidence for the Late Bronze Age in the islands. Whilst much of the excavated material is not yet fully published, our understanding of the culture and history of the LC period has been considerably extended. Below, I review this evidence and make some suggestions as to its interpretation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 76 , November 1981 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acknowledgements I am exceptionally grateful to a number of colleagues who have kindly read and commented on drafts of this article, saving me from many errors of fact and interpretation: Professor J. L. Caskey, Dr. H. W. Catling, Dr. J. L. Davis, Dr. E. B. French, Dr. C. Mee, Miss P.-A. Mountjoy, Mr. M. R. Popham, Dr. E. Schofield. Mrs. B. Young has helped me with the collection of information and references.

I should like particularly to thank Dr. Mee and Dr. Schofield who have given most generously of their time and expertise.

The remaining errors are, of course, my own.

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in addition to those listed in BSA 44 (1949) 330–6:

AAA Athens Annals of Archaeology.

Aplomata Kardara, C., Aplomata Naxou (1977).Google Scholar

AR Archaeological Reports.

AS Anatolian Studies.

BLICS Bulletin of the London Institute of Classical Studies.

Emergence Renfrew, A. C., The Emergence of Civilization (1972)Google Scholar

Fouqué Fouqué, F., Santorin et ses éruptions (1879).Google Scholar

Gallet de Santerre de Santerre, H. Gallet, Délos primitive et archaïque (1958).Google Scholar

Immerwahr Immerwahr, S. A., ‘Mycenaeans at Thera’ in Kinzl, K. H. (ed.), Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory (1977).Google Scholar

JFA Journal of Field Archaeology.

Keos Pt. I Caskey, J. L., ‘Investigations in Keos. Part I: Excavations and Explorations 1966–70’ in Hesperia 40 (1971) 359–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keos Pt. II Caskey, J. L., ‘Investigations in Keos. Part II: A Conspectus of the Pottery’ in Hesperia 41 (1972), 357–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keos '60–'61 Caskey, J. L., ‘Excavations in Keos 1960–61’ in Hesperia 31 (1962) 263–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keos '63 Caskey, J. L., ‘Excavations in Keos, 1963’ in Hesperia 33 (1964) 314–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keos '64–'65 Caskey, J. L., ‘Excavations in Keos, 1964–65’ in Hesperia 35 (1966) 363–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

LMS Desborough, V. R. d'A., The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors (1964).Google Scholar

Muhly Muhly, J. D., Copper and Tin: the Distribution of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metals Trade in the Bronze Age (1973).Google Scholar

Mee Mee, C., ‘The Dodecanese in the Bronze Age’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (1975).Google Scholar

PAPS Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.

PCP Davis, J. L. and Cherry, J. F. (edd.), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory (1979).Google Scholar

Perati Iakovides, S., Perati: to Nekrotapheion, 1969–1970.Google Scholar

Phylakopi Atkinson, T. D. et al. , Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (1904).Google Scholar

Thera I–VII Marinatos, S., Excavations at Thera. Preliminary Reports I–VII (1968–1976).Google Scholar

Thera Congress I Kaloyeropoulou, A. (ed.), Acta of the First International Scientific Congress on the Volcano of Thera (1971).Google Scholar

Thera Congress II Doumas, C. (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World, Vols. 1 and 2 (1978 and forthcoming).Google Scholar

1 Phylakopi 263–72 (summarized in BSA 69 (1974) 5). The Phylakopi sequence remains a convenient central key for the LC period and is so used here. It should be appreciated, however, that a number of forthcoming publications of material so far available only in preliminary reports (particularly from Kea, recent excavations at Phylakopi, and Thera) may well encourage different perspectives.

2 Phylakopi 263.

3 Phylakopi 263, 267.

4 Phylakopi 28.

5 Thera Congress II i 407–12.

6 Thera Congress II i 368; BSA 51 (1956) 24.

7 Phylakopi 261–2; BSA 51 (1956) 22, 24.

8 Thera Congress II i 411.

9 Op. Arch. 6 (1950) 195–6.

10 For the use of this term, now adopted for the pottery described in Phylakopi Chapter 4, Section 9 and there called ‘Pottery of the Early Mycenaean Style with Designs in Matt Black’, see Thera Congress II i 375.

11 Warren, P. M., Minoan Stone Vases (1969) 187–8Google Scholar and catalogue of types.

12 Thera Congress II i 579.

13 BSA 51 (1956) 30.

14 See below under Kea, Thera.

15 Keos Pt. II 386 (Phase F = Period V).

16 BLICS 26 (1979) 132. I am grateful to Dr.Davis, J. L. for additional information about the architectural sequence and in particular, here, the fortifications, which he has discussed in his doctoral thesis, Fortifications at Ayia Irini, Keos: Evidence for History and Relative Chronology (University of Cincinnati, 1977).Google Scholar

17 Keos Pt. II fig. 8.

18 BLICS 26 (1979) 132.

19 Keos Pt. II 391; BLICS 26 (1979) 132; Davis, J. L., ‘Minoans and Minoanisation at Ayia Irini, Keos’ in Thera Congress II iiGoogle Scholar (forthcoming).

20 Davis, op. cit.

21 BLICS 26 (1979) 132.

22 Hesperia 42 (1973) 284–300; 49 (1980) 57–85.

23 P. M. Warren, op. cit., 188; Keos '60–'61 272–3, pl. 98g, h.

24 Thera V 44.

25 Thera Congress II i 778–82.

26 Thera I–VII passim (e.g. Thera VII 29); Immerwahr 186–8 (for Mycenaean imports).

27 Thera Congress II i 605–16.

28 Sinclair Hood, , The Arts of Prehistoric Greece, 54–6Google Scholar, 63–5 and references (especially to Thera).

29 Immerwahr 174–83; Thera Congress II i 591, 645–55.

30 P. M. Warren, op cit., 188.

31 Thera IV 3, pls. 91–5.

32 e.g. Thera VII 31, pl. 53d: a Cretan shape in local stone.

33 e.g. Xeste 3, Thera VII 22–8.

34 Thera VII, Plan B: West House, Xeste 3 (?).

35 AE 1974, 199–219.

36 This view is not shared by Shaw (Thera Congress II i 429/36) or Davis (op. cit., n. 19) who argue that the Cycladic sites in general share Minoan architectural features, but that these are modified locally according to the characteristics of the available building stone.

37 Site Index nos. 7, 10, 12, 14, 18, 24, 26, 30, 40–5, 47–50.

38 See nn. 18, 25.

39 Thera Congress II i 418 and references; 681–8.

40 See below under LC II.

41 See above; also suggestions of Mycenaean elements in the Kea frescoes (see below, n. 44).

42 Thucydides i. 4.

43 See below, n. 48.

44 Warren, P. M. in Proceedings of the Classical Association 67 (1970) 34.Google Scholar See also Hesperia 49 (1980) 70 where K. Abramovitz suggests that the greater frequency of Mycenaean features in the Kea frescoes is due to the island's relative proximity to the mainland.

45 Immerwahr, passim.

46 Dickinson, O. T. P. K., The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation 107–8Google Scholar; Op. Arch. 6 (1950) 251.

47 A similar suggestion was made by Mee (41).

48 In a recent review of trade connections between Crete and the Cyclades, (‘Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades in the Later Bronze Age’ in PCP 143–56)Google Scholar, J. L. Davis discusses many points also considered here. In particular he notes the apparent concentration of Minoan imports in the western Cyclades and suggests that this is a significant pointer to their role as staging posts on a sea-route between Crete and the mainland.

49 BSA 58 (1963) 93, n. 16 and references.

50 Thera VII 30, pl. 49b.

51 Branigan, K., Aegean Metallurgy of the Early and Middle Bronze Age (1974) 59Google Scholar: sources which were adequate in the E and MC periods may not have been so in LC; Muhly 238, 262.

52 ADelt 24 (1969) Mel., 105–6 and references; Petruso, K., ‘Reflections on Cycladic and Minoan metrology and trade’ in PCP 135–42.Google Scholar P. regards the weight system as Minoan in origin.

53 Frequent imports of Cretan pottery into the Cyclades have already been mentioned. There are also signs of Cycladic material in Crete, e.g. at (Pyrgos), MyrtosAR 1977–1978, 76, fig. 19Google Scholar; Kommos, , Hesperia 46 (1977) 258, pl. 52a(d).Google Scholar

54 Thera Congress II i 629–44 and references.

55 Thera VI 43.

56 See above, n. 42.

57 I am grateful to Mr. Colin MacDonald for information and discussion on this point. See also Davis (op. cit., n. 48, 146).

58 Antiquity 52 (1978) 11.

59 Sperling, J. W., Thera and Therasia, Athens, 1973, 27–8.Google Scholar

60 See above, n. 52 and Davis op. cit., n. 48.

61 AS 28 (1978) 129–30 (Iasos); 133–7 (Miletus) and references; Mee 54 (Seraglio); Op. Arch. 6 (1950) 180, 202.

62 Mee 55.

63 Phylakopi 265–7.

64 BSA 69 (1974) 5, 47, 51–3 and references.

65 Op. Arch. 6 (1950) 194–5.

66 Mackenzie, 's ‘partial catastrophe’, Phylakopi 266–7.Google Scholar

67 BLICS 26 (1979) 132.

68 loc. cit.; Keos Pt. II 393–4. In mainland terms the destruction is dated by Dr. Schofield to very late in LH IIA (BLICS 26 (1979) 132).

69 The evidence is discussed, with references, by Luce, in Thera Congress II i 785–90.Google Scholar

70 BSA 51(1956) 30; AA 1968, 386, figs. 20–3 (LH IIA double axe fragment on figs. 21b and 23e). I am most grateful to Dr. O. T. P. K. Dickinson for pointing these sherds out to me.

71 In view of present uncertainty over details of the early LH sequence (see, e.g., Keos Pt. II 396) and the imminent publication of new material from Kea and Phylakopi, I date the events primarily in Minoan terms.

72 Hesperia 42 (1973) 286 (no earlier than the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and probably in the LM IB/LH II phase).

73 BLICS 26 (1979) 132.

74 AS 28 (1978) 149; Op. Arch. 6 (1950) 181.

75 See, e.g., PAPS 113 (1969) 440—2.

76 Earlier noted by Furumark in Op. Arch. 6 (1950) 198–9.

77 I subdivide here ‘Early’, ‘Middle’, and ‘Late’ rather than using a more formal numerical system in recognition of the provisional character of my scheme. It seems likely and is certainly to be hoped that the next few years will see substantial progress in the study of the LC period and the establishment of more and firmer subdivisions. It should be understood that my own system is based on perceptible historical changes in the Cyclades and cannot be directly related to any clear occupation sequence.

78 Phylakopi 27–8, 267–72.

79 Thera Congress II i 411.

80 Antiquity 52 (1978) 9.

81 Thera Congress II i 405, table ii.

82 BSA 51 (1956) 33; Op. Arch. 6 (1950) 194; BSA 17 (1910–11) 19.

83 Antiquity 52 (1978) 11.

84 See, for example, Cadogan, G., The Palaces of Crete (1976) 107, fig. 10.Google Scholar

85 Phylakopi 146, BSA 51 (1956) 33; Op. Arch. 6 (1950) 194.

86 Keos Pt. II 397 (Phase J = Period VIII); BLICS 26 (1979) 132; PAPS 113 (1969) 443.

87 Gallet de Santerre 83–4.

88 Op. cit. 66–7.

89 Kondoleon, N. M., ‘Mykenaiki Naxos’ in Epeteris tes Hetaireias Kykladikon Meleton 1 (1961) 600–8.Google Scholar

90 See n. 70.

91 Site Index nos. 3 (LH IIIA1), 5, 11, 13, 19, 22, 25, Seriphos island, 37, 39, 47.

92 Amorgos: BSA 51 (1956) 31 (‘teacup’)

93 Whole vases probably from tombs: Site Index nos. 3, 4, 5, 13, Seriphos island. Chamber tombs: 18 (some probably Mycenaean), 19, 25. Tholos tombs: 22 (report only), 39.

94 Antiquity 52 (1978) 12; BCH supplement 1 (1973) 415–25 and references; BSA 66 (1971) 185.

95 Muhly 187, 238.

96 Ivory, for example, must have been imported, Archaeology 13 (1960) 14.

97 AS 28 (1978) 135; Mee 94.

98 Mee 95.

99 See, for example, E. French in A. E. Glock, Taanach II (forthcoming).

100 For a recent reconsideration of the relations between Mycenaeans and Hittites, see Hooker, J. T., Mycenaean Greece (1976) 121–31Google Scholar; also AR 1978–79 63–4.

101 An increase in life expectancy in LH III might have outstripped the resources which originally induced it (BSA 72 (1977) 110).

102 Thera Congress II i 407–8.

103 Site Index no. 35.

104 Site Index no. 34.

105 BSA 51 (1956) 13; Site Index no. 38.

106 A fragment of a LH IIIB-C deep bowl is in the sherd collection of the British School at Athens; Site Index no. 29.

107 Site Index no. 37.

108 See above, n. 83.

109 Keos Pt. II 398–400.

110 PCP 177.

111 AR 1978–79 fig. 43.

112 Mee 107; F. H. Stubbings, , Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant, 1951, 20, 108Google Scholar; JFA 5 (1978) 468–9.

113 Mee 108.

114 BSA 58 (1963) 50.

115 AS 28 (1978) 135 and references.

116 Sandars, N. K., The Sea Peoples (1978), 186–8.Google Scholar

117 In this final period of the Bronze Age in the Cyclades, the pottery sequence established for LH IIIC is particularly important. Since no Cycladic site has yet yielded informative independent stratigraphy of the kind which is available for the earlier LC period, the relative sequence must be established on the basis of mainland links. The fact that one can now speak again of such links points directly to one major change which is a feature of this period, namely the partial re-establishment of those contacts which had been interrupted in the preceding phase.

Accordingly some brief consideration must be given to the nature of the LH IIIC sequence which has undergone radical reassessment in the light of research and discoveries since Desborough's discussion in 1964 (LMS, Chapter 1).

A system of subdividing LH IIIC pottery to take account of recent discoveries has been published by Rutter (Rutter, J. R., ‘Late Helladic IIIC Pottery and Some Historical Implications’ in Davis, Ellen M. (Ed.), Symposium on the Dark Ages in Greece (Hunter College, New York City, 1977)Google Scholar and the sequence will no doubt be further illuminated by subsequent publication of new finds.

Meanwhile, I present a summary sequence of which the substance has been most kindly provided by Dr. E. French, incorporating her own study of material from Mycenae, and other sites in the Argolid, Rutter's survey and finds from Lefkandi, (BSA 66 (1971) 333–52).Google Scholar Recently published material from Tiryns is also of interest. (AA 1978, 471–98):

1. An Early Phase, starting immediately after the final LH IIIB destruction at Mycenae, of which very simple decoration is particularly characteristic. Lefkandi 1 (and earlier); Rutter 1, 2.

2. A developed phase with many new features and considerable elaboration of patterns towards the end. Lefkandi 1b, 2a; Rutter 3, 4a.

3. An advanced phase which includes the Close and Granary styles, as already known: Furumark, A., The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Classification (1941) 570–3.Google Scholar (This phase ends with a widespread destruction at Mycenae.) Lefkandi 2b; Rutter 4b.

4. A final phase with poor, often undecorated fabrics immediately antecedent to sub-Mycenaean. Lefkandi 3; Rutter 5.

118 Keos Pt. II 400–1.

119 BSA 66 (1971) 348.

120 Op. cit. 347 n. 18.

121 Kordara, C., Aplomata Naxou (1977).Google Scholar

122 LMS 150–1.

123 LMS 12–13 and refs.; Perati ii 142–8; Aplomata 8 ff.; 75–84.

124 LMS 228; Perati ii 413–16; Aplomata 92; JFA 5 (1978) 469.

125 PAE 1951, 22; 1967, 115–16.

126 BSA 51 (1956) 34.

127 LMS 150.

128 LMS 152.

129 LMS 150.

130 Further comments on this point in BSA 66 (1971) 347, 349.

131 LMS 148 and references; BSA 51 (1956) 34–5.

132 Antiquity 52 (1978) 7–15 and references.

133 Antiquity 52 (1978) 12.

134 Phylakopi pl. xxxii 14–16.

135 LMS 147–52, BSA 51 (1956) 34–5.

136 See n. 132.

137 Continuity into the Iron Age has been suggested in the Temenos at Delos and, more tentatively, in the Kea Temple. Gallet de Santerre 216–18: Keos '63 326.

138 BSA 66 (1971) 342, 348.

139 CAH 3 ii 2. 637–74.