Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:34:08.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The creation of value and prestige in the Aegean Late Bronze Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Sofia Voutsaki
Sofia Voutsaki*
Affiliation:
Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA, Great Britain
Get access

Abstract

The main questions addressed in this paper are these: How can we conceptualise power? How can we identify power relations in the archaeological record? How can we explain the emergence of asymmetrical power relations?

These questions will be approached by discussing the creation of value and prestige in primitive societies, with particular emphasis on the practice of conspicuous consumption. I shall argue that an object's value is created not only through labour at the moment of production, but also during its circulation within gift exchange networks, and through its consumption (destruction, deposition) in ostentatious ceremonies. While both gift exchange and conspicuous consumption are central strategies for the creation of value and prestige, I suggest that there is a crucial difference between them: conspicuous consumption brings about the abolition of the reciprocal relationship on which gift exchange is based. The initiation (and indeed the institutionalisation) of conspicuous consumption is therefore an important strategy in creating, rather than simply expressing or legitimating asymmetrical relationships.

The theoretical discussion will be applied to a specific historical problem: the transformation of the largely egalitarian kin-based Middle Bronze Age societies of the southern Greek mainland into the hierarchical Mycenaean (i.e. Late Bronze Age) palatial system. I shall argue that conspicuous consumption in the mortuary sphere was not simply a symptom, but a crucial element of the deep structural transformation that swept the southern mainland at the transition to the Late Bronze Age.

Les questions principales qui sont traitées dans cet article sont les suivantes: Comment peut-on conceptualiser le pouvoir? Comment peut-on identifier les relations de pouvoir dans le domaine archéologique? Comment peut-on expliquer l'émergence de relations de pouvoir asymétriques?

Ces questions seront traitées en examinant la création de la valeur et du prestige dans les sociétés primitives, on insistera plus particulièrement sur la pratique de la consommation ostentatoire. On montrera que la valeur d'un objet est créée non seulement par le travail produit au moment de sa production, mais aussi pendant qu'il circule à l'intérieur de réseaux d'échange de cadeaux, au travers de sa consommation (destruction, déposition) pendant des cérémonies ostentatoires. Bien que l'échange de cadeaux et la consommation ostentatoire soient deux stratégies centrales dans la création de la valeur et du prestige, je voudrais souligner qu'il existe une difference cruciale entre elles: la consommation ostentatoire entraîne l'abolition des relations réciproques sur lesquelles est basé l'échange de cadeaux. L'introduction (et méme l'institutionnalisation) de la consommation ostentatoire constitue par conséquent une stratégie importante dans la création, plutôt que dans la simple expression ou légitimation des relations asymétriques.

La discussion théorique est appliquée à un problème historique spécifique: la transformation des sociétés basées sur la famille, en général égalitaires, dans le sud de la Grèce continentale, au milieu de la période de l'Age du Bronze, en un système hiérarchique mycénien grandiose (c-à-d. la fin de l'Age de bronze). Je montrerais que, dans la sphère mortuaire, la consommation ostentatoire n'était pas simplement un symptôme mais un élément crucial de la profonde transformation qui s'est répandue dans tout le sud de la Grèce continentale pendant la période de transition qui mena à la fin de l'Age de bronze.

Die Hauptfragen, die in diesem Aufsatz angesprochen werden, sind folgende: was können wir unter ‘Macht’ verstehen? Wie können wir Machtbeziehungen im archäologischen Material identifizieren? Wie können wir das Aufkommen asymmetrischer Machtverhältnisse erklären?

Ich nähere mich diesen Fragen durch eine Diskussion der Schaffung von Wert und Prestige in primitiven Gesellschaften, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Praktik des Prestigekonsums (conspicuous consumption). Ich argumentiere, daβ der Wert eines Objektes nicht nur durch Arbeit im Moment seiner Produktion geschaffen wird, sondern auch durch seinen Umlauf in Geschenkeaustausch-Beziehungen sowie durch seinen Verbrauch (Zerstörung Deponierung) in pompösen Zeremonien. Sowohl Geschenkeaustausch als auch Prestigekonsum sind wichtige Strategien für die Schaffung von Wert und Prestige, doch gibt es einen entscheidenen Unterschied zwischen beiden: Prestigekonsum bringt die Beendung der reziproken Beziehung mit sich, auf der Geschenkeaustausch beruht. Die Einführung (und vor allem Institutionalisierung) von Prestigekonsum ist deshalb eine wichtige Strategie bei der Schaffung asymmetrischer Beziehungen – und nicht bloβ ihr Ausdruck oder ihre Legitimierung.

Die theoretische Diskussion wird an einem speziellen historischen Problem zur Anwendung gebracht: die Umformung der gröβtenteils egalitären, verwandtschaftsorientierten Gesellschaften der mittleren Bronzezeit des südgriechischen Festlandes in das hierarchische Palastsystem der mykenischen (d.h. spätbronzezeitlichen) Zeit. Ich argumentiere, daβ Prestigekonsum im Bereich des Totenkultes nicht nur schlicht ein Symptom, sondern ein entscheidendes Element des tiefreichenden Strukturwandels war, der am Übergang zur Spätbronzezeit durch das südliche Festland fegte.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of European Archaeology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1997 , pp. 34 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 

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

Appadurai, Arjun, 1986. Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In Appadurai, Arjun (ed.), The Social Life of Things: 3–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Douglas, (in preparation) The archaeology of value: Essays on prestige and the processes of valuation.Google Scholar
Baudrillard, Jean, 1975. The Mirror of Production. St Louis, MO: Telos Press.Google Scholar
Baudrillard, Jean, 1981. For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. St Louis, MO: Telos Press.Google Scholar
Berthoud, G. and Sabelli, F., 1976. L'ambivalence de la production: logiques commumutaires et logiques capitalistes. Paris: Presses Universitares de France.Google Scholar
Boas, Frank, 1966. Kwakiutl Ethnography, ed. Codere, H. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Bohannan, Paul, 1955. Some principles of exchange and investment among the Tiv. American Anthropologist 57: 60–70.Google Scholar
Branigan, Ketch, 1981. Minoan colonialism. Annual of the British School at Athens 76: 24–33.Google Scholar
Campbell, S, 1983. Attaining rank: a classification of shell valuables. In Leach, J.W. and Leach, Edmund (eds.), The Kula: New Perspectives on Massim Exchange: 229–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Catling, H. 1986–1987. Archaeology in Greece. Archaeological Reports: 7–78.Google Scholar
Chadwick, John, 1987. L'économie palatiale dans la Grèce Mycénienne. In Lévy, Edmond (ed.), Le Systeme palatial en Orient, en Grèce et à Rome. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg: 283–290. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Davis, Jack L., 1979. Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades in the Later Bronze Age. In Cherry, John and Davis, Jack (eds.), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory: 143–157. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Monograph XIV.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Oliver, 1994. The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doumas, Christos, 1982. The Minoan thalassocracy and the Cyclades. Archäologischer Anzeiger: 5–14.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile and Mauss, Marcel, 1963. Primitive Classification. Cohen and West: London.Google Scholar
Firth, Raymond, 1983. Magnitudes and values in kula exchange. In Leach, J.W. and Leach, Edmund (eds.), The Kula: New Perspectives on Massim Exchange: 89–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, 1977. Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, 1980. Power/Knowledge, ed. Gordon, C. Hassocks: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Frankenstein, Sue and Rowlands, Michael, 1978. The internal structure and regional context of an early iron age society in southwest Germany. Bulletin of the University of London Institute of Archaeology 15: 73–112.Google Scholar
Friedman, J. and Rowlands, Michael, 1977. Notes towards an epigenetic model for the evolution of civilisation. In Friedman, J. and Rowlands, Michael (eds.), The Evolution of Social Systems: 201–286. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Gailey, C.W., 1987. Culture wars: resistance to state formation. In Patterson, T.C and Gailey, C.W. (eds.), Power Relations and State Formation: 35–56. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, Archaeology Section.Google Scholar
Gledhill, John, 1988. Introduction: the comparative analysis of social and political transitions. In Gledhill, John, Bender, Barbara and Larsen, M.T. (eds.), State and Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralisation: 1–29. London: Unwin Hyman (World Archaeology Series 4).Google Scholar
Gregory, Chris A. 1983. Kula gift exchange and capitalist commodity exchange: a comparison. In Leach, J.W. and Leach, Edmund (eds.), The Kula: New Perspectives on Massim Exchange: 103–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hägg, Robin and Marinatos, Nanno (eds.), 1984. The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens. Stockholm: Paul Åström.Google Scholar
Halstead, Paul, 1981. From determinism to uncertainty: social storage and the rise of the Minoan palaces. In Sheridan, Alison and Bailey, Geoff (eds.), Economic Archaeology: Towards an Integrated Approach: 187–213. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series 96).Google Scholar
Halstead, Paul, 1988. On redistribution and the origin of Minoan-Mycenaean palatial economies. In French, Elisabeth B. and Wardle, Ken A. (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary of the British School of Archaeology at Athens: 519–530. Bristol: Classical Press.Google Scholar
Hardy, David A., Doumas, Christos G., Sakellarakis, John A. and Warren, Peter M. (eds.), 1990. Thera and the Aegean World III, Vol. One: Archaeology. London: The Thera Foundation.Google Scholar
Hardy, David A. and Colin Renfrew, A. (eds.), 1990. Thera and the Aegean World III, Vol. Three: Chronology. London: The Thera Foundation.Google Scholar
Karo, Georg, 1930–1933. Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai. Munich: F. Bruckmann.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Kristian, 1978. The consumption of wealth in bronze age Denmark: a study in the dynamics of economic processes in tribal societies. In Kristiansen, Kristian and Paludan-Müller, C. (eds.), New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology: 158–190. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.Google Scholar
Leach, J.W. and Leach, Edmund (eds.), 1983. The Kula: New Perspectives on Massim Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw, 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mauss, Marcel, 1966. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic societies. London: Cohen and West. [First published in L'Année Sociologique 1 (1923–1924)].Google Scholar
Mee, Chris B. and Cavanagh, William G., 1984. Mycenaean tombs as evidence for social and political organisation. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3 (3): 45–65.Google Scholar
Munn, N.D. 1983. Gawan kula: spatiotemporal control and the symbolism of influence. In Leach, J.W. and Leach, Edmund (eds.), The Kula: New Perspectives on Massim Exchange: 277–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mylonas, George, 1972. O tafikos kyklos B ton Mykenon. Athens: Archaiologiki Etaireia.Google Scholar
Nordquist, Gullög C., 1979. Dead society: a study in the intramural cemetery at Lema. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Nordquist, Gullög C., 1987. A Middle Helladic village: Asine in the Argolid. Uppsala: Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilisations (Boreas 16).Google Scholar
Patrik, L.E., 1985. Is there an archaeological record? In Schiffer, Matthew B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8: 27–62. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, T.C. and Gailey, C.W., 1987. Power relations and state formation. In Patterson, T.C. and Gailey, C.W. (eds.), Power Relations and State Formation: 1–29. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, Archaeology Section.Google Scholar
Randsborg, Klaus, 1975. Social dimensions of early neolithic Denmark. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41: 105–118.Google Scholar
Renfrew, A. Colin, 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millenium BC. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Renfrew, A. Colin, 1986. Varna and the emergence of wealth in prehistoric Europe. In Appadurai, Arjun (ed.), The Social Life of Things: 141–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Michael, 1980. Kinship, alliance and exchange in the European bronze age. In Barrett, John and Bradley, Richard (eds.), Settlement and Society in the British Late Bronze Age: 15–48. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 83.Google Scholar
Sahlins, Marshall, 1974. Stone Age Economics. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Schliemann, Heinrich, 1878. Mycenae. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Vermeule, Emily, 1964. Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voutsaki, Sofia, 1993. Society and culture in the Mycenaean world: an analysis of mortuary practices in the Argolid, Thessaly and the Dodecanese. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Voutsaki, Sofia, 1995a. Social and political processes in the Mycenaean Argolid: the mortuary evidence. In Laffineur, Robert and Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich (eds.), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age: 55–66. Liège: Aegaeum 12.Google Scholar
Voutsaki, Sofia, 1995b. Value and exchange in pre-monetary societies: anthropological debates and Aegean archaeology. In Gillis, Carole, Risberg, Christina and Sjöberg, Birgitta (eds.), Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Aspects of Trade: 7–17. Jonsered: Paul Åsrröm.Google Scholar
Voutsaki, Sofia, in press. Mortuary evidence, symbolic meanings and social change: a comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean period. In Branigan, Keith (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield: Sheffield Monographs in Archaeology.Google Scholar
Voutsaki, Sofia, forthcoming. The Shaft Grave assemblage as symbols of power and prestige. In Kilian, Imma (ed.), Symbols of Power and Prestige in the Aegean Bronze Age. Mainz: Römisches – Germanisches Zentralmuseum.Google Scholar