|
|
Post by Admin on May 6, 2021 5:22:37 GMT
B. Influence from Anatolia, the Kastri/Lefkandi ceramic assemblage (2,600-
2,300 BCE
The EBA in Greece, has a duration of 1,000-1,100 years starting from 3,300/3,200 to
ca. 2,000 BC, and is divided into EH I-III/EC I-III/ EM I-III (see Tab. i). During the
EBA, small-scale complex societies emerged in a number of regions on mainland Greece,
on the Cycladic islands and Crete. This complexity become more evident during EH II
(2,600-2,300 BCE) with the appearance of the monumental architecture including the
so-called corridor houses (famous examples are the House of Tiles at Lerna in Peloponnese
and the White House on the island of Aegina), the Rundbau (circular building) at Tiryns in
the Peloponnese, large storage facilities and fortifications. Metallurgy and administrative
use of seals was widespread.
Metallurgy, the seals and the use of weights are consistent with systems first employed
in the Near East. They appear first on the eastern shore of the Aegean and then in Greece,
manifesting a westward diffusion (Rahmstorf, 2015). East Aegean regional centers, such
as Poliochni (Limnos Island in the northern Aegean), Troy, Liman Tepe, and Bakla Tepe
(western Anatolia) provided tin alloys to the Cyclades and the east coast of mainland
Greece through the Anatolian trade network. The Great Caravan route, a long-distance
trade route from central Anatolia and far beyond, provided western Anatolia and the
the potter’s wheel). Long houses, which emerged in mainland Greece by ca. 2,600 BCE
were present in Liman Tepe by 3,000 BCE (Kouka, 2013). Specific artefacts such as the
ceramic "frying pans" of the Cyclades were also present on mainland Greece. All the
above suggest that interactions between regions in the Aegean, western Anatolia and
mainland Greece were very strong.
Moreover, one of the most interesting features of this period, is the influx to central
Greece (specifically Boeotia, Attica and the islands of Euboea and Keos) at the end of
EH II (ca. 2,300 BCE) of western Anatolian derived ceramics called the Kastri/Lefkandi
ceramic assemblage. The name derives from the sites of Kastri on the Cycladic island of
Syros and Lefkandi site on Euboea. The ceramic assemblage included plates or shallow
bowls (one-handled tankards, bell-shaped cups, two-handled cylindrical goblets (the iconic
depas amphikypellon) and beak-spouted jugs. These ceramics were mainly drinking, eating
and pouring vessels and their appearance has been interpreted as the introduction of new
eating and drinking habits by the elites of the eastern Aegean in context of the newly
established commensal feasts (Kouka, 2013).
Many of the ceramic forms seem to derive from Anatolian prototypes, either from
north-western Anatolia around Troy or from central-western Anatolia in the Liman
Tepe/Izmir region. The spread of tankards and depas cups, the most characteristic vessels
of the new drinking set, reached a wide geographic region from eastern Thrace, to Tarsus
(south-central Turkey) and northern Mesopotamia (Kouka, 2013; Kouka, 2011). This new
cultural wave appeared at the end of EH II/EC II, thus around 2,300 BCE. Whether it
continued into EH III is not agreed, although a fusion of the new elements with local
mainland cultures, as proposed by Rutter (Rutter, 1979) seems plausible (Pullen, 2008).
The Kastri/Lefkandi ceramic assemblage manifests an east-to-west migration across
the central Aegean of a selected group of Anatolian vessel shapes. Some of them were
wheel-made, the first wheel-made pottery in the Aegean, indicating the introduction
of new technological advances (for details see Choleva, 2012). Whether this ceramic
change was accompanied by real population movement is debatable. In some cases, the
abandonment of the older sites and the foundation of new sites nearby, as in the case of
Lefkandi and Kastri with the parallel appearance of the new ceramic assemblage could
suggest immigration of people. Rutter emphasizes that the new ceramic forms substituted
previous shapes and were not only additions. This perhaps implies a concrete choice of
newcomers rather than casual trade (Rutter, 1979). Interpretations of the appearance of
the Lefkandi/Kastri assemblage are divided between a population movement from the East
(for an overview see Forsén, 1992) or the establishment of systematic trade relationships
between the eastern and western Aegean (Maran, 1998; Rahmstorf, 2015; Şahoğlu, 2005).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 6, 2021 20:13:00 GMT
C. The Early Helladic II-Early Helladic III "cultural gap" (2,300 BCE)
The third chronological and cultural period that has been strongly linked with the "coming
of the Greeks" is the turning point from EH II to EH III /EC II to EC III (2,300-2,200
BCE). This period has been characterized in the archaeological literature (Rutter, 1979;
Rutter, 1983) as the "cultural gap" of the EBA (updated views on the topic in Kouka
(2013), Pullen (2008), and Wiener (2013)). The term "gap" refers to the termination
of the cultural complexity seen during EH II/EC II. This is observed in the end of the
corridor houses, the decline of sealing-administration systems, and the disappearance
of luxury goods. In the Cyclades, the manufacture of marble objects ceased or sharply
declined, and Cycladic material ceased to appear at Helladic sites. Burial in cist tombs
also ended and fortifications were created on hilltops (Wiener, 2013).
The theory of the "coming of the Greeks" was first triggered by the findings of the
American archaeologist John Caskey. At the famous Peloponnesian site of Lerna, EH II is
terminated by the destruction of the House of Tiles (a long corridor house). According
to the American excavator (see theory 2 in the main text), this destruction took place
throughout the Peloponnese and was the result of invaders (Caskey, 1960). His arguments
were built around 1) the generalized destruction of sites; and 2) the appearance of new
cultural elements such as tumuli (burial mounds), apsidal houses, terracotta anchors and
shaft hole axes. Especially for Lerna the differences were significant. During EH II the site
was fortified, the houses were rectangular "corridor houses" and the ceramics thin-walled,
high-fired and light-coloured. During EH III, Lerna was not fortified, the houses were
apsidal and the ceramics were thick-walled, porous and low-fired (Forsén, 2012). Caskey’s
argument has been largely rejected, however, because modern research and radiocarbon
dating have shown that the fires and destructions were not synchronous in all sites (for
detailed overviews see Caskey, 1960; Dickinson, 2016; Forsén, 1992; Manning, 1995; Pullen,
2008; Rutter, 1993; Rutter, 2001). Moreover, the House of Tiles at Lerna was destroyed
but not abandoned. Upon its ruins was built a tumulus - a funerary monument. This
indicates ideological continuity and invaders seem unlikely to commemorate what they
had destroyed. Moreover, apsidal houses, terracotta anchors and shaft-hole axes did not
appear simultaneously but over a broad period of time from EH II to the MH (Middle
Helladic) (Tab. i) and their origins are diverse e.g., in western parts of Greece and the
Ionian and Adriatic regions (Forsén, 1992; Forsén, 2012; Maran, 1998) rather than in a
single area.
It is widely accepted, however, that this -in many aspects- flourishing period, was
brought to an end at around 2,300-2,200 BCE. A series of causes, besides invasions, has
been proposed for this, including climatic perturbations, land degradation and social
changes. The case for climatic change appears as persuasive, especially for a period of
drought starting around 2,300 BCE in Mesopotamia, the Near East and North Africa,
5 and has been largely supported by palaeoclimatological data (Manning, 1995; Weiss,
2000). The supporters of this view see a collapse of a broad economic network, due to
severe droughts that influenced all links in the production-trade chain (Wiener, 2013).
Kouka (2013) on the other hand, interprets this hiatus as a lack of extroversion (no more
intensive trade and luxury goods exchange) which was very intense during EH I/EC I and
EH II/EC II. French (1973), Renfrew (1972), and Walter and Felten (1981) attributed
this change to local evolution, but without strong supportive evidence, as pointed out by
Forsén (2012) and Voutsaki (2012).
It should be noted that Crete was largely exempt both from the influence of the
Kastri/Lefkandi ceramic assemblage and from the EH II-III/EC II-III cultural gap.
Despite the close connection of Crete and the Cyclades in EM I/EC I, the Kastri/Lefkandi
assemblage never reached Crete in significant quantities and the passage from Early
Minoan II-Early Minoan III (i.e. EH II-III/EC II-III) was smooth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 7, 2021 2:37:01 GMT
1.3.2 Middle Bronze Age
A. The Middle Helladic Period and the appearance of the Minyan ware (2,000-
1,900 BCE)
The third turning point for the "coming of the Greeks" was set around 2,000-1,900 BCE at
the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA). The idea was triggered by the appearance
of a new ceramic type of fine grey ware known as Minyan ware, a name given by Heinrich
Schliemann who excavated at Orchomenos in Boeotia, central Greece. This ceramic ware
was interpreted as reflecting influence of Indo-European people coming from the Steppes
through Iran, especially by archaeologists, who excavated in the broader region of Iran
(for overview, see Demoule (2017)). Wace and Blegen who introduced what would become
the standard terminology for the chronological system of BA Greece (Early, Middle,
Late Helladic), based their tripartite division on the ceramic sequence available at the
time. They regarded Minyan ware as significantly different to the previous Neolithic and
EBA ceramics. They did not directly associate this change with migration but mostly
referred to a new cultural strain (Wace and Blegen, 1916). Blegen, however, together with
Haley in a second publication that combined archaeological and linguistic evidence (see
Section 1.4), developed the idea of the "coming of the Greeks" (Blegen and Haley, 1928).
They acknowledged a cultural movement from Anatolia during the EBA, that created
a common cultural and linguistic substratum in the Aegean but they further defined a
probable migration during MBA, of people who were the carriers of Minyan ware and the
proto-Greek language.
Caskey, who supported a first wave of invaders at the transition from EH II to EH
III (see above), likewise supported a second wave at the transition from EH III to MH
I (Caskey, 1966b). This view was largely abandoned after the 1960s, first because the
theoretical orientation of archaeology shifted from migrationism to diffusionism, but also
because new archaeological evidence indicated a different picture. Nowadays, it is mostly
accepted that Minyan ware evolved from the proto-Minyan ware that appeared in Tiryns
during the end of EH III (2,100-2,000 BCE), while the MHI (2,100/2,000-1,800 BCE)
culture is seen as a continuation of the previous EBA period (Maran, 1998).
B. The Middle Helladic - Late Helladic cultural change (1,700-1,600 BCE)
The last point in time at which significant cultural changes occured that have been linked
to the theory of the "coming of the Greeks", is the last phase of MBA and the beginning of
the Late Bronze Age (LBA), i.e. MH III-LM I (ca. 1,700-1,600 BCE). During this period
some radical changes took place and mainland societies underwent a deep transformation
that culminated in the Mycenaean palatial period.
Some of the most significant changes were related to mortuary practices, as exemplified
by the Shaft Graves at Mycenae. Burial practices provide crutial insights on material
culture of this period, because more cemeteries have been excavated than settlement
sites. During this period, the shaft grave, tholos tomb and chamber tomb types appeared,
involving reuse of the tomb and secondary treatment of the deceased. The burials were
rich and the mortuary sphere clearly became the main arena for the creation of power and
prestige (Voutsaki, 2012). Characteristic of the period is the intensification of exchange
over a very wide geographical range from Anatolia to the Balkans and further to the
Adriatic Sea (Maran, 2007). The local Helladic material culture was also receptive to
Aegean and Minoan influences (Voutsaki, 2012).
The changes in social, political and economic level and the rise of the Mycenaean
elite centers have been interpreted in terms of either internal evolution and local prosperity (Renfrew, 1972) or the development of established and/or opportunist elites in an expanding economic system (Voutsaki, 2012, see also Kristiansen, 2016). Under the
influence of migrationist ideas, invaders from the North or East had first been proposed.
A basic key argument to this end was based on the presence of war chariots at Mycenae
(Drews, 1988), but most scholars nowadays see this in terms of long-distance cultural
connections and exchange of high-status goods and customs between the Mycenaean and
the populations of the Steppes (Demoule, 2017). It is indisputable that Mycenaean elites,
even of the Pre-palatial period, had access to and were exposed to, outside cultures and
this combined with internal competition and brokering of Cycladic and Minoan access to
resources and opportunities, led to the development of the flourishing Mycenaean states
(Shelton, 2010; Shelton, 2012).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 7, 2021 19:58:27 GMT
1.4 The "coming of the Greeks" based on linguistic hypotheses
Archaeological theories on probable migrations or invasions on the Greek mainland have
been linked to the spread of Indo-European languages and the appearance of proto-Greek
in the southern part of the Balkan peninsula (Coleman, 2000; Chadwick and Edwards,
1975) (Tab. ii).
1.4.1 The spread of Indo-European languages
Two hypotheses dominate the discussion on the spread of Indo-European (IE) languages
in Europe:
1) The Steppe hypothesis in which a Proto-Indo-European language was spoken in the
Pontic-Caspian steppe around 4,500 BCE (Ringe, 2006; Parpola, 2008; Fortson, 2010;
Beekes, 2011; Chang et al., 2015) and stread together pastoralism, the wheel and the
domestic horse (Anthony, 1995; Gimbutas, 1973; Gimbutas, 1997; Mallory, 1989); and
2) The Anatolian hypothesis in which a Proto-Indo-European language spread from
Anatolia around 7,000 BCE with the expansion of agriculture (Renfrew, 1988; Bouckaert
et al., 2012; Gray et al., 2011).
A third, hybrid hypothesis that has gained less attention, proposes that the ProtoIndo-European
language was spoken in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus and spread
thence north to the Steppe from where it expanded into Europe and Asia (Gamkrelidze
and Ivanov, 1995).
1.4.2 Languages and scripts of the Bronze Age Aegean
Greek belongs to the IE language group and is the oldest language in known continuous
use from its earliest written appearance to present times, i.e. over 3,500 years. The
decipherment of Linear B by Michael Ventris in 1953 established the Greek character of
the Mycenaean script and set Greek as the second oldest IE written language (the first
being Hittite). Linear B was a syllabic script used in Crete and southern and central
mainland Greece (e.g., Thebes and Iolkos) during the Mycenaean palatial civilization
from perhaps 1,400 BCE (Ventris and Chadwick, 1953). It has been characterised as an
administrative language because: 1) it was used to keep economic, military, religious and
organizational records of the Mycenaean palaces; and 2) despite its geographical spread,
it was largely uniform with no signs of local idioms and dialects which are evident in later
periods of Greek antiquity (Ventris and Chadwick, 1956). Linear B script was written
on clay tablets. The first tablets were found during excavations at Knossos in Crete and
then at Pylos and Mycenae in the Peloponnese. Nowadays, they number more than 5,900
and they have been recovered from 17 archaeological sites on mainland Greece and Crete
(Giannopoulos, 2012). Most are dated to the 14th and 13th c. BCE (Giannopoulos, 2012).
Linear B is not the only script that was used in the Aegean during the BA. Clay
tablets and other metal and ceramic objects with Linear A script have been found on
Crete and on some Aegean islands and date to perhaps the 19th to the 15th c. BCE
(Driessen, 2008). Linear A is probably a syllabic and ideographic script, but has not yet
been deciphered. In Crete, the Cretan Hieroplyphic script was also used in parallel to
Linear A, and is likewise undeciphered (Olivier, 1986; Karnava, 1999). Besides Linear
A and Cretan Hieroglyphic, other types of scripts were used in Crete. For example the
iconic Phaistos disc is written in another hieroglyphic script, impressed with seals on wet
clay and again undeciphered (Duhoux, 1998).
The Linear B script is by far the most commonly found (87%) in the BA Aegean,
followed by Linear A (11%) and Cretan Hieroglyphic (2%) (Giannopoulos, 2012; Bartoněk,
2003). Linear A is thought to be an ancestral form of Linear B, with which it shares ca.
45 syllabic forms but it is not clear if these have the same phonological meaning. Twenty
probable that Mycenaean palaces used Cretans to transfer their knowledge of writing but
the script was used for a different language, i.e. Greek and therefore Linear B developed
differently (Bartoněk, 2003). Linear A, on the other hand, although not deciphered, is
widely accepted to have been used for a language other than Greek. Both Linear A and
B were abandoned after the destruction of the palaces around 1,200 BCE. Linear A was
sporadically used for a few centuries afterwards.
There are several theories on the origin of Linear A (for an overview see Giannopoulos,
2012). One idea and the most relevant for the present study, is that Linear A was
influenced by Anatolian languages. Anatolian languages are generally regarded as the
first group to separate from a Proto-IE language and include Hittite, Luwian and Lycian.
According to Renfrew, a Proto-IE language was brought to mainland Greece and Crete by
the first farmers during the 7th millennium from Anatolia (see theory 2 above). Linear B of
mainland Greece was used for writing the Greek language, whereas Linear A was used for
a (so far) unknown language. Renfrew suggests that the two languages diverged differently
after their initial split from Proto-IE. Drews is of a similar opinion, that Linear A was
influenced from Anatolia and this westward movement started during the Early Neolithic
period. He does not accept the proto-IE character of this Anatolian language, however,
and does not link it to the spread of IE languages. He characterizes it as a Proto-Anatolian
language from which the other known Anatolian languages such as Luwian and Hittite,
developed.
Linear B on the other hand, sets a terminus ante quem for the appearance of the Greek
language. Since Linear B was used for writing an archaic form of Greek (for overview on
ancient Greek dialects and Linear B, see Giannopoulos, 2012), Greek was present at least
by 1,400 BCE and probably before given the time needed for a language to develop. The
process of formation of the Greek language, however, is still a debated topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 8, 2021 20:24:13 GMT
1.4.3 The Anatolian linguistic sub-stratum
In 1896 and 1905 Kretschmer and Fick (German philologists) published a catalogue of
place names and words in the Greek language with a non-Greek origin (Kretschmer,
1896; Fick, 1905). These words interestingly include toponyms, that is names of places,
most of which have existed since the Neolithic Period (e.g., Argissa, Knossos but also
Larissa, Corinth, Parnassos), and faunal and floral terms (e.g., yakinthos, narkissos,
akanthos, kyparissos, daphne), as well as words such as thalassa, labyrinth, anax, thorax
etc. These words with ss (σσ), tt (τ τ ), nth (νθ), mn (µν) and nd (νδ) suffixes, that
cannot etymologically be attributed to the Greek language, number around 4,000-6,000.
Kretschmer and Fick, through study of place names with the same suffixes in Anatolia,
assumed a common origin for these words in a non-IE language. At the time Anatolian
languages such as Hittite had not been discovered and their IE character was largely
unknown. With the discovery and decipherment of Hittite and other Anatolian languages
and their characterization as IE, it was accepted that the place names and words with the
5 aforementioned suffixes belonged to a "Pre-Hellenic" linguistic substratum of Anatolian
origin. A series of studies supported this view, including the work of Blegen and Haley
(1928), who linked the Anatolian substratum with archaeological data to support their
views on EBA migrations from Anatolia (see Section 1.3.2). The linguistic substratum
was also used as evidence by Wace and Blegen (1916), Childe (1915) and Mellaart (1973)
to support a migration at the beginning of 2nd millenium BCE with the introduction of
Minyan ceramic ware (see Section 1.3.2).
Advances in the study of Anatolian languages, however, and systematic recording of
these place names, suggest that this linguistic substratum was present at least during the
Neolithic and did not appear during the BA. Its diaspora extended from Anatolia, to
Greece, the Balkans and even Italy, following the routes of Neolithisation (Schachermeyr,
1955; overview in Giannopoulos, 2012). Further studies have supported the IE character
of this linguistic substratum (Laroche, 1957; Heubeck, 1961; Palmer, 1961) and linked
the presence of these suffixes and place names to the IE branch of Anatolian languages
(Carruba, 1995). Likewise, the "hybrid" theory of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov on the spread
of the IE languages (theory 3, Section 1.4.1) (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1983a; Gamkrelidze
and Ivanov, 1983b; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1995) supported the Anatolian character of
these place names. A few studies have maintained a non-IE origin for this substratum
and associated it with Kartvelian, a south Caucasian linguistic family (Furnée, 1979).
This opinion was formerly accepted even in archaeological circles (Mellaart, 1973).
Nowadays, the Anatolian origin of this linguistic substratum and its IE-character
is mostly accepted. Moreover, it is in line with Renfrew’s "Anatolian hypothesis" (see
above) for the spread of IE languages (Renfrew, 1988). According to Renfrew, Early
Neolithic farmers from Anatolia were the speakers of the Proto-IE language, with Greek
developing out of the proto-IE branch that arrived in Greece with the first farmers
during the 7 490th millennium BCE. His view has found support in broader arguments linking
farming with the spread of the main language families of the world, such as Austronesian,
Indo-European, Niger-Congo, Uto-Aztecan, and Afroasiatic (for an overview see Bellwood,
2001; Bellwood and Renfrew, 2003; Diamond and Bellwood, 2003). Similarly, Drews
supports a proto-Anatolian origin for the language spoken in Greece during the Neolithic
(including Linear A and Cretan Hieroglyphic) but suggests, that this language vanished
and Greek arrived in the Aegean at the end of the MBA (Drews, 1988).
If Greek did not evolve from the language spoken by the first Neolithic farmers
(Anatolian hypothesis), it must have reached Greece at a later time. The arrival of IE
proto-Greek speakers is in line with the other dominant linguistic hypothesis known as
the Steppe hypothesis. This hypothesis claims that Greek was introduced to the Aegean
after the Neolithic by people coming from the north, placing their origin variously in the
Pontic Caspian Steppe region (e.g., Coleman, 2000), the Caucasus and Armenia (e.g.,
Drews, 1988), or the Balkans and east Adriatic region (Maran, 1998). Different dates
have been suggested for these migrations, ranging from the Final Neolithic and beginning
of the EBA (4,000-3,000 BCE) to after the destruction of the Mycenaean palaces (1,200
BCE) (see archaeological section). Scenarios that linked the appearance of Greek with the
end of the Mycenaean palaces (1,200 BCE) (see Section 1.3) have been largely abandoned
since the decipherment of Linear B established the use of the Greek language, from at
least the mid 2nd millennium BCE.
|
|
