Kratos & Krater: The Bronze Age Antecedents

Excerpted from Barbara Bohen, Kratos & Krater, ©2017 Archaeopress and Barbara Bohen

Fig. 1. Funerary Scene: a Late Helladic IIIC Late krater depicts the deceased lying on a bier, surrounded by mourners
and a sacrificial animal. West Peloponnesos, Ayia Triadha. Courtesy Dr. Olympia Viatakou

1
 Chapter II

The Bronze Age Antecedents

The Early & Middle Helladic Phase

Commensality & Burial

Drinking of wine socially and ritually had a long history in Helladic culture, occurring already at
the onset of the second millennium. It was some time during the Middle Helladic period that there
were moves towards a more organized structuring of Helladic society, and it was observable in the
context of feasting, drinking and burial practices. A set of vessels for use in commensality evolved.
There was more formal disposal of the dead, who were set in separately defined locations outside
the living space, with some burials defined by mounds. There were more ceremonial ritual
practices in connection with burial, such as animal sacrifice, libation and funerary meals, a clear
recognition of the deceased’s rite of passage from a material to an immaterial world.

The rituals and burial mounds celebrated the dead, but they were also one of the few ways of
underlining status in a society that had few opportunities for the expression of social
differentiation, there was so little wealth. Kratos governance, at this time, would have comprised
family patriarchs, who would have presided over mostly informal kinship-based gatherings,
probably of a commensal nature. The formalities of social eating and drinking and some
rudimentary symbolism would have expressed whatever social distinctions existed. Early modest
displays of institutional commensality and differentiated status were followed with considerably
more flourish by the Mycenaean princes of the following era.

The Palatial Kratos & Krater

By the Middle Helladic III phase there were a few changes predictive of the onset of the palatial
phase: gradually increasing prosperity in the material record, including individual wealth reflected
in the bronze weaponry, adornment, differentially sized housing and household equipment. This
is all suggestive of a more authoritative leadership presiding over a developing social stratification.
A new level of cultural expression was attained in Mainland Greece following contact with more
advanced civilizations in the 17th c BC. The original kinship-based social organization and
scattered fiefdoms yielded to a new order typified by the MH-LHI culture of Mycenae. Some of
the more significant Mainland centers assimilated smaller settlements into their orbit where they
could, and by the 15th c. a number of them were exhibiting some common traits in governmental
and societal structure, economy, and general artistic expression. The prime center was Mycenae.
Rulers at Mycenae were no longer buried in the simple rectangular cavities of their humble Middle
Helladic origins. Their burial was formalized with a rich content of gold and other precious
artifacts reflective of contact with Crete and Egypt. The family precinct was defined architecturally
as a circular enclosure, and some burials were surmounted by a headstone. In sequel massive
masonry-constructed beehive tombs evocative of the pyramids were erected at a remove from the
center.

2
During the 13th c. Mycenae’s aspirations towards hegemony may have led to the construction of
a massive Cyclopean masonry circuit wall, encircling both the palace complex and a burial
compound. The symbolic badge of rampant lions(?) over the massive entranceway to the citadel
was a statement of Mycenaean strength and power, its purpose likely to legitimize this center as
the preeminent Mainland ruling house (Fig. 2). Other centers followed Mycenae’s lead in palace
and defensive construction, style of weaponry, manufacturing and trade and funerary practices.

With change and expansion came more activity and complexity, especially in oversight of
construction, agriculture and commerce. A wholly kinship-based administration was inadequate
to meet needs at this point. A hierarchical system of oversight evolved at the more significant
centers, with overseers of various rank supervising the numerous activities controlled by the
palace. Large centers such as Mycenae had absorbed other land holdings in their vicinity, but
elsewhere, such as Messenia, some extra-palatial chieftains appear to have remained in control of
their land to the end of the palatial period and beyond.

Fig. 2. Mycenae Lion Gate, 13th c. BC

The degree of unity and coherence between the different Mainland centers is unclear. The culture
is similar, which may have led Jung to suggest that all palaces were under the control of a single
Mycenaean ruler. Others support a confederation model, and certainly that is what the account of
3
the Trojan war suggests. For a variety of reasons, the Bronze Age Mainland may never have
coalesced into a unified state under the rule of a single Mycenaean ruler. Greece’s extensive
mountain ranges, bordered by a lengthy, crenellated coastline, broke the Mainland into several
distinct areas, many of which became natural fiefdoms.1

Communication between the distinct regions was slow and hazardous, so that the highway of the
sea was often the easiest recourse Some centers retained their own fleet of ships from which they
could naturally pursue their own trade ventures, whether on the Mainland or beyond, making them
less dependent on other Mainland centers for their economic livelihood. These factors may have
led to the spirit of independence that characterized Greek culture. The same situation held for the
city-states during the Classical era. Only Macedon and Rome, with their national armies,
succeeded in imposing their will on the entire region.

The Pylos Linear B records reveal the full independence of a palace economy, with its own
workforce, defensive forces, fertile lands, and trade relations. The great walls erected around each
center may have been less concerned with an external invasion than maintaining the status quo
among powerful, well-armed and well supplied individual principalities. There would be no single
Mycenaean army assembled in one spot until the Trojan War, a conflict likely initiated by
Mycenae for trade advantages and access to the Black Sea. Homer depicts the discord of a venture
led by Type A chieftains used to having their own way. The bickering heroes may be based on
actual traditions of dissent among the participants, chronicled by a sophisticated latter-day poet.
The bullying depiction of Agamemnon may have descended from traditions of an aggressive
Mycenae so ingrained that it was remembered following the Bronze Age. Following the Trojan
campaign, there was a centrifugal reaction. The ensuing Peloponnesian breakdown, and ultimately
the end of Mycenaean civilization, may have been the result.

The main evidence for the structure and economic activities of the Mycenaean kratos comes from
Pylos. More is known of the situation at Messenia because of the many remains left in situ from
the destruction that terminated the palatial age. Among them were copious Linear B clay
documents giving details of the palace administrators, external relationships, activities, and assets.
Regional surveys of Messenian settlement have augmented the material from the palace. The clay
tablets confirm that the palace of Pylos was ruled by a wanax (high king), with a second in
command, lawagetas, possibly an early ‘secretary of state’, overseeing defense. A corps of
administrators of intermediate levels of authority included supervisors of cardres of menial labor
of varying classification, working in services, workshops and oversight of agricultural production.
The Pylos tablets detail the complexity of the palatial era rule, which had established relations
with both internal and external entities as well as other Mycenaean centers.

The palace’s authority lay in its identity as a Mycenaean center with all that implied. It held
extensive lands, livestock and production facilities, controlled by tarasija, a workshop system for
creating prestige items such as weapons, furniture, chariots, textiles, decorated pottery, and other
high-skilled manufacture. These items were for palace consumption or trade. Intensive surveys of
Messenia indicate that Pylos did not exert as extensive control over its surrounding region as other

1
For a suggestion that all palaces came under the hegemony of the ruler of Ahhiyawa (Achaia, Mycenae?), R. Jung, Imported Mycenaean Pottery
in the East: Distribution, Context, and Interpretation’, in B. Eder and R. Pruzsinsky (eds), Policies of Exchange: Political Systems and Modes of
Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. (Vienna 2015) 243-275.

4
centers, such as Mycenae. Settlement patterns and documents suggest there was a number of
external settlements that were not systematically integrated into the orbit of the palace. Some were
independent non-palatial communities ruled by their own chieftains. There is no evidence that the
Pylian monarchs attempted forceful takeover of these other settlements. Thus, Messenia may have
preserved more surviving features of the Middle Helladic phase, including some basic lineages
that in some cases appear almost coequal in status to those of the palace monarchy.2

Coexistence of the Pylian monarchs and regional chieftains must have required deft diplomacy,
but ultimately it appears to have been beneficial to both parties. A Pylos record shows the wanax
engaged in a transactional relationship with a certain Enkhellawon of Sarapeda, a possible non-
palatial Messenian chieftain who apparently had his own settlement, damos and lands.3 There were
likely other independent satellites involved in a similar interdependent relationship with the palace.
They had certain obligations to the palace, but David Small suggests it was likely in a context of
reciprocal exchange. The palace did work some of its own lands, but in the local non-monetary
economy of Messenia the finished goods of the palace, such as pottery and chariots, could have
been exchanged directly with regional chieftains for raw commodities, such as olive oil.4 This
would have left the Pylians more opportunity to manufacture finished goods and engage in
regional and overseas commerce. This Pylian arrangement stood in contrast to the kind of
controlling hegemony that Mycenae exercised over its surrounding territory, a model probably
drawn from Crete. When Mycenae lapsed under attack it had consequences for the widespread
agricultural enterprises that it had controlled and protected. The Pylian elite who survived the era
of palatial destruction, continued in the area without the kind of monumental enceinte found at
Mycenae, Tiryns and Athens. Indeed, the relations they had developed in the region, may explain
how they preserved independent Mycenaean communities and customs to the latest Bronze Age.

Since Pylos provided sufficient data for modelling, David Small cast a wide net for a center with
similar comparanda. He settled on Meso-American Copan as quite similar in palatial structure,
society, economy and relationship to communities in the surrounding region. Both had economies
that relied on their own landed estates, with some control over outlying sites. Neither levied taxes
on the surrounding settlements, but rather had a patron/client series of reciprocal obligations,
where transactions were negotiated in interpersonal negotiations. It is surmised that the Copan
lineages obtained certain materials and labor from outside the dynastic compound, as seems the
case at Pylos. There were similar distinct official categories, such as scribe, and evidence for the
production and stocking of prestige and luxury items at the center. The Copan polity comprised a
loose amalgamation of competing lineages, each with its own hierarchy, economy, and tract of
land and Small concluded that the structure in the Pylos area was similar. This might explain why
the non-palatial lower order centers were not drawn into the same kind of hierarchical relation
with the palace, as existed in more structured Minoan Crete and possibly Mycenae. It is a question
whether the small lineage structure at Pylos was an anomaly, or whether it applied to other
Mycenaean centers.

Pylos, Mycenae and Tiryns were all terminated by the end of the Bronze Age, but each lapsed in
a different manner. The example of Pylos is of most interest for this study, because Mycenaean

2
Small 1998, 286.
3
Others believe that Enkhellawon may himself have been the wanax of Pylos.
4
Small 1998, 283f.

5
aristocrats persisted in the region until the late 12th c. before reportedly making their way to
Athens. The dispersed authority in Messenia is not unlike the structure detectable in the early
organization of Iron Age Athens, reportedly under the rule of the Pylian Melanthos. Some post -
palatial era organization may have lived on in surviving Pylian communities of Messenia, to be
carried into exile by the last elite descendants of the house of Neleus.

The Settlement: The Role of the Krater in Commensality

Middle Helladic kin-based commensality had incorporated ideologies that would be greatly
expanded under the Mycenaean palatial regimes, but as the political structure became more
extended, there was need for a trusted ancillary network beyond the immediate clan. Military,
trade, manufacturing and agricultural affairs required supportive bureaucracies to manage their
increasingly more complex affairs. To retain their allegiance, this class would have been granted
access to some of the advantages of the ruling cliques, as well as the opportunity to associate with
them, and emulate some of their practices. Inclusion in the leader’s more exclusive social,
ceremonial and ritual occasions would have promoted the status of this elite corps of professionals,
but epic survivals reveal the enduring strength of kinship associations. Pylos is our best source of
information on commensality. Feasting had taken place prior to the destruction of the palace,
preserving an extraordinary amount of feasting and drinking equipment along with Pylos Linear
B tablets (Fig. 3). Commensality may have been associated not only with the internal and inter-
palatial relationships of the palace, but also with non-palatial regional entities. The interconnection
of feasting and drinking with the political life of the palace gains support from the numerous
serving vessels found in the palace. There were remains of 2853 kylikes and numerous animal

Fig. 3. Linear B Clay Tablet

bones in the ruins. The tablets confirm feasting occasions honoring visiting dignitaries for the
sealing of important commercial transactions. A possible non-palatial leader, Enkhellawon of
Sarapeda had sufficient status and familiarity with the regime to be identified on one record by his
personal name. There is a record of a feast undertaken jointly by the wanax and another external
chieftain, with the latter providing a bull for the event. Such chieftains were probably not
integrated hierarchically under the control of Pylos but related in the same kind of client/patron
association seen at Copan.5

5
Small 1998, 283.

6
Mycenae had now developed prestige, wealth, power, and overseas connections. With the increase
in agricultural, manufacturing, and trade enterprises, a hierarchy of professional ancillaries was
gradually changing the face of the palace’s administrative structure. Leaders of other Mainland
principalities, foreign ambassadors and trading partners would be among those now received in
the palace. On the agenda, treaties, trade agreements, prestige goods, the hospitality of guest
friendship, and rituals. These contexts required the ministration of well-planned commensality that
would underline the leader’s high status and style.6 The Shaft Graves have yielded bronze, silver
and other vessels that served these commensal activities. As mentioned, the mainly ceramic
drinking vessels preserved at Pylos number in the thousands.7 Some ceremony, music or a recital
may have attended such meetings. In recognition of the importance of a particular occasion, there
may have been ritual slaughter of animals, numerous bones of which have survived at Pylos.8

Tribal commensality of the Middle Helladic period may have been the first step towards more
formalized eating and drinking activities. Based on current evidence, the primary communal
drinking vessel, the krater, was likely introduced as practices of commensality were being refined
at the onset of the Mycenaean period. Whatever the venue, the earliest wine containers were likely
utilitarian clay vessels, possibly bronze, lacking the mystique and style which accrued to ceramic
kraters during the Mycenaean Palatial period (Fig. 5).9

The krater’s role became integral to the socio-political agenda of the ruler. Wine flowing from a
finely wrought krater against the backdrop of a well-prepared feast was a setting for relaxation in
congenial company. However, this was often a carefully orchestrated occasion designed to elicit
acquiescence with one of the host’s desired objectives. Feasting and drinking were now
demonstrably more than convivial occasions. The krater did have its limits as a tool of cultivation.
The Plain of Troy was no doubt awash with kraters but they did little to further an objective
traditionally notorious for its lack of compromise.

The krater played a significant role at Pylos. Hundreds of kylikes found in palaces reveal that the
krater presided over feasting and drinking that occurred on a lavish scale. Several types of krater
are represented on the tablets, but preserved remains are few. They may have been of metal, since
they were valuable enough to be identified on one of the tablets (with two different ideograms and
the name, ka-ra-te-re).10 Costly and symbolic vessels, they may have been ancestral keepsakes,
retrieved quickly as the palace came under attack, or in sequel spoils for the victors. A figured
ceramic krater from the last years of the Bronze Age was found in use among Submycenaean
graves at Mycenae (Fig. 24a). There were smaller, ovoid kraters for ritual and more intimate
occasions, some adorned with figural decoration, and for the less affluent, a simple bowl krater
with a vertical sidewall and two horizontal handles, which survived the palatial phase as the
ubiquitous ring-based krater (Fig. 12).

6
Wright 1995, 124-129. S. R. Stocker and J. L. Davis, ‘Feasting at the Palace of Nestor’ 162,190-2. Kraters and kylikes in situ in pottery at
Zygouries, Mountjoy 1993, 161, fig. 387.
7
Professor J. B. Rutter: the evidence from Tsoungiza and other sites throughout the northeastern Peloponnese and east-central Greece shows clearly
that the krater became a well-established ceramic form during the LH I period, at least as early as the 16th century.
8
Digests of AJA Colloquium on the role of feasting and drinking in the Bronze Age: AJA 106, 2002, 272.
9
Sherratt 2004, 326f., believes the krater’s emergence as a distinct vessel coincides with the earliest Mycenaean. palaces on the Mainland.
10
M. Ventris – J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge 1973) 22 f. K 331, Nr. 234 Ue 611. Sherratt 2004, 317-319.

7
There is little firm evidence for the onset of mixing wine. The practice presupposes the existence
of kraters, but several containers could have been used for the procedure. All classes cut their wine
with water, even the humblest who mixed in the cup, a wooden vessel called a kissubion, or
possibly dessicated gourds. Whether the krater itself evolved from indigenous or external sources
is not easily answered. However, some believe the name of the krater derives from a Greek verb
kerannumi, to mix. Professor Rutter suggests that Aegina was involved in the earliest Mainland
prototypes. He has documented fragmentary krater remains of Middle Helladic date found at
Tsoungiza in the Corinthia, including a new krater shape with two horizontal handles. Rims had a
diameter up to 37 cm.11 Early kraters were commonly matt-painted and rare, but at the dawn of
the Mycenaean era there was an increasing number of krater remains in a variety of fabrics and
surface finishes, which Professor Rutter attributes to the widening use of the krater. In a
forthcoming article, ‘An Explosion of Polychromy: Establishing Regional Ceramic Identities at
the Dawn of the Mycenaean Era’, he speaks of the diversification of the decoration, and documents
the varieties and the color of the ornamentation, which included bi-chrome. A new phase of
development was represented in shaft graves at Lerna and Mycenae (grave circle B) as well as
Tsoungiza and Aegina.

The roomy, less elegant ring-based krater arose in the Argolid, perhaps from a Middle Helladic
predecessor. It was decorated in both abstract and figural styles. Presumably of more lowly origins
than the more elegant court kraters, it found use among prosperous burgers, knights and leaders of
satellite communities, as well as within the palace. It survived the refined palatial products as the
most widespread krater of the Post-palatial era and was the foundation of the Athenian Type I
ancestral krater in the ensuing Iron Age.12

Used throughout antiquity by all but the humblest classes, the krater, in its most refined
manifestations, can be recognized as the prime vessel of leadership. Its more formal roles were
manifold: kinship assemblies and burials, elevated cult use in the palaces, gatherings of
Mycenaean elite and warrior groups in the Post-palatial period, and epitymbia of Athenian life-
kings in the Iron Age.

The Settlement: The Role of the Krater in Sacraments

Not all krater remains found in palace settings can be attributed to commensal use. There were
more solemn uses of the krater in sacraments. Paintings on walls and pottery illustrate its use in
official religious observances, where it would have served as a libation vessel, supervised by the
king or a chosen acolyte.31 Rites combining elements of propitiation, spiritual appeal, and theater,
would have been an expression of palace control over religious institutions. Palatial sacraments
would have been exclusive in nature, to judge from the size of cult areas such as the ‘Temple’ at
Mycenae, with space for no more than twenty celebrants. Sherratt has drawn attention to the
presence of channels near the throne in the throne room at Pylos, which may have been for libation.
There is a lyre player in the drinking scene depicted on the Pylos Throne Room, wall, and a similar

11
Rutter 2015, 212f., fig. 2, C38. 214f., fig. 3 D202-204, (LHI), E51. 216219, fig. 4, D299-302, 304-306.
12
Brommer, F, ‘Gefässformen bei Homer’ Hermes 77, Berlin 1942, 356 ff. G. Bruns, Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten ArchHom Q, Vol. III,
Goettingen, 1970, 24. esp. 363f. J. L. Davis, ‘The Mycenaean Feast’, Hesperia Vol. 73,2, 2004, 124,126-7. Sherratt 2004, 301-337, esp. 325. 31
Gallou 2002, 71. Evidence for the practice of libation rites comes in the form of libation vessels (kraters and rhyta) and animal sacrifice: A. D.
Moore-W. D. Taylour, Well Built Mycenae 10: The Temple Complex, (Oxford 1999) 32ff., 77ff., 114.

8
scene on a krater from an Argive tomb.13 The theme of celebrants holding chalice-like vessels is
also found on Post-palatial vessels. Following the period of palatial destruction, such scenes have
been linked to elite Mycenaean drinking sessions held in honor of illustrious forebears. Sherratt
notes that the wine used for sacraments and any solemn occasion including burial, would have
been undiluted. A Naxos cylinder seal shows the typical paraphernalia used in the libation process:
the krater, a decanting jug and a rhyton, rest on a table while an officiating figure stands by.14
Presumably the jug would have been used to ladle the libation from the krater into a rhyton, which
had a pierced base for the fluid to trickle through. The rhyton phased out in LHIIIC, when a krater
found on the floor of a building in Malthi had its base drilled out, presumably to convert it to a
libation vessel.15

The Burial Ground: The Role of the Krater in Funerary Ritual

The main source for funerary libation ritual is Gallou.16 From LHIIIA simple kylikes and other
vessels were regularly used for libation, their fragmentary remains found outside the chamber
tomb entrance in the dromos. Thereafter fragments of kraters are found in association with libation
as the holding vessel for the fluids, their use in burial ritual almost exclusive to the Peloponnesos.17
The absence of the krater in early contexts should not be considered a reflection on krater libation
use. Richly decorated libation vessels such as rhyta and kraters may have been used for a variety
of purposes, then returned to a storeroom following rituals, as the Malthi krater with the hole in its
base (Fig. 23). Central to these funerary rites was the kernel of eschatological belief motivating
the proceedings. The soul was immortal, and libation, animal sacrifice and other offerings of the
ceremony were symbolic acts, recognizing and facilitating the deceased’s passage to the world
beyond.

Funerary Ritual on the Hagia Triada Sarcophagos

Passage to the world of the dead was believed to have occurred once the flesh was purged from
the bones. Common funerary libation in Mycenaean times took place after the sealing of the tomb,
but there has been debate on whether it took place immediately or on some later opening of the
tomb, either to inspect the remains for purged status, or to add a new occupant.18 Wace observed
evidence that the libation was poured following the walling-up of the tomb, and after the filling of
the dromos had already begun (presumably intentional fill could easily be distinguished from earth
washed down from the tomb’s mound). Further confirmation that libation took place on a date

13
J. B. Carter, ‘The Occasion of Homeric Performance’, in The Ages of Homer, J. B. Carter-S. P. Morris, (eds.) Austin, 1995, 293-5: Cretan lyre
player pyxis, Chania, #2308, fig. 18.5; krater with lyre player, fig. 18.6; krater on the Hagia Triada sarcophagos, fig. 18.7; reconstruction of the
Pylos throne room fresco with banqueters, lyre player, sacrificial bull and birds, fig. 18.8. M. L. Lang, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western
Messenia, II: The Frescoes (Princeton, 1969), 79-81 and 109f.
14
Gallou 2002, 242, C. Kardara Prakt. 1977, 6, pl. 6. Gallou 2002, 70 fn. 199, believes rhyta could have been used for a blood libation.
15
Crouwel 2009, 42,56, fig. 7.
16
Gallou, 2002, 255-286. Blegen & Rawson 1966, 303.
17
Bronze Age Athens was not using the krater in funeral rituals until the very end, apart from a krater left in an elite LHIIIA tomb, hewn
in the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 35, 1966, 55-78, figs. 1-4, pls. 19-24. Agora XIII, 165, Agora XIV, 3-9.

9
later than the burial comes from the lack of joins found between kylix fragments found inside and
outside the tomb.19

There is little to suggest that there was any unblocking of the tomb entrance for viewing of the
stage of decomposition. Some tombs were unblocked to receive a subsequent disposition, but it is
unlikely that the first deceased’s remains would have been ritually acknowledged in any way
during that process. That the purged bones were considered insignificant as a representation of a
deceased is made clear by the cavalier manner in which they were swept aside to make room for
a new occupant. Probably decomposition was assumed to have taken place by a specific unit of
time from deposition, at which time follow-up rites of sacrifice and libation could take place. The
familiar Hagia Triada sarcophagos provides additional information on this topic. It comes not from
the Mainland, but from a Cretan tomb near Phaistos, but was likely created for a Mycenaean
deceased. Dated c.1400 BC it depicts a trussed ox in the process of bloodletting and/or sacrifice,
and the presentation of offerings to the dead. To the left the collected blood offering is poured into
a large krater-shaped vessel (Fig. 4). To the right the mummiform deceased stands alert before the
tomb appearing to view the proceedings. Meat also appears to be offered. On the reverse side a
libation is poured at an altar.20 Does this scene represent libation at the time of the burial, or is it a
subsequent memorial event held when the flesh of the deceased was sufficiently decomposed for
the release of the spirit? Is the altar offering a later recognition of the deceased, a form of ancestor-
worship? The scene with the deceased may recognize the phase when the spirit is released by the
blood offerings. The opening of the tomb would not have been necessary for this event if the
deceased’s spirit was viewed as emerging from the tomb to watch the blood libation being drawn.
Ready to make its way to the life beyond, the spirit would partake of the blood sacrifice and other
offerings that would fortify it for the journey. This is reminiscent of the Homeric account of
Odysseus’ descent to the underworld, where wan shades came forward, gaining strength as they
drank the blood offering that had been set out for them: Lucianus, ‘The souls are nourished by
libations’21

19
Ch.Tsountas and J. Manatt 1897, The Mycenaean Age, A study of the Monuments and culture of Pre-Homeric Greece (London 1897) 147. A.
J. B. Wace 1932, ‘Chamber Tombs at Mycenae’, Archaeologia 82, 130-13
20
Hagia Triada sarcophagos and rituals, Gallou 2002, 255-264. More recent, B. Burke, Materialization of Mycenaean Ideology and the Ayia Triada
Sarcophagos, AJA 109 (2005) 403-422.
21
Lucianus, De Luctu, 9. Gallou 2002, 255.

10
Fig. 4. Pouring blood libation into a krater, Hagia Triada Sarcophagos, c. 1400 BC

The Status Aspects of Mortuary Rituals

Rituals were probably not always as elaborate as those portrayed on the Hagia Triada
sarcophagos, but the potential to advertise status with visible tomb sites, processions, the
mystique of exotic mortuary practices such as gold masks and, subsequent, officially sanctioned
ancestor rites, was likely not lost on the ruling lineage of Mycenae. Voutsaki has described how
mortuary practices of the Mycenaean culture served to promote social differentiation.22
Grandiose funerary rituals with ornate panoply worked similarly to palace celebrations and
rituals, to enhance the prestige of the ruling cardre. The location of the tombs outside the bastion
may have brought more attention to the passing of a distinguished leader, especially as he was
carried forth. A procession of acolytes would likely have accompanied the deceased to the tomb
along with transport for funerary items such as cultic vessels, fluids and other paraphernalia.
Animals for sacrifice, emoting lines of mourners with possible choral and musical
accompaniment as depicted on the Hagia Triada sarcophagos might have made up the
procession. Funeral games may have accompanied the celebrations, depicted on Tanagra
sarcophagi in the Palatial phase.

22
Voutsaki 1998, 46-48.

11
Such rituals and panoply would have given definition to the new elite consciousness that was
emerging, that in time would have helped secure for the Shaft Grave dynasty a version of the
English ‘divine right of kings.’ Voutsaki may be correct that the enhanced funerary installations
and rituals may have helped create, rather than mirror, social reality.23 Status would accrue not
only to the immediate family, but to the lineage, in the institution of hereditary control over the
community. Supporting this was an ancestor worship that was elevated almost to the sphere of
religion, where the deceased became the object of reverence, presumably in the belief that the
ancestor could influence outcomes for his descendants as well as the community. The
processionals and rites for the dead were not restricted to the interment and bereavement phase.
The construction of a road from Pylos to the tomb suggests use more frequent than the occasional
burial, perhaps for periodic libation and sacrifice for the cult of a significant ancestor. Hiller
reviews occurrences of ekphora which likely trace back to earlier times: roads leading to
Mycenaean burial grounds suggest as much.24 Vikatou cites a depiction found near Kladeos.25

This close association of ruling hierarchies with established religion, and ancestor worship would
have helped lineages consolidate their rule and broaden and perpetuate oversight of an increasingly
far-flung and complex confederacy.26 Some aspects of this Mycenaean ethos became so well-
entrenched in the consciousness of the elite that they persisted, with the funerary krater, well into
the Iron Age. There was, however, one departure which reflects on attitudes towards the
deceased’s remains, treated carelessly after the passage of a certain period of time in the
Mycenaean age, but no time limit on respect during the Iron Age. This may have arisen from the
lapse of communal burial chambers as the individual cist became the standard form of burial in
the Iron Age. It is obvious in LGII cremation burials in the elite temporary burial site of Trachones,
on the slopes Hymettos. In this short-lived elite cemetery, presumably of Neleids, efforts were
made to bury the cremated dead, laying out the bones as a skeleton and trying to reconstitute
missing parts of the deceased from modelled pyre ash.27 The digging up of the Alcmeonid dead of
the Kylon incident in the Archaic period also reveals the enduring significance of the integrity of
physical remains.

Based on archaeological contexts, the krater assumed a more representational role in the funeral
from LHIIIA onward, along with the rise of the impressive, built burial structures. The funeral
rituals of significant members of the hierarchy had been an opportunity to demonstrate the power,
wealth and style of the ruling lineage. The Hagia Triada sarcophagos depiction reveals the high
status of a deceased who merited bovine sacrifice, a fine bronze krater for the rituals, and a coffin
that is featured in almost every publication on Aegean art. This sarcophagos depicts the libation
offering for a prominent citizen (Fig. 4).

As society increased and diversified, with more external contacts, what appears to be a prosperous
merchant class began to migrate abroad. Some of the numerous pictorial kraters from Cypriote

23
Voutsaki 1995, 58-63. Gallou 83ff., 238f. Following the phase of palatial destruction, both the tombs and the rituals were less extravagant.
24
Hiller 2006, 183-190.
25
O Vikatou, ArchDelt 53, 1998 Chron (Athens 2004) 230-250, fn. Continuity in burial customs from LHIIIC late through SM also in biers, coffins,
weaponry, pottery, and krater funerary customs was widespread in West Greece.
26
Some doubt that confederacy is the most suitable terminology for the relations between the principalities.
27
Alexandridou 2016, 345-347, Bohen Kratos & Krater 2017, 83, Geroulanos 1973, 6-9, pl. 52 Tr. 37.

12
cemeteries should be assigned to this sector, as well as libation rituals.28 For these newly
prosperous ranks a common libation of wine, honey, or milk, may have sufficed. Lower status
palace personnel would likely not have had access to such rites: Palmer notes they did not even
qualify for a measure of wine.29

Fig. 5. Peloponnesian krater

found in Cyprus, 14th c BC

28
Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982, 2. Kraters used in ceremony by the elite: Louise Steel, ‘Feasting in Bronze Age Cyprus,’ Hesperia. 73, 2, 2004,
293-5, 297.
29
R. Palmer, Wine in the Mycenaean Palace Economy, Aegaeum 10 (Liège 1994) 44,188ff.

13
The Post-Palatial Kratos

Mycenae’s ‘Last Flower of Mycenaean Civilization’

With some justification, Deger-Jalkotzy has called events of the late 13th century a ‘dramatic
turning point in history’ followed by ‘a major cultural transformation’. From LHIIIB2, whether a
result of regional power disputes, peripheral cultures seeking opportunity, economic failure,
earthquakes, or a combination of such factors, a number of the formerly impregnable centers of
the palatial system were destroyed or weakened. They included the most powerful in the
estimation of pharaoh Amenophis III: Mycenae, Tiryns, Thebes, and Pylos, of which the latter two
did not survive. The Mycenaean confederation was disrupted, and the former palatial culture was
transformed to a lower level of economic and cultural activity.

The turbulent and unpredictable conditions in the Peloponnesos led Deger-Jalkotzy to conclude
that the palace monarchies had been swept away along with their administrative structure. One
can only surmise the rattled status of Mycenaean governance and a substantial outlying dependent
population in the immediate aftermath of the first palace destructions. Palatial control had rested
to a great extent on the mystique of the ruling class, and their ability to preserve safety and
prosperity for the populace. Now the ranks of administrators, bureaucrats, and overseers who had
managed the extensive, centrally controlled economy were diluted, many departing to more
promising venues abroad. Those who remained following the destruction phase must have been
seriously challenged by the transformation of the old order. Much was lost or modified. Any
palatial era administration that had survived was now patently less ‘royal’ in aspect, reduced in
number, and lacking some of the accustomed refinements. It is significant that no effort was made
to repair the ruined palace at Mycenae.

David Small challenges a scenario of precipitous decline from the ‘complex chieftains’ of the
palace era, stressing the continuity of some elite leadership and culture into the Post-palatial
phase.30 Significantly, the Grave Circle at Mycenae remained undisturbed, so whatever the origin
of the attack, survivors of the former Mycenaean regime appear to have remained in control.
Repairs were undertaken and there are signs of some continuity in the material record. Certain
traditions remained current in the preservation of terms of societal differentiation such as wanax
(anax), damos (demos), and basileus. The bardic tradition was preserved as well as an appreciative
late Mycenaean audience.

Surviving leadership was key to a center’s continuation. Following the assaults on Mycenae &
Tiryns, the first concern of palace officials would have been to protect the wanax if he remained
on hand, and secure the circuit walls. Administrative officers such as the lawagetas, knights and
basileis, may have continued serving and protecting a surviving royal line if it was still viable. If
leadership had been lost, residual hierarchies of competency could have continued, ranging from
intermediate levels of administrators, to skilled potters, metalworkers, and shipbuilders.
Continuity of craft is revealed in the renewal of finely decorated pottery at both Mycenae, and
Tiryns as well as sites in Messenia. The same type of pottery glaze and technique was preserved

30
Small 1998 283-291.

14
into the Iron Age. In sequel Mycenae enjoyed a brief ‘last flower of Mycenaean civilization’ borne
on an impressive revival of Mycenae’s pottery industry.31

By the mid-12th c. an exclusive Close Style pottery had evolved at Mycenae that probably catered
to the cult and ceremonial needs of whatever leadership survived (Fig. 7). A colorful Pictorial
Style adorning kraters continued on from figural decoration that had been current under the
palaces, but in a sign of new focus, the chariot rides with milady were being supplanted by scenes
of combat and hunting, of which the Warrior Vase of Mycenae is the prime example (Fig. 12).
Catering to different social levels, there were coexistent styles suggesting that some elements of
the palatial era hierarchical structure were still current in the mid-12th c. Also newly significant
elements of society, warriors and burgers were acquiring kraters, gaining more status in the wake
of higher status Mycenaeans departing the Mainland. A sign of the times was the production of
vessels of more middle-class aspect like the commonplace Granary Style vases (Fig. 25), which
survived into the Iron Age as Protogeometric pottery. That Post-palatial pottery production was
contracting compared with the previous era is indicated by evidence that the fine Close Style and
more commonplace Granary style were made in the same atelier, with Close style ornamentation
such as the arcade, appearing on common Granary style amphorae: these are commonly
represented in the wares dispersed either in trade or migration at the end of the 12th c. (Figs. 30,
31, 32) Following the burning of Mycenae’s Granary with its crucial grain supply, there was an
exodus of most remaining elite to more secure and promising regions. Outposts of Mycenaean
culture now existed in Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, Ionia, the Levant and Philistia (I suspect that Athens
also received its first batch of refugees from Achaea and the Argolid at this time). Following this
outflow, Mycenae’s operations further contracted as remoter agricultural areas were abandoned in
favor of sites closer to Mycenae’s protective walls. There were few remains of any consequence
at Mycenae in sequel. Those burying briefly in the remains of Mycenae in the final years of the
Bronze Age may have been migrants from further west seeking to leave the Peloponnesos.32

31
Deger-Jalkotzy 1998, 114-121. Kilian 1987, 115-152.
32
French 1998 and 2009, Desborough 1964, and 1973 cover Mycenae’s last Bronze Age.

15
Tiryns: Discontinuity and Continuity

By contrast with Mycenae, Tiryns and Athens remained viable centers to the end of the Bronze
Age.33 They did not wholly escape the depredations that were occurring elsewhere on the
Mainland, but survived with their walls substantially intact, as the main standard bearers for elite
Mycenaean culture on the Greek Mainland. Tiryns conveys the most information on the fortunes
of the elite within the Peloponnesos. The diversity of some of its finer wares, including a long
sequence of kraters and several distinct styles of Schachermeyr’s Nobelkeramik, surveyed by
Podzuweit,34 suggest it may have received fugitive elements of the upper stratum from the west.

The remains at Tiryns comprised two main sectors of walled settlement, the Unterburg, the more
common settlement area, and the Oberburg, the control center of Tiryns in both the Palatial and
Post-palatial eras (Fig. 6).35 The continuity evident at Tiryns included a regular sequence of pottery
from palatial times to the center’s demise at the end of the Bronze Age. The significance of Tiryns
resides less in analysis of its pottery, even the kraters, informative though they are. It lies in the
reordering of the damaged upper level administrative center, and what it communicates of the
nature of the Tiryns kratos in the waning years of the Mycenaean Age. An idea of the changed
political realities in the Post-palatial phase can be gleaned from the observations of Joseph Maran,
who gives insight into the mindset of those controlling the Oberburg in the aftermath of the
destruction. In his analysis of new construction, and a new configuration of architectural access
and space compared to the earlier palatial arrangements, Maran has creatively compensated for
the absence of Linear B tablets and other evidence as sources of information.

33
Attica, S. Privitera, Principi, Pelasgi, e pescatori: L’Attica nella Tarda Età del Bronzo, Studi di Archeologia e di Topografia di Atene e dell’Attica
7 (Athens 2013).
34
Podzuweit 2007, 57-71, esp. 67. Schachermeyr 1980.
35
Maran 2012a.

16
Fig. 6. Model of the Post-palatial Oberburg of Tiryns

In the final palace phase at Tiryns, the leadership had erected the Megaron, an impressive palatial
complex, seat of the ruler, and locus of administration and ceremony. As at Mycenae, the
architecture, its setting, and approach had served to underline the power of the ruler and the
hierarchical structure of the society, now badly impacted by the destruction. Renewal efforts at
Tiryns in sequel were concentrated on rebuilding the Oberburg height and its wall. The former site
of the Megaron was now leveled. Open space replaced the dominance of the former palatial
complex, allowing a few surviving features greater impact. These were an open courtyard and a
surviving altar, which continued in use, probably as a connection with the earlier palatial heritage.
Replacing the large complex of palace components was now a single, freestanding, formal
structure, the Antenbau. While there was space for other structures on the Oberburg, the Antenbau
rose in grand isolation, emphasizing its significance as the new focal point of Tiryns. The
limitation of construction to this single building raised on the elevated site of the former Megaron
was likely intentional, as were the open courtyard and the altar.

The same message was communicated in the access route to the Oberburg and new Antenbau. The
fresco adorned, winding processional route of the palatial era, with its numerous formal liminal
stages, had been arranged to emphasize the remoteness of the ruler, his mystique, and the privilege
of access to the palace and the royal presence. The new access route was more spartan and direct.
Maran notes that frescoes would have been possible lining the route, as before, but they would not
have reflected the new realities of the Post-palatial era. The more open, less formal access to the
administrative area, as well as the increased area of assembly on the Oberburg suggest there was
less concern with reserving this formerly exclusive area from the view of the community, perhaps
a nod to the demos.

17
So at Tiryns it appears that rule by a remote and powerful autocrat had been supplanted by a more
inclusive approach, especially if analysts have correctly interpreted the rationale for the Antenbau:
Maran sees it as the gathering site for the Post-palatial elite to consider the new political and social
realities that now confronted the community. It reflects a new administration that acknowledged
the diminished power of the former rule and was trying to accommodate new approaches while
preserving some of the heritage of the past. In a more challenging environment, surviving elite
may have seen merit in making common cause with other sectors of the community to insure their
common survival. This new leadership would have required fewer protective layers than the
former absolute monarch, hence the increased, more direct access and the open quality of the
courtyard. While Mycenae lapsed, Tiryns successfully maintained organized Mycenaean
governance almost to the end of the 12th century. Specifics of the governance at Tiryns cannot be
confirmed during that time, but finely decorated elite kraters continued. If an absolute palatial
ruler had departed, as the restructuring of Tiryns seems to suggest, he may have been succeeded
by a leader of lesser authority, perhaps an intermediate palace official or a head of a tribal lineage.
This may have been a high-status migrant from the west, but a native basileus is the figure of
greatest interest.

The Evolution of the Basileis

Most of the evidence for this increasingly more significant and versatile official comes not from
Mycenae and Tiryns, but from the palace of Pylos, which preserved a sizeable corpus of palatial
era Linear B tablets in its ruins following its destruction. Originally a palace functionary involved
in various practical activities, the basileus occurs in the tablets as a lower level administrator (qa-
si-re-u), supervising male personnel. One clay tablet cites a basileus as head of a guild of bronze-
smiths. Similar ranked officials may have supervised in the palace’s tarasija workshop system in
the production of textiles, pottery and other products. If this was the case, then the role of the
basileus during palatial times was a species of overseer. Oversight of palace production and
personnel feature in the Pylos records of commercial activities and would at some point have
required a level of erudition in recording, as well as facility in interpersonal relations. Some of the
commercial transactions extended to extra-palatial areas controlled by non-palatial leaders, likely
exchanging finished goods from the palace for raw commodities. Dealing with these partners
would have required diplomacy and acquaintance with the client culture.

Because the center Pylos was wholly destroyed, some upper echelons of the administration moved
to offshore islands to the west and overseas (the appearance of similar kraters adorned with
antithetic birds, in Messenia and the Knossos area, suggests associations). Some Mycenaean
settlement must have survived, located not far from the ruined palace at Pylos, and from estimable
burial installations with traditional burials in chamber tombs, such as Kokkevi-Grab and Tragana.
With their broad range of experience, versatility, and ability to relate to the local non-palatial
groups in their area of operation, the basileis would have been a great asset. They likely adapted
to the new circumstances, providing a modicum of economic continuity for Mycenaean palace
survivors and perhaps continuing interaction with the other component of the Messenian economy,
the non-palatial outlying settlements. The basileus could have replaced higher palatial officials
less adaptable to the disconcerting conditions that now prevailed in West Greece. The situation is
reminiscent of the intermediate ranks of Roman soldiers who remained as settlers along Britain’s
Hadrian’s wall as Rome’s occupying forces and their leaders retreated.

18
The experience of basileis at Mycenae and Tiryns following the phase of palatial destruction,
would have likely been different. These had been highly fortified centers, and they still had
salvageable defenses that could recreate much of the safety the original fastnesses had provided
the population. These centers may have retained some of their original hierarchy in some kind of
coherent association that could address the continuing pressure on sites during the 12th c,
especially Mycenae.

Following the phase of palatial destruction, the basileis at first may have retained their modest
place in the hierarchy, participating in the physical restoration of centers such as Mycenae and
Tiryns. They would have found a way around the lack of inventory control that had disappeared
with the scribes and their clay tablets, and they would have been invaluable training and
coordinating cardres of skilled craftsmen in the manufacture of tools, and the repair of structures
and enceinte. They likely also oversaw the manufacture of weapons for defense, and pottery for
the trade which still persisted in such fortified centers, underwriting the communities’ protection
and economic needs.36 In time they would have risen through the ranks. If no aristocrats survived
in an area, the ranking Mycenaeans at that stage were probably former auxiliaries, such as the
basileis, promoted to leadership in a vacuum of power. From the fact that the latest Mycenaean
rulers were remembered as basileis, it may be the case that some of these palace officials were
gradually transforming into the leadership of surviving Mycenaean communities in the aftermath
of the palace destructions.

Some of these former palace overseers were sufficiently talented and enduring to reach the highest
level of status. It is evident from surviving terminology that towards the end of the Bronze Age it
was not wanakes who were supervising surviving settlements or migrating groups, but basileis.
These new leaders likely may have lacked the stature and mystique of the palatial era monarchs
because they had arisen from less exalted origins. They were not substantially elevated in wealth
and prestige above their ranking followers, as we learn from the Odyssey. Their coinage was long
association with Mycenaean administration, and the operations of complex institutions. They
would have known how to use the trappings and traditions of the palatial era to confer legitimacy
on their authority. Aware of the krater’s role as the focal point of social and political activity they
would have engaged in consortium to cultivate a corps of acolytes to shore up their power base,
practices that survived into the historical period. They would have understood how celebrations
based on the krater and other paraphernalia could create the theatre that many shrewd leaders
employ to retain a loyal following. This receives confirmation in sequel as it becomes clear that
basileis took over some of the palatial era functions in religious ritual, and probably festivals
(duties that also survived in Athens under the purely ceremonial Medontid basileis long into the
historical period).

The Mycenaean basileis also took on a leadership role in defending their communities. Melanthos
may have won his Athenian throne by warding off the takeover of northeast Attic Oinoe. If
traditions can be believed, his successor Codros reportedly died defending Athens against the
Heraclids. His sons, the Codrides led a campaign to Ionia, assaulting and taking the settlement of
Miletus as their new homeland. For its defense, Mycenae likely had the kind of warriors depicted
on the Warrior Vase, probably an elite militia. The uniformity of such warrior vases in places such
as Mycenae, Athens, Lefkandi, and Pylos reveals some communication may have existed between

36
High quality pottery was still produced at Pylos, Mycenae, Tiryns, Elis and Achaea. Deger-Jalkotzy 1998, 114-121.

19
the military assets of surviving Mycenaean settlements. The lawagetas, usually considered the
second in command to the king according to Pylian tablets, may have overseen military affairs
following the destruction of the palaces, but beyond a few repairs, and commendable attempts at
restarting the pottery industry, the revival of Mycenae’s former status as premier Mainland center
was unlikely. The palace was left derelict, revealing that few of the royal circle now remained.
That the days of the citadel itself were numbered was readily apparent perhaps even before the
burning of the Granary which terminated Mycenae’s revival.

Following these events, high level palace officials appear to have deserted the once impregnable
citadel, settling in Rhodes, and Cyprus where status burials contained vestiges of Mainland palace
culture, including a gilded scepter, a Mycenaean leader’s symbol of authority. A shield similar to
one depicted on a Mainland warrior krater was found on Rhodes, which received at least two
waves of Mainland migrants. Other Mycenaeans departed to Crete, the Levant, Palestine and Ionia.
With Mycenae’s grain supply now reduced, the citadel’s population was further depleted. Its
promising Post-palatial pottery production contracted with the loss of population. The last fine
Close Style and more commonplace Granary style were now made in a single atelier.37 It is
doubtful that any lawegetas, or other high military officer, would have been on hand to defend
Mainland communities in the second half of the 12th c. Almost certainly the migrating elite would
have taken most of their ranking military personnel and their military assets with them as they
relocated to alien regions where they could not always count on a welcome.

As attacks continued on the Mainland, a few leaders with a following persisted. One such was
Melanthos, the Neleid Pylian leader who traced his line back to high status palatial-era ancestors.
As the Heraclid Temenos turned up the heat, Melanthos reportedly relinquished his Messenian
homeland, migrating to Athens where he became king. The last group burying in the ruins of
Mycenae may have been Messenians on the move, based on tomb content. Other movement is
supported by Finkelberg’s evidence of dialect migration and Moschos’ study of Achaeans also
making their way eastward. Tiryns coped more successfully, maintaining a viable culture,
economy and defense far longer than Mycenae. Its attempts to recover incorporated survivals from
the earlier palatial phase, such as the altar, but as mentioned, there appears to be a broader sector
of the population invested in the survival of the center perhaps influencing its new plan of
development. It remained a respectable Mycenaean fortified center to the end of the Bronze Age,
when its higher status inhabitants finally departed.

In the final years of turbulence many Peloponnesian sites of habitation fell off the map in advance
of the Heraclid takeover of the peninsula. The last departing Mycenaean nobles may have
contemplated the still visible Mycenaean fortifications and tombs and recalled the order, stability
and power of their ancestors. The krater and its rituals traveled with them, a portable part of their
culture, and one which became significant once they had settled in new homelands. Neleid
Melanthos and Alcmeon may have introduced Wild Style kraters and rituals to Athens where they
were preserved over hundreds of years by their descendants (Figs.18,26,31). For the longstanding
Alcmeonid nobility the epitymbion krater became the visible symbol at their Precinct XX

37
This is seen on styles dispersed in the later 12th c. A Cypriote Proto White painted amphora combines Mycenae’s mundane Granary Style Wavy
lines on the belly with an elite Close Style complex triangles motif on the shoulder (Fig. 32). A similar case is amphora Kerameikos 11238 (Fig.
31).

20
cemetery, and still erected as their characteristic epitymbion grave monument in the cemetery’s
Archaic era extension.38

The basileus survived, and for a longer period of time, but in Athens not as an absolute king. In
late 11th c Athens, the dispersed eupatrid leaders displaced the rule of the Medontid basileus and
established a rule of elective life-kings to rule Athens, depriving the Medontid regime of all secular
monarchical authority. The Medontid family was able to retain the role of basileus in a purely
ceremonial capacity, overseeing established cult, a traditional role that had been held by kings
dating back to the Mycenaean palatial era. The office of basileus was remarkable for existing
through so many centuries, evolving chameleon-like through a range of responsibilities to the end
of the democratic era in the fourth c. BC.39 This makes it the most long-enduring official capacity
in Helladic culture.

The Post-Palatial Krater

Cavanaugh concluded that formal use of the krater may have decreased in the Post-palatial phase
as a result of a ‘very specific complex of religious and social associations bound up with wine
drinking, centered in particular on the palace and palace society, which fell into disuse’.40 Many
of the finely decorated palatial era kraters did indeed die out as governance evolved. The rulers,
status officials, courtiers, prosperous burgers and independent landowners who had filled and
fielded formal kraters in the palatial phase were now less numerous. Ceramic production had
deteriorated in some areas, but kraters, and utilitarian vessels such as amphorae, jugs, cups, and
stirrup jars were still regularly produced in the most populated sites. Finely decorated kraters were
still significant to the demonstration of rank and leadership, for use in formal assemblies and ritual.

The standard krater was now less elegant. It was the wide-bodied, vertical-profiled, ring-based
krater that had found broad favor outside the orbit of the palaces. Decoration fell into three
categories: Figural, Close and Granary Styles, the first of which continued elements from the
palatial phase. In the immediate Post-palatial phase refined ornamentation was still found at
Mycenae, in a complex, Close Style, and a competent Figural Style that suggested a few high-
status elite were still in residence (Fig. 7).

Fortified Tiryns is probably the best source for the krater during the Post-palatial phase, its kraters
carefully studied by Podzuweit, who incorporated some of the lore of Schachermeyr’s partitioning
of late Peloponnesian pottery styles.41 Tiryns has an almost unbroken sequence of kraters from
Palatial times down to the latest Bronze Age, decorated in variant styles reflecting both different
phases, and differing levels of status and origins. Many kraters at Tiryns were adorned with simple
spirals, and increasingly more abstract survivals from the LHIIIB phase, but here again there is
evidence of surviving elite in more finely produced styles similar to those of Mycenae. In addition,
at Mycenae, Tiryns and other locations, there was a commonplace Granary style, more suited to
an era that had lost many of its high-status population to migration or decease. Over the course of
the Postpalatial phase these styles emanated out from the main settlements of Mycenae, Tiryns

38
U. Knigge, Ein Grabmonument der Alkmeoniden im Kerameikos, AM 121, 2006, 127-163, pls. 17-20
39
Drews 1983, 2-5.
40
Cavanaugh 1998, 111.
41
Podzuweit 2007, Schachermeyr 1980.

21
and Pylos wherever Mainland Mycenaeans established themselves: Athens, Naxos, Euboea, Crete,
Cyprus, Ionia, and some smaller islands such as Kos and Kephallenia.

Fig. 7. LHIIIC Middle

Close Style hydria from
Mycenae

22
Ritual Kraters
Fig. 8. Large LHIIIC krater from Grotta, Naxos

Fig. 9. Ceremonial krater from Lefkandi, Euboea

23
Kraters continued in ritual and some were produced in larger size probably for communal use, a
trend that continued into the Iron Age in Athens, Paros and Lefkandi. Such kraters are rare, since
they would have been costly, and were likely retained in the possession of an affluent few, leaders,
military commanders or priests. They could have been used for a variety of special events, such
as periodic gatherings of aristocratic houses, festivals, cult activities, funerals for the prominent
members of society and warrior consortium and burial rituals.

It was estimated that only twenty celebrants could have been accommodated for ritual in the
palace-era ‘temple’ at Mycenae. The maximum number participating in Post-palatial krater ritual
or consortium can be estimated from the largest surviving Bronze Age krater, the LHIIIC Grotta
krater from the island of Naxos, estimated capacity 100 liters (Fig. 8). With décor of stylized
leaves, and a figure interpreted as a goddess on horseback, it was a cult vessel capable of being
turned to various uses. Funerary use was one of the most common venues of the large krater. The
largest krater from both Bronze and Iron ages is represented by a small Submycenaean fragment
Cat. (6) from Athens’ Precinct XX cemetery. Another large krater in funerary use, found on the
floor of the tenth c. house tomb of the Hero of Lefkandi, was a likely consortium krater turned to
use as a funerary libation krater and memorial. This seems to have been the case with the gigantic
Late Geometric consortium krater 279 from Kerameikos Precinct XX (Fig. 54). LHIIIC ritual
kraters can often be identified by their richer decoration, symbolic motifs and the use of pictorial
style. Animal-protomed handles as on the Warrior Vase, may have been associated with blood
libation.42

Not all Bronze Age decoration was overtly ritual in nature, including the geometric center panels,
sometimes flanked by a fringe of loops. The Grotta krater has a checker panel edged by multiple
outlined loops in combination with a ‘goddess’ on horseback, suggestive of cult use. Large loops
edging the center panel of a krater from Lefkandi have been termed ‘paneled leaves’. In several
instances rampant antithetic animals touch or paw a similarly fringed center panel, recalling the
common Near Eastern motif of animals flanking a sacred tree (Fig. 9). 43 Sometimes the panel is
flanked by small animals, caprids, birds, or fish, all creatures typically used in common sacrifice.
In Athens birds and fish were especially favored for the decoration of kraters and bowls. There
were now few elite who would qualify for ritual bovine sacrifice at their funeral. The boukranion
motif lapsed in the final stringent days of the Mycenaean era, although the antithetic streamers
motif may be a survival indicative of a ritual vase.44 A Cretan LHIIIB-C vase combines the
streamers with flanking birds, which are also suspected of ritual associations (Fig. 10).45

42
R. Hägg-Norquist 1990, 177-84. Gallou 2002, 70 fn. 199, believes rhyta could have been used for a blood libation. Blood sacrifice may be implied
in the boukrania and horns of consecration depicted on kraters, e.g. from Aradippo, Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982, 54, V103 V. Karageorghis, BCH
86, 1962, 14, figs. 3-4.
43
Grotta krater, Vlachopoulos, 1999, 94, with dot fringed outlining, as on the LHIIIC Late Dipylon stirrup jar, Ker. I, pl. 5. From Lefkandi:
VermeuleKarageorghis, 1982, 100, and No. XI. 84, M. Popham, E Millburn, BSA 66, 1971, pl. 54.1. Popham-Sackett, 1968, 21, fig. 45. Goats
rearing against a checker panel, Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982, 55 No. V.109, IX,76.1, birds V.115, X.66, fish X.87, stag X.48
44
Antithetically organized formal kraters are often adorned with the fauna whose sacrificial remains have been found in sanctuaries: bull,
sheep, goat, bird, and fish. Kraters in more widespread use: Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982, 2.
45
M. Popham ‘Some Late Minoan III Pottery from Crete, BSA 60, 1965, 332, 332, fig. 9, pl. 84.

24
 Fig. 11. Krater from Ugarit, Levant, with fish
sacrificed on an altar

A LHIIIC Middle krater found at Malthi, confirmed a ritual vessel by its pierced base, had a
tripartite arrangement of a checkerboard center panel flanked by birds (Fig. 23). A similar one of
LHIIIC Late date was found at Mycenae (Figs. 24). Support that kraters with geometric central
column were used in cult comes from a krater fragment c. 1200 BC found in Ugarit.46 Here the
characteristic fringed central panel is surmounted by a horns of consecration enclosing a formal
plant, and is clearly intended to represent an altar. A man stands at the ‘altar’ brandishing a strange
ritual blade as he prepares to sacrifice a fish (Fig. 11). Vermeule & Karageorghis acknowledge
that the elements from which the altar is constructed, usually believed to have purely decorative
intent, are here suggestive of a cult area. Central geometric panels with looped or zigzag edging
are found from West Greece to Cyprus, suggesting that the ritual use of kraters remained similar
through most of the Mycenaean world at this time. Pottier suggested that the geometric panels may
have represented the masonry of an altar. There is similar architectural use of the checkerboard on
frescoes at Pylos and Orchomenos. Mourning figures appear within a window-like checker
framework on a Tanagra sarcophagos, so architectural features such as a shrine or altar may be
intended by such.47

Kraters with such decoration may have served the increasing number of participants in funerary
rituals, betokened by the numerous cups and other libation vessels found in burials. The kraters
were often smashed following ritual, but these finer figural kraters would have been carefully
handled during service and then returned to safekeeping: both the Grotta and Malthi kraters were
found among remains of settlement buildings, with some hint that the Grotta krater was
undergoing repairs. The central checker panel continues into the Iron Age at Precinct XX with

46
Vermeule-Karageorghis, No. XIII,29 found in a house with ‘medicomagical tablets.’ J. Nougayrol et al., Ugaritica V, Paris, 1968, pl. 3. J.-C.
Courtois, The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean (1973), 156f. fig. 10.
47
E Pottier BCH 31 1907, 230, 237, fig. 7. Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982, 54. ArchHom, Vol. III, Ch. V, pl. 6 Göttingen, 1968. Sarcophagos: E.
Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age, Chicago, 1964, pl. XXXIV.

25
concentric circles replacing the antithetic animals or spirals. This circles and checker combination
was still retained on complex formal kraters of the Middle Geometric period, along with other
motifs of Mycenaean derivation such as the lozenge and chevron columns (Fig. 113).

Warrior Kraters

If Mycenaean culture was to be preserved in the Peloponnesos some of its ethos needed to carry
over to a broader sector of the population as well as new generations. In that respect a particular
figural class of krater promoting the activities of a warrior elite is of particular interest. These
kraters have graphic scenes of warfare on land and sea, hunting activities, and ritualized drinking
scenes. A remarkable krater from Kalapodi, Locris, depicts warriors assaulting a city.48 Warrior
kraters may have served during military consortium, used not only by the elite commanders, but
for the benefit of the infantry depicted on their sidewalls.
Fig. 12. The LHIIIC Middle Warrior
Vase from Mycenae

The infantry marching formation on the Warrior Krater of Mycenae are well equipped warriors
who were not common infantry conscripts, according to Drews (Fig. 12). He views them as an
elite infantry corps who accompanied and protected charioteers, fought in hand to hand
engagements, and could pursue enemy fleeing to rougher terrain unassailable by chariot.49 They
may be the combatants depicted fighting in single combat on the Pylos Battle Fresco, whose high
status and courage is represented by their boar’s tusk helmets (Fig. 13). The landscape feature
depicted may represent a ditch or rocky landscape where the chariot could not venture. Memory
of such warriors may be preserved in depictions of epibates on some Late Geometric vases: these
fully armed warriors jumped on and off speeding chariots during battle, and depictions suggest
they may have performed in funeral games. (Fig. 46).

48
Sherratt 2004, 321.
49
Drews 1993, 141-143.

26
The infamous Sea-People may be portrayed in battle-ready warships on kraters from the coastal
site of Kynos.50 Military training and action must have been a signal preoccupation in the
transitional years, whether on land or sea. Kraters would have been on hand not only in the
sacrificial rituals and feasting of the warrior elite, but in military strategy sessions and recruitment.
Warrior gatherings in the presence of warrior kraters, with some potent bonding rituals added to
the mix, would have nurtured fighting spirit. In the sanctuary of Kalo Podi, Locris, there was
evidence for libations and dedications of elite warrior paraphernalia such as shield bosses, helmets
and seals. As attacks occurred on the surviving Mycenaean enclaves, these warriors may have
formed the last line of defense.

Fig. 13 Palatial-era Battle Fresco

from Pylos

Wherever warrior kraters are found, whether Pylos, Xeropolis Lefkandi, Kalo Podi, Kunos,
Mycenae, or Athens, the style is unusually uniform, especially in the representation of the warriors.
The monumentality of the figures and the panoramic nature of some compositions may betray
origin in a more monumental medium than pottery.51 High quality palatial wall paintings such as
the Pylos Battle Fresco may have been preserved from destruction, providing prototypes for the
lively scenes. The kraters may have been created at a single surviving center of production, and
distributed in trade, guest friendship, regional military consortium or diplomacy. Some testing for
origin of the regionally scattered fragments might yield that source. In the meantime, Mycenae
should stand as the most logical center of production: in the first half of the 12th c. it was already
making and exporting fine Close, Granary and Figural Style pottery from its ateliers, activities that
would soon be cut short.

Funerary Kraters

The few surviving Bronze Age ritual kraters from settlement contexts have been discussed. Many
formal krater remains come from cemeteries. They were only rarely placed in graves, one in a

50
Sherratt, Lefkandi IV, 218. F. Dakoronia 1985, 173 f., 1986, 68-69. Adelt 42 1987, pl. 135δ. Adelt 43 1988, 223 f., pl. 125β. Adelt 45 1990,
84α. Adelt 46 1991, 195, pl. 83δ. ARepLond 44, 1998, 73. Kraters dated LHIIIB–LHIIIC Middle Opuntian Locris, an area referenced. by Homer
in association with Ajax.
51
M. Lang in Drews 1993, 141, pl. 2.

27
LHIII warrior burial in the Athenian Agora and another at Krini, near Patras.52 They were likely
used and reused in libation and/or ritual feasts in honor of the elite dead.53 The well-known Warrior
Krater of Mycenae may have been such a ritual vase: it has animal protomes (caprids?) a
suggestion of blood sacrifice, and sacraments, accompanying imprecation against the foe perhaps,
or incantations for fallen warriors.54

Gallou has devoted a whole chapter to the subject of libation in her study of the Mycenaean cult
of the dead.55 In the well-known passages of the cremation funeral rites for Patroklos, supervised
by Achilles (Iliad XXIII), the krater libation and inurnment of the remains is a lengthy and formal
procedure. Most remains of Mycenaean kraters used in burial ritual are found in the Peloponnesos
at Deiras, lasting from the LHIIIA palatial period through the final Submycenaean phase (other
locations listed below). Kraters, teamed with other content, worthy burial structures and funeral
games, characterize the Mycenaean Post-palatial elite funerary culture. Typical burial during this
time was inhumation in a built or excavated chamber tomb, and in the terminal phase, the cist
burial. The ritual kraters were usually left as fragments in the dromos rather than in the tomb
chamber. The kraters used in libation are often undecorated or minimally decorated and rarely
illustrated, so sometimes overlooked. Hägg and Norquist brought needed attention to them.56

The finely decorated kraters such as the artwork warrior kraters, have not been found in association
with burials to my knowledge, although the Warrior Vase of Mycenae has been claimed as a
funerary krater. French referenced it as a possible epitymbion, i.e. a tomb marker, and certainly
its iconography would be appropriate to this role if it is a mourning female depicted at the handle
(Fig. 12). It was, however, not found in a cemetery, so may have been a ritual vessel subject to
repeat use, as were the Grotta and Malthi kraters (Figs. 8, 23). The latter, with a pierced base and
decorated with bird and panel décor, was found on the floor of a destroyed building in the
settlement of Malthi, Messenia.57 Crouwel compares it to the large, similarly decorated krater with
bird and panel décor, also with base pierced, found in an ash layer in the latest group of Bronze
Age burials at Mycenae (Fig 24). These factors are suggestive of libation use. If the Mycenae
krater was then left as an epitymbion, as has been claimed, it would have been the first of the cist
grave phase. It is probably the last figural krater in the Peloponnesos. Its use anticipates what
became standard practice for the cist burials of the Athenian Kerameikos Precinct XX.58

Gallou noted krater remains left in dromoi may be especially linked with Argive custom, but the
practice is found also in Messenia, near Pylos. A hunting scene krater was found at Pylos in a rare
case of a krater found inside a Messenian burial. Another krater came from inside a burial in

52
Krini: Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1994, 177-200. Agora Gr. XL: Hesperia. 35, 1966, 77, pls. 19-24, figs. 1-4, Agora XIII, 242-247.
53
Snodgrass, 1971, 192, Boardman 1988, 176f. offerings for the dead. Coldstream 1977, 122, funeral feast for the living, with a portion to the
dead. If krater funerary use descends from the Peloponnesian practice of a last libation in the dromos, wine offering is likely for the dead. This is
also supported by the paucity of cups and bones in Precinct XX burials and strayfinds. On the other hand, a LG figured krater shows fish and fowl
being carried to the funeral in some quantity: Met. Mus. 14.130.15, CVA New York, Met. Mus. 5, 13-19, pls. 14-18.
54
Popham and Milburn, 1971, 340.
55
Gallou 2002, 237-257.
56
Hägg-Norquist 1990, 177-184. Gallou 2002, 257-292. Carter-Morris 1995, 120.
57
ARepLond 1977-78 (1978) 34, fig. 59, Crouwel 2009, 42, 56, fig. 7.
58
French 2009, 152-3. Crouwel 2009, 41, 55, fig. 2, decorated by someone unused to pictorial decoration. The foot of this krater was found in an
ashy layer near graves Gamma 31, 8 and 9, the former a child inhumation burial with vases and bronzes, including a stirrup jar that Desborough
identified as Wild Style, Desborough 1973, 91-101. It is Wild Style, but the Peloponnesian version, and it predates, does not, as Desborough
believed, post-date the Athenian Wild Style, qv. Kratos & Krater 2017, 38-40.

28
Achaia, where there was no tradition of rituals in the dromos. From Elis, Ayia Triadha, comes the
most remarkable funerary krater of all, of LHIIIC Late, decorated with a scene of prothesis,
perhaps specially made for rituals and left as an epitymbion grave marker (Fig. 14).

Fig. 14. Krater with prothesis scene, reportedly a grave marker from Ayia Triadha, Elis LHIIIC Late

List of Peloponnesian Sites with Kraters in Funerary Use

The following list of sites with funerary krater use is not exhaustive and certainly does not reflect
the original prevalence of the krater’s funerary use in the Bronze Age Peloponnesos:

LHIIIA: Argolid, Deiras, Tombs XI, XIX, XXI, XXIV, XXXVI

LHIIIA-B Achaea, Aigion Tomb BE 653
LHIIIA-B Argolid, Deiras Tomb XXX
LHIIIB Argolid, Deiras Tombs XXVIII, XXXV
LHIIIC Achaea, Krini
LHIIIC Middle Messenia, Pylos
LHIIIC Late, Messenia, Pisaskion, Pylos
LHIIIC Late Elis, Agia Triada
LHIIIC Late, Argolid, Mycenae

Kraters in an Age of Decline

On the Mainland the Mycenaean population and culture slowly ebbed, especially in a
Peloponnesos diluted by attacks, perhaps earthquakes and ultimately the depredations of the
Heraclid Temenos. Economic contraction resulted in a lack of resources, and ceramic production
deteriorated in many areas. However, kraters and utilitarian vessels such as amphorae, jugs, cups,
and stirrup jars were still regularly produced in the most populated and well protected sites. Kraters
preserved their former functions and may have taken on a new role as an epitymbion.

It is often not easy to determine whether kraters found at tombs were placed intentionally or just
discarded following use. Those found broken in the dromos may have been deliberately broken to
lend the rites a note of closure, but the libation and breakage was not necessarily immediately

29
following the closing of the tomb. It could have been on a later occasion. The Hagia Triada
sarcophagos discussed above supports that libation took place sometime after the burial, when it
was assumed the flesh had wasted, enabling the spirit to stand before the tomb watching the
procedure. Similarly, the kraters and kylikes found in dromoi during the post-palatial phase could
have been broken on a memorial occasion. One could conclude from the roads built to access
tombs in the palatial era that they were processional ways, not intended for one-time use, and there
could have been a number of memorial processions to fete a significant ancestor.59

The latest ceramic production of the krater varied from prosaic to extraordinary, the latter
illustrated by the stellar example of a memorial krater which reportedly functioned as a grave
marker, found in a burial area at Ayia Triada, Elis, (Fig. 14).60 This claim may have more than the
usual legitimacy because it is decorated with a finely conceived prothesis, a scene depicting the
laying out of the dead. Elis is not notable for figural decoration, especially of such extraordinary
imagination and competence. The depiction is populated with grieving mourners, sacrificial
animals, and even furniture: a formal funerary bier on which the deceased lies. This kind of bier
was regularly depicted on Athenian Late Geometric epitymbion kraters (Fig. 200) and some metal
revetments found in Precinct XX have been associated with funerary biers.61 An actual bier was
preserved from the Archaic era burial ground that has been attributed to the Alcmeonids.

This unique krater did not come from a dealer’s shelf. Burial took place soon after decease in
ancient Greece, giving no time for the preparation of such an artwork. This krater was likely
custom prepared for this particular deceased in the days following the burial, an attempt perhaps
to record the actual event. Such subject matter would almost certainly not have had a prototype in
monumental wall painting, so it is a real tribute to the high level of creativity residing still in the
ceramic arts of the west Peloponnesos at the very end of the Bronze Age.

This krater may have been used in memorial rites, then placed at the burial as a marker of the
deceased’s high status. Its similarity to prothesis scenes on Late Geometric kraters hundreds of
years later is uncanny (Fig. 125). Other Bronze Age funerary iconography also appears to have
been absorbed into the Late Geometric figural repertory: for example, rows of mourners (Fig. 47)
and chariot races (Figs. 44, 46) appear to echo some of the scenes surviving from Late Bronze
Age Tanagra sarcophagi. The unearthing of archaeological items such as the Elis krater may have
been a source of inspiration to late Iron Age vase painters.

The Elis krater is unique. Most late 12th c. kraters lacked overt ritual iconography. Over time their
decoration became more generic, as skilled artisans were now few in number, incapable of
competent figural decoration, which ultimately ceases. The krater lapsed into a ‘one size fits all’
production constraint in most areas. This meant that for the few remaining elite, kraters could be
used interchangeably, for wine service, consortium, and propitiation, as well as burial cult. The
only concession to ritual iconography on the latest Mycenaean examples are debased versions of
the center panels, and palatial era iconography such as the boukranion now reduced to antithetic
streamers and outlined arcs as on Ker. 11238 and some Lefkandi fragments (Figs. 30, 40). The
connection of arcs and boukranion handles with the horns of a sacrificed animal, had perhaps by
this time been lost, as also the practice of blood libation discussed earlier. The libation of this

59
Hiller 2006, 183-190.
60
Crouwel 2009, 44,57, fig. 14. From Ayia Triada, near Kladeos, Tomb 5, O Vikatou, ArchDelt 53 1998, Chron, Athens 2004, 230-233.
61
Ker. V,1, Pl. 167

30
phase was most likely wine, rather than the bovine blood of the high palatial period. In any case,
during the less affluent days of the latest Mycenaean phase there would have been very few who
would have merited ritual bovine slaughter at their funeral. A blood libation for a prominent
member of the community could still have been drawn from one of the smaller animals depicted
in antithetic arrangement on the LHIIIC Middle ritual kraters described above (Fig. 9).62 During
the transitional years, kraters of ordinary use would have held the wine libation for decanting,
which was carried out with a juglet, skyphos, or some other small container. Adorned mostly with
simple non-figural motifs, these kraters may have influenced Cavanaugh’s thesis of a reduction in
formal use, since their decoration is not reflective of use in cult, or of anything beyond the poverty
of the age. Their sub-Granary style type decoration of simple geometric, spiral and wavy line
motifs on a reserve ground reflects the dearth of an unsettled, depressed era.

With the exception of the Elis krater, the Peloponnesian elite of the final Mycenaean years had
their better days behind them, to judge from their typical kraters, now a shadow of their former
grandeur. Krater pictorial representation all but lapsed, as the fighting/hunting elite who had
commissioned them were increasingly fading from the scene. What remained were simple abstract
motifs, some derivative of former natural ornamentation. The latest krater found in the dromos
was in a LHIIIC Late elite burial site at Pisaskion, Pylos, which lapsed at the end of the 12th
century.63 On kraters and drinking bowls a common system was panel ornamentation, and an
antithetic arrangement of motifs flanking a central column, especially antithetic spirals or loops
combined with a checkerboard, an arrangement found from West Greece to Cyprus (Fig. 25). On
both Mainland and Cretan kraters birds and other figural motifs sometimes interject themselves
into these arrangements (Figs. 10, 23, 24a). Fine kraters persisted to the end at Tiryns (Fig. 24b).
The latest Close Style at this site has been suggested as the inspiration for certain early Wild Style
decoration from the Precinct XX area, e.g. the arcade on amphora Ker. 11238 (Figs. 30, 31).

Krater Rituals Introduced to Athens

The custom of krater funerary ritual was introduced into Athens by the Melanthids and
Alcmeonids, immigrants from the Peloponnesos.64 The evidence suggests that these two noble
houses founded the Kerameikos Precinct XX burial site in the last quarter of the 12th c.,
contemporary with the latest krater funerary use at cist burials in Mycenae. Numerous krater
remains come from the Precinct XX site, but as in the Peloponnesos, they were not found in the
cist graves that were the standard mode of burial in Iron Age Athens. They were mostly
fragmented in the vicinity of the burial, where they had likely been utilized in libation. Cremation
was now the prevailing burial rite for the elite, and it would appear from the number of burned
krater fragments dating from the transitional years, that the krater was sometimes broken and
tossed on the funeral pyre following use. The new arrivals, Alcmeonids, Philaids, Peisistratids,
and other eupatrids, were successful in retaining other characteristics of the Bronze Age
civilization, which is why the ethos of Attica was so different from that of the Dorian Peloponnesos
during the ensuing historical period.

62
Andronikos 1968, 93, Carter-Morris 1995, 120. Antithetically organized formal kraters are often adorned with the fauna of which sacrificial
remains have been found in sanctuaries: bull, sheep, goat, bird, and fish.
63
Mountjoy 1999, 358f, fig. 123, No. 134, possibly Submycenaean, Blegen-Rawson 1966 fig. 293,3.
64
Athens in the Late Bronze Age, S. Privitera, Principi, Pelasgi, e pescatori: L’Attica nella Tarda Età del Bronzo, Studi di Archeologia e di
Topografia di Atene e dell’Attica 7 (Athens 2013).

31
Additional Visuals mentioned in the Text

Fig. 23, from Malthi, Messenia, Peloponnesos,and

Fig. 25, from Cyprus, are late Bronze Age kraters that
anticipate kraters of the Athenian Protogeometric period

32
 Fig. 24a. Krater from the ruins of Mycenae

Fig. 24b. Early Wild Style krater from Tiryns

Fig. 27. Mycenaean Pyxis from Tragana, Messenia, with early Wild Style decoration

33
Fig. 26. Characteristic Athenian Wild Style motifs of the
transitional era Fig. 18. Wild Style Chest, Kerameikos Precinct XX

Fig. 31, from Athens Kerameikos Precinct XX

cemetery, and Fig. 32, from Cyprus. Common amphorae
with elite decorative motifs,

34
Fig. 40. Wild Style krater fragment from Lefkandi Fig. 46. Funerary games on a Late Geometric krater:
epibates warriors running behind racing chariots

Fig. 54. Precinct XX Late Geometric, 66 gallons consortium krater, used as a grave marker

35
Fig 113. Reconstruction of a Kerameikos Precinct XX Middle Geometric epitymbion krater

36
Fig. 200. Athenian Iron Age krater MMA 14.130.14 for comparison with LH III krater from Elis, Fig. 14,

37
 Bibliography
Ahlberg 1971a – G. Ahlberg, G., Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art, OpAth 40.
XVI, (Stockholm, 1971).
Ahlberg 1971b – G. Ahlberg, Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art, SIMA 32,
(Göteborg, 1971).
Alexandri 1968 – O. Alexandri, ‘Theophilopoulou 16’, ADelt 23:61, Athens, 1968.
Alexandri 1972 – O. Alexandri, 1972 ‘Geometrikoi Taphoi eis Periochin Kynosargous’, AAA 5,
165-176.
Alexandridou 2016 – A. Alexandridou, Funerary Variability in Late Eighth-Century B.C.E.
Attica (Late Geometric II), AJA 120,3, 2016, 333-360.
Andronikos 1968 – M. Andronikos, Totenkult, ArchHom III, W (Göttingen 1968).
Andronikos 1963 – M. Andronikos, Epitaphia Mnimeia, ADelt 17, 1961-2, Athens, 1963, 110-
15, 152-210, pls. 76-206.
Antonaccio 1995 – C. M. Antonaccio, An Archaeology of Ancestors. Tomb Cult and Hero Cult
in Early Greece (Maryland 1995).
Bächle-Deger-Jalkotzy 2009 – LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms III, LH III C Late and
the Transition to the Iron Age. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at the Austrian
Academy of Sciences at Vienna, Feb. 23, 24th, 2007, A. E. Bachle-S. Deger-Jalkotzy (eds)
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vienna, 2009).
Benson 1970 – J. L. Benson, Horse Bird and Man. The Origins of Greek Painting (Amherst,
Massachusetts 1970).
Benson 1973 – J. L. Benson, The Necropolis of Kaloriziki, SIMA 36 (Göteborg, 1973).
Bingen-Bingen 1982 – M. & J. Bingen, 1982. Le cratère ‘géométrique récent’ de Thorikos, in L.
Hadermann Misguich-G. Cambier (eds.), Rayonnement Grec, Hommages à Charles Delvoye,
(Brusells 1982) 77-90.
Blegen-Rawson 1966 – C. Blegen-M. Rawson (eds.) The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western
Messenia III (Princeton 1966).
Boardman-Kurtz 1971 – J. Boardman - D. Kurtz, Greek Burial Customs (Ithaca 1971).
Boardman 1988 – J. Boardman, Sex Differentiation in Grave Vases, AIONArch 10, 1988, 171-
180.
Bohen 1976 – B. Bohen, A New Geometric Vase from the Kerameikos, AM 91, 1976, 1-22, pls.
3f.
Bohen 1980a – B. Bohen, Die geometrischen Scherben aus der roten Schicht unter dem
Rundbau. Der Rundbau am Eridanos Kerameikos XII (Berlin 1980) 89-94.

38
Bohen 1980b – B. Bohen, A Geometric Horse Pyxis from Asine, Skrifter Svenska Institut Athen,
OpAth XIII:6 (Stockholm 1980) 85-89.
Bohen 1988 – B. Bohen, Die geometrischen Pyxiden, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen.
Kerameikos XIII (Berlin 1988).
Bohen 1991 – B. Bohen, The Dipylon Amphora: Its Role in the Development of Greek Art, The
Journal of Aesthetic Education 25,2, (Univ. of Illinois Press, Champaign 1991) 59-65.
Bohen 1997 – B. Bohen, Aspects of Athenian Grave Cult in the Age of Homer, in S. Langdon
(ed), New Light on a Dark Age, (Univ. Columbia Missouri Press 1997) 44-55.
Bradeen 1963 – D. W. Bradeen, The Fifth-Century Archon List, Hesperia 32,2, 1963, 187-208.
Brann 1961 – E. Brann, Late Geometric Well Groups from the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 30,2,
1961, 93-146.
Brann 1962 – E. Brann, Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery, Agora VIII (Princeton 1962).
Broneer 1939 – O. Broneer, A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis, Hesperia 8,4,
1939, 317-343.
Brückner-Pernice 1893 – A. Brückner-E. Pernice, Ein Attischer Friedhof, AM 18, 1893, 91-157.
Brückner 1909 – Brückner, Der Friedhof am Eridanos bei der Hagia Triada zu Athen (Berlin
1909).
M. Brouskari, Apo to Athenaiko Kerameiko tou 8ou P.X. Aiona (Athens 1979).
Carlier 1984 – P. Carlier, La Royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre (Strasbourg 1984) 360-372.
Carter-Morris 1995 – J. B. Carter-S. P. Morris (eds.) Ages of Homer. A Tribute to Emily
Townsend Vermeule (Austin 1995).
Coldstream 1968 – J. N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery (London 1968).
Coldstream 1977 – J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece (London 1977).
Coldstream 1983 – J. N. Coldstream, Gift Exchange in the Eighth Century B.C., in The Greek
Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C: Tradition and Innovation, Proc. of the 2nd Intl.
Symposium at the Swedish Inst. In Athens, 1-5 June, 1981, R. Hägg (ed), OpAth 4
(Stockholm1983) 201-207.

Coldstream 1984 – J. N. Coldstream, The Formation of the Greek Polis: Aristotle and
Archaeology,
Rheinisch Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften, (Düsseldorf 1984) Vorträge, G272.
Coldstream 1995 – J. N. Coldstream, The Rich Lady of the Areiopagos and her Contemporaries,
a Tribute in Memory of Evelyn Lord Smithson, Hesperia 64,4, 391-403.

39
Coldstream 1996a – J. N. Coldstream, Knossos and Lefkandi. The Attic Connections, in: D.
Evely- I. Lemos-S. Sherratt (eds). Minotaur and Centaur, Studies in the Archaeology of Crete
and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham, BAR. 638 (Oxford 1996) 133-146.
Coldstream-Catling 1996b – Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs, J. N. Coldstream-H.
W. Catling (eds), (London, 1996).
Coldstream 2001 – J. N Coldstream et al., The Knossos Pottery Handbook, Greek and Roman,
BSA Studies VII (London 2001).
Coldstream 2003 – J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece. 900-700 BC (London & New York
2003).
Collignon-Rayet 1888 – M. Collignon-O. Rayet L’Histoire de la Céramique Grecque (Paris
1888).
Courbin 1996 – P. Courbin, La Céramique Géométrique de l’Argolide (Paris 1966).
Crielaard 1995 – J. P. Crielaard, ed., Homeric Questions. Essays in Philology, Ancient History
and Archaeology, Including the papers of a Conference Organized by the Netherlands
Institute of Athens 15 May 1993 (Amsterdam 1995).
Crielaard 1995 – J. P. Crielaard, Homer, History and Archaeology: Some Remarks on the Date
of the Homeric World, in Crielaard 1995 (ed), 201-289.
Crouwel 2006 – J. H. Crouwel, Late Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery. A Brief Review, in Pictorial
Pursuits. Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery, E. Rystedt-B. Wells
(eds), (Stockholm 2006) 15-22.
Crouwel 2009 – J. H. Crouwel, Pictorial Pottery of the Latest Bronze Age and the Early Iron
Age, in Bächle Deger-Jalkotzy 2009, 41-60.
Dakaronia, 1987 – F. Dakaronia, Warships on Sherds of LHIIIC Kraters from Kynos, in Tropis
II, Proc. 2nd Intl. Symposium on Ship Construction, August 1987, H. Tzalas (ed) (Delphi
1987) 117-122.
Dakaronia 2007 – F. Dakaronia, LH IIIC Middle Pottery Repertoire of Kynos, in Chronology
and Synchronisms II: LH IIIC Middle, S. Deger-Jalkotzy- M. Zavadil (eds), (Vienna 2007)
119-127.
Dalsoglio 2014 – S. Dalsoglio, The Relative Sequence of the Earlier Kerameikos Burials (ca.
1100-900 B.C.): A Methodological Approach, Newsletter di Archaeologia CISA, 5, (Naples
2014) 39-57.
Davies 1971 – J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, 600-300 B.C. (Oxford 1971).
Davis 1998 – J. Davis et al., Sandy Pylos (Austin 1998).
Davison 1961 – J. Davison, Attic Geometric Workshops, YaleClSt XVI (Cambridge 1961).

40
Deger-Jalkotzy 1998 – S. Deger-Jalkotzy, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors Updated,
in Dothan-Gitin-Mazar, 1998, 114-121.
Deger-Jalkotzy 2009 – S. Deger-Jalkotzy, From LHIIIC Late to the Early Iron Age: The
Submycenaean Period at Elateia, in Bächle-Deger-Jalkotzy 2009, 77116.
Desborough 1952 – V. R. d’A Desborough, Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford 1952).
Desborough 1964 – V. R. d’A Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors: An
Archaeological Survey c. 1200 – c. 1000 BC. (Oxford 1964).
Desborough 1972 – V. R. d’A Desborough, The Greek Dark Ages (New York, 1972).
Desborough 1973 – V. R. d’A Desborough, Late Burials from Mycenae, BSA 68, 1973, 91-101,
pls. 28-34.
Deshayes 1966 – J. Deshayes, Argos, les Fouilles de la Deiras, Etudes Péloponnésiennes IV
(Paris
1966). Dikaios 1936 – P. Dikaios, BSA 37, 1936-37, 71f. fig. 6.

Dothan-Gitin-Mazar 1998 – Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth

Centuries BCE, T. K. Dothan-S.Gitin-A. Mazar, (eds) (Israel Exploration Society, 1998).
Drews 1983 – R. Drews. Basileus, the Evidence for Kingship in Geometric Greece, (New Haven
1983).
Drews 1993 – R. Drews, The End of the Bronze Age. Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe c.
1200 B.C. (Princeton 1993).
Eder 2009 – B. Eder, The Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Transition in Western Greece:
Submycenaean Studies, in Bächle-Deger-Jalkotzy 2009, 133-149. Ferguson 1938 – W. S.
Ferguson, The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion, Hesperia. 7, 1938, 1-74.

Finkelberg 2005 – M. Finkelberg, Greeks and Pre-Greeks. Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic
Tradition (Cambridge 2005).
Foxhall 1995 – L. Foxhall, Bronze to Iron: Agricultural Systems and Political Structures in Late
Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Greece, BSA 90, 1995, 239-250.
French 1998 – E. French, The Ups and Downs of Mycenae: 1250-1150 BCE in Dothan-Gitin-
Mazar 1998, 2-5.
French 2009 – E. French, Mycenae: LHIIIC Late: What Little There Is, in Bächle-Deger-
Jalkotzy 2009, 151156.
v. Freytag 1975 – B. von Freytag, gen. Löringhoff, Kerameikos 1973/74, AA 1975, 465 ff.
v. Freytag 1995 – B. von Freytag, gen. Löringhoff, Tätigskeitbericht 1992/94, AA 1995, 647ff.
Frizell 1986 – B. S. Frizell, The Late & Final Mycenaean Periods, Asine II,3 (Stockholm 1986).

41
Furtwängler-Löschcke 1886 – A. Furtwängler- G. Löschcke, Mykenische Vasen (Berlin 1886).
Gallou 2002 – C. Gallou, the Cult of the Dead in Central Greece During the Mycenaean Period,
Vol. I, (Nottingham 2002).
Gauss-Ruppenstein 1998 – W. Gauss-F. Ruppenstein, Die Athener Akropolis in der Frühen
Eisenzeit, AM 113, 1998, 23-59, pls. 3-7.
Gauss 2011 – W. Gauss, Our Cups Are Full: Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age.
Papers presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the occasion of his 65th birthday, W. Gauss-M.
Lindblom-R. A. Smith, (eds), (Oxford 2011).
Geroulanos 1973 – J. M. Geroulanos, Grabsitten des ausgehenden geometrischen Stils im
Bereich des Gutes Trachones bei Athen, AM 88, 1973, 1-54 pls. 1-52, Beil. 1-4.
Graef 1909 – B. Graef, Die Antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen, I (Berlin 1909).
Grunwald 1983 – C. Grunwald, Frühe attische Kampfdarstellungen, Acta Praehistorica et
Archaeologica, 15, 1983, 164f., figs. 13, 20, 26.
Hägg-Nordquist 1990 – R. Hägg, Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Argolis. The Role of
Libations in Mycenaean Ceremony and Cult, in: R. Hägg-G. Nordquist (eds), Proceedings of
the 6th Intl. Symposium. Swedish Inst. Athens (Stockholm 1990) 177-84, OpAth. 4, 40.
Hattler 2008 – C. Hattler, (ed.) Zeit der Helden, (Karlsrühe 2008).
Hiller 2006 – S. Hiller, The Prothesis Scene. Bronze Age-Dark Age Relations, in Rystedt-Wells
2006, 183- 190.
Himmelmann-Wildschütz 1961 – N. HimmelmannWildschütz, Attisch-Geometrisch,
MarbWProg, 1961, 6-20.
Höpfner 1976 – W. Höpfner, Das Pompeion und seine Nachfolgerbauten, Kerameikos X (Berlin
1976).
Hurwit 1999 – J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis (Cambridge 1999).
Huxley 1958 – G. L. Huxley, Argos et les derniers Temenides, BCH 82, 1958, 588-601.
Iakovides 1970 – Sp. E. Iakovides, Perati, (Athens, 196970).
Immerwahr 1973 – S. A. Immerwahr, Early Burials from the Agora Cemeteries (Princeton
1973).
Jacoby 1949 – F. Jacoby, Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford, 1949).
Jacoby1954 – F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGH), Suppl. II (Leiden 1954).
Kahane 1940 – P. Kahane, Die Entwicklungsphasen der Attisch-Geometrischen Keramik, AJA
44, 4, 1940, 464-482.

42
Kahane 1973 – P. Kahane, Ikonologische Untersuchungen zur griechisch-geometrischen Kunst.
Der CesnolaKrater aus Kourion im Metropolitan Museum, AntK 16, 1973, 2.
Karageorghis 1974 – V. Karageorghis, Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis III (Nicosia
1974).
Kaufmann-Samaras 1973 – A. Kaufmann-Samaras, La Scène, de Prothésis ‘disparue’ sur le
cratère 806 du Musée National d’Athenes, AD 28, 1973, 235-240, pl. 128.
Kilian 1980 – K. Kilian, Zum Ende der Mykenischen Epoche in der Argolis, Jahrbuch des
Romisch Germanischen Zentralmuseum, 27, Mainz 1980, 166195.
Kilian 1987 – K. Kilian, Mycenaeans Up to Date, Trends and Changes in Recent Research, in
Problems in Greek Prehistory: Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British
School at Athens, Manchester April 1986, E. F. French-K. Wardle (eds) Exeter 1987, 115-
152.
Kirk 1949 – G. S. Kirk, Ships on Geometric Vases, BSA 44, 1949, 93-153.
Knigge 1980 – U. Knigge, Der Rundbau am Eridanos, Kerameikos XII (Berlin 1980).
Knigge 2006 – U. Knigge, Ein Grabmonument der Alkmeoniden im Kerameikos, AM 121, 2006,
127-163, pls. 17-20

Kraiker-Kübler-Breitinger 1939 – W. Kraiker- K. Kübler-E. Breitinger, Die Nekropolen des 12.

bis 10. Jahrhunderts. Kerameikos I (Berlin 1939).
Kübler 1943 – K. Kübler, Neufunde aus der Nekropole des 11. und 10. Jahrhunderts.
Kerameikos IV (Berlin 1943).
Kübler 1954 – K. Kübler, Die Nekropolen des 10. bis 8. Jahrhunderts. Kerameikos V (Berlin
1954).
Kübler 1959 – K. Kübler, Die Nekropole des späten 8. bis frühen 6. Jahrhunderts. Kerameikos
VI, 1 (Berlin 1959).
Kübler 1964 – K. Kübler, Zu der Nekropole des 10-8. Jahrhunderts im Kerameikos, AA 1964,
173f.
Kübler 1970 – K. Kübler, Die Nekropole des späten 8. bis frühen 6. Jahrhunderts. Kerameikos
VI, 2 (Berlin 1970).
Kübler 1976 – K. Kübler, Die Nekropole der Mitte des 6. bis Ende des 5. Jahrhunderts.
Kerameikos VII, 1 (Berlin 1976).
Krause 1975 – G. Krause, Untersuchungen zu den ältesten Nekropolen am Eridanos in Athen
HambBeitrA, Beiheft 3,1 (Hamburg 1975).
Krause 2003 – J. Krause, Die spätgeometrischen Gräbergruppen im Kerameikos zu Athen und
ihr Aussagepotential zu Sozialstrukturen, diss. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (Berlin 2003).

43
Langdon 1977 – M. Langdon, Cult in Iron Age Attica, in New Light on a Dark Age, S. Langdon
(ed), 1977, 113124.
Lemos 2002 – S. Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh
and Tenth Centuries B.C. (Oxford 2002).
Lemos 2006 – I. S. Lemos, Athens and Lefkandi. A Tale of Two Sites, in Ancient Greece: From
the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, S. DegerJalkotzy-I. Lemos (eds) Edinburgh
Leventis Studies III (Edinburgh 2006) 505-530.
Lemos 2007 – I. S. Lemos, The Migrations to the West Coast of Asia Minor: Tradition and
Archaeology. Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion Symposion Güzelçamli, 26
September-1 Oktober 1999, MilForsch 5, (Mainz 2007) 713-727.
Lis 2009 – B. Lis, The Sequence of Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Pottery from Central Greek
Settlements, in Bächle- Deger-Jalkotzy 2009, 203-233.
Lis-Batziou-Efstathiou-Rückl-Kiriatzi-Müller 2015 – B. Lis-A. Batziou-Efstathiou-Š. Rückl-E.
Kiriatzi-N. Müller, Tracing Mobility in Prehistoric Central Greece, in 5th Archaeological
Work of Thessaly and Central Greece Abstracts, A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed) Volos 26/2-
13/2015, Volos (2015).
Lord-Smithson 1961 – E. Lord-Smithson, The Protogeometric Cemetery at Nea Ionia, Hesperia
30, 1961, 147-173, pls. 24-30.
Lord-Smithson 1968 – E. Lord-Smithson, The Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady, Hesperia 37,1,
1968, 77-116.
Lord-Smithson 1974 – E. Lord-Smithson, A Geometric Cemetery on the Areopagus, Hesperia
43, 1974, 32590.
Lord-Smithson 1982 – E. Lord-Smithson, The Prehistoric Klepsydra: Some Notes, in Studies in
Athenian Architecture, Sculpture and Topography Presented to Homer A. Thompson,
Hesperia Supplement 20 (Princeton 1982).
Lubegil 1871 – K. Lubegil, Der Staatsverfassung von Athen (Leipzig 1871) 359-364.
Luke 1994 – J. Luke, The Krater, Kratos and the Polis, Greece & Rome 41, 23-32.
Maran 2011 – J. Maran, Contested Pasts – The Society of the 12th c. B.C.E. Argolid and the
Memory of the Mycenaean Palatial Period, in Gauss 2011, 169-178.
Maran 2012a – J. Maran, Architektonischer Raum und soziale Kommunikation auf der Oberburg
von Tiryns – Der Wandel von der mykenischen Palastzeit zur Nachpalastzeit in Orte der
Herrschaft, in Charakteristika von antiken Machtzentren, F. Arnold, A. Busch, R. Haensch, U.
Wulf-Rheidt (eds) Menschen-Kulturen-Traditionen, Forschungs Cluster 3, Vol. 3 (Leidorf
2012).
Maran 2012b – J. Maran, Ceremonial Feasting Equipment, Social Space and Interculturality in
Post-Palatial Tiryns, J. Maran- P. Stockhammer (eds) (Oxford 2012) 121-136.

44
Mazarakis Ainian 2011 – A. Mazarakis Ainian, The ‘Dark Ages’ Revisited. Acts of an
International Symposium in Memory of William D. E. Coulson, University of Thessaly,
Volos, 14-17 June 2007, A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed), (Volos 2011).
Moore 2000 – M. B. Moore, Ships on a Wine Dark Sea, MMA Journal, 35, 2000, 13-38.
Moore 2004 – M. B. Moore, CVA New York, Metropolitan Museum 5, 2004.
Morris 1987 – I. Morris, Burial & Ancient Society. The Rise of the Greek City State (Cambridge
1987).
Morris 1992 – I. Morris, Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge
1992).
Morrison-Williams 1968 – J. S. Morrison-R. T. Williams, Greek Oared Ships, 900-322 B.C.
(Cambridge, 1968).
Moschos 2009 – I. Moschos, Western Achaea During the Succeeding LHIIIC Late Period – The
Final Mycenaean Phase and the Submycenaean Period, in Bächle-Deger-Jalkotzy (eds) 2009,
235-288.
Moschos 2002 – I. Moschos, Western Achaea During the LHIIIC Period. Approaching the Latest
Excavation Evidence, Greco 2002, 15-41.
Mountjoy 1986 – P. A. Mountjoy, Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. A Guide to Identification,
SIMA 73 (Göteborg 1986).
Mountjoy-Hankey 1988 – P. A. Mountjoy-V. Hankey, LHIIIC Late Versus Submycenaean. The
Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed. JdI 103, 1988, 1-37.
Mountjoy 1993 – P. A. Mountjoy, Mycenaean Pottery. An Introduction (Oxford 1993).
Mountjoy 1995 – P. A. Mountjoy, Mycenaean Athens (Jonsered, 1995).
Mountjoy 1999 – P. A. Mountjoy, Regional Myceanean Decorated Pottery, Vols. I-II (Leidorf
1999).
Mountjoy 2009 – P. A. Mountjoy, LHIIIC Late: An East Mainland-Aegean Koine, in Bächle-
Deger-Jalkotzy (eds) 2009, 289-312.
Mylonas 1948 – G. Mylonas, Homeric and Mycenaean Burial Customs, AJA 52,1, 1948, 56-81.
Mylonas 1975 – G. Mylonas, To Ditikon Nekrotaphion tis Elefsinos, Β. Archaiologiki Etaireia
81 (Athens 1975).
Niemeier 1998 – W.-D. Niemeier, The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the
Origins of the Sea Peoples, in Dothan-Gitin-Mazar 1998, 1765.
Nicolaou 1977 – K. Nicolaou, On the Origins of Greek Geometric Pottery and Questions of
Continuity, in Symposium on the Dark Ages, E.N. Davis (ed) (New York 1977) 21-31.

45
Nowicki 2001 – K. Nowicki, Defensible Sites in Crete c.1200-800 B.C. LMIIIB/IIIC through
Early Geometric, Aegaeum 21 (Liège 2001) 249-265.
Nowicki 2008 – Monastiraki Katalimata, Excavation of a Cretan Refuge Site, 1993-2000,
(Philadelphia 2008) 82-85.
Oakeshott 1966 – N. R. Oakeshott, Horned-head Vase Handles, JHS, 86, 1966, 115-132.
Pantelidou 1975 – A. M. Pantelidou, Proistoriki Athenai, Archaeological Society of Athens
(Athens 1975).
Papadimitriou 1988 – A. Papadimitriou, Bericht zur früheisenzeitlichen Keramik aus der
Unterburg von Tiryns. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982-83, AA (1988) 227-243.
Papadopoulos 1976 – A. J. Papadopoulos, Excavations at Aigion-1970, SIMA 46 (Göteborg
1976).
Papadopoulos 1979 – T. J. Papadopoulos, Mycenaean Achaea, SIMA 55 (Göteborg 1979).
Papadopoulos 1993 – J. K. Papadopoulos, To Kill a Cemetery. The Athenian Kerameikos and
the Early Iron Age in the Aegean, JMA 6/2. 175-197.
Papadopoulos 2003 – J. K. Papadopoulos, Ceramicus Redivivus. The Early Iron Age Potters’
Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora, Hesperia Suppl. 31 (Princeton 2003).
Papadopoulos 2007 – J. K. Papadopoulos, The Art of Antiquity. Piet de Jong and the Athenian
Agora (Athens 2007) 93-128.
Papadopoulos-Damiata-Marston 2011 – J. K. Papadopoulos-B. N. Damiata-J. M. Marston, Once
More with Feeling: Rutter’s Plea for the Abandonment of the Term Submycenaean Revisited,
in Our Cups Are Full: Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers presented to
Jeremy B. Rutter on the occasion of his 65th birthday, Walter Gauss (ed) (Oxford 2011).
Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1994 – L. Papazoglou Manioudaki, A Mycenaean Warrior’s Tomb at
Krini Near Patras, BSA 89, 1994, 177-200.
Podzuweit 2007 – C. Podzuweit, Studien zur Spätmykenischen Keramik, Tiryns Forschungen
und Berichte Vol. XIV (Wiesbaden 2007).
Popham-Sackett 1968 – M. R. Popham-L. H. Sackett, Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboea 1964-66,
BSA Preliminary Report, 1968.
Popham-Sackett-Themelis 1979 – M. R. Popham-L. H. Sackett-P. G. Themelis, Lefkandi I,
(1979).
Popham-Lemos 1996 – M. R. Popham-I. S. Lemos, Lefkandi III (1996).
Popham-Lemos – M. R. Popham-I. S. Lemos, A Euboean Warrior Trader, OJA 14, 1995, 151-
157.
Poulsen 1905 – F. Poulsen, Die Dipylongräber und die Dipylonvasen (Leipzig 1905).

46
Rayet-Collignon 1888 – O. Rayet-M. Collignon, Histoire de la Céramique Grecque (Paris,
1888).
Reber 2011 – K. Reber, Céramique Eubéenne à Naxos au Début de l’Age du Fer, The “Dark
Ages” Revisited. Acts of an international symposium in memory of William D. E. Coulson,
University of Thessaly, Volos, 14-17 June 2007, A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed) (Volos 2011) 929-
942.
Rombos 1988 – T. Rombos, The Iconography of Attic Late Geometric II Pottery, SIMA
Pocketbook 68 (Jonsered 1988).
Ruppenstein 2003 – F. Ruppenstein, Late Helladic IIIC versus Submycenaean: A
Methodological Problem, in Deger-Jalkotzy-M. Zavadil (eds) LH IIIC Chronology and
Synchronisms (Vienna 2003) 183-192.
Ruppenstein 2007 – F. Ruppenstein, Submykenische Nekropole. Neufunde und Neubewertung,
Kerameikos XVIII (Munich 2007).
Ruppenstein 2009 – F. Ruppenstein, The Transitional Phase from Submycenaean to
Protogeometric: Definition and Comparative Chronology, in Bächle Deger-Jalkotzy 2009
(Vienna 2009) 327-344.
Rutter 1977 – J. Rutter, Late Helladic IIIC Pottery and Some Historical Implications, in
Symposium on the Dark Ages in Greece, E. N. Davis (ed.) (New York, 1977) 1-20.
Rutter 1978 – J. Rutter, A Plea for the Abandonment of the Term Submycenaean. Temple
University Aegean Symposium 3 (Philadelphia 1978) 58-65.
Rutter 1979 – J. Rutter, The Last Mycenaeans at Corinth, Hesperia 1979, 48, 348-392.
Rutter 2015 – J. B. Rutter, Ceramic Technology in Rapid Transition, the Evidence from
Settlement Deposits of the Shaft Grave Era at Tsoungiza (Corinthia) in Knowledge in the
Production of Ancient Mediterranean Pottery, W. Gauss-G. Klebinder-C. Gauss (eds)
Proceedings of the International Conference at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at
Athens, 23rd – 25th November 2012, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut,
Sonderschriften 54 (Vienna 2015) 207-223.
Rystedt-Wells 2006 – E. Reystadt-B. Wells, Pictorial Pursuits. Figurative Painting on
Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery (Stockholm 2006) 247-253.
Sakellarakis 1992 – G. A. Sakallarakis, The Mycenaean Pictorial Style in the National
Archaeological Museum of Athens (Athens 1992).
Schachermeyr 1980 – F. Schachermeyr, Die Ägäische Frühzeit, Griechenland im Zeitalter der
Wanderungen, Mykenische Studien Vol. 8 (Vienna 1980)
Shelmerdine 2001 – C. W. Shelmerdine, Review of Aegean Prehistory VI: The Palatial Bronze
Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland, in Aegean Prehistory, 329-381.
Sherratt 2004 – S. Sherratt, Feasting in Homeric Epic, Hesperia 73, 2004, 301-337.

47
Schlörb-Vierneisel 1966 – B. Schlörb-Vierneisel, AM 1966 5-7.
Schweitzer 1971 – B. Schweitzer, Greek Geometric Art (New York 1971).
Skilardi 1968 – D. O. Skilardi, Anaskaphi para tas ‘Erias Pylas’ kai Topographica Problemata tis
Periochis, AEphem 1968, 8-52.
Small 1997 – D. B. Small, City-State Dynamics through a Greek Lens, in Archaeology of City-
States, N. Nichols-T. Charlton (eds) (Washington DC 1997) 107-118.
Small 1998 – D. B. Small, Surviving the Collapse: the Oikos and Structural Continuity Between
Late Bronze Age and Later Greece, in Dothan-Gitin Mazar 1998, 283-291.
Snodgrass 1971 – A. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh 1971).
Snodgrass 2006 – A. M. Snodgrass, Archaeology and the Emergence of Greece (Cornell 2006).
Sourvinou-Inwood 1974 – C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Movements of Populations in Attica at the End
of the Mycenaean Period, in: Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean. Archaeological and
Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory, Proc.1st Intl. Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory,
Sheffield, March 1970, R. Crossland-A. Birchall (eds) (London 1974) 215225.
Strömberg 1993 – A. Strömberg, Male or Female. A Methodological Study, SIMA 123,
(Jonsered 1993).
Styrenius 1962 – C.-G. Styrenius, The Vases from the Submycenaean Cemetery of Salamis,
OpAth 4, 1962, 103-123.
Styrenius 1967 – C.-G. Styrenius, Submycenaean Studies, OpAth, I 8, VII (Lund 1967).
Styrenius-Dietz 1976 – C.-G. Styrenius-S. Dietz, Asine II (Stockholm 1976).
Surikov 2006 – I. R. Surikov, the Evolution of the Athenian Archonship as an Institution of
Public Law, Russian Academy of Sciences, No. 5, 2006, Memorie Diritto@storia.
Thomas-Conant 1999 – C. G. Thomas-C. Conant, Citadel to City-State. The Transformation of
Greece 1200-700 B.C.E. (Bloomington Indiana 1999).
Vanschoonwinkel 1991 – J. Vanschoonwinkel, Legée et la Méditerranée Orientale à la fin du
deuxième millénaire. Témoinages archéologiques et sources écrites. Archaeologia
Transatlantica IX (Louvain-la Neuve-Providence 1991).
Verdan 2013 – S. Verdan, Le Sanctuaire d’Apollon à l’époque géométrique, Eretria XXII,
(Gollion, 2013) pl. 96, cat. 335.
Verdelis 1963 – Neue geometrische Gräber in Tiryns, AM 78, 1963, 1-62.
Van Wees 1995 – H. van Wees, Princes at Dinner. Social Event and Social Structure in Homer,
in Homeric Questions, J. P. Crielaard, (ed) (Amsterdam 1995) 165-174.

48
Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982 – E. Vermeule-V. Karageorghis, Mycenaean Pictorial Vase
Painting (Cambridge Mass. 1982).
Vierneisel 1963 – K. Vierneisel, Kerameikos Grabung, ADelt 18,1, Chron, 1963, 27-30, pl. 29.
Vlachopoulos 1999 – A. Vlachopoulos, O Krateros tis Grottas in Fos Kykladon, Ch. Stampolides
(ed) (Athens 1999) 74-94.
Voutsaki 1995 – S. Voutsaki, Social and Political Processes in the Mycenaean Argolid: The
Evidence from the Mortuary Practices, Aegeum 12, R. Laffineur-W. Niemeier (eds) (Liège
1995) 55-66.
Voutsaki 1998 – S. Voutsaki, Mortuary Evidence, Symbolic Meanings and Social Change: A
Comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean Period, in Cemetery and
Society in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1, K. Branigan
(ed) (Sheffield 1998) 4158.
Wallace 1989 – R. W. Wallace, The Areopagos Council to 307 B.C. (Baltimore 1989).
Webster 1961 – T. B. L. Webster, Die Nachfahren Nestors, Mykene und die Anfänge
Griechischer Kultur (Munich 1961).
Wecowski 2014 – M. Wecowski, The Rise of the Greek Aristocratic Banquet, 2014, 183-187.
Whitehead 1986 – D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica (Princeton 1986).
Whitley 1991 – J. Whitley, Style and Society in Dark Age Greece (Cambridge 1991).
Whitley 1991 – J. Whitley, Social Diversity in Dark Age Greece, BSA 86, 1991, 341-65.
Whitley 1996 – J. Whitely, Gender and Hierarchy in Early Athens, Métis, 11, 1996, 209-231.
Whittaker 2008 – H. Whittaker, The Role of Drinking in Religious Ritual in the Mycenaean
Period, in DAIS The Aegean Feast, Proc. of the 12th Intl. Aegean Conference, University of
Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008, Aegeum 29, A.
Hitchcock-R. Laffineur-J. Crowley (eds) (Liège 2008) 89-96.
Wide 1910 – S. Wide, Gräberfunde aus Salamis, AM 35 1910, 17-36.
Wright 1995 – J. C. Wright, Empty Cups and Empty Jugs: The Social Role of Wine in Minoan
and Mycenaean Societies, in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine, Food and Nutrition in
History and Anthropology 11, McGovern-Fleming-Katz (eds) (Philadelphia 1995), 287-309.
Xagorari-Geissner 2005 – M. Xagorari-Geissner, Die geometrische Nekropole von Merenda. Die
Funde aus der Grabung von I. Papademitriou 1960-61, (Dettelbach 2005).
Zurbach 2017 – J. Zurbach, The Formation of Ancient City-States, Academia.edu, Oxford 03.
2017.
Young 1949 – R. S. Young, An Early Geometric Grave near the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 18,
1949, 275-297, pls. 66-7.

49
50