0

The Submycenaean Foundation of Kerameikos Precinct XX

Fig, 1. Submycenaean Dowry Chest, Precinct XX, Grave SM 22

Spinoff from Kratos & Krater, ©2017 Archaeopress and Barbara Bohen, April 2020
 1

The Submycenaean Foundation of Kerameikos Precinct XX

CONTENTS
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….2

New Immigrant Foundations……………………………………………...……..….2

The Kerameikos Precinct XX Cemetery: its Submycenaean Roots……………..….4
A Submycenaean Chamber Tomb………………………………………………......8
The Pottery of the Precinct XX & Pompeion Cemeteries: Concurrent Styles….…10
The Pompeion Cemetery and its Relationship to the Precinct XX Cemetery.…….13
The Traditions………………………………………………………………….…..13
Querying the 100 Year Duration Assigned to the Pompeion……………...………14
Traditions Again…………………………………………………………………...15
Submycenaean Periodization in Attica…………………………………………….16
Appendix, C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean………...19
 2

The Submycenaean Foundation of Kerameikos Precinct XX

For Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood
What goes around comes around
Introduction
This is another article in my Kratos & Krater spinoff series. It confirms a Submycenaean date for the
Kerameikos Precinct XX foundation and in consequence examines the potential relationship between
the Precinct XX and Pompeion cemeteries. Reprised from Kratos & Krater, Bohen 2017 is a scene-
setting summary of events occurring in Athens during the transitional phase as Precinct XX, the
Pompeion and a number of other new immigrant sites are founded. It concludes with a recognition
of some of the dynamics prompting reassessment of Athenian Submycenaean chronology. This tract
owes much to the research of Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood who gathered both literary and
archaeological sources for this period (v. Appendix below).

New Immigrant Foundations

During the years of transition from the Late Helladic to the Iron Ages, Athens entered a phase of
relative prosperity with periodic disruption. The significant Attic settlement of Perati, a participant in
the trading activities of the Aegean Koine, had been relatively prosperous through most of the 12th
century, but its abandonment towards the end of the century signals a round of dislocation in which
many of Attica’s smaller settlements were similarly deserted. Athens itself had been under duress of
periodic attack. Lack of finer indigenous pottery and fewer traditional chamber tombs in the latter
half of the 12th c. suggest the toll taken on its traditional elite by unsettled conditions. The Athenian
king Thymoetes was under pressure in a dispute with Euboea over the northeast boundary. (Paus II
18,8). Yet Athens represented a haven for a number of dislocated groups from regions west now
entering the settlement. The Acropolis was still an imposing symbol of Athens’ defensive capabilities,
the best fortified citadel on the Mainland once Tiryns followed Mycenae into obscurity. This may be
the era when Athens earned its reputation of assisting those in need (Thuc.1,2,6).
A common cultural tradition would have made Athens a congenial destination for refugees of
similar Mycenaean heritage. The archaeological evidence as well as the traditions suggest diplomacy
attended their arrival. There are no signs that the well-armed newcomers entered Athens with
aggression. If they had overtaken the settlement by force, it is unlikely that their largest incoming
contingent would have been satisfied with a tract of Kerameikos soggy bottom as its spoils. The
Ilissos area, closer to the Acropolis bastion would have been more enticing. The newcomers engaged
in a settlement process that could have been chaotic but suggests organization and collaboration with
whatever local leadership was on hand in Athens. A degree of deliberation seems to be revealed in
the location of the new settlers around Athens (presuming that the new cemetery sites coincided with
their first encampments). The earliest, from the Argolid, were permitted to settle fairly close to the
center in the Agora. The larger groups, the Pompeion and Vasilissis population, were located at a
remove from the center, perhaps for larger space needs and the opportunity for development of their
own food resources, with animal husbandry and allotments. This sequestration must have worked
well for them because some remained in these individual locations through the Iron Age. So, Athens
remained something less than a melting pot, an assemblage of chieftains whether indigenes or new
oikoi, and that contributed to the development of strong aristocratic houses.
 3

Habitation sites of the indigenous Athenians can only be speculated today based on the
locations of the surviving Bronze Age LHIIIC burial grounds located around the Acropolis. The plan
(Fig. 2) reveals their distribution, below the Areopagos, on Mouseion Hill, near the later Haladian
Gate, south of the Acropolis, along the banks of the Ilissos River, and in the Olympeion area. The
incoming migrants generally avoided those areas already under occupation and settled their
encampments in new sites around the periphery of the settlement, which likely coincided with the
locations of their burial grounds. The largest group, Precinct XX, Pompeion and the Sacred Gate,
acquired the low-lying Kerameikos area, a tract seasonally unsuited for domicile. Smaller groups
settled in the north Agora, and Kolonos Agoraios.1 Other small sites were also settled along tracts
that were or became sites of roads and gates leading to the main center of Athens: the Irian Gate,
Acharnian Gate, Haladian Gate, and Diochares Gate cemeteries. There were the first burials to the
east of the center at what became a large cemetery on Vasilissis Sophias Drive and to the south another
installation of long duration at Kynosarges.2

Fig. 2. Surviving and newly founded immigrant sites of transitional Athens

The outline of these discrete new sites around the periphery of Athens, at a respectable remove from
the local center, suggests planned location of their first encampments, guaranteed not to overly disturb
the status quo, but also perhaps to ensure their survival if their arrival was contested, something that

1 Hesperia 7, 2002, 156

2 BSA 12, 1905-1906, 91 f.
 4

does not seem to have been the case. Indeed, what appeared to be a threat to the community’s
sovereignty proved in time to be more a blessing in disguise. Incoming Mycenaeans under elite
leadership were vestiges of Deger-Jalkotzy’s ‘Last Flower of Mycenaean Civilization’ who were
bringing aspects of their long-standing culture with them. They were well-seasoned in survival.
This could have been to the Athenian elite’s advantage. They may have appreciated the advent
of new leadership in reinforcing a weakened Athenian aristocratic tradition. Most of the newcomers’
leadership originated from the Peloponnesos and to judge from burial content, the Argolid, Achaia
and Messenia were among the sources. Some presumably came earlier from outlying Attic settlements
such as Perati. Most of their new burial grounds appear to have been founded in the late 12th c. BC
timespan, raising the possibility they were part of a coordinated movement seeking a new homeland
(a movement realized in time with the Ionian Migration).
The new installations of these immigrants had an immediate effect on the geography and
culture of Athens. The elite Athenian burial type had been the multiple use chamber tomb, a common
mode of burial in the latest Bronze Age. In Athens these labor-intensive structures had been phasing
out, although modest reuse of earlier such tombs continued.3 The new cemeteries usually comprised
individual interments, rectangular cists arranged in burial fields as were the latest Bronze Age burial
sites of the Argolid. This was the case now in the north end of the Athenian Agora where groups of
graves were equipped with mostly mundane pottery of Argive association. The largest concentration
of early burials was in the Kerameikos, location of two of the most significant new burial foundations,
the small elite cemetery under Precinct XX at the 6th c. Hagia Triada Mound,4 and a large diversified
cemetery under the classical era Pompeion. These two cemeteries are the focus of the current study.

The Kerameikos Precinct XX Cemetery: its Submycenaean Roots

At Knossos North, Crete, Kaloriziki, Cyprus, and Lefkandi, Euboea, all immigrant sites, there was
a particular burial area of distinction for the most eminent.5 In Athens that locus was filled by the
Precinct XX cemetery located at the 6th c. BC Great Mound of Hagia Triada (Fig. 3). It is referenced
as the Precinct XX cemetery which is the number of the classical era precinct in its closest proximity.
Sited on rising land on the Eridanos South bank, Precinct XX was a small and exclusive cemetery
that retained its distinct funerary culture for hundreds of years. It sheltered only adult individuals,
and was homogeneous in terms of origins, high social status, and familial relations. These were elite
Mycenaean newcomers from a status oikos, but by contrast with the scepter-wielding entrepreneurial
chieftains of Cyprus, they appear more modest in their aspirations, perhaps looking foremost for a
security that had evaded them in the Peloponnesos. The attraction for such immigrants might have
been the safety guaranteed by the Acropolis bastion which was still a viable defense.
Surviving burial contents of this cemetery are modest at this time with few vestiges of wealth.
These were penurious times on the Mainland and some duress may have been endured by this group
during their migration to Athens. Status at this time, even in a chieftain’s burial ground, was reflected
by the quality of a few ornate vases, the odd symbolic gift, a small amount of gold, and weapons of
both bronze and iron. Here unusual status for individuals was further emphasized by distinctive
krater funerary rituals, Wild Style pottery and large scale, specialized tomb structures. Precinct XX

3 As found on the Dimitrakopoulou Street sites in the Koukaki district, Pantelidou 1975, 69-80. There is some Achaian
influence on their pottery suggestive of an earlier group of migrants from West Greece
4 The cemetery extends beyond Precinct XX to other precincts, but Kraiker chose Precinct XX as a useful reference point
for the Iron Age cemetery
5 Knossos North, Coldstream-Catling 1996, 641-643. Precinct XX, Ker. I, 180-221, Ker. IV passim
 5

Fig. 3. Kerameikos Burial Ground

has the largest surviving prehistoric grave, Gr. SM 22, the well-endowed burial of a woman (Fig.
4). The unique construction of this grave, its size and contents were likely an attempt to illustrate
the woman’s origins and noble status, albeit in a common cist burial. It is likely that this burial was
part of a larger Submycenaean section of Precinct XX that was destroyed during construction of the
Great Mound. Part of that section may have been a small Submycenaean chamber tomb set in
alignment with the preserved Gr. SM 22 line of burials (Fig. 4).
Close study of the Precinct XX earliest phases questions the chronology assigned to the site
by earlier scholars. The Precinct XX excavators had dated this cemetery in the Protogeometric
period in large part because the more refined wares at Precinct XX suggested a developed ceramic
phase. Further analysis suggests that Precinct XX was founded in the Submycenaean phase,
 6

Fig. 4. The Precinct XX earliest preserved line of Burials: the large burial of a woman, Gr. SM 22 center, and left the
Great Trench and the Submycenaean chamber tomb (Star)

contemporary with the nearby cemetery under the Pompeion and Dipylon Gate (Fig. 3). This
reassignment may not find easy acceptance because these two cemeteries appear to have very little
in common. Precinct XX is small, and elite with its own unique culture and krater funerary traditions.
The sprawling Pompeion is the largest cemetery in early Athens, harboring an extremely diverse
population of various status and origins. Nevertheless, a case can be made for their contemporaneity
in the Submycenaean period.
The omission of Precinct XX’s Submycenaean roots arose from three main factors. First, the
earliest sequence of its burials was damaged in the construction of the 6th c. BC Great Mound of Hagia
Triada. Second, the excavator, Wilhelm Kraiker believed that the fill to build the mound had been
brought in from the Submycenaean Pompeion area. As a result, the mound fill, which contained
considerable Submycenaean material by Kraiker’s own recount, was not used in the analysis of the
chronology of the earliest Precinct XX cemetery. Third was the interpretation of the idiosyncratic
Wild Style as a new Protogeometric style.
Kraiker and Kübler the excavators of both cemeteries were aware of the construction of the
Great Mound and observed that there were thousands of sherds in the mound fill, including a lot of
Submycenaean date.6 It was likely the presence of this Submycenaean pottery that influenced
Kraiker‘s view that the mound had been constructed from earth brought in from another burial ground.
He cited an area on the north side of the Eridanos to the west of the Submycenaean Pompeion
cemetery as the likely origin, perhaps because that area had a mix of Submycenaean and Iron Age
wares similar to that in the mound fill.7 In sequel, he published the Pompeion as the Submycenaean
cemetery, and Precinct XX as the Protogeometric, with few qualifications.8
This view of Precinct XX as a distinctly Iron Age cemetery has been eroded somewhat over
the decades as some scholars have warmed to the recognition that Gr. SM 22 and several companion
burials in the earliest surviving group of Precinct XX burials are Submycenaean, The numerous
Submycenean sherds in the mound cited by Kraiker reveal that there must have been other
Submycenaean burials at Precinct XX lost to the mound trenching activity. Kübler admitted that
burials had been lost, and faithfully recorded the trenching damage in contour lines running eastward
along the northern edge of the burial ground from grave SM 22. (Fig. 5), however, he interpreted the
damage not to trenching, but water erosion “Auswaschungen”.9

6 Ker. I, pl. 38 above and at right below

7 Ker. I, 109 f.,111-130
8 Ker. I, 109, 110, AA 1933, 224, Krause 1975, 191
9 Ker. IV, following the Vorwort. Kübler believed some natural erosion was involved on this sloping site, but the trench
from its contours and section was definitely excavated, and there is no denying the contents of the mound
 7

Fig. 5. Kerameikos Precinct XX, 1125-713 BC, with trenching excavation, and bottom, Submycenaean Tomb (Star)
 8

I was assigned the organization of the prehistoric sherd cache in 1972. It was strayfind material
ranging from Mycenaean through Late Geometric date, and came primarily, but not exclusively, from
the Hagia Triada mound.10 Study concentrated on recovery of pyxis and krater fragments. During
my recovery of the corpus of pyxides from the cache it became apparent that the earth to construct
the mound had not been brought in from some other location, as Kraiker believed, but had been
scavenged from the immediate vicinity of Precinct XX. Whole contents of Precinct XX burials had
been extracted during the 6th C. BC trenching and deposited on the mound. Thus, a number of mound
sherds could be associated with vases from the Precinct XX burials. Many pyxides sufficient to justify
the publication of an entire Kerameikos volume, could be recovered and restored because these were
not typical strayfinds. Moving on to the ensuing krater project, there were many individual joining
fragments of the krater epitymbia that once rested on Precinct XX burials. The lower section of the
well-known Mourner Krater epitymbion of grave MG 43 could be reconstructed from fourteen mound
fragments, as well as many additional fragments of krater Cat.176-177, likely the epitymbion from
grave MG 13.11 The head of a clay stag figurine found in the mound was united with its body
excavated from Precinct XX grave PG 39.12

A Submycenaean Chamber Tomb

The Mycenaean and Submycenaean material found in the mound should now be associated with the
earliest phases of Precinct XX. The most obvious source of these remains would be where the
trenching is deepest, east of Submycenaean grave SM 22. Here the Great Trench cut well into the
rows of early burials from the SM and PG phases, clarified by the helpful contour lines provided by
the excavators in the site plan of this area, and in their section drawing of the site revealing the
cutaway for the trench (Figs. 4,5,6,12). A number of early pieces were published as coming from the
mound including the remains of two, possibly three almost identical ornate amphorae that could be
as early as LHIIIC Late.13 The excavators’ publication of these sherds and others as coming from the
mound is fortunate because it confirms their origin. Events of WWII interrupted their ongoing
activities at the site, and post-war activity did not always retain source information for the material
they left behind.14

10 Ker. I, 127-130
11 Bohen 2017, 107, 217-218, fig. 70,77, Cat. 193, 148-149 figs. 113, 114ab, Cat. 176, and sherd Cat. 74 from krater Cat.
73 from PG Gr. 19 pyre debris, 202, Ker. I, pl. 70. Further v. discussion of sources precedes the krater Catalogue, Bohen
2017, 191-192
12 Ker. IV, pl. 26, Ker. V,1, 5
13 “Die Keramik aus dem Grabhugel”, Ker I, 109-130, pls. 38,39,50. Amphora Inv. 11238, Bohen 2017, 41 Fig. 30, 42
Fig. 31, 131 Fig. 92, 193
14 The published Great Mound material, Ker. I, 109-131. Kraiker and Kübler had access to the full sherd contents of the
mound up to the end of World War II, but as the allies took over Athens the German archaeologists departed. They had
left some card information in association with some of the remains, which I used for their disposition where possible:
damage by silver fish had made much of it illegible. Subsequently Kübler published Ker. V,1 1954, and intended all
remaining Precinct XX Iron Age to be published in a complementary Kerameikos volume, Ker. V,2 (v. comment in his
Vorwort). This was never carried out, although the pyxides were published by Bohen, Ker. XIII, 1988. In the immediate
post-war years thousands of sherds in the Kerameikos storage were reordered by another archaeological mission, the
Agora. Unsourced strayfinds were, with few exceptions, combined together and all “non-diagnostic” sherds were
discarded, not thrown away but deposited in the well located in the center of the apotheke where they are now subsumed
under other such deposits. The loss of the non-diagnostic material impacts any possibility of fully restoring Precinct XX
vases such as amphorae, oinochoe, lekythoi, etc. or any vases that had an extent of plain or black glaze surface. This is
why the pyxis, with overall decoration, was selected to demonstrate the true extent and wealth of the original contents of
 9

Fig. 6. South-North Section of Precinct XX cemetery revealing the sharp cut of the Great Trench falling
away below Gr. PG 43 at right

Kübler’s original site plan has now been color-coded by phase to more accurately show where the
damage occurred (Fig. 5). The trenching extended from the Submycenaean phase (Gold Code rows)
into the Middle and Late Protogeometric burials (Blue and Green Code rows), continuing even deeper
to the east. The section drawing Fig. 6 reveals the sharp cut falling away below graves PG 43-34 due
east of grave SM 22. This was likely the location of the additional burials of Submycenaean date
whose remains were found in the mound. The Precinct XX site plan combined with its Archaic period
extension reveals the full extent of the trenching (Fig. 12).
If one continues the surviving Gold Code line of burials eastward over the deepest part of the
trench it coincides with an additional status feature uncovered in the 1970s. This was the entrance to
a small chamber tomb designated as a star on the plan (Fig. 5). The excavators, Drs. Ursula Knigge
and Bettina von Freytag-Löringhoff, believed it was Submycenaean.15 Only the dromos and blocked
entrance could be excavated (Fig.7). Its chamber was probably damaged by the trenching, which cuts
across where it would lie. Beyond the pair of photographs and a birds-eye graphic further
investigation of the tomb was not possible at that time.
The chamber tomb may well be the culmination of a lost line of Gold Code graves. Its
positioning, in line with the surviving Gold Code burials across the trench, suggests association with
the Precinct XX cemetery, so perhaps it was constructed for one of the elite males of this oikos. Like
the woman’s remarkable burial, Gr. SM 22, the tomb would have been a notable construction for a
prominent member of the burying group, a traditional Mycenaean style burial chamber, perhaps for
the chieftain himself.16

the Precinct XX cemetery. The sherd cache should no longer be viewed as fully representative of the mound material
because of intervening contamination by material from elsewhere
15 von Freytag 1975, 465 ff.
16 The Precinct XX area chamber tomb and regular earliest row of cist burials suggests a burial line, rather than a burial
field Kübler
 10

Fig. 7. Submycenaean Chamber Tomb, left blocked, right unblocked

The Pottery of the Precinct XX and Pompeion Cemeteries: Concurrent Styles

A Submycenaean foundation for Precinct XX is indicated, but obvious differences in the pottery of
the Precinct XX and the nearby Pompeion cemetery would seem to mitigate against that view. There
is a small amount of Wild Style in the Pompeion, and a few pieces of Sub-Granary Submycenaean in
the Precinct XX cemetery, but the differences appear to outweigh the similarities. Nevertheless, it
would appear that both of these cemeteries are of Submycenaean date. It is a case of concurrent styles.
Brokaw drew attention to the presence of different, coexistent styles at the end of the Iron Age in her
study of Geometric/Protoattic pottery.17 The Pompeion’s skeletal material surprises with the variety
of its origins, and its pottery is also diverse. By contrast, the wares of the earliest Precinct XX site are
quite limited: amid some commonplace light ground sub-Granary ware used mostly for urns, a single
elite ware stands out, the Wild Style. The denizens of this burial ground were likely members of a
small homogeneous elite group which had migrated to Athens from a remote Peloponnesian district.
Schachermeyr’s latest transitional era rankings based on class and usage help support the
contemporaneity of these two cemeteries.18 Two lekythoi help illustrate the case, one from a typical
modest Pompeion burial, the other from the significant Precinct XX female burial, SM 22 (Fig. 8).19
Both lekythoi have the same decoration, a common LHIIIC Late stacked triangles motif on the
shoulder and a dark glazed lower body with reserved horizontal bands. However, they reflect two
different status levels of production. The baggy profiled, poorly glazed Pompeion vessel pales by

17 C. Brokaw, “Concurrent Styles in Late Geometric & Early Protoattic Vase Painting”, AM 78, 63-73
18 F. Schachermeyr, Die Ägäische Frühzeit, Vol. IV (Vienna 1980)
19 Ker. IV, pl. 4, Inv. 921, Ker. I, pl. 14, Inv. 512
 11

comparison with the perky profiled, carefully crafted lekythos from Precinct XX. Desborough could
be excused for dating the latter Protogeometric. However, it is Submycenaean, along with the
delightful little dowry chest from the same female burial (Fig. 1). Both were manually decorated, the
concentric semicircles on the dowry box hand drawn, a marker for the Submycenaean period.20 The
two lekythoi represent the same shape and decoration but not equal status and competence in their
manufacture. The lekythos from the Precinct XX burial was created by an experienced and creative
potter working for the elite oikos that founded the site. These two cemeteries preserve the status
distinctions associated with the last Mycenaeans of their origin, the Peloponnesos. Cited under a PG
rubric for decades the finer pottery of Precinct XX, including these vessels from grave SM 22 has
since been recognized as Submycenaean by Styrenius and Lord-Smithson.

Fig.8. Two Submycenaean lekythoi, left from the Pompeion and right from
the Precinct XX cemeteries

The Wild Style pottery of Precinct XX is a factor differentiating the two burial grounds. Desborough
made a number of comments on it, noting that it did not resemble the other Protogeometric wares
with their light ground and organized circles and semicircles. They stood out by contrast with the
usual monotonous Athenian wares. He viewed Wild Style as a new ceramic development, an
experimental ware that tried out various motives, covering the vase with more decoration than is
normal in either the Submycenaean or Protogeometric periods.21 He said it gives the impression that
the potter was searching towards the best medium of decoration and was still in the experimental
stage. He viewed it as evidence that the native genius of the Athenian potter had been awakened once
more following the mediocrity of the Submycenaean phase”.22 He called it Wild Style.23
The Wild Style was neither Athenian, nor new, nor of short duration. It was also not
Protogeometric, although it survived into that phase and beyond on a single traditional shape: the
krater.24 The style was typical of specialized elite vessels found in Precinct XX: formal kraters,
krateriskoi, two-handled deep bowls, dowry boxes, two handled stamnoid pyxides, askoi, a situla,
and ceramic tripods. A Precinct XX deep bowl in this style, Ker. 770, was burned and likely had been

20 Ker. IV, pl. 3

21 He lists vessels of the Wild Style, loc. cit. 1952, 4,47,71,78
22 Desborough 1972, 41-43, 69-70
23 A selection of Wild Style vessels Ker. I, pls. 59,61,63,64,65, Ker. IV, pls. 3,4 (921). Desborough 1952, 4,47,71,78
24 Schachermeyr 117, pl. 14c, and Bohen 2017, 39, fig. 23
 12

used in the cremation rituals that typified Precinct XX burials (Fig.10).25 Mountjoy termed its more
detailed patterning “heavy panelled” decoration and turned to Messenia for the closest parallels, to
vessels such as the latest Bronze Age Ramovouni krater (Fig. 9), a vessel that appears to anticipate
the Athenian Protogeometric krater.26 Wild Style started as a Late Helladic IIIC Late style of
Schachermeyr’s Peloponnesian Nobelkeramik, specifically his Peri-Peloponnesian family of styles.
This was a sub-group that encompassed the western region of the Peloponnesos, especially between
Messenia and the island of Kephallenia, and extending to Achaia. Perhaps today Schachameyr would
have also added Elis.
Here may be mentioned the small stirrup jar from grave Gamma 31 in the ruins of Mycenae.
Desborough was not far off when he identified it as Wild Style, but it was not an example of Athenian
Wild Style influence on a Mycenaean vessel as he believed. It was a Peloponnesian vase of the kind
that spurred the development of the Wild Style in Athens. Moschos has identified it as stylistically
his Achaian phase 6a, at latest (LHIIIC Late transitional to SM27).

Fig. 9 LHIIIC Late krater, Ramovouni, Messenia Fig 10. Wild Style deep bowl Ker. 770

Desborough meanders in his analysis of the Wild Style but his instincts in isolating this group of
pottery under the Wild Style nomenclature were good. They are the same vessels I focused on that
coexisted alongside the lighter ground Sub-Granary styles so common in the Submycenaean
Pompeion and elsewhere. I have also found good reason to retain his terminology Wild Style because
the Attic pottery would otherwise be without the nomenclature for the class distinctions that have

25 Ker I, 186-187, pl. 61, P. A. Mountjoy, Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery, (Leidorf 1999) 623-624, No. 595,
Fig. 238. Bohen 2017, 39, fig. 23
26 Mountjoy 1999, 358-360, Fig. 124, No. 139
27 V. Desborough, “Late Burials from Mycenae,” BSA 68, 1973, 93-97, pl. 35. I. Moschos “Western Achaia During the
Succeeding LHIIIC Late Period,” LHIIIC Chronology and Synchronisms, Vienna 2009, 262-263
 13

already been defined by Schachermeyr for the Peloponnesos, namely Nobelkeramik and Alltagsware.
The two distinctions travelled to Athens with the different classes of migrants who used them, the
elite and the non-elite. This is only a superficial overview of the Wild Style, which is fully covered
in K & K 2017.28

The Pompeion Cemetery and its Relationship to Precinct XX

This redating of the foundation of Precinct XX to the Submycenaean phase raises the question of its
relationship to the nearby Submycenaean Pompeion. This necropolis was the largest and most
culturally heterogeneous cemetery in Athens as well as the most intriguing. It has been studied in
detail by Ruppenstein who includes valuable pottery style sourcing as well as anthropological
analysis. It represents folk of various type, culture, origins and rank, adults and children. There are
last Mycenaeans from the Peloponnesos and assorted others, non-Mycenaean even alien elements
from the north Mainland, and from non-Hellenic regions to the north such as Albania, all funneling
into Athens from various sources during the transition from the Bronze Age. The motley group of
residents were buried in inhumation cist burials with the rare cremation.29
The ranks of those buried were diversified by the different social strata reflected in their
pottery: this was mostly common Sub-Granary ware of Peloponnesian derivation with Argive,
Achaian and Messenian associations predominating, but some other diverse, engraved and
handmade wares were included. There was a number of poorly equipped burials with one or two
modest items or crude pottery, and in some cases, no burial content at all. However, the Pompeion
also harbored a few Mycenaean leadership burials with finer content: personal items, gold,
weaponry, odd artifacts and a few pieces of the elite Wild Style pottery found in Precinct XX.30
Sometimes individuals of lower status were buried in proximity to the higher ranking burials,
perhaps their ancillaries or menials. Some groups have been interpreted as families.31
The relationship between Precinct XX and the Pompeion may be clarified by recourse to
another burial ground on the island of Salamis and another source of evidence, the preserved
traditions of this era. Kraiker had noticed a relationship between the Pompeion and Submycenaean
cemeteries on Salamis. Both had similar Submycenaean burial content, with the same shapes:
amphoriskoi, bowls, cups, lekythoi and stirrup jars. The differences are that the corresponding
Pompeion wares are of Attic clay, and slightly later than most of the Salamis wares. Both the
Pompeion and Salamis burial grounds constitute the common field of cist tombs found earlier in the
Argolid. He concluded that these two cemeteries represented a continuous sequence of pottery from
the latest Late Helladic of the Peloponnesos to the Pompeion.32 The material evidence as well as the
traditions suggest that the two groups burying on Salamis became part of the Pompeion burial
ground. Perhaps this represents the same kind of dynamics that Moschos has reported with his
Achaians mentioned below, their ceramic “colonization” of other sites they occupied.

28 K & K 2017, 34.38-42,127-131, 134-135, fig. 97

29 Ruppenstein 2007, 269 f.
30 E.g. SM 143, a ‘lavish’ child burial under the Dipylon SW tower, Ruppenstein 2007, 27 f. 276. 279. Gr. SM 114, with a
fine Wild Style kantharos, Ker. 2728, askoi, and a ring vase. Grs. 136, and two Vor Dipylon groupings, Grs. 115-121, 142-
144
31 Mountjoy-Hankey, JdI, 103, 1988, 1-37, esp. 24 f. fig. 22. Burial in family sites, she notes, is typical of Mycenaeans
32 Ker. I, 134-138
 14

The Traditions
Turning to the traditions related to these sites, reportedly Melanthos, before becoming king of Athens,
stayed a duration at the ancient cult site of Eleusis, where he was appointed a priest of the local cult
of Demeter.33 Sourvinou-Inwood recounts a tradition of Philaios and others from Eleusis settling on
nearby Salamis. Mylonas saw similarities between some of his unpublished Eleusinian pottery and
that of the new Salaminian settlers.34 This occupation of Salamis by Philaios was perhaps a
preemptive measure sponsored by Melanthos to protect against Heraclids, who were still active
nearby on the Peloponnesos.35 Philaios is not mentioned among the Messenians who reportedly
arrived in Attica with Melanthos in the transitional years. However, he seems to have had an
affiliation with him perhaps initially as a fellow Neleid attending him at Eleusis. I follow Sourvinou-
Inwood in doubting Philaios’ descent from the hero Ajax and positing his origins in Messenia
(Philaios had been an early Pylian Bronze Age name).36 The island of Salamis was reportedly under
the oversight of Philaios when he negotiated Athenian citizenship for his following, perhaps through
the intermediary of Melanthos as he became king of Athens.37
Both Sourvinou-Inwood and I have associated the Kerameikos Precinct XX burial ground
with Melanthos. No other Athenian burial ground of this era has such high status. Following the
reported departure of the Codrides to Ionia it continued into the historical period as the cemetery of
the Neleid Alcmeonids, descendants of Melanthos’ companion Alcmeon on his journey from
Messenia. Due east lay the much larger Pompeion cemetery which likely included the Salamis group
brought into Athens by Philaios as well as others.
In spite of the apparent gulf between these two cemeteries, Precinct XX and Pompeion,
underlined by their real differences and their physical division by the Eridanos stream, they must have
been related in some manner. It is highly unlikely that an installation such as the Pompeion would
have been permitted in such close proximity to the elite burial ground of Precinct XX if there was not
some relationship between the two. The character of each suggests that it was possibly a
complementary affiliation, namely, Melanthos, a high-status Mycenaean leader from the
Peloponnesos, now ruler of Athens, with his immediate circle in the Precinct XX cemetery, while his
auxiliaries and various camp-followers under intermediate Mycenaean leadership used the nearby
Pompeion site.38 Philaios was likely founder of the Philaid oikos that would later become prominent,
maintaining a footprint in both Athens, and east Attica, where his name became the eponym for the
deme Philaidai (Plut. Solon X,2).

Querying the 100 Year Duration Assigned to the Pompeion

Ruppenstein’s detailed analysis of the Pompeion cemetery reveals groups from widely differing
origins. They converged on the local Athenian community bringing with them samples or
recollections of their native ceramic styles, and if Moschos is to be credited, actual potters.39 Stylistic
aberration can be especially characteristic of phases of precipitous shift. The complexity of parsing

33 Demon F GrH, 327 A, Strabo 14, 633, Drews 95, fn. 19

34 Mylonas 1936, 426, fn. 2, Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, 217 f.
35 The Salamis Arsenal cemetery covers Styrenius’ Early to Middle Submycenaean, Styrenius 1962,121-123, 1967, 39
36 Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, 218, or here in the Appendix, where she ably dismisses any connection with Ajax. Name:
Pylian tablet PY Un 249. I Ferguson, 1938, 16 f. Hdt 6, 35, Pherecydes, FGrH, 3 F2, Paus.I, 35,1, Scholia Pindar Nemean
Odes II,19, Stephanus Byzantinus, Philaides, Plut. Solon X,2.
37 Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, 218, Hdt. 6,35, Paus. 7.1.9
38 It is doubtful that Melanthos would have won out in the Oinoe boundary dispute had he not had a following. Leadership
burials: the Vor Dipylon group, elite PG and G usage continues nearby when the Pompeion SM lapses
39 Moschos 2009, 239
 15

the ceramic picture when the groups coalesced, either on the road or in the Pompeion, may have
resulted in the near century duration that has been assigned to this cemetery. The explanation may
be the presence of concurrent and overlapping styles.
Papadopoulos has been moving towards a realization of the effect of concurrent styles for
some time, recognizing, as others have, that the century duration for the Pompeion cemetery is
unrealistic. He has refurbished Brokaw’s “concurrent styles” as Synchronic Differentiation, i.e. that
distinct groups of vases may represent contemporary rather than consecutive relationships. Nearly a
decade ago he drew attention to a pair of quite similar Pompeion lekythoi that could be dated nearly
a century apart under the proposed Pompeion chronology.40 Linear sequencing works well for the
steadily evolving geometric style of the Athenian Iron Age but is inadequate to the interpretation of
the diverse Submycenaean period represented in the Pompeion. Ruppenstein must have taken
account of concurrent styles as he arranged his chronological sequences but the variety of the
Pompeion wares must have been challenging. The sprawling layout of the cemetery, where logical
burial sequence is not always observable, is also not helpful. Krause and Mountjoy, both of whom
saw some plan and possible grouping in the conformations of burials have both reached different
interpretations.41 Querying the duration of the Pompeion, Deger-Jalkotzy summarizes views from
various sites of the Mainland, and asks whether there is correlation between the number of burials
and the duration of time, and whether certain regions
such as Attica could have had a more dynamic
stylistic development than others.42 Could the data
from the Pompeion withstand a little more
tweaking?

Traditions Again
Some may reject the intrusion of traditions into an
otherwise fully material debate, but it might be of
interest to review the traditional record of the period
under consideration as decisions are made on
periodization. I am encouraged by the efforts of
Weninger and Jung in establishing an absolute
chronology for the end of the Submycenaean period
based on Swiss dendrochronology, SM bowls, etc.
They propose that the end of the Submycenaean
period occurs between 1070 and 1040 BC. The
earlier date would allow for a date of 1070 BC for
the traditional Ionian Migration.43 This is a date that

40 Papadopoulos J. K. 2011, 199-200, and more comprehensive in his Athenian Agora Vol. 36, Papadopoulos-Smithson
2017, 19-23, 33-34
41 Mountjoy, 1988, 1-37, esp. 24 f. fig. 22, on Mycenaean family grouping, differing from those of Krause in that the
LHIIIC Late burials are not restricted to the west section, but are distributed around the cemetery, with gaps filled in
by later Submycenaean burials
42 S. Deger-Jalkotzy, “A Very Underestimated Period: The Submycenaean Phase of Early Greek Culture”, KE-RA-ME-
JA, Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, eds. Nkassis- Gulizio-James, Pennsylvania 2014, 48-49
43 B. Weninger-R. Jung, “Absolute Chronology of the End of the Aegean Bronze Age,” Bächle-Deger-Jalkotzy LH III C
Chronology and Synchronisms III, LH III C Late and the Transition to the Iron Age. Deger-Jalkotzy (eds) (Vienna,
2009), 392, Fig. 14. They connect with Swiss dendrochronology, proposing 1070/40 BC, i.e. 1- to 20 years earlier
than Desborough’s date for the onset of the Protogeometric phase
 16

is supported by a chronology based on records of the Athenian life-kings. A full discussion of this
chronological system is abbreviated here to coincide only with the needs of the Submycenaean
period.
The dates and names on the life-king list are based on the Eusebian list which was
strengthened by the discovery in 1890 of a copy of Aristotle’s Athenaion Politeia, revealing the main
lines of the list were known in the 4th century BC. It is assumed that “remembranced” records of the
kings’ dates could have been written down c. 750 BC when Olympiad chronology and literacy
returned to the Mainland. There are several base points of support of which only the 752 BC death
of Alcmeon, the last life-king, is considered here because it is cross-recorded in Near Eastern records
(as Year of Abraham 1263. Other basepoints are listed in K & K44).
Based on the king list chronology, Melanthos would have become king of Athens in 1126
BC, Codros would have died ca.1070BC, and the Ionian Migration would have taken place shortly
following his death, ca. 1068 BC (see chart). The migration coincided with the cessation of the Wild
Style at Precinct XX and its appearance in Miletus which fell to the Codrid-led invasion (Fig. 11).45
In Athens a new regime of Medon and his son Acastus arose (1068-1012 BC) as well as a new,
purely Protogeometric style based on the earlier sub-Granary pottery. In 1012 BC, following the
Oath of Acastus, the Medontids were replaced by synoikismos, the rule of aristocratic life-kings,
who ruled only for their lifetime with no provision for inheritance. The system terminated with the
death of Geometric-era Alcmeon in 752 BC.

44 Bohen 2017, 54-78 details the establishment of the life-kings system of governance (the non-Medontid kings) 1012-
752 BC
45 V. R d’A Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors (Oxford, 1964), 233 for Miletus, similar to
Athenian
 17

Submycenaean Periodization in Attica

The proposed contemporaneity of the Precinct XX and Pompeion cemeteries resonates beyond
questions related to the Kerameikos burying populations. In a recent overview of Submycenaean
chronology Dalsoglio cited the Kerameikos contexts as the cornerstone of the Submycenaean and
Protogeometric chronologies, essential for elucidating the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron
Age.46 Certainly, with the particular questions associated with the Submycenaean Question in recent
years it has been of concern to have contexts elsewhere tethered to a reliable sequence in Athens. The
debate here indicates that it may not have been reached. This should not negatively affect attempts to
establish a usable chronology but the question of the duration of the Pompeion does need additional
attention.
Discussion of the chronology of this transitional phase is often centered on the Submycenaean
Question. John Papadopoulos cites the lack of convincing Mainland stratigraphy demonstrating Late
Helladic IIIC Late superimposed by Submycenaean, superimposed by Early Protogeometric. Rutter
suggests that LHIIC Late and Submycenaean could be contemporary styles, with the term
“Submycenaean” superfluous.47 Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy cites several contexts where Submycenaean
appears to be superimposed over LHIIIC Late, but suggests that may be immaterial: the vision of a
uniform Submycenaean culture across the Mainland may need to be abandoned because post LHIIIC
developments expressed themselves in greatly varying fashions throughout the regions of Greece.
This may be the most trenchant observation on the Submycenaean Question since the perennial
discussion began.
The difficulty in establishing some kind of common Submycenaean horizon at sites across the
Mainland arises from the old order crumbling at different rates in different regions. There were a few
solid anchors at larger sites which persisted to the end of the Bronze Age, such as Tiryns, but even
there it is not easy to parse the stylistic influences towards the end as the center may have taken in
other elite from further west. Broad chronological associations are conflicted by the dislocations of
shifting, land-based migration. The migration phenomenon, too long discredited by scholars, was
real. It may not have affected all areas equally, but certainly in the Peloponnesos many LHIIIC sites
fell off the map as displaced folks went on the road. Moschos has been ahead of the curve on this,
tracing the movements of his Achaians who maintained economic viability with their pottery
production as they made their way eastward across the Mainland. He sees them integrating into
existing settlements and dominating pottery production, in a species of “colonization”.48 Because of
the visibility of these skills, namely periodic remains of Achaian pottery or style, they are part of the
archaeological record. Other migrants were passing through leaving no trace of their passage other
than small groups of burials of short duration. The breakup of existing settlements and the installation
of others of whatever duration, such as the Salamis site, and even smaller groups of burial sites along
the way, confuse interpretation and defy the neat compartmentalization of style sought by the groups
both for and against a Submycenaean rubric.49
Moschos and Deger-Jalkotzy have opened the door a crack regarding the credibility of
traditions of Mainland migrations, so perhaps acceptance of the tradition of the Ionian Migration is

46 Dalsoglio 2014, 39 f.
47 J. K. Papadopoulos, “Once More with Feeling: Jeremy Rutter’s Plea for the Abandonment of the Term
Submycenaean Revisited”, Papadopoulos-Damiata-Marston, eds. Oxford 2011, 191-202
48 Moschos 2009, 239
49 Migration Theory was out of favor until the breakthrough conference of Dothan-Gitin-Mazar, eds. Mediterranean
Peoples in Transition, (Israel Exploration Society, 1998). Moschos, Ruppenstein, and Deger-Jalkotzy have now given it
some respectability on the Mainland. Dialect migration, M. Finkelberg, Greeks and Pre-Greeks (Cambridge 2005)
 18

not far off. The French scholar Cadoux cited Herodotus’s and Thucydides’ faith in oral traditions,
reinforced by historical reasoning, noting “Among peoples who write little, the capacity of the
memory is relatively greater.”158 These are the same Greeks who passed down oral traditions of a
Trojan War and other lengthy sagas over hundreds of years of alliteracy.
Some of the implications of the archaeology and traditions raised here will be addressed in a
future spinoff concerned with the termination of the Melantho-Codrid rule, its transference to Ionia
and a suggested legacy it left for the subsequent development of Athens.
 19

Fig. 12
 20

Appendix
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29