Introduction to Archaeology: Spring 2023

Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5

Lecture 9: How were Societies
Organized? Social Archaeology.
Notes and images compiled by Gregory Mumford (© 2023)
Contents:
5. How were societies organized? Social archaeology.
1. Introduction 5
2. Establishing the nature & scale of society 7
Classification of societies: Type of past societies: 9
a. Bands, b. tribes, c. chiefdoms, d. states 10+
3. Determining the scale of past societies: 19
Survey of past-present societies using settlement patterning 20
a. Central Place Theory 23
b. Site Hierarchy 25
c. Thiessen polygons 28
d. Xtent Modelling 30
4. Determining the scale of past societies: Other sources: 33
a. Other sources: Written records 36
b. Other sources: Oral tradition 44
c. Other sources: Ethnoarchaeology 46
5. Techniques for studying the nature of past-present societies: 52
a. Past bands (hunter-gatherers) … 53
Activities at sites …
Territories of bands …
Contents:
5. Techniques for studying the nature of past-present societies: 53
b. Techniques for assessing segmentary societies (tribes) … 63
Settlements; burial ranking; community works; crafts; etc.
c. Techniques for assessing chiefdoms and states: 86
Identifying primary centres 88
Functions of the centre 91
Administration beyond the primary centre 101
Investigating social ranking 103
Investigating economic specialization 113
Relationships between centralized societies 116
6. The archaeology of the individual and identity 118
- Cognitivist approach versus phenomenological approach 120
- Concept of Habitus 121
7. Emergence of individuals and the community 124
8. Investigating gender and childhood 127
9. The molecular genetics of social groups and lineages 141
10. Summary 145
11. CASE STUDY: Ancient Egypt & Ancient Europe 147+175
Instructor tips for lectures, etc.:
(1). Attend class regularly (& listen) …
→ Many clarifications, tips, announcements,
reinforcement & reviews of materials/concepts.

(2). Take notes on lectures, etc. …

→ The act of writing down notes, even with
most course materials and instructions online,
serves as an invaluable aid to one focusing on
a class topic and retaining information better.
https://howtostudyincollege.com/how-to-get-good-grades/note-taking-strategies/
(3). Complete the required textbook
readings, and/or review the ppt.,
prior to the specific class day …
→ This will provide greater clarity and
comprehension of the material, and will enable
asking focused questions where something
may be less clear (in the textbook or lecture).

(4). Ask questions during the class if

you are confused/wish more data
→ The class is an ideal place to ask for more
clarity or further information not contained in
the textbook, ppt., and/or lecture (If nobody
asks questions, the lecture proceeds …).

(5). Complete optional materials:

→ Additional reinforcement, studying & bonus?
 Renfrew and Bahn
2019 (8th. Ed.)

1.
Chapter 5:
How were societies
organized?
Social archaeology.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
1.1. Introduction:
Social archaeology = assessing
past peoples:
• Relations between individuals
and groups
• Soc. hierarchy (age; gender; rank)
• Nature & application of power
(social pressures; law; punishment)
• Nature of social organization
• Scale/size of social organization
(band → state society)
- Prehistoric & historic societies without
writing require appropriate questions
Mohenjo-daro
Ask social size/scale? (re: one site)
• Is it a single campsite (H & G)
• Is it an independent city state?
• Is it a satellite site (province/empire)
Question: dominant vs. subordinate role
Capital? prov. capital? town? village?
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
Internal organization:
Assess the type of society top-down:
• Egalitarian society
• Diverse social stratification?
(rank/status/prestige)
• Different social classes?
(caste system)
• Occupation type (craftsmen, etc.)
• Centralized control?
(palace; free trade; etc.)
Assess society bottom-up: =individuals
• Social roles (gender; age; status)
• Identity in society (e.g., ethnicity)
The type of society dictates the form
of investigation and questions:
E.g., Hunter & gatherers: campsite
Complex society: city state
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.1. Establishing the nature
& scale of the society: → ASK …
• What is the scale/size of the
largest social unit (polity)?
• What is the type of society?
(in general/broad terms)
• Polity: City state, H & G band,
farming community, empire.
-E.g., It is an independent entity &
may have smaller sub-units.
Questions:
• Might diff. communities = federation?
• How are decisions made?
→ Difficult to answer in archaeology.
Answers:
• From assessing individual sites
settlement patterns City state: Byblos
written records (Lebanon)
oral tradition Baked clay tablet
ethnoarchaeology Cuneiform script
 2.
Classification of
past-(present) societies:

Determining the basic type

of social organization …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.2. Classification of societies:
• E. Service adopted 4 types of
societies (useful; now modified):
Bands; tribes; chiefdoms; states.

“Tribes”
2.2.a. = ‘segmentary
Mobile hunter-gatherer groups:
societies’
• “Band”
now
• Usually less than 100
• Seasonal movement pursuing
wild crops & game.
• > all = related by blood or marriage
• They > lack designated leaders
• Status = essentially the same
• Seasonally occupied campsites
(temporary huts/long term seasonal)
• Other sites: kill & butchery; worksites
• Paleolithic 12,000 BP = 100% bands
• Terminology:
“Mobile hunter-gatherer groups”
versus “bands”
Summary table: in textbook
 Classification of
past-(present) societies:

Determining the basic type

of social organization …
2.a.
BANDS (H+G)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.2. Classification of societies:
• E. Service adopted 4 types of
societies (useful; now modified):
Bands; tribes; chiefdoms; states.
2.2.a. Mobile hunter-gatherer groups:
• “Band”
• Usually less than 100
• Seasonal movement pursuing
wild crops & game.
• > all = related by blood or marriage
• They > lack designated leaders
• Status = essentially the same: skill
• Seasonally occupied campsites
(temporary huts/long term seasonal)
• Other sites: kill & butchery; worksites
• Paleolithic 12,000 BP = 100% bands
• Terminology:
“Mobile hunter-gatherer groups”
versus “bands”
Summary table: in textbook
 Classification of
past-(present) societies:
Determining the basic type
of social organization …
2.b.
Segmentary soc.
(tribes …)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.2.b. Segmentary societies (tribes).
• Up to a few 100
• Cultivating plants: agriculture; herding
• Herding domesticated animals
• Usually = settled farmers
• Sometimes = nomadic pastoralists
(focused on herds)
• Contain several communities
linked by blood ties (kinship).
• Sometimes have a central “capital”
with appointed leaders & ‘officials’
• Small villages or homesteads
Isolated houses = dispersed pattern
Perm. villages = nucleated pattern
Adjoining houses = agglomerate “
• A “tribe” assumes a unified cultural
identity (which is not common)
• Segmentary society = relatively small
independent group, usually agricultural
(may unite to form a “tribe”)
 Classification of
past-(present) societies:
Determining the basic type
of social organization …
2.c.
Chiefdoms …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.2.c. Chiefdoms:
• Greater difference in rank
(social status)
• Different lineages with diff.
prestige (chief → tribesperson)
• Rank = affiliation with chief
• Usually craft specialists
• Surplus food & products paid
to chief
• Re-dispersal of produce
• Special central housing (for
the chief & his entourage)
• Size approx. 5,000 – 20,000
• Note: prominent ritual and
ceremonial center for chiefdom
a. within site
b. amongst sites Chief Paul Payakan (Kayapo, Brazil)
 Classification of
past-(present) societies:
Determining the basic type
of social organization …
2.d.
Early State Complex
Societies
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.2.d. Early States:
• Led by a ruler who makes laws
often enforced by military force.
• Less kin relationships
• Greater class stratification
• Agricultural & other labor
(= lower class)
• Craftsmen (middle class)
• Priests & nobility (upper class)
• Distinct ruler & palace
• Central administration & tax
• Cities (e.g., 5000+) dominate society
• Settlement hierarchy: cities, towns, villages
Archaeology:
• Seeks processes of change: emergence
• Complex societies reveal greater
craft specialization
• Food prod. intensifies →supply cities
• Greater disparity of wealth & status
 3.
SURVEY of
past-(present) societies:

Determining the scale / form

of social organization …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.3. Scale of the Society:
• Question = Scale of society?
• Pre-12,000 BP most people
are mobile hunter-gatherers.
• Later: Major urban centers
= “states”
• Lesser centers may reflect
chiefdoms.
• Potential mobile group requires
intensive survey work owing to
minimal data.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.4. The Survey:
• Field surveys have different
purposes.

• One aims to determine the

hierarchy of settlement:
- the main cities:e.g.Mohenjo-daro
- the lesser sites: Towns, villages+

• A systematic surface survey

of selected transects is more
manageable: Different techniques

• One aims to find the center

for the affiliated settlements
- Usually chosen by size &
remains (+unique features)
- It usually is the wealthiest
site.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.5. Settlement Patterning:
• Need to classify survey data:
• Sites may include:
- Regional center
- Local center
- Nucleated village
- Dispersed village
- Hamlet
• Isolate social & political
sphere around centers.
• Different approaches exist:
(a) Central place theory is
limited
It promotes scaled site
rankings,
BUT secondary centers
may be larger.
E.g., religious center.
 Determining types of
past-(present) societies:

Determining the structure

of social organization …
3.a.
Central Place Theory
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.5.a. Central Place Theory:
• W. Christaller 1930s:
• He promoted a regular spacing
of settlements in a “uniform
landscape.”
• Central towns/cities are
a. Equidistant
b. Surrounded by secondary
centers
c. Satellite communities are
smaller in-turn

• They display “hexagonal” layout

• Their nature is quite different

usually (i.e., theory vs. reality).

• BUT, central place theory is

a useful concept (Mesopotamia)
 Determining types of
past-(present) societies:

Determining the structure

of social organization …
3.b.
Site Hierarchy …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.5.b. Site Hierarchy.
• Site size ranking is a useful
indicator.
• Normally sites increase in
number from the largest to
the smallest communities.
• Histograms enable comparisons
through space and time.
• Minimal differences appear
in bands (H+G)
• Major differences occur
within state societies

• Site hierarchy normally reflects

society.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.5.b. Site Hierarchy.
• Site size ranking is a useful
indicator.

• Normally sites increase in

number from the largest to
the smallest communities.

• Histograms enable comparisons

through space and time.

• Minimal differences appear

in bands

• Major differences occur

within state societies
• Site hierarchy normally reflects
society.
 Determining types of
past-(present) societies:

Determining the structure

of social organization …
3.c.
Thiessen Polygons …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.5.c. Thiessen Polygons:
• Areas are subdivided
according to halfway points
placed between each site.
• BUT, this is arbitrary,
normally ignoring site size
(in relation to hinterland)
• It should be applied only
to similarly sized cities.
• Also essential to ensure
all sites are contemporary
with one another.

Ancient Greece
 Determining types of
past-(present) societies:

Determining the structure

of social organization …
3.d.
XTENT modelling …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.5.d. XTENT modeling:
• Attempts to minimize the
drawbacks of other systems.
• Tries to link areas to large
centers via “dominance”
(i.e., absorbs smaller sites)
• It scales hinterland area
to site size.
• However, it only approximates
political reality
→ Hypothetical -political map
-administrative map
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
2.5.d. XTENT modeling:
• Attempts to minimize the
drawbacks of other systems.
• Tries to link areas to large
centers via “dominance”
(i.e., absorbs smaller sites)
• It scales hinterland area
to site size.
• However, it only approximates
political reality
→ Hypothetical -political map
-administrative map
 4.
Determining types of
past-(present) societies:

Determining the structure

of social organization …
Other sources …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.1. Further sources of information
for social organization:

Sources:
• Consult inscriptional sources

• Oral tradition

• Ethnoarchaeology

• “middle range theory” (Binford)

• Analogy (some scholars), filling

gaps from other more complete
and similar systems.
Only helpful if one generally
avoids specific details.
Inca kept records using knotted strings:
i.e., a quipu (accounting; transactions).
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.1. Further sources of information
for social organization:

Sources:
• Consult inscriptional sources

• Oral tradition
• Ethnoarchaeology
• “middle range theory” (Binford)
• Analogy (some scholars), filling
gaps from other more complete
and similar systems: E.g., Zimbabwe
Only helpful if one generally
avoids specific details.
 Determining types of
past-(present) societies:
Determining the structure
of social organization …
4.
Other sources:
a. Written records
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.2.a. Written records:
• Some civilizations/cultures have
sufficient texts regarding their social
structure
• One’s main aim should be finding
such texts
• Writing is used variously by different
societies
- Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce)
- Greeks & Romans (marble decrees)
- Coinage → individual city state mints
→ imperial rule
- Mayan glyphs also have hist. events
- Indus Valley script awaits decipherment
- Mesopotamia has innumerable texts
of many types.
E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info)
Economic texts
Law code of Hammurabi
• Maintain objectivity with all evidence
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.2.a. Written records:
• Some civilizations have sufficient
texts regarding their social structure
• One’s main aim should be finding
such texts
• Writing is used variously by different
societies
- Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce)
- Greeks & Romans (marble decrees)
- Coinage → individual city state mints
→ imperial rule
- Mayan glyphs also have hist. events
- Indus Valley script awaits decipherment
- Mesopotamia has innumerable texts
of many types.
E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info)
Economic texts
Law code of Hammurabi
• Maintain objectivity with all evidence
(each source has its own biases)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.2.a. Written records: Viking silver hoard, with coins.
• Some civilizations have sufficient
texts regarding their social structure
• One’s main aim should be finding
such texts
• Writing is used variously by different
societies
- Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce)
- Greeks & Romans (marble decrees)
- Coinage → individual city state mints
→ imperial rule
- Mayan glyphs also have hist. events
- Indus Valley script awaits decipherment
- Mesopotamia has innumerable texts
of many types.
E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info)
Economic texts
Law code of Hammurabi
• Maintain objectivity with all evidence
(each source has its own biases) These coins = AD 870/871 +
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.2.a. Written records:
• Some civilizations have sufficient
texts regarding their social structure
• One’s main aim should be finding
such texts
• Writing is used variously by different
societies
- Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce)
- Greeks & Romans (marble decrees)
- Coinage → individual city state mints
→ imperial rule
- Maya glyphs also have hist. events
- Indus Valley script awaits decipherment
- Mesopotamia has innumerable texts
of many types. Cascajal Block:
E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info)
Ca. 900 B.C.:
Economic texts
Law code of Hammurabi Undeciphered Olmec writing
• Maintain objectivity with all evidence
(each source has its own biases)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.2.a. Written records:
• Some civilizations have sufficient
Cylinder seal & seal impression
texts regarding their social structure - ca. 2,400 B.C.
• One’s main aim should be finding
such texts
• Writing is used variously by different
societies
- Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce)
- Greeks & Romans (marble decrees)
- Coinage → individual city state mints
→ imperial rule
- Mayan glyphs also have hist. events
- Indus Valley script awaits decipherment
- Mesopotamia has innumerable texts
of many types.
E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info)
Economic texts
“Law code” of Hammurabi
• Maintain objectivity with all evidence
(each source has its own biases)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.2.a. Written records: Law Code of Hammurabi
• Some civilizations have sufficient
1750 BC
texts regarding their social structure
• One’s main aim should be finding
such texts
• Writing is used variously by different
societies
- Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce)
- Greeks & Romans (marble decrees)
- Coinage → individual city state mints
→ imperial rule
- Mayan glyphs also have hist. events
- Indus Valley script awaits decipherment
- Mesopotamia has innumerable texts
of many types.
E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info)
Economic texts
“Law code” of Hammurabi
• Maintain objectivity with all evidence
(each source has its own biases)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.2.a. Written records:
• Some civilizations have sufficient
texts regarding their social structure
• One’s main aim should be finding
such texts
• Writing is used variously by different
societies
- Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce)
- Greeks & Romans (marble decrees)
- Coinage → individual city state mints
→ imperial rule
- Mayan glyphs also have hist. events
- Indus Valley script awaits decipherment
- Mesopotamia has innumerable texts
of many types.
E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info)
Economic texts
Law code of Hammurabi
• Maintain objectivity with all evidence
(each source has its own biases) Bayeux Tapestry: 11th cent. AD
 Determining types of
past-(present) societies:
Determining the structure
of social organization …
4.
Other sources:
b. Oral tradition …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.2.b. Oral tradition:
• Non-literate people often
retain knowledge via
memorization.
• Poems/hymns/sayings:
E.g., Indian Rigveda
(written in mid-1st. Mill. AD)
E.g., Homer’s Trojan War
(1200 – 8th cent. BC)
• In assessing different
regions, examine the
local oral traditions.

See Michael Wood, 1985. BBC documentary:

In Search of the Trojan War, episode on bards
 Determining types of
past-(present) societies:
Determining the structure
of social organization …
4.
Other sources:
c. Ethnoarchaeology
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
3.2.c. Ethnoarchaeology:
Indirect approach:
• Examine current use & meanings
of objects, buildings, & system
in the study region to interpret
past processes.
• This technique = used in 19th-20th
cent. AD
• Revised in last 25 years
E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G
to interpret Prehist. Mousterian society.
• Looked at use & abandonment of
bones & tools
• Seasonal movements
• Drop & toss zones around a hearth
(applying mechanisms to similar
past patterns)
• Isolate specific functions/actions
common to all hunter-gatherers.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G
• Toss zone patterns →
infer number of persons at a hearth

• This allowed Binford to re-interpret

other archaeological reconstructions
(a “tent” vs. wind, smoke, & hearth
patterns).

• Other studies revealed that the

preserved material culture cannot
always distinguish individual
regional cultures.

• There are other factors …

Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G
• Toss zone patterns →
infer number of persons at a hearth

• This allowed Binford to re-interpret

other archaeological reconstructions
(a “tent” vs. wind, smoke, & hearth
patterns).

• Other studies revealed that the

preserved material culture cannot
always distinguish individual
regional cultures.

• There are other factors …

Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
Njemps tribe (Kenya) …
E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G
• Toss zone patterns →
infer number of persons at a hearth

• This allowed Binford to re-interpret

other archaeological reconstructions
(a “tent” vs. wind, smoke, & hearth
patterns).

• Other studies revealed that the

preserved material culture cannot
always distinguish individual
regional cultures.
• There are other factors …
Female
ear flap
ornament
dispersal:
Used in
asserting
tribal
identities
within &
outside .
 Looking at more recent Venda, Shona, & other cultures & oral traditions,
to inform us more on features found in the past Zimbabwe culture (i.e., no texts)
 5.
Techniques for studying
past-(present) societies:

Determining the nature

of past social organization …
 5.
Techniques for studying
past-(present) societies:

Determining the nature

of past social organization …
a. Bands (H+G)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
4.1. Techniques of study for mobile
hunter-gatherer societies:
• H&G economy & politics are local
(= egalitarian societies)
4.2. Investigating activities at a site:
• Focus on determining different
activities at a H&G site:

E.g., Cave sites:

• Occupation debris = generally deep
• Seasonal activity over 1000s to
10s of 1000s of years
• Excavating each layer carefully
• 3-D recording of all artifact and
bone locations in strata.
• Sieving all soil
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
E.g., Open sites:
• Less protection & shallow deposits
• Assess distribution of artifacts &
debris inside and outside structures
and features (hut bases; hearths)
• Toss zones by hearth
• Often evidence is mixed over time
(repeated seasonal use)
• Possible secondary re-depositing
by water flows.
• Possible re-dispersal of bones by
animals.
G. Isaac study of Early Paleolithic site
Koobi Fora:
- Studying find spots & patterns of
joining bones & stone tools.
- Camp population size estimates
- Kinship relations & space in
H&G camps.
Conjoining bones Conjoining flints

= Extracting marrow = Flint knapping

Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
4.3. Investigating territories in
mobile societies:
• Study region to assess seasonal
activity & movement of mobile
H&G (annual life cycle)
• Ethnoarchaeology reveals H&G
have annual home territories:
- Home base camp
- Transitory camps
- Hunting blinds
- Butchery / kill sites
- Storage pits / caches
• Need to find large sites (> items)
off/non-sites (< items)
(1-2 items in 10 m sq.)
• R. Foley Amboseli region, Kenya:
8,531 stone tools from 257 sample
areas in 600 sq. km (25 x 25 km) area
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
• Another ethnographic study:
Determined a discard rate for
stone tools across different
environmental & vegetative areas.
- Band of 25 persons discarded
163,000 items in their territory
in one year (18 items/day/person).
- These items concentrated at their
home base & transitory camps. Hunter-
• Need to assess entire annual gatherers
region for hunter-gatherers (band)
• One site is only part of a larger
annual pattern/activities.

• H&G groups:
- Huts of kin are placed closer
- Tested this hypothesis by
ethnoarchaeology.
Assessing camps
of hunter-gatherers:
- Space usage
- Density of pop.

Kalahari Desert
Assessing space & density in hunter-gatherer camps: e.g., !Kung San H+G
a. Dry season: large camps for entire band: 35 – 60 persons
b. Wet season: several small camps for nuclear families;marriage-linked families
SPACE: Huts & hearths belonging to same ext.-family = close to one another.
 5.
Techniques for studying
past-(present) societies:
Determining the nature
of past social organization …
b. Segmentary
societies (tribes)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.1. Techniques of study for
segmentary societies:
• Farmers generally live in
permanent, sedentary villages
• Examine housing
cemeteries
public areas
craft specialization
5.2. Investigating settlements
in sedentary societies:
• Ideally need to excavate fully
one period at a site.
• Conduct intense surface survey
• Sampling large excavation area
• 1st excavate structures &
determine area functions
• 2nd assess site catchment area
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.1. Techniques of study for
segmentary societies:
• Farmers generally live in
permanent, sedentary villages
• Examine housing
cemeteries
public areas
craft specialization
5.2. Investigating settlements
in sedentary societies:
• Ideally need to excavate fully
one period at a site.
• Conduct intense surface survey
• Sampling large excavation area
• 1st excavate structures&
determine area functions
• 2nd assess site catchment area
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
Binford 1963: Hatchery West:
• Collected items from plow zone
in 6 meter squares
• Generated surf. distribution map
• Middens: > cluster of sherds
• Houses: < density of sherds
• Tested by excavation
• Examined by remote sensing
(magnetometer)
• Large sites require sampling
• Structures are either
a. agglomerate (joined)
b. dispersed (separate)
Pueblo Indians: 3 room types
• Domestic (cooking; eating; sleeping)
• Storage
• Ceremonial
- Gender differences (male/female rms)
- Architecture significant for study
- Publish fully to allow re-assessment
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.3. The study of ranking from
individual burials:
• Skeletal or cremation burials
accompanied by artifacts often
yield clues to individual persons
and their status.
• Bones = gender
= age at death
= health
• Group burials are more complex
Often difficult to assign artifacts
• Burials in segmentary societies
(or others with min. soc. Strat.),
allow a closer insight to the
deceased, social status, and
those burying the deceased.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
• Gender diff. - wealth
- status
• Age diff. - status
• Achieved status:
in egalitarian societies
• Ascribed status:
in birth right/lineages
• Burial wealth accompanying
a child often indicates
ascribed (earned) status.
• Need to analyze graves by
period, wealth, status, age,
gender.
E.g., S. Shennan study of
Branc in Slovakia
E.g., J. Tainter study 18
variables in Illinois
river valley (cult. spec.)
Studying ranking within and between individual burials:
a. Types: cremated/uncremated, articulated/unarticulated, extended/flexed,
supine/not supine, single/multiple, etc.
b. Grave: Earth/log walls, other wall types, ramps/no ramps, surface/sub-suface,
slabs in graves/none, log/slab-covered, not covered, central loc./other.
c. Goods: Ochre/hematite/none, animal bones/none, imports, local items, tools,
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.4. Collective works and
communal action:
• Segmentary societies sometimes
lack cemeteries.

• Settlements are sometimes

not found or preserved.

• This may leave only public

monuments to assess:

E.g., “Megaliths” of W. Europe

E.g., Stone statues of Easter

Island.
Neolithic Megaliths
of Western Europe:
- Early Neolithic phase
ca. 4000-3000 BC
e.g., Burial mounds

- Later Neolithic phase

ca. 3000-2000 BC
e.g., Various henges
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.4.a. How much labor was
invested in the monuments?
• Can measure the scale of
the monument in labor hours
• Experimental archaeology
E.g., Early Neolithic England:
- 100,000 hours to build
causewayed enclosures.
- 250 persons in 6 weeks
→ within capabilities of tribal
segmented societies.
E.g., Late Neolithic great mound
at Silbury Hill:
- 18 million hours to build
- 2 years of labor
- 3000 persons
→ centralized chiefdom society
required.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.4.a. How much labor was
invested in the monuments?
• Can measure the scale of
the monument in labor hours
• Experimental archaeology
E.g., Early Neolithic England:
- 100,000 hours to build
causewayed enclosures.
- 250 persons in 6 weeks
→ within capabilities of tribal
Silbury Hill: Neolithic
segmented societies. period
E.g., Late Neolithic great mound
at Silbury Hill:
- 18 million hours to build
- 2 years of labor
- 3000 persons
→ centralized chiefdom
society required.
The increasing labour demands in Wessex from early–late Neolithic
→ Suggests an emerging larger, more hierarchical population: i.e., chiefdom.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.4.b. How are the monuments
distributed in the landscape?
• Assess distribution of monuments
across the landscape
E.g., SE Britain 3500 – 2800 BC:
- Burial mounds = in spec. region
- Lighter chalk soils (good crops)
- Well spaced
- May = Symbolic community center?
→ implies connection to specific
land (i.e., ancestral burial place).
→ territorial markers of a segmentary
society.
• Visibility-intervisibility of monuments
- GIS map of data
- Viewshed map
- Some size implications regarding
proximity & visibility from Stonehenge
- Lost forests? Other explanations?
Early Neolithic: 4,000 – 3,000 B.C. Late Neolithic: 3,000 – 2,000 B.C.
Ea. burial mound reflects focus for farming group i.e., Henges probably reflect chiefdom society

Segmentary “tribal” society Chiefdom

Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.4.b. How are the monuments
distributed in the landscape?
• Assess distribution of monuments
across the landscape
E.g., SE Britain 3500 – 2800 BC:
- Burial mounds in spec. region
- Lighter chalk soils (good crops)
- Well spaced
- Symbolic community center?
→ implies connection to specific
land (ancestral burial place).
→ territorial markers of segmentary
society.
Visibility-intervisibility of monuments
- GIS map of data
- Viewshed map
- Some size implications regarding
proximity & visibility from Stonehenge
- Lost forests? Other explanations?
Line of sight between Stonehenge barrows:
- Results suggest more emphasis on line of
sight btw. barrows than poss. by chance!
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.4.c. Which individuals are
associated with the monuments?
Tombs:
• 1 person per monument
= high rank
→ centralized society?
• Multiple persons per monument
may = segmentary society
(lineage?; sacrifices?)
E.g., Orkney island: 390
Ritual monuments:
• Cultic site
Agricultural projects:
• Irrigation canals
Defensive works:
• Ditches, palisades, etc.
Bluestonehenge: Theoretical “place of the ancestors” vs. Living.
i.e., 2 km SE of Stonehenge
- Aubrey hole for bluestone.
Stonehenge theory-2:
- Timothy Darvill and Geoff
Wainwright promote it as
“a place of healing” and
“rites of passage”:
a. Stonehenge is “unique” in
its usage of “bluestones”
from W. Wales (220 km).
b. The water from Preseli Hills
(= bluestones’ source) is
ascribed healing powers
& promotion of good health
(in Bronze Age beliefs).
c. Same beliefs ascribed to
Stonehenge in 12th cent.AD
and later (pieces taken from
Stonehenge as amulets).
d. Stonehenge continued to
be a centre for ceremonies
& rituals into modern times.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.5. Relationships between
Segmentary societies:
• Assessing ties between
segmentary societies
• Locate ritual centers that
facilitated periodic group
meetings.
• Study different sources,
forms, & decoration of
artifacts → spatial range.

E.g., S. Britain stone axe Askut, 2000-1080 BC

dispersal.

• It is hard to define ethnicity

in archaeological record.
- See foodways
- See jewelry
- See other indicators
Residue analysis -Nubian & Egyptian cooking pots Ethnicity.

→ distinct differences in
fatty acid profiles for
Egyptian & Nubian pots.

= Favours presence of
Nubian foodways at Askut.

Egyptian cooking pot residue:

- Fish (MK)
- Pigs(?)
- Chickens(?) (NK+)
- Beans
- Fauna: birds & pigs = rare!

Nubian cooking pot residue:

- Deer
- Cattle
- Fauna: cattle, sheep, goats.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
5.6. Farming methods
& craft specialists:
• Segmentary societies have
- Permanent villages,
- cemeteries,
- public monuments,
- ritual centers.
- More soc. stratification
• Assess farming & crafts
10,000 BP:
• Many societies → gradually
intensifying food production
(time & labor intensive)
- Plowing,
- Terracing
- Irrigation
- Expansion into poorer land
- Domestic animals (meat)
- Secondary prod. (milk; wool)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
10,000 BP: Seg. Soc. cont.
Effort required:
• Calculate hours & labor force
in food production, etc.

• Seg. Society versus chiefdom?

Craft specialization:
• Seg. societies reveal more
evidence at household
(domestic) level:
E.g., village kilns & furnaces

• Centralized societies yield

more evidence of centralization
E.g., discrete urban areas for
craft production.
 5.
Techniques for studying
past-(present) societies:
Determining the nature
of past social organization …
c. Chf-Early State
Complex societies
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.1. Techniques of study for Mississippi chiefdom
chiefdoms & states:
• Similar approaches may be
taken to chiefdoms & states
E.g., Household
Rural villages
Farming
• Different approaches are
needed in assessing …
- centralized society
- Site hierarchy
- Organizational system
- Interactions
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.2. Identifying primary centers:
• Assess site sizes
• Assess site distance from center
(national & regional capital)
• Determine site ranking (dominance)
• Determine site hinterland size
• State societies often have written
documentation: →
information on sites, ranking,
administration, etc.
• May use multidimensional scaling
to reconstruct hierarchies & relative
locations in site list.
- Frequency of co-occurrence in lists
E.g., Pylos & its hinterland (Greece)
E.g., Homer’s Catalogue of Ships
• Archaeological data:
E.g., location of archives, admin seals,
literacy, status symbols, palaces,
ziggurats, wall cones, fortifications, etc.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.2. Identifying primary centers:
• Assess site sizes
• Assess site distance from center
(national & regional capital)
• Determine site ranking (dominance)
• Determine site hinterland size
• State societies often have written
documentation: →
information on sites, ranking,
administration, etc.
• May use multidimensional scaling
to reconstruct hierarchies & relative
locations in site list → ranked by mentions
- Frequency of co-occurrence in lists
E.g., Pylos & its hinterland (Greece)
E.g., Homer’s Catalogue of Ships
• Archaeological data:
E.g., location of archives, admin seals,
literacy, status symbols, palaces,
ziggurats, wall cones, fortifications, etc.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.2. Identifying primary centers:
• Assess site sizes
• Assess site distance from center
(national & regional capital)
• Determine site ranking (dominance)
• Determine site hinterland size
• State societies often have written
documentation: →
information on sites, ranking,
administration, etc.
• May use multidimensional scaling
to reconstruct hierarchies & relative
locations in site list.
- Frequency of co-occurrence in lists
E.g., Pylos & its hinterland (Greece)
E.g., Homer’s Catalogue of Ships
• Archaeological data:
E.g., location of archives, admin seals,
literacy, status symbols, palaces,
ziggurats, wall cones, fortifications, etc.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.3. Functions of the center:
• Assess the function of a
center/capital:
E.g., kingship
administration
redistribution
storage facilities
ritual
craft specialization
trade
• Conduct detailed site survey
of a center & its hinterland.
• Conduct large-scale
excavation
• Apply sampling strategy:
Maximize time, funds and
comprehensive coverage.
Identifying primary centres in archaeology.
 Identifying primary centres in Central America: AD 790 Classic Maya.
States of Tikal & Calakmul:
= actually very powerful

Boundaries:
E.g., Yaxchilan
& Piedras Negras

Some Classic Maya states & centres = known from Maya glyphs
Studying political
boundaries:
Piedras Negras &
PIEDRAS NEDRAS
Yaxchilan border
def. by fortified sites
Putative
Tecolote defensive 8th cent. AD
system: border

YAXCHILAN
Border between Piedras Negras & Yaxchilan:
A stone wall foundation for a wooden palisade (defense)
= lay across a valley between two hills north of Tecolote.

States: differences in material culture, rituals & daily practices

E.g., Pottery & technology differ across borders
E.g., 30 distinct Maya languages still: Anc. Polities.
Identifying secondary centre in a state: e.g., Tecolote in Yaxchilan
(a). Secondary centre at Tecolote
-Differences in types, scale, quality
and details in architecture, designs
& artifacts between a secondary
centre and a primary centre.
- Yet = similarities in overall culture.

Lintel from La Pasadita: 8th cent. AD.

- Captive from Piedras Negras kneeling
before ruler of Yaxchilan: Bird-Jaguar IV.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.3.a. Abandoned sites:
• Ancient-former sites without
current habitation remains.
• Many-most are likely under
threat by cultivation/urban exp.
• Others may be protected sites
• → Topographic map (1:1000)
-Locate all surface structures etc.
-Detail plans if needed.
-Incorporate earlier results.
• Determine site’s function:
- Intense sample of surf. artifacts.
- Infer settlement date(s) & pattern.
- Combined sampling & excav.
- Study major ritual & public buildings
industrial & residential areas, Changing ideas regarding the function(s)
disparity in housing (rich-poor), etc. of Machu Picchu –in late Inca Empire:
Also the site remained not completed …
Abandoned sites: e.g., Ancient Akrotiri on island of Thera/Santorini
E.g., Volcanic eruption at island’s centre buried anc. town at periphery of island.

ca., 1600 B.C. Aegean (Minoan)

→ 1575 – 1525 BC (revised C14)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.3.b. Occupied sites.
• Problems of accessibility to
underlying ancient occupation.
• Adapt to local circumstances
• Investigate:
-Existing open areas (lots; etc.)
-Construction areas
(e.g., foundation trenches)
• Sometimes land is purchased
to expand discoveries of major
monuments.
• Some land owners allow
archaeologists to excavate on
their property (rental/free).
Winchester (S. UK): Reconstructing a mostly obscured series of settlements

- The city’s development

from 1st cent. BC to
AD 1400.
- Cathedral from 7th-9th
centuries AD – present.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.4. Administration beyond the
primary center:
• Surveying/excavating multiple
sites enable a study of
centrally organized admin.

• One needs to find administrative

artifacts:
- Clay sealings, imperial seals,
cartouches, Roman milestone,
- Standard weights & measures
(i.e., central authority; other?)
- Broad transportation network:
Roads in land-based territory
- Military fortifications
(securing borders; regions; etc.)
- Etc.
Roman road system:
- Part of the Appian Way
outside Rome (312 BC+).
- The surviving Roman road
system provides a definite
clue to the existence of a
central administrative system
dictating the building of roads
throughout the empire.
- Indicates Roman territory
versus areas outside empire.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.5. Investigating social ranking:
• Most centralized gov./soc. display
discrepancies between classes:
- Wealth
- Resource access
- Housing
- Status

6.5.a. Elite residences.

• Large structures may not
necessarily be “palaces” Tell el-Amarna: elite house
• Other functions? Administrative 14th cent. BC (Egypt)
centers versus residences.
• Housing for ruler vs. elite
• Excavation & architectural and
artifact analyses may resolve
questions on function.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.5.b. Great wealth:
• Normally great wealth is an
indicator of an individual
person’s status
• E.g., Tutankhamun’s tomb
Non-royal in architectural style
Royal in artifact types & wealth
Inscriptions also reveal royalty
• Natural or human-engineered
disasters may seal artifacts in
housing contexts:
Study relative wealth of
individuals/families across a
site (e.g., Pompeii)
Ur:
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.5.c. Depictions of the elite:
• Many cultures may yield
depictions of the elite & others
• Either the presence or nature
(i.e., quality) of the work will
indicate status.
• Each culture will have its own
symbols and variants indicating
status and power
• E.g., Egyptian smiting motif
for ruler subjugating enemies
and potential enemies.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.5.d. Burials:
• The nature and wealth of a burial
often indicates status:
- Grave/tomb size
- Wealth (number & nature of items)
- Labor expenditure on tomb
E.g., Pyramids versus other tombs
in Egypt per reign
• Place each tomb in temporal
perspective
E.g., Dyns.3-6 exhibits a decline 17th cent. BC Nubian
after in pyramid size & quality. Sacrificial burials
Wealth growing in provinces in
Dyns.5-6 (larger, better tombs)
• Sacrificial burials associated with rulers
- Sumeria (royal tombs of Ur)
- Egypt (Dynasty 1 tombs at Abydos)
• Study full range of burial types per period
Palenque (Mexico):
- Burial chamber of Pakal ca. AD 683
- 1952 discovery of hidden burial chamber
Part of tomb of 1st emperor of China: Qin Shi Huangdi …
- 8,000 life-size terracotta warriors, etc., placed in surrounding chambers.
Moundville (Alabama):
(1). AD 1050-1250: single mound at site.
(2). AD 1250-1400?: Major regional centre.
(3). AD 1400?-1550: Declining (burials within site).
(4). AD 1550+: No dominant centre in region.
→ Assess burials from main phase of prosperity.
Analyzing social organization
at Moundville, Alabama:
- Assessing var. burials at the site
from AD 1200 – 1450 (i.e., peak)
- 150 hectares (370 acres) site in
palisade by Black Warrior River
(Mississippian culture cer. centre)
Moundville (Alabama):
Social organization:
- Cluster analysis of
2,053 burials to obtain
social rankings.
1. Central loc.+spec. obj.
2. Nearby + elite items
3. Non-mounds, no Cu.
4. Periphery, few items
5. Most had no items
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.6. Investigating economic
specialization:
• The greater the degree of
centralization
→ More economic specialization
→ Greater productivity (surplus)

6.6.a. Intensified farming:

• Innovations in farming enabling
greater food production

E.g., Plowing *(state society)

Irrigation canals (labor pool)

Land divisions (central auth.)

Terracing (central authority?)

Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.6.b. Taxation, storage
& redistribution:
• Large long term storage
facilities (food & products)
= centralized &/or state control.
Redistribution of resources
(agricultural & industrial)
to urban & other settings. Askut:
Administration (keeping Egyptian
track of taxation & fort in
re-dispersal of agricultural northern
and other products). Nubia
Ceremonial aspect of admin. Middle
may be important: Kingdom
E.g., receipt of tribute to
oaths of allegiance New
demonstration of power Kingdom
gift giving, sharing food, etc.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.6.c. Craft specialists: Tell el-Amarna
• An emphasis upon spec. craft (1340s BC):
production reveals centralized Temple bakeries
authority repeating units
(craftsmen = supported by others)

• Industrial complexes for

production: beer; clothing;
pottery; metal; glass; etc.

-May have restricted entryways

-Size & intensity revealed by

refuse heaps (population)

-E.g., Egyptian temple bakeries

-E.g., Egyptian workmen’s

communities (Deir el-Medineh)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
6.7. Relationships between
centralized societies:
• There is a social aspect to
international relations.
• Traditional domination models =
main center vs. secondary center
a. Trade (reciprocity; etc.)
b. Warfare for different reasons:
Mayans required sacrifices
Egyptians expanded territory
to pacify & obtain wealth.
c. Competition: ball courts; Olympics
d. Emulation: adoption of dominant
culture; but sometimes complex:
Egypt dominated Syria-Palestine
politically (esp. 1550-1150 BC)
but adopted foreign language in
trade (dominated by Syria)
Conflict & warfare
btw. past societies
- Depictions, burning,
and massacres.
 6.
Techniques for studying
past-(present) societies:

Determining the role of

individuals and identity
within social organization …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
7. The Archaeology of the Tell Amarna:
individual and of identity: Princesses
• First need to develop perspective showing
on the nature of a society and affection
its organization (top-down)
• Next focus on individual within
this society (bottom-up), in their
- role
- gender
- status
- time period
- social context
• Can assess other factors:
E.g. kinship & social relations
- nuclear family
- extended family
- Community
• Assess ETHNICITY as well
Amarna: royal family
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
• See Chp. 10:
a. Cognitivist approach:
mental representations of
social structures; hierarchy …
b. Phenomonological approach:
Interrelationship between
people & their environment
(and the individual). Ecological …
• Avoid pigeon-holing gender/social
roles by current cultural & individual
perceptions
• Caution regarding ethnocentrism!
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
P. Bourdieu’s concept: habitus
• Each person’s ideological framework
and cultural upbringing = expressed
via socialization/enculturation
(viewed through material culture).
• Each person = a product of their
environment, culture, etc. and
some artifacts reflect the “individual”
versus “culture”
• Buildings, rituals, culture, etc. shape
the habitus of community & individuals
• Culture shapes groups/individuals,
who in-turn maintain & shape culture.
- Prob. recognizing prestige & high status
detecting ethnicity within culture
- Studies in social inequality (poverty)
- Sensitive issues in excavation:
E.g., African-American burial ground 1750s
New York, L. Manhattan
African burial ground:
Excavation of an African
burial ground in New
York, located on 1755
plan of the city.
1991 rescue excavations
created anger in the
African-American comm.
i.e., felt = not consulted.
→ NY City created a
Museum of African-
American History.
Excavation findings:
a. No grave markers
b. Simple wooden coffins
c. Some shroud pins
d. Very few grave goods
e. 2003 reburial of 419
f. Analysis: DNA, diet,
health, metrics, origins.
5 Points New York: excavation of a 19th cent. AD slum and brothel cellar →
Prostitutes had better possessions & conditions than the slum vs. 19th cent. tales!
 7.
Techniques for studying
past-(present) societies:

Determining the role of

individuals & community
within social organization …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
8. Emergence of identity & society:
• Indicators of personal identity
= personal adornments
E.g., Paleolithic beads, etc.
• Such indicators increase over
time (Upper Paleolithic burials)
• Ritual activities (e.g., monuments)
→ changes in lifeways & cultures
→ modified socio-economic aspects
between people (Jericho)
• “Framing” the way in which humans,
artifacts, actions are segregated
by non-domestic ritual settings
= setting apart (a “special club”)
• Shared activities → form a social /
group identity (shared mindset)
• Individual & group ID reinforced by
personal items, rituals, community, …
Shared activities ➔ social group identity (shared mindset)
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B ritual: Jericho.
a. Interactions between individuals in
a shared activity, such as burial rites
or building public structure (city wall),
creates →social identities & groups.
b. The shared activities contain:
- “ideational role” (shared belief / rite)
- functional role (labour requirement)
E.g., PPNB Jericho:
a. Individual / household ritual/role:
→ 1.Vitality (i.e., domestication, fertility,
life-force of livestock/animals);
→ 2.Human-animal linkage (herding);
→ 3.Dominant symbolism (herds)
→ 4.Communality (group effort)
b. Public ritual:
→ Links to and between all four
components (above).
i.e., Linking separate households
i.e., Linking all individuals (via the
household and separately).
PPNB Jericho: Individual → household → community participation:
interlinked and shared activities within/btw all community members
 8.
Techniques for studying
past-(present) societies:

Determining the role of

gender/sex and children
within social organization …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
9. Investigating gender
& childhood:
• Gender studies in archaeology:
(a). Initially overlapping with feminist
archaeology, correcting male
bias (androcentrism) in research.
(b). Focusing on women’s roles in
past societies (correcting biases)
Biological sex versus gender:
• Osteological examination →
Sex = biological male & female.
• “Gender” = a social construct:
gender roles differ greatly per
society & individuals in time-space
• Gimbutas = criticized for stressing
Neolithic female links with nature
(mother goddess) in Prehist. Europe
& replacement by male warrior culture. i.e., Other factors & more complex
A great fertility Mother Goddess?
Options: Ancestor figures vs. deities?
- Marija Gimbutas argued for
a female-dominated Neolithic-
Chalcolithic SE Europe-Anatolia
i.e., Mostly female figurines.
- She also argued a Bronze Age
shift to mostly Indo-European
warrior male-dominated society
BUT → other data & options(!)
i.e., too simplistic an explanation.
Male-owned fig.? Many generic!

Lynn Meskell critique of “Mother Goddess”:

→ calls this theory “reverse sexism,” etc.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
(c). 3rd phase in gender archaeology:
• More complex than male vs. female
• Recognizing other differences
E.g., Status of “children” versus
male/female children.
E.g., Greeks use “IT” for children
(at puberty → male & female)
Gender also contains differences
• Social status
• age
• wealth
• religion
• ethnicity
• changes over time
(praxis of daily life)
→Careful assessment of archaeological
record is needed:
Meskell: male-related rooms at DEM DEM = Deir el-Medineh
female-related rooms at DEM
Gender roles: Theories on “Princess of Vix” burial in France (5th cent. B.C.)
Skeletal remains seem “female,” but various grave items seem “male” → theories

Theories: 1st “Transvestite priest” (excav.)

→ “Elite female” (re-assess Iron Age gender roles)
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
(c). 3rd phase in gender archaeology:
• More complex than male vs. female
• Recognizing other differences
E.g., Status of “children” versus
male/female children.
E.g., Greeks use “IT” for children
(at puberty → male & female)
Gender also contains differences
• Social status
• age
• wealth
• religion
• ethnicity
• changes over time
(praxis of daily life)
→Careful assessment of archaeological
record is needed:
Meskell: male-related rooms at DEM DEM = Deir el-Medineh
female-related rooms at DEM
HOUSEHOLD CULTS
Queyash Alto (Peru): Early .Int. Per. 200 BC – AD 600.
Found 3 distinct area functions within the site / household
Queyash Alto (Peru):
Early Int. Per. 200 BC–AD 600
(1). Domestic occupation:
a. Upper terrace held high
status artifacts: i.e., →
decorated pottery, figurines,
imported shells (spiny oyster),
copper tupu-pins.
b. Tupu-pins applied as clothes
fasteners only by women.
c. Both copper material & item
= high status associations.
d. Spindle whorls = > women.
Queyash Alto (Peru):
Early Int. Per. 200 BC–AD 600
(2). Non-domestic activities: Male & female jars are equally elab. & distinct !
a. Ridge top contained non-
domestic activities: e.g.,
Beer production & storage;
Feasting (i.e., pottery vessels;
stone tools [meat prep.])
= Communal feasting.
b. Inclusion of female assoc.
items (tupu-pins & whorls)
revealed females = present.
c. Formal architecture layout
suggests competitive feasts!
Prob. political feasts
Emerging hierarchy?
+ High Status women

i.e., suggests separate & complex gender roles

Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
(c). 3rd phase in gender archaeology:
• More complex than male vs. female
• Recognizing other differences
E.g., Status of “children” versus
male/female children.
E.g., Greeks use “IT” for children
(at puberty → male & female)
Gender also contains differences
• Social status
• age
• wealth
Back to
• religionstudying
• ethnicity
“children”
• changes over time
(praxis of daily life)
in past
→Careful societies
assessment of archaeological
record is needed:
Meskell: male-related rooms at DEM DEM = Deir el-Medineh
female-related rooms at DEM
Aspects of childhood in the past?

- Only rel. recently has greater

study begun to focus on the
role of children in past societies:
- Tracing the “learning curve” in
the past:
Poorly made artifacts:
- Are they made by a child learning
from, or imitating, an adult?
- Is it made by an older apprentice,
or novice, training under a master
craftsperson.
E.g., An Upper Paleolithic site:
Solvieux (France):
- Re-fitting flakes extracted from
a nearby core revealed numerous
errors in manufacture compared
to better made flint tools:
- Overly large flake extractions.
 9.
Techniques for studying
past-(present) societies:

f. Molecular genetics of
social groups & lineages …
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
10. The molecular genetics of
social groups & lineages:
Archaeology
• Applying genetics at individual level
• Looking at long-term genetic
background of a group (tribe).
Ancient DNA
• > results in soc. arch. of burials
DNA → sex
→ family relationships
a. mother-child/child-mother link
mitochondrial DNA
b. Father (Y-chromosome studies)
DNA → reconstructing living communities
306 Jewish priestly (Cohanim) families
had spec. Y-chromosomal haplotype
(patrilineal descent since 2650 BC?)
DNA → population studies & tracing links
DNA: Molecular genetics

Aim: assess J.-requirement

that priests (Cohanim) only
follow patrilineal inheritance
Technique: use living DNA
Investigators assessing the
Y-chromosome haplotype
from 306 male Jews in
Israel, Canada, and UK.
Findings:
ALL the Cohanim from the
sample displayed a specific
Y-chromosomal haplotype:
i.e., they all had a common
ancestral chromosome
(which mutated over time),
that could be dated back
to ca. 2,650 years ago.
→ Some suggest 586 BC
dispersal of priesthood.
Very comprehensive ancient DNA analysis = at Oneota cemetery, AD 1300:
- Assessed sufficient mtDNA from 70% of samples from 260 skeletal remains
- Obtained nuclear DNA (Y-chromosome) from 15% of sample → sex ID.
- They re-assessed diverse ideas on how/when North America was populated:
→ Pref. “single wave” hypothesis & expansion ca. 37,000 – 23,000 years BP
 10.
SUMMARY:
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5
5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology.
8. Summary:
• Many techniques have been
developed to assess soc. org.
of early Societies.
• Augmented potential for state
societies.
• Site hierarchies & urban centers
→ reveal more data on soc. org.
Gender rank in Old Kingdom Egypt
• Theoretically archaeology could
detect national capital without
texts.
• Assessing administrative & other
evidence from national capital
sharpens information on elite,
soc., political, & economic org.
• Other data includes elite structures
& tombs, officials, admin. artifacts, etc.
• Tomb size, wealth, number of burials,
etc. → rank/status.
• Gender and the individual in society.
 CASE STUDY:
Ancient Egyptian
society.
 Bottom-Up, Top-down: Micro-level.
Pharaoh’s workers, slaves and foreigners.
• Social structure Mainly Early Dyn.-Old Kingdom (Dyns.1-6)
Putting workers & slaves in perspective

• Foreigners Egyptian view of foreigners & interactions

• Occupations Workers and slaves (including foreigners)

Selected examples

• Settlements i.e., daily life: Different types

Elite versus micro

• Shrines/temples i.e., religion: Different types

Elite versus micro

• Cemeteries i.e., burial: Different types

Elite versus micro
• Summary
 Old Kingdom Society:
Can we reconstruct the Old Kingdom’s social infrastructure?
• Sporadic evidence from royal court & bureaucracy, allowing various models.
• Inscriptional-archaeological evidence suggest pyramidal, hierarchical society.
• Less information on relative ranks of women (especially in this period)
1% = 10,000?
5% = 50,000?

95%? 1 million
 Women in Old Kingdom society:
• What do we know about the role of women in Old Kingdom society?
• Old Kingdom: Much less data for women.

• Ancient Egypt:
Position of most women related to
husband’s/parents’ social status.

• Royal & private statuary:

often portray males larger than
females for married couples

• Mistress of the House:

Many women had occupations
associated with the household..

• Scribal training rarely provided to women:

barring women from entering bureaucracy.

• A few women held courtly/priestly positions

ranked slightly lower than males in such jobs.
Old Kingdom Society: Some polygamy (multiple wives) occurs.

Dyn. 8 (Tomb of Mery-aa of Hagarsa): Mery-aa depicted with six wives & their children
 KING:
Focal point:
Old Kingdom society, religion, & government.
Mediator:
Divine & human aspects.
Uncertain whether populace viewed king as “divine”
Sanctity of name:
Names of kings & gods in many private names.
E.g., Pepyankh (“Pepy-lives”); Ankhmare (“Living-with-Re”)
Divine titles:
“Horus, Beloved by the Two Ladies, Son of Re, the good god, ...”
Divine scenes:
Only the king accompanies gods; shown the same size as deities.
Earthy role:
“good god” & deputy of the god Horus.
Afterlife role:
Became deity of choice (usually Re or Osiris); ruled over deities.
Entitled to become “imperishable star”
Royal/god-king cult:
Pyramid mortuary temple (offerings during & after king’s life).
(King’s temples increased in size & much larger than gods’ temples)
 KING:
Solar cult:
Dyn.5: adopted title “Son of Re”; built Sun temples.
Chief Priest:
Priests = king’s deputies; builds & maintains cults.
Guarantor of Maat:
Held daily services in temples maintaing “Maat”
Supreme judge:
E.g., king interceded directly for Rawer’s infraction.
Public appearances:
Rare events (recorded).
Limited access:
Courtiers boast of being “known to the king”
or being seen daily by king.
Veneration:
Some officials allowed to kiss king’s feet vs. the ground.
Prohibitions:
Touching or blocking the king invited swift punishment.
Relationships:
Marriage; relatives; friendship; prof. ties; trusted officials.
Vulnerability:
Assassination: e.g., royal bodyguard killed King Tety I.
 QUEEN:
Queens (wives):
• No evidence for harim in Old Kingdom.

• Lived in king’s household with royal family

and male children of favoured officials.

• Some religious & courtly titles.

Commoners & half-sisters (sisters = rare)

• Some had political power:

Title “Everything she says is done for her”

• Duty: to provide
a male heir
partner to the king
represented Hathor (king = Horus)
priestess in state religion
(also of Thoth and bull-deities)
priestess in royal mortuary temple

• Late Dyn.6: Pyramid Texts for queens.

 QUEEN:
Queen mothers:
• Widow and mother of reigning king.

• Often queen-regents (could be an aunt)

• Elaborate tombs often mark their status.

(Often with satellite pyramid complex)

• Mid-Dyn..4: Vulture cap headdress and

often holding ankh or w3s/w3d-sceptre.

• Dyn.5: Uraeus cobra on brow of crown.

QUEEN MOTHER:

• vulture headdress
 VIZIER:
• Highest official wearing
the king’s seal around his neck.

• DID NOT oversee military matters,

trade, or mining ventures.
• Dyn.1-4:
- Son of the king (fewest titles in Dyn.4).

• Dyn.5-6:
- Not related to royal family.

• Dyn.5-6:
- Sometimes two viziers (N. & S. Egypt).
- Memphite vizier had more prestige & larger tomb.
- New title: “Overseer of the Royal Scribes”

• Dyn.6:
- Controlled all key administrative posts.
- New title linking vizier to king’s pyramid.
- Adopted title “Overseer of Upper Egypt”
Dyn.5 Vizier Kai
 VIZIER:
Titles:
• “He-of-the-Curtain”
→ Screening king from admin. minutiae
• “Judge and vizier”
→ Perhaps overseeing courts
“Overseer of the 6 great courts”
“Ov. of all the works of the king”
→ All building projects.
“Ov. of the Scribes of the Royal Documents”
→ Secular & religious legal documents.
“Ov. of the 2 Granaries”
→ Provisioning workers.
“Ov. of the 2 Houses of the Treasury”
→ Taxation and financing projects.
Other titles:
“Hereditary prince”; “Count”; “Sole companion”;
“Seal-bearer of the north”; “chamberlain”;
sometimes “King’s son.” Dyn.5 Vizier Kai
 FEMALE VIZIER:
Female Vizier Nebet:
• Ranked below queen & king.
• May date to Pepy I (or FIP?).
Titles: “the vizier of Egypt”
“Hereditary Princess”
“Female companion of the King
of Lower Egypt”
“Countess”
“Daughter of Geb”
“Daughter of the Merhu Bull”
“Daughter of Thoth”
“Daughter of Horus”
Note: Titles “daughter of” various gods
is rare, even for queens.
• Others argue that her position
was purely “honorific” (like one
Dyn.26 female vizier).
• Married to a man called Khui.
• Son called Idi
 NOMARCHS (provincial governors):
Nomarchs
20 nomes in N. Egypt
(Lower Egypt)
22 nomes in S. Egypt
(Upper Egypt)

Dyns.3-5:
Nomarchs resided at
the capital (Memphis).

Late Dyns.5-6:
Nomarchs residing in provinces
(assisting vizier).
Nomarchs gaining more
influence in their nomes.

Post-Dyn.6:
Nomarchs became provincial
rulers/kinglets.
 ROYAL PRINCESSES:

Royal princesses:
• Usually daughters of the king

• Married to high officials, kings, etc.

• Some = priestess of Hathor & Neith

• None = priestess of a male god

• Some = priestess for mortuary cult

of grandfather king
• Other titles

Titular princesses:
• Some commoners granted this title
(e.g.,commoner marrying a
prince?)
 High officials (“nobles”):
• Served vizier(s) & pharaonic bureaucracy
Rise through ranks & by birth-right.
Broadly qualified High Officials:
• Could carry out any duty required by king.
E.g., Weni of Abydos officiated as a
Judge, Army Commander, Expedition Leader,
Supervisor of Engineering Works, Tax Collector.
Specialized High Officials:
• Specialized in specific careers.
E.g., Harkhuf, “Seal-bearer of the God”,
led many expeditions to Sudan (Nubia).
• Some specialized officials got high promotions.
E.g., Qar, a long-time judge, → vizier.
Royal patronage:
• Received honorific titles through status as
courtiers, friendship with king, or royal blood.
E.g. Ptahshepses, High Priest of Ptah, Controller of the affairs of all the Craftsmen
married King Shepseskaf’s daughter.
He received honorific titles: “Sole companion”, “Master of Secrets” (councillor),
“One known to the king.”
FEMALE COURTIERS:

Female courtiers:
• Married to middle to high-ranking
officials.

• Based at central court & provinces

Titles: “She whom the king knows”

“Sole Royal Ornament”
“Royal Ornament”
“Companion” Priestesses

Provincial courtiers’ titles:

“The wife of the god Min”
“The attendant of Min”
LOWER OFFICIALS:
• Largest group in the bureaucracy.

• Part-time employment mostly.

• Honorific title sr (“magistrate”;

“nobleman”):
E.g., “Overseer of Property”
(or “Steward”) for
private landowners

E.g., “Overseer” of minor departments

for government or temples.

E.g., “Overseer of the Storeroom”

or other offices in Depts. Of
the Treasury, Law, or Labour.

Scribes:
• All officials needed to read, write,
and know mathematics.
 (LOWER) FEMALE COURTIERS:
Female courtiers:
Priestly post (part-time):
• “Two mourners” accompany
corpse in funeral (as Isis &
Nephthys)
• “Funerary priestess”
(for friends & family)
Official posts, including
overseers of the following:
• Physicians
• Hairdressers
• Manicurists
• Stewards
• Weavers
• Singers
• Dancers
• Musicians
Activities:
• Women depicted baking,
but lack the title “baker”.
MICRO-SCALE: CRAFTSMEN:
• Skilledcrafts persons including mostly men and some women.
• A broad range of crafts.
 FARMERS:
• Backbone of Egyptian economy (e.g., food; wool & flax for textiles)
• Small land-owners (OK?) to large land-owners with farm-workers.
• Akhet: Flood season.
• Peret: Planting & growing season.
• Shemw: Summer harvesting.
 LOWEST CLASS:
Merwt (“serfs”):
• Non-landowning farmers (men & women)
• Transferred with land sales.
SLAVES: especially in New Kingdom.
• POWs, retainers, criminals:
- Domestic work: tutors, cooks, brewers, …
- Estate workers: gardeners, field hands, …
- Craftsmen: weavers, sandal-makers,
- Hereditary slaves (children of slaves)

• Self-enslavement (→ dependant):
- Selling oneself/family to pay debt (LP)

• Rights:
- Own property, conduct transactions,
- Receive food & clothing (for labour)

• Liberation:
- Freed by king, owner
- Adopted by owner (i.e., son)
- Marry owner’s daughter/son/etc.
- Escape (pursued by owner/state)
Stereotypes: New Kingdom symbols of foreigners in art.
Libyan Nubian Asiatic Egyptian
 Old Kingdom: The lands beyond Egypt’s frontiers.

BEDU: “He has been fighting ever since the time of Horus,
He neither conquers, nor can he be conquered,
He does not announce the day of fighting,
But is like a thief whom society has expelled.”
Old Kingdom official & “public” portrayals of smiting & dominating Asiatics, etc.
Early Dynastic period: Dynasty 1 (3200-2890 BC): King Den.
Smiting
motif
Dyn.3 Djoser Step Pyramid complex.
• King’s statue standing on “9 bows” = symbolic subjugation of enemies of Egypt
• Rekhyet birds in front of king = “subjects” “commoners” (protected by king)
 CASE STUDY:
Prehistoric through
Bronze Age and
later Europe.
(Late) Neolithic Europe: Southern region, focus ca.6000–3000 BC

Elite burials (“chieftain”?):

- A single interment of a 45-year
old male. = very wealthy and
probably a chieftain (or rep.
a tribal society → chiefdom).
- The burial lay in a late
Neolithic cemetery at Varna
on the Black Sea coast of
Bulgaria.
- It dates to ca. 4000 BCE.

- It had over 990 individual gold

items (1,516 grammes) and
various copper and flint
weapons.
(see Cunliffe 1994: 197)
Neolithic Anatolia: 10,000–5,500 BC; Çatal Höyük 6400-5800 BC
Architecture: i.e., tribal → chiefdom?
• Çatal Höyük represents a proto-urban
settlement containing blocks of houses
placed mostly one against the other,
with “shrines” contained within a larger
adjacent structure.
• None of the excavated buildings had
a ground entry: all entered via rooftop.
• This feature might be explained by:
- Defense against potential attack;
- Defense against high spring floods;
- GM: better insulation in winter months
(i.e., few cold exterior walls).
- Enhanced socializing via rooftops.
- Open courtyards did occur, but were
enclosed by housing.
• Mostly identical: i.e., more egalitarian
Neolithic settlements:
Ca.4000-2000 BCE
Tribal societies (e.g., Britain):
• Timber frame housing
• Rectilinear housing common
e.g., “log cabin”-style housing
(4000-3000 BCE).
• Circular huts are also known
range of small to large structures
(3300-2000+ BCE)
• Much variance across Europe
(see Celtic housing patterns).

NOTE: somewhere between a

tribal society en-route to a
chiefdom.
Neolithic populations
in Prehistoric Europe:
Ca.4000-2000 BCE
• Clothes mainly hide garments
• Jewellery = animal teeth and
bone necklaces
• Lifespan 35 years = males
30 years = females
• Frequent occurrences of
arthritis
• Malnutrition evident

Early Bronze Age:

Ca.2000-1600+ BCE
• Increasing social stratification
with wealthy burials, etc.
(e.g., chiefdoms & chieftains)
Celtic Chieftain’s grave at Hochdorf

• Late 6th cent. BC

• Timber constructed inner chamber
placed in outer timber-lined chamber.
• Rocks filling the space between the
inner & outer timber walls & roof.
• The interior chamber yielded:
-Bronze bed (with the body & items)
-Bronze cauldron
-Wooden wagon with iron sheathing
-Weaponry
-Containers
-Textiles
-Drinking horns,
-Etc.
Examples of rich funerary offerings:
• Imported wine jars (amphorae)
• Pottery kraters (food supply?)
• Smaller pottery vessels (other liquids)
• Bronze cauldrons
• Bronze saucepan
• Bronze ladle
• Etc.
Middle Minoan period: ca.2000-1525 BC Major MH-LH sites
• The Middle Minoan period on Crete
is represented by multiple city states,
each of which is dominated by a
massive stone and timber-built palace.
• The rulers of each palace controlled
their hinterland using a well-organized
bureaucracy and written records.
• Interactions between their hinterland,
neighbouring palaces (city states), and
foreign lands is apparent through the
surviving materials and written records.
• The power and wealth accumulated by
these palaces is emphasized by their
size, decoration, storerooms, contents,
and regional & international relations.
• Their competitive patronage of the arts Major centres
& renown is attested by the widespread ‘Villa’ sites
Minoan decoration of palaces in both
Other sites
Greece & foreign lands: Levant-Egypt
Late Minoan phase of palace at Knossos
Middle Minoan period: ca.2000-1525 BC Major MH-LH sites
• The Middle Minoan period on Crete
is represented by multiple city states,
each of which is dominated by a
massive stone and timber-built palace.
• The rulers of each palace controlled
their hinterland using a well-organized
bureaucracy and written records.
• Interactions between their hinterland,
neighbouring palaces (city states), and
foreign lands is apparent through the
surviving materials and written records.
• The power and wealth accumulated by
these palaces is emphasized by their
size, decoration, storerooms, contents,
and regional & international relations.
• Their competitive patronage of the arts Major centres
& renown is attested by the widespread ‘Villa’ sites
Minoan decoration of palaces in both
Other sites
Greece & foreign lands: Levant-Egypt
Middle Minoan period: ca.2000-1525 BC
Major palaces:
• Knossos
• Phaistos
• Mallia
• Khania

Smaller palaces:
• Katro Zakro / Zakros
• Gournia
• Etc.

150 x 150 m area = 22,500 sq.m

Middle Minoan period: ca.2000-1525 BC
Major palaces:
• Knossos
• Phaistos
• Mallia
• Khania

Smaller palaces:
• Katro Zakro / Zakros
• Gournia
• Etc.

14 x 27 m area = 378 sq.m

Middle Minoan town plan:

E.g., Gournia:
• Palace: ruler-administration

• Housing: elite to lesser

• Public streets & alleys

• Water & sewer drainage

• Public court/plaza = market?

• Etc.
Middle Minoan period: ca.2000-1525 BC
Private housing:
• Example of an elite house in Mallia
• Two storey housing with living quarters
on the upper floor.
• Stone and timber framing: i.e.,
earthquake-proofing.
• Elite homes also contain decorated
walls.
Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2012 (6th ed.):
Documentary: Ancient Greece. Complex state societies.
Late Bronze Age = 1600 – 1150 BC: Mycenaean city states
Trojan war (1250-25 BC)
Sea Peoples’ migrations →
Mycenaeans destroyed
Early Dark Age = 1150 – 900 BC: Small chiefdoms
Submycenaean Iron technology
Protogeometric Dorian Greeks (1000 BC)
Late Dark Age = 900 – 750 BC: Population increases
Early Geometric New settlements & trade
Middle Geometric Major population growth
Greeks → alphabet
1st Olympic games 776 BC
Archaic Period = 750 – 490 BC: City-states forming
Late Geometric Colonization of West
Lydians mint coins 600 BC
Science & philosophy
Classical Period = 490 – 323 BC : Classical style in architecture
480-479 battles against Persia
Democracy in Athens 460s+
399 BC Socrates executed
 Pylos:
LH IIIB ca. 1300-1200 BC

The megaron at Pylos:

Fresco with one panel showing
a Lyre player
Mycenaean Tholos tomb:
So-called “Treasury of Atreus”
“Tomb of Agamemnon”
= 13th cent. BC royal tomb at Mycenae
Cretan lar nax coffins & Myc. Imitation.
Athens: village → cultural centre
Great Gate of Athens
• 800 BC = small villages here. (acropolis)
• Persian wars: still small town;
some buildings on acropolis.
• 480+ BC: period of building
Temple to Zeus, etc.
(Built by Kimon → Perikles).

Later Roman Theater at Athens

State/private housing: E.g., Olynthos large elite homes.

Houses at Olynthos:
5th – 4th cent. BC
100 houses revealed
built at one point, but
modified individually.
Mud brick walls
Kitchen, bathroom,
court, mosaic floors,
bedrooms, etc.