Table Of ContentFeasting Practices and Changes in Greek
Society from the Late Bronze Age to
Early Iron Age
Rachel Sarah Fox
PhD Thesis
Thesis submittedt o the University of Sheffield,
Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology,
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
October 2009
Abstract
In this thesis I offer a diachronic survey of feasting practices on the Greek mainland from
c.1600 to c.7 00, covering the Early Mycenaean era, the palatial period, and the Early Iron Age.
I focus upon three specific spheres of feasting activity in each period under discussion -
sociopolitical, funerary and sanctuary-based - and employ multiple sources of evidence in order
to create a comprehensive image of feasting styles and behaviour in each of these spheres. In
particular, I direct my focus towards the association between feasting practices and
sociopolitical changes and the ways that they impact upon each other, in order to increase our
understanding of both phenomena Feasts can be an active way of bringing about sociopolitical
developments, for example if they are employed by leaders or members of the elite in order to
attain, maintain or express authority over others; conversely, the types of sociopolitical milieu in
existence can affect and alter the styles of feasting that people practise. For the Early
Mycenaean period, I highlight the fluidity of feasting activities, as this is not only a unique
characteristic of commensality in this era but also reflects the competitive sociopolitical
environment. I then examine the palatial period and how far the palaces' influence can be said
to have spread over their polities, by focusing on how much control they had over feasting
activities. For the Early Iron Age, I deal with issues of change and continuity and how feasting
could be both a reassuring continuum in times of uncertainty and a method mobilised by leaders
to convey their authority. Finally, I offer a case-study of feasting in the poems of Homer and
th
Hesiod and consider how these can inform us about late 8 -century mental perspectives on
commensality, including codes of feasting behaviour.
i
Acknowledgements
My thanks goes first and foremost to my supervisor, John Bennet, without who~ this thesis
would be a much poorer piece of work. He has offered unfailing guidance throughout the last
three years, and I have much appreciated both his stimulating discussions during supervisory
meetings and his coaching on the finer stylistic matters of writing a thesis, exceeding even my
own pedantic love of grammar. From what I have learnt under his tutelage, I feel that I am
much better equipped for future work and I will always be grateful for having had this
opportunity.
Also at the University of Sheffield's Department of Archaeology, I wish to thank my advisor,
Sue Sherratt, who has always been ready to help out at short notice when required and has also
offered thought-provokingd iscussions. Additional thanks goes to Paul Halstead and Umberto
Albarella, both of whom were ready with advice when I needed it and saved me from making
any major errors in handling my zooarchaeological data. In particular, I thank Umberto for
making available to me the unpublished fauna! data from the Cult Centre at Mycenae.
Others have very kindly provided me with unpublished material, in the form of data and of
articles, and here I wish to thank: Lisa Bendall, Julie Hruby, Gemma Marakas, and Salvatore
Vitale. Each of these has also been prepared to listen to my ideas and to offer the insight of
their own work, and I am grateful for their input into this thesis. In addition, I thank Bartek Lis
for commentingu pon my Appendix III in light of his own work on the Pylos pantries; although
we may have reached slightly different conclusions, his thoughts were highly valuable in
making me reassess the data before me.
I also wish to thank my fellow Aegean PhD students at Sheffield: Kate Harrell, Kate Lantzas,
and Mark Peters. They have provided a stimulating environment in which to out my
carry
research and have assisted by offering a willing ear to some of my theories. Without their
advice, readiness to share their own results, and invaluable lending of books, I would have
found my time in the Department of Archaeologym uch the poorer.
Finally, I thank my family - Mum, Dad and Hannah - for their support while I have been
working on this thesis. Even if my love for the Mycenaeansm ystified them, they have been full
of encouragementt he whole way through. Last but not least, I wish to thank my fiance, Jack,
for his constant love and support and for believing in me. I look forward to doing the same for
him in the near future.
ii
List of Contents
i
Abstract
ii
Acknowledgements
V
List of Figures
vi
List of Tables
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
6
Chapter 2: Methodology
17
Chapter 3: Feasting in the Early Mycenaean Period
18
3.1 Tombs and Feasting-Funerary Dining
27
3 .2 Vessels and Feasting- The Eloquence of Grave-Goods
43
3.3 Halls and Feasting-Consumption in the SociopoliticalS phere
57
3.4 Gods and Feasting-Where are the Sanctuaries?
66
Chapter 4: Feasting in the Palatial Period
4.1 Arrival at the Feast - ConstructingH ost-GuestR elationships 67
74
4.2 Consumingt he Feast - ConstructingG uest-GuestR elationships
4.3 Consequenceso f the Feast- Constructinga nd Fulfilling Obligations 82
4.4 Expandingt he Feast - ConstructingP alace-PolityR elationships 88
4.5 The Feast in the Sanctuary- JuxtaposingO fficial and Popular Cults 93
4.6 The Feast in the Cemetery- Blendingt he Public and the Personal 103
112
Chapter 5: Feasting in the Early Iron Age
5.1 The Old and the New Feast - Commensalityi n LHIIIC 114
th th
5.2 The All-EncompassingF east- Commensalityi n the 10 to 8 Centuries 128
5.3 The Elite Feast-The Ideologyo f Commensalityi n the EIA 143
5.4 The ContinuingF east- Funerary Commensalityd uring the EIA 151
th
5.5 The MnemonicF east-Tomb and AncestorC ult the 8 Century 160
in
5. 6 The TransformedF east- SanctuaryC ommensalityd uring the EIA 173
iii
Chapter 6: Feasting in Homer and Hesiod 190
6.1 Good Feast/Bad Feast- Paradigms of Dining in the Odyssey 194
6.2 Basileus' Feast - Dining as a Sociopolitical Device in Homer 200
6.3 Heroic Feast- Dining as an Elite Activity in Homer 206
6.4 Peasant's Feast - Dining in Hesiod' s Works and Days 211
Chapter 7: Conclusion 216
Bibliography 230
Appendix I: Comparisono f Ceramic and Metal Vessel Forms in the Mycenae
Grave Circles 254
Appendix II: Minimum Number of Diners at a Feast at Pylos 265
Appendix III: Thoughts on MycenaeanC ooking Methods 269
Appendix IV: Animals Consumed at Sanctuary Feasts During the Palatial Period 275
Appendix V: The Decline of the Kylix 278
IV
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Pottery groups from selected cemeteries in the Corinthia and Argolid 3
Figure 3.2: Plan of LHIIIA mansion at Pylos 45
Figure 3.3: Mansions I and II at the Menelaion 46
Figure 3.4: Reconstructiono f LHI-IIA 'palace II' and LHIIB-IIIA 'palace 111'a t
Mycenae 47
Figure 3.5: Plan of hall Al, Malthi 49
Figure 3.6: Reconstructedp lan of Unit IV-4A, Nichoria 50
Figure 3.7: Plan of sanctuaryo f Apollo Maleatas, Epidauros 58
Figure 4.1: Plan of the Palace of Nestor Pylos 68
at
Figure 4.2: Percentageso f vessel forms in individual pantry/cooking areas across the
palace at Pylos 71
Figure 4.3: Plan of hall B85, Malthi 90
Figure 4.4: Plan of Room with the Fresco Complex and Temple Complex, Mycenae
Cult Centre 95
Figure 4.5: Plan of Shrine Area (Terrace 9), Midea 96
Figure 4.6: Plan of principal cult rooms at Ayios Konstantinos, Methana 97
Figure 5.1: Plan ofMegaron Complex (ferrace 10), Midea 116
Figure 5.2: Plan of Building T, Tiryns 118
Figure 5.3: Plan of House P, Korakou 123
Figure 5.4: Chronologicalc omparison of sites examined in section 5.2 129
Figure 5.5: Plan of Unit IV-1, Nichoria 130
Figure 5.6: Artistic reconstruction of Unit IV-1, Nichoria 130
Figure 5.7: Reconstructedp lan of 'Building C', Asine 134
Figure 5.8: Plan ofXeropolis house 135
Figure 5.9: Plan of Unit IV-5, Nichoria 136
Figure 5.10: Plan ofToumba building, Lefkandi 139
Figure 5.11: Reconstructiono fTownba building, Lefkandi 139
Figure 5.12: LHIIIC bowl from Tiryns portraying a drinking ritual 145
Figure 5.13: LOI bowl from Athens showing preparations for a funerary feast 146
Figure 5.14: Stone circles in the Barbouna cemetery, Asine 168
Figure 5 .15: Plan of Areopagus oval building, Athens 171
Figure5.16: Isometricreconstructionsofcultrooms 117, llOand 110a, Tiryns 179
Figure 5.17: Plan of House G, Asine 179
V
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Simplified version ofGraziadio's chronology for GCB, portraying only
those tombs that have evidence for funerary feasting 20
Table 3.2: Presence/absence of metal vessel forms in selected Early Mycenaean graves 30
Table 3.3: Correlation of sex with metal vessels in the Shaft Graves 35
Table 3.4: Occurrence of metal vessels with other grave-goods in GCB 36
in
Table 3.5: Correlation of age with metal vessels GCB 37
Table 5.1: LHIIIC vessels from House Pat Korakou 124
Table 5.2: Percentages of pictorial vessels showing elite scenes 144
Table 5.3: Sanctuaries with clear evidence for feasting activity during the EIA 175-177
Table 7.1: Sociopolitical feasting patterns from the Early Mycenaean period to the EIA 219
Table 7.2: Variety of feasts from the Early Mycenaean period to the EIA 223
Table 1.1: Fonns of precious metal vessels in GCB 255
1.1: 257
Table F onns of ceramic vessels in GCB
in 259
Table 1.3: Comparison of precious metal and ceramic vessel forms GCB
in 260
Table 1.4: Fonns of ceramic vessels GCA
Table 1.5: Forms of precious metal vessels in GCA 263
Table 1.6: Comparison of precious metal and ceramic vessel fonns in GCA 264
Table 11.1:V essels in pantries 18-22 with over 100 examples 266
Table 111.1C: ooking methods at Pylos 272
Table IV. I: Percentages of species represented at three sanctuary sites 275
Table V.1: Percentages ofkylikes at selected LHIIIB sites 279
Table V.2: Percentages of the most popular drinking vessel at selected LHIIIB sites 279
Table V.3: Percentages of second most popular drinking vessel at selected LHIIIB sites 280
Table V.4: Percentages ofkylikes at selected LHIIIC sites 281
Table V.5: Percentages ofkylikes Xeropolis during LHIIIC 282
at
Table V.6: Percentages of deep bowls at Xeropolis during LHIIIC 282
Table V.7: Percentages of deep bowls at selected LHIIIC sites 283
Table V.8: Numbers ofkylikes and deep bowls/skyphoi at Nichoria from DAI to DAIii 283
vi
Chapter 1: Introduction
'. ..f or I think there is no occasiona ccomplishedt hat is morep leasant than whenf estivity holds
sway among all the populace, and thef easters up and down the houses are sitting in order. .. '
Odyssey
9.5-7
A feast is a sensory, sacralised and social occasion. Its multiple resonances and experiences
extend far beyond the nutritive consumption of food and drink by a group of people. To reduce
the act of feasting to functional terms overlooks the vivid tastes and smells, the bonds created
in
and broken between fell ow-participants, the awe induced by dining the presence of the dead,
the gods or a powerful leader, and the embedding of bodily memories in the diners to be
recalled long after the event. Real, individual people consume feasts, and as archaeologists
dealing with a remote era it is easy to disregard this fact and concentrate solely upon the
tangible debris of vessels and food remains. To understand a feasting event more
comprehensively, it is necessary to analyse the whole series of experiences that the original
participant would have undergone during the course of a feast, and to trace the footsteps of the
diner through each stage of what was presumably a major event in his/her calendar.
By taking this approach, one can explore the efficacy of the feast as a social tool, whether for
1
engendering changes or maintaining stability . Such effectiveness is due to the fact that the
perfonnative aspect of consumption is a mnemonic process, for as the body incorporates food
the mind has a reference point to the event that is built not just of visual memories but of
multiple sensory actions (Hamilakis 1998: 116-117). While I examine the totality of feasting
occasions in this thesis, my principal focus lies on how feasts serve as an arena for social
negotiations: the creation of obligations to a powerful host, the cohesion augmented between
companions, the privileging of high-status individuals, the emphasised inferiority of those of
lesser status, and the creation of new connections through shared emotive experiences. Feasting
acts as both a passive and an active vehicle for social developments, a phenomenon that appears
status quo
repeatedly in the case studies I examine. It can reinforce the by emphasising the
leader's authority and the guests' relative positions in the social matrix; however, it can also
produce change by allowing would-be leaders to accrue power and by renegotiating
aim
participants' statuses in both directions. In this thesis therefore, my is to explore on a broad
scale this multi-faceted use of feasting in mainland Greece by placing it in a diachronic
perspective, commencing at the beginning of the Early Mycenaean period (MHIII/LHI) and
continuing to the end of the Early Iron Age (EIA). This long-range study is given focus by
viewing it specifically from the angle of social changes, developments and negotiations, in order
1
For my definitiono f a feast, used throughoutt his thesis, see chapter2 .
1
to analyse how sociopolitical events in Greece throughout the nine centuries under
consideration both affected commensal events and were directly or indirectly produced by them.
Before expanding further upon the aims of this thesis, it is necessary to view the critical context.
The topic of feasting in the Aegean, in both the Late Bronze Age (LBA) and EIA, was not
systematically studied until the 1990s and so is relatively new.2 Its adoption as a valid area for
enquiry was initially due to the realisation that the Wu group of sealings from Thebes detailed
et al.
supplies for feasts (Piteros 1990), and was further influenced by developments in
anthropology and other archaeological cultures (e.g. Dietler 1996; Hayden 1996), where it was
recognised that feasting could and should be interpreted in terms that were not purely
functional. Once interest in the feast commenced, its popularity as a subject for study increased
rapidly and can be divided into two phases. The first, spanning the 1990s, concentrated on
finding evidence for feasting and analysing the primary material data with relatively limited
interpretative discussion. The data employed fell into three distinct categories: Linear B tablets
et al.
(e.g. Piteros 1990; Killen 1992; 1994), zooarchaeological remains (e.g. Hamilakis 1996;
et al.
1999a; lsaakidou 2002), and vessels, particularly ceramic (e.g. Wright 1984; 1995b;
Galaty 1999). However, following the turn of the millennium, the second phase of study on
Aegean feasting has seen the adoption of more subtle and varied approaches, combining
different spheres of evidence to attain a holistic viewpoint and more consistently placing
feasting in its social context. Bendall's (2004) influential paper on feasting at the palace at
Pylos is a prime example, as she incorporates all spheres of evidence from the site to present a
more thorough understanding of the commensality occurring, as well as employing the
anthropological concept of diacritical feasts to explain the social negotiations taking place.
Food, Cuisinea nd Society in
Furthermore, the recent publication of three major edited volumes,
PrehistoricG reece The MycenaeanF east Dais: The Aegean Feast
(2004), (2004) and (2008),
indicates the high level of attention currently being paid to the feast in Aegean archaeology.
However, the majority of this attention is focused on the Mycenaean palatial period (LHIIIA2-
LHIIIB), due to the amount of evidence for all spheres of commensality - at the palaces
themselves, in smaller settlements, in tombs, and in sanctuaries. This period offers an
opportunity to combine textual (Linear B) data with evidence drawn from animal bones and
vessels, and in addition has one of the best preserved sites in Greek prehistory, Pylos, which
provides a capsule-type assemblage ideal for the highly detailed study of feasting. In contrast,
feasting during the EIA has been studied in much less detail, with the focus directed to locating
2
'!-"herwe ere isolated earlier attemptst o understandf eastingi n the Aegean,p articularlyi n connection
with the palace at Pylos, where the evidencef rom the pantries indicates large-scalec ommensality
(Graha~ Sliflund While both of these articles now appear somewhatd ated in their
1967; 1980).
conclus1onst,h ey were in fact remarkablyp rescient at their respectivet imes for recognisingt he presence
of feastinga nd trying to interpret how it may have occurred.
2
the existence of commensality rather than producing a more comprehensive analysis ( e.g.
Mazarakis Ainian 1997). The major exception to this is sanctuary feasting, which increases
significantly in scale from the palatial period, and hence provides a suitable arena for studying
social motives and negotiations (e.g. Morgan 1994; 1998; 1999; 2002). As for the Early
Mycenaean period, poor evidence has ensured that feasting in this era has never been
satisfactorily studied. Sites with clear evidence for commensality from the end of the period
have been examined (e.g. LHIIIA Tsoungiza and LHIIIA2 Early Mitrou: Dabney et al. 2004;
Vitale 2008), but in the earlier phases it has been merely been recognised that feasting occurred
without detailed exploration of how it functioned or its impact upon other spheres of life ( e.g.
Wright 2004b; 2004c).
Given such varied contexts of previous scholarship, I therefore connect all three eras into a
continuous chronological thread, in each period not merely finding feasts but discussing the
whole occasion and its motives, experiences and effects. Such a long-range diachronic study
has not yet been attempted, and hence I feel there is justification for performing it. However,
while a diachronic view is of value in highlighting patterns of feasting practices and establishing
certain
the antiquity of styles of commensality performed in the historical period, its principal
result is a survey of feasts in Greek prehistory. Therefore, I go beyond this and specifically
consider the connection of feasts with social developments, a rewarding topic given the
multiplicity of social bonds that can be formed (or broken) during a shared meal, and address
such questions as: how did feasting styles alter following dramatic sociopolitical events, such as
the palaces' collapse? how can feasting be employed to bolster the status of an elite individual
or the authority of a leader? how did feasting directly maintain and reinforce the social matrix?
how far did sociopolitical motivations affect feasts that occurred at the grave or in the
sanctuary? By offering answers to questions such as these, I aim for greater understanding of
how the feast can be interpreted holistically as an occasion incorporating more than just
consumption, and how each stage of the entire event can be managed to impress social messages
upon the attendees - in other words, how sociopolitical events or regimes can impact upon the
performance of commensality. Furthermore, the perspective can also be reversed, by employing
our understanding of feasting practices to illuminate sociopolitical developments and changes
that occurred during this lengthy period; to take one example, if palatial feasting styles are
emulated in smaller settlements, then this provides an insight into how relationships between
sites were viewed and enacted. Therefore, by examining both feasting and sociopolitical
developments, the two subjects simultaneously elucidate each other.
I have selected mainland Greece alone for consideration in this thesis, due to the fact that
inclusion of Crete and the other Aegean islands would provide such a wealth of additional data
that it would be impossible to attain detailed and meaningful conclusions in the space and time
3
