27

ATHENS AND LEFKANDI: A TALE OF

TWO SITES
Irene S. Lemos

In terms of the sources of our knowledge of them, ancient Athens and Lefkandi
might be said to occupy the extremes of a continuum. In the case of Athens, we
have more information from literary sources than for any other Greek city.
Lefkandi, however, is unknown to the literary sources, to the point where we do
not even know its ancient name,1 and it was only discovered in the 1960s by a
British survey of Euboea.2 It is, however, archaeology and not the ancient sources
which give us more reliable information about the early history of both Athens
and Lefkandi,3 and indeed, archaeological discoveries provide enough evidence
to suggest that both sites were occupied through out the Bronze Age. Although
they both continued to play an important role in the Early Iron Age, Lefkandi
appears to have lost its prominent position at the end of the eighth century, while
Athens continued to be a focal site up to the modern day. This continuous occupation of Athens, however, deprives us of a complete archaeological picture of its
early history. Apart from the systematic excavations in the Kerameikos and the
Agora, the rest of the town has been investigated only by rescue excavations from
which we rarely have fully published reports. Moreover, the Athenian Acropolis
had to experience not only continuous occupation but also several cleaning operations after destructions or rearrangements, and even the occasional bombardment, throughout its long history of use.

1 For the ancient name of the site see Popham in Lefkandi I: 4237 and discussion in Lemos,
Protogeometric Aegean: 2034.
2 The site was excavated after a survey conducted by Hugh Sackett, Mervyn Popham and others
(Sackett et al. 1966). The location of the site next to the Lelantine plain and between the two
well-known ancient cities of Eretria and Chalkis suggested to the rst excavators that it must be
of some importance. I believe, however, that it is fair to say that they would have never anticipated its signicance for the history of early Greece.
3 In this chapter I am not going to use later literary sources in order to reconstruct the early stage
in the history of the two sites but only archaeological material. So questions related to the synoikismos or the autochthony of the Athenians or possible scenarios for the end of Lefkandi
related to the Lelantine war will be left out.

506

.
ATHENS TO THE END OF THE LH IIIB

It is generally believed that there was a Mycenaean palace on the Acropolis but
the only evidence for its existence is a column base and possibly some steps which
according to Iakovidis have proportions and workmanship comparable to those
found in the west staircase of Mycenae and other palaces (Iakovidis 1962: 1738;
1983: 86).4 However, despite later building activities, one would have thought that
if there was an imposing megaron complex on the Acropolis, then more evidence
of it might have survived. The exact position of the assumed palace is also uncertain (Iakovidis 1983: 868).5
But apart from the remains on the Acropolis or the lack of them a number
of chamber tombs and domestic deposits, mostly in the form of wells and rubbish
dumps, provide more evidence of LH Athens. These have been located in three
areas: to the north, to the south, and to the east of the Acropolis.6
To the north tombs and wells were located in the north slope of the Areopagus
and in the area of the later Agora. Tombs were built there in LH IIB. The wealthiest are dated to the LH IIIA1 phase and were located in the north slope of the
Areopagus and the Kolonos Agoraios (Immerwahr 1971: 98; Mountjoy 1995: 29;
Regional Mycenaean: 493). Another cluster of burials was located in the east side
of the Agora beneath the Stoa of Attalos (Immerwahr 1971: 989; Townsend
1995: 9).7 During the next stage LH IIIA2 more tombs were built in this area
but with fewer burials deposited in them.8 In addition a rubbish dump is dated to
this stage. It was found close to the later north-east Stoa (Immerwahr 1971:
24850).
4 The earliest remains found on the Acropolis are dated to LH I by Iakovidis following
Kavvadias and Holland, who excavated them. These remains consisted of walls found north of
the Erechtheion (Iakovidis 1962: 6970, g. 5; 1983: 75, g. 9).
5 Considering the date of the construction of the palace, Mountjoy (1995: 234) re-examined the
slight evidence for the construction of the ve retaining walls which were built to accommodate
Mycenaean buildings. First, it is noticeable that such material was found in connection with the
construction of the terraces and not buildings. This material consists of four groups of sherds
initially published by Iakovidis (1962: 2403) but now lost. Mountjoy dated them from photographs to the LH IIIA1A2 phase and not to the early LH IIIB, a date suggested by Iakovidis.
She then argued that the terraces and the palace were built during LH IIIA1A2, a date which
she believed ts better with sequences in other Mycenaean citadels. It is obvious, however, that
any discussion of the terraces and the possible palace is based on meagre evidence.
6 Both Pantelidou (1975) and Mountjoy (1995; Regional Mycenaean) give good summaries of the
evidence during the LH period.
7 Another tomb was found near the Hill of the Nymphs and west of the area of the later Agora;
the tomb is located close to others excavated in the area and Immerwahr suggested that they
probably belong to the same cemetery (Immerwahr 1971: 178; Pantelidou 1975: 513; Mountjoy
1995: 31). More tombs came to light in the more recent excavations conducted by Camp (2003:
25473) under the Classical Building II to the north-east of the Stoa Poikile. They are dated
mostly to LH IIIA1 which is the period of the richest burials found within the area of the later
Agora and the north slope of the Areopagus.
8 Mountjoy has redated some of the pottery in tombs which have been considered by Immerwahr
to belong to LH IIIA2, see discussion in Mountjoy 1995: 378.

507

In the next LH IIIB phase, fewer tombs were found in the area of the later
Agora, but interestingly more wells or dump deposits were opened during this
period (Immerwahr 1971: 25461; Mountjoy 1995: 47).9
Moving to the south of the Acropolis, rst we note the material found in ve
wells on the south slope which are dated to LH IIIA1 by Mountjoy (1981; 1995:
258). She suggested that these deposits were either generated by some sort of
cleaning operation which took place in the supposed palace on the Acropolis or
more probably from houses built on the south slope. Further to the south, two
more wells have been found; these had a long period of use from the LH IIB to
the LH IIIB. They too belong to domestic dumps (Pantelidou 1975: 1236).10 To
the west of this area, a cluster of chamber tombs was found dated to LH IIIA1,11
while further to the west and on the east slope of the Mouseion Hill, another
chamber tomb has been excavated and dated to the LH IIIA period.12
Further to the south of where these tombs and wells were cut, another important cemetery has been excavated. It is located in the south slope of the
Philopappos hill and on the north bank of the Ilissos River; some of the largest
in size and richest chamber tombs were found there. Burials started as early as LH
IIA1 and continued into the LH IIIC Middle period. The same area was used for
burials during the SM and EIA too. This burial ground must have been one of the
most important Athenian cemeteries, belonging to a wealthy community which
lived in the vicinity.13
Another burial ground has been investigated in the south and south-eastern
area of the Acropolis.14 Excavations there revealed tombs dated from the LH IIB
to the LH IIIA1. Interestingly this is another area which was occupied also in the
EIA.15
Lastly, to the east of the Acropolis and in the area of Hadrians Gate and the
Olympieion, a number of deposits have been found and dated from the LH IIA
to the LH IIIB (Pantelidou 1975: 1401; Mountjoy 1995: 17). These are domestic deposits and they must have come from a settlement which was probably
located on the northern banks of the Ilissos River.
9 Sherds, but no other remains, from this period were found on the north slope under later LH
IIIB/C houses. They might have come down from the Acropolis but equally they might be from
earlier occupation of the slope (see Mountjoy 1995: 28).
10 These are Pantelidous Wells 2 and 3 found in Kavalloti Street.
11 For a full discussion of the material see, Pantelidou 1975: 5766; Mountjoy 1995: 32.
12 The tomb was found robbed but see discussion in Pantelidou 1975: 547.
13 Most of these tombs were found in rescue excavations along Dimitrakopulou Street and others
in Aglaurou Street (Pantelidou 1975: 71112; Onasoglou 1979; Mountjoy 1995: 17, 325, 46,
61).
14 This is the area roughly around the Makrigiannis complex the site of the new Acropolis
museum. Several LH and EIA tombs were found in the area. More tombs and deposits were
found there during the construction of the Metro, see Parlama and Stampolidis 2000: 403,
512.
15 Most of the tombs are from rescue excavations and have been discussed in Pantelidou 1975: 669
and Mountjoy 1995: 21, 323.

508

Thus in these three main areas around the Acropolis we have evidence of
chamber tombs and some indications of domestic occupation in the discovery of
wells and dump deposits. What we do not have from Athens, however, are any
tholos tombs.16 Recent discussion has shown that this does not necessarily imply
the absence of palatial organisation (Darcque 1987). So we cannot argue that
because we do not have them that there was no palace on the Acropolis.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suggest that the evidence itself on the rock is
insucient and so we cannot claim without any doubt that there was one. There
might equally have been a mansion such as in Menelaion in Laconia or megaron
style complexes such as on Gla in the Kopais.
We may, however, agree with Pantelidou and others (1975: 2234; Mountjoy,
Regional Mycenaean: 4857) that since at least the beginning of the LH period
Athens was made up of three or more settlements. We can assign chamber tombs
to each of them and, where we have found them, the domestic wells and pits. The
sheer distances between the various cemeteries and wells indicate that these could
not have belonged to one community. Whether, however, these communities were
unied under a wanax, who had his seat on the Acropolis, or whether the
fortications on the Acropolis were built in times of danger, remains in my view
uncertain.17
It is the fortication wall which provides us with the most substantial remains
on the Acropolis. This was most probably constructed towards the end of LH
IIIB (Iakovidis 1962: 2056; 1983: 80).18 The enceinte followed the entire brow
of the Acropolis and had its main entrance to the west (Iakovidis 1962:
16673).19 The reconstruction of the main west entrance to the citadel has
occupied the eorts of many generations of archaeologists.20 The debate has
16 There are a number of them known in Attica, in Thorikos, Menidi, Spata and Marathon. For
short descriptions of LH sites in Attica, see Mountjoy, Regional Mycenaean: 4859. For the lack
of tholos tombs in Athens, see discussion in Cavanagh and Mee, Private Place: 56, 78; Mee and
Cavanagh 1990: 25941.
17 It is hard to know which one of these cemeteries was the burying place of those who lived on
the Acropolis. A possible cemetery is the one on the north slope of the Areopagus but this cemetery has fewer burials after LH IIIA2. See discussion by Mountjoy and Immerwahr above and
Camp 2003: 254.
18 The dating of the fortication wall is based on pottery found in three locations: in the southeast of the museum, near the bastion of the temple of Nike, and under the foundation of the
north part of the wall above the north-west terrace (Iakovidis 1962: 244; Mountjoy 1995: 401).
19 Another surviving part of the fortication wall is in the north. At this point there was another
entrance with a north-east ascent leading to the north slope of the Acropolis. It has been suggested that this ascent was blocked when the fortication wall was built in LH IIIB (Broneer
1933: 3516; Iakovidis 1983: 812). For the construction date of the stairway see now Gauss
2003: 98. See below for further discussion relating to this area during the LH IIIC.
20 See Wright (1994), Mark (1993) and Eiteljorg (1993) for the history of the research and for interpretation and reconstructions of the west entrance. Wright proposed that there was an earlier
defence system at the western gate consisting of a bastion and a terrace and that the west
approach to the citadel was further improved with an overlapping gate system in the later LH
IIIB following similar ways of improving defensive systems found in other citadels during this
period (1994: 348).

509

been mostly focused on whether the gate had monumental scale and on whether
the bastion (underneath the later temple of Athena Nike) was an integral part
of both its appearance and defence21 or whether the west entrance was reinforced and improved during the later part of the LH IIIB, as was the case on
other Mycenaean citadels. During the same period steps were taken to secure
the water supply on the Acropolis. This was achieved by constructing a stairway on the north slope of the Acropolis which led down to a natural ssure in
the rock and reached an underground spring. Such a resourcefully constructed
underground fountain reminds us of similar eorts which were made at
Mycenae and Tiryns (Broneer 1939: 317, 32646). Broneer argued (1939: 417
29) that the stairway was constructed at the same time as the fortication wall
at the end of the LH IIIB. The pottery found in the ssure is dated to the LH
IIIB2 to LH IIIC Early. Scholars agree with the excavator that the staircase was
used only for one generation (some twenty-ve years) and then it was abandoned and used as a dump since pottery of the LH IIIC Middle period was also
found in it.22
So it is apparent that by the end of the LH IIIB fortication walls and the
Fountain House show that the inhabitants of Athens took similar decisions to
defend their Acropolis like those in other Mycenaean citadels.23
The abandonment of the Fountain House early in LH IIIC brings us to the
period which coincides with the end of the palatial era in other Mycenaean
centres and probably in Athens too.
ATHENS IN LH IIIC
On the Acropolis, during the early stage of LH IIIC, there is evidence of occupation in the north slope and in particular in the area of the north-east ascent
(Broneer 1933: 3525). Broneer found a deposit of a LH IIIC Early date just
above the stairs of the north-east ascent. He suggested that it came from houses
built on the top of the steps of the ascent which were abandoned shortly after,
and before the end of the phase. Rutter, however, could not nd any trace of such
21 In discussions over the years of the debate it is interesting to see how a number of walls have
been assigned to a variety of periods ranging from the Mycenaean to the Medieval. This shows
the diculty of reconstructing with certainty diachronic building activities in the area of the
Propylaea. See discussion of Tanoulas (1987).
22 For the construction of the stairs and the use of the Fountain House see Broneer 1939: 346;
Iakovidis 1983: 825; Mountjoy 1995: 434.
23 A hoard of bronze objects (assorted weapons, tools and a bowl) was found in a narrow gap
between the fortication wall and one of the houses in the south part of the enceinte. It has
been catalogued by Spyropoulos (1972: 6378, 927). Mountjoy (1995: 501) re-examined the
pottery (two sherds) found with it and dated one sherd to the transitional phase from LH IIIB
to IIIC. Given that the hoard must have been hidden after the construction of the fortication
wall, her dating is presumably correct. For a discussion of LBA hoards see Knapp, Muhly and
Muhly 1988, especially pp. 2468. For the Tiryns hoard see in this volume Maran and
Papadimitriou.

510

houses just above the steps but only in the area between the north-east ascent and
the fortication walls (see Gauss 2003: 98).24
Moreover the remains of walls in the north slope of the Acropolis have been
included in the discussion concerning the so-called Pelargikon wall. It is known
that both literary and epigraphical references have initiated a long debate as to its
location and date (Iakovidis 1962: 17989; 1983: 846; Travlos 1971: 525; Camp
1984).25 Traces of this wall survived on a terrace below the north fortication wall
of the classical period. Scholars agree that was part of an outwork built in the LH
III period to defend further the west approach to the citadel and also to secure
water supplies. Camp suggested that the Pelargikon was built after the collapse of
the Fountain House to secure a water supply from two reservoirs found under the
classical Klepsydra and dated to the LH IIIC period.26 He might be right since
apart from the archaic wells, the area was clearly used during the end of the LH
IIIC period as shown by the discovery of two cuttings found beneath the classical paved court in front of the Klepsydra which contained pottery dated to the
end of the LH IIIC. Moreover Smithson (1977, 1982) also suggested that
the installation of the prehistoric Klepsydra served as a replacement for the
Mycenaean Fountain and that it was inside the Pelargikon. It appears that activity around this area continued into the transitional stages from the LH IIIC Late
to Early Protogeometric.27
Less certain, however, is the date of walls found north-west of the fortication
wall above the bastion and below archaic walls (Iakovidis 1983: 87).28 The same
applies to two or three rooms located in the south-east corner of the fortication
wall and below the museum. These rooms might belong to one or more houses
built alongside the fortication wall (Iakovidis 1983: 87). It has been shown that
these were built after the wall but their date is unclear. Iakovidis dated them to
after the construction of the fortication wall and before the archaic remains.
The pottery, however, found in the shaft of the Fountain House was dated to the
24 Rutters observations are commented on by Gauss who in a more recent study of the material
found in the area of the north slope suggested that there are certain similarities between the
pottery which dates the nal use of the underground fountain and the pottery deposit found in
the area of the north-east ascent to the LH IIIC Early phase (Gauss 2003). Mountjoy dated the
same material in the transitional phase from LH IIIB2 to IIIC early (Regional Mycenaean: 495).
25 These walls consist of rough dressing of stones (which were probably used for the foundation)
and a few in situ blocks next to the ssure in which the Fountain House was constructed and
were built rst parallel to the steps of the north-east descent and then following the brow of the
terrace (Iakovidis 1962: 18999; 1983: 845, g. 16).
26 A group of wells located in this area and dated to the archaic period were associated by Camp
with the Peisistratids incidents in the sixth century and their seizure of the Acropolis (Camp
1984; Papadopoulos 2003: 3025).
27 This has been based on the detailed analysis of the pottery found in the lling which was
dumped in the overow channel of the Classical Klepsydra (Smithson 1982: 14952). See also
discussion in Gauss 2000 for the date of the pottery found in the area and its importance, and
Smithson (1977) on the LH IIIC domestic deposits.
28 No pottery has been assigned to these remains, so the date of their construction is uncertain
(Mountjoy 1995: 55).

511

LH IIIC Middle (Broneer 1939), and conrms that the Acropolis was occupied during the whole of the LH IIIC. The pottery, especially of the middle
phase of LH IIIC, is of good quality and shows that the inhabitants were aware
of developments taking place in other centres during these periods (Broneer 1939;
Mountjoy 1995: 56; Regional Mycenaean: 4978).
As for the funerary data of the LH IIIC, the evidence from the area of the later
Agora indicates that during this phase only a few burials were deposited in re-used
tombs (Immerwahr 1971: 18190).29 In the other areas located to the south and
the east of the Acropolis we have a number of burials made in this period.
Particularly interesting is the warrior burial found in the south slope of the
Acropolis. Although this burial cannot be securely dated on the basis of the
pottery found there, Mountjoy has shown that some of the metal oerings and
especially the pair of greaves cannot be dated to either an earlier or later date than
LH IIIC Early (Mountjoy 1984).30 More burials, however, were made by re-using
chamber tombs in the north bank of the Ilissos River (Pantelidou 1975: 91;
Onasoglou 1979). Domestic occupation also continued in the area to the east of
the Acropolis, where the two earlier deposits, discussed above, were lled with LH
IIIC Early pottery (Pantelidou 1975: 7696, 1305; Mountjoy 1995: 53; Regional
Mycenaean: 4968). It is worth noting, however, that during this stage too the
most important cemetery was not located in Athens but at Perati on the east coast
(Iakovidis, Perati).
SM ATHENS
SM Athens is represented by a large number of burials found in new and old
cemeteries around the Acropolis. Some of the burial plots are newly used while
others are located close to or at sites which were also occupied in the earlier LH
III period.31 Interestingly, a number of tombs dated to this period were also found
on the Acropolis. Most of them are child-burials which suggest that they were
probably intra-mural burials made close to houses. If this is indeed the case, we
may then assume that the Acropolis was inhabited during this stage.32
To the south of the Acropolis and close to LH III locations, SM tombs were
found around the area of Markigiannis and further south in the valley of the
29 More recently, however, Papadopoulos assigned to the Final Mycenaean/SM phase some of the
tombs which were dug in the bedrock in the area of the Hephaisteion (Papadopoulos 2002: 156).
30 For the warriors burials in this period see Deger-Jalkotzy in this volume.
31 Some 230 or more burials are assigned to this period. Their number, however, must be higher
because they usually come from rescue excavations conducted by the Archaeological Service
whose reports take longer than others to appear. Styrenius (1967) and more recently Mountjoy
have lists of most of them (1995: 636). For more recently found SM tombs in Syntagma Square,
see Parlama and Stampolidis 2000: 1625.
32 For the most detailed analysis of the SM tombs found on the Acropolis see Gauss and
Ruppenstein 1998. This study includes a full bibliography on the SM and EIA nds from the
Acropolis.

512

Ilissos River where the important LH III cemetery discussed above was also
located. The former area must have also been an extensive cemetery which continued to be used into the EIA. Burials were also made in the area to the east and
near the Olympieion, where the LH III dump deposits were found.
In the north a number of burials were made in the area of the later Agora but
also further to the north more SM tombs have been discovered in various clusters.
The most important of them is the cemetery found in Kriezi Street which continued to be used into the EIA. This is located to the north of the Pompeion cemetery a cemetery which, in my view, was also established at the very beginning of
the SM period.33 Another cemetery which starts during this period was found at
Vasilissis Sophias Street. Interestingly, most of the cemeteries founded in SM continued into the PG and the G periods. It is equally important to note here that the
SM period is marked by the introduction of a new rite: single burials mostly in cists
but also in pits and shafts replaced multiple burials in tombs. SM Athenians were
buried in at cemeteries and the earlier chamber tombs were abandoned.34 We also
have a few cremated burials which are secondary cremations, a rite which becomes
the main burial practice in Athens during the PG period.35
Apart from the indirect evidence on the Acropolis, almost no settlement
deposits were found dated to this period. The exception is one of the wells on the
north slope of the Acropolis which continued to receive pottery during this period
and until the very beginning of the EPG (Smithson 1977).
ATHENS IN THE TENTH AND NINTH CENTURIES
The beginning of the Early Iron Age coincides with the appearance of the PG
style of pottery. Athens is one of the few sites in the Aegean together with
Lefkandi and Knossos which used the new technology during the course of the
late eleventh and early tenth centuries (Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 1013).
During this period in Athens, the same areas were used for burials as in the previous SM. However, the richer burials with weapons, dress-ornaments and
several vases are to be found mostly at the Kerameikos and, from the little we
know from preliminary reports, also at the cemetery in Vasilissis Sophias Street.
Cremation is at this time the main burial practice. The usual form of cremation
33 Mountjoy has argued that the Pompeion cemetery had already started to receive burials in the
LH IIIC period. But I still believe that what is important at this cemetery as it is for the others
founded in this period is not whether some LH IIIC pots have found their way into SM tombs,
but the introduction of a new burial rite and the foundation of a new cemetery (Lemos,
Protogeometric Aegean: 68). For the re-dating of the few tombs at Pompeion see Mountjoy and
Hankey (1988) and see a recent, stimulating discussion of style and chronology in Ruppenstein
2003.
34 Note, however, that one SM amphora might have been the last oering of a burial in one of the
earlier chamber tombs at Dimitrakopoulou Street, as noted by Mountjoy (1995: 67).
35 It is interesting to note that the earliest cremated burials were made in Perati, on the east coast
of Attica, see Iakovidis, Perati and also the summary in Lemos, Protogeoemetric Aegean: 1867.

513

was that of placing the incinerated bones of the dead together with some personal
ornaments in an urn, usually an amphora. Then the urn was placed in a hole dug
at the bottom of a rectangular shaft together with more oerings. This type is
known as the trench-and-hole cremation. The wide use of the trench-and-hole
type by most of the adult population has been rightly noticed as an important
development (Whitley 1991: 11416; Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 1557).
It is, however, in the early ninth century that burials with rich oerings comparable to those in Lefkandi made their appearance in the Athenian cemeteries.
A number of them were found in the Kerameikos, and in particular on the south
bank of the Eridanos River, while another group with rich pottery and other
oerings was buried in the north slope of the Areopagus. It is indeed during this
period that more rich oerings were given to the dead including gold funerary
ornaments, and imports from the Near East such as faience beads and bronze
bowls.36 Whitley (1991: 1378) noted that a combination of exotica and the
oering of vases which display a style assigned to specic gender and status can
clearly be seen as manifestations of hierarchical patterns emerging during the
ninth century.
In contrast, it is not clear whether the Acropolis continued to be inhabited
during this phase. The detailed analysis of material (mostly sherds) dated from
the PG to the MG periods by Gauss and Ruppenstein (1998: 2730, 435) shows
that the evidence is uncertain and we cannot say with any condence whether
there was still a settlement there.37
Despite the meagre evidence found on the Acropolis, Papadopoulos advocated
the view that the Acropolis was the only settlement in Athens during the EIA
(2003: 297316). He argued that the fact we have so little evidence from this period
is due to the later building activities which removed any traces of EIA occupation.38 It is of course possible that the Acropolis continued to be partly inhabited
36 For a discussion of the burial plots in Athens during the EG and MG periods see Coldstream,
Geometric Greece; Morris 1987 and Whitley 1991.
37 Gauss and Ruppenstein (1998: 289) have pointed out that the discovery among the nds from
the Acropolis of one clay bead made in the so-called Attic Incised Hand-made Ware might
belong to a burial since such beads are often found in graves and especially those of children
and women.
38 Papadopoulos argued that the EIA remains were in some way less likely to survive as they were
the latest on the Acropolis before the major building activities of the sixth century (2003: 298).
Nevertheless, the EIA is a long period (from the early eleventh to the late eighth centuries) so
one would have expected to have more PG or EG/MG material surviving, rather than LG. In
fact the analysis by Gauss and Ruppenstein shows exactly the opposite (1998: 4350). Most of
the EIA fragments which have survived and been published are LG; so they were closer in time
to the major building activities of the archaic period. In addition, although it is likely that EIA
material found around the Acropolis comes from the top of it, it is clear from the two deposits
quoted by Papadopoulos that the EIA sherds are very few indeed. In fact, ve sherds were catalogued by Peace (1935: 23941) and four by Roebuck (1940: 1623). Most of these were of an
LG date. Note, however, that the large number of joint fragments of pottery, gurines and other
materials discovered from the slopes and the top of the Acropolis belong to later periods and
not to the EIA; for this see Papadopoulos 2003: 298, n. 152).

514

and Papadopoulos is right to follow others who have argued that some substantial parts of the Mycenaean fortication were visible and in use until perhaps the
Persian attack. But the assumption that the Acropolis was the only settlement in
Athens during the whole of the EIA is more problematic.39
Related to the above hypothesis is the suggestion that the area of the later
Agora was not lled by houses but by pottery workshops and kilns. In his study
of some of the deposits, Papadopoulos (2003: 5) identied pottery fragments
which belong to potters debris and test pieces.40 This challenged previous views
which reconstructed the area of the later Agora as being occupied by houses and
burials until the sixth century when it was given up to public space (Camp 1986:
24, 33; Townsend 1995: 12).
The question, however, is whether the area of the later Agora, as Papadopoulos
argued, was a kind of an industrial quarter for the production of ne attic
pottery or whether it was the part of Athens where potters lived, worked and died.
For the little evidence we have from EIA settlements and dump deposits outside
Athens, it seems that workshops of potters and metalworkers were found within
the limits of domestic spatial organisation.41 So although there is no doubt from
Papadopoulos careful study that some of these deposits contained potters
debris, the view that there were houses for perhaps the potters and others living
in the same area can still be maintained.42
I still believe that Athens, as other EIA settlements, was made up by an agglomeration of houses and burials (as do Snodgrass, Archaic Greece: 2831; Morris
1987: 64; Whitley 1991: 614; Welwei 1992: 635; Hurwit 1999: 8794). In addi39 For the use and extent of the Mycenaean fortication see discussion in Travlos 1971: 524;
Camp 1984; Papadopoulos 2003: 3025.
40 This is not the place to discuss whether all the deposits were potters dumps rather than domestic deposits. In addition, in order to agree or disagree with this suggestion one needs to have the
complete material found in each one of them and not a select catalogue of test pieces and
potters debris as published in Papadopoulos 2003. Moreover one also needs to combine this
with information about the burials found in the area in order to understand their relationship
to the deposits both chronologically and contextually.
41 See Mazarakis Ainian in this volume for Oropos and Eretria, where metal workshops were
found within domestic and even cult contexts. In Pithekoussai, in the suburban site on the
Mezavvia hill, the Mazzola complex combined industrial and living quarters (Ridgway 1992:
916). The Moulds deposit found in the settlement on Xeropolis at Lefkandi is a pit where
moulds for the production of tripods were found among other dump material and which should
have come from a workshop located in the vicinity of the settlement (Lefkandi I: 424). In addition Crielaard (1999: 528) argued that EIA pottery production was based on a household
industry and that this was in the hands of (semi-) specialists who worked within a household
unit. For changes in the production of pottery and metalwork in this period see also Kayafa and
Morgan in this volume.
42 Papadopoulos (2003: 275) further argued that even the evidence of a house in the Agora the
so-called oval house has now been thought to be a hero-shrine (following Thompsons reinterpretation of it). The function of the structure, however, remains uncertain, as both
Antonaccio (Ancestors: 1226) and Mazarakis Ainian (Dwellings: 817, 31415) argued in discussing this case. Both, however, concluded that it is not impossible that there was a house there
in the early ninth century.

Figure 27.1

515

Archaeological sites around the Acropolis of Athens during LH, SM, and
EIA

tion it appears from the available evidence that some of these areas were also
occupied in the LH III period: especially those located to the south and the east
of the Acropolis. There, deposits and burials continued to be made into the LG
period (Figure 27.1). It is clear then that an important focus of activity was
located in this part of Athens. We can perhaps also assume that another such
focus of houses and burials was close to the cemetery at Vasilissis Sophias Street,
while one or more clusters of houses were associated with the Kerameikos cemetery and the other burial plots to the north and to the east of this area.43 As I have
argued above, it is not clear whether there was occupation on the Acropolis during
43 We may also assume that other houses were spread across the landscape around the Acropolis
and reached as far as the suburb of Nea Ionia where a wealthy cemetery was established by the
end of the tenth century . See discussion with references in Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean:
154).

516

this period. Apart from the insucient evidence one might argue that by the end
of SM period there was no need to protect settlements behind walls and on the
top of strongholds, as was the case earlier in LH/LM III and later in the eighth
century, especially on the islands.44
In contrast to the previous period, the archaeological picture of the late
eleventh and tenth centuries is not marked by either any destruction or any abandonment of settlements. It is therefore safe to suggest that by that time communities in the Aegean were not facing outside threats. As the new communities
started to face a dierent world without palace control or protection, they concentrated on negotiating their status within their own population. From the available evidence it is apparent that although the population in Athens clearly took
the decision to continue to live and bury themselves in separate cemeteries around
the Acropolis, they also decided to invest gradually in funeral display. The rich
Athenian evidence allows us to follow this steady development from the SM
period onwards and trace the strategies employed by these communities in burial
rites within their cemeteries located around the Acropolis.
Although it has been argued in the past by Whitley (1991: 967) that in the SM
burials in Athens there are no formal and regular distinctions in status, gender
and age, it has become clear from recent research that we can trace some manifestations of hierarchy and gender and even age in the funeral display
(Ruppenstein 1999).45 In the Kerameikos, for example, I believe that status, as this
is reected in the burial oerings, is stated not by the giving of specic vase types
nor by the decorative motifs on them, but mostly with a display of metal ornaments such as bulae, pins and rings and occasionally gold spirals. In fact, it is
interesting to see that burials here follow a similar pattern in displaying status by
the disposition of metal oerings as in other sites during the last decades of the
eleventh century.46
I also believe that an important change that clearly illustrates a break with the
past is the decision of the various groups buried in Athens to abandon completely
Mycenaean funeral rites and to adopt the new practice of single burials in at
cemeteries.
Further developments manifested themselves in Athens with what Whitley calls
formalisation of the funerary ritual which fully developed in the PG period with
the wide use of the practice of cremation in the trench-and-hole type of burial
(Whitley 1991: 116). Equally important is the re-appearance of the so called
44 The re-appearance of fortied settlements such as Zagora on Andros, and Minoa on Amorgos
is dated later to the eighth century. But Crete is dierent. See Wallace in this volume and also
Nowicki, Defensible Sites, and papers in Defensive Settlements.
45 Ruppenstein convincingly showed an even more noticeable interest in displaying gender
specications in the SM Kerameikos.
46 For SM tombs in the Kerameikos rich in metal oerings see tomb 2 (Mller-Karpe 1962: 82);
tomb 42 (Mller-Karpe 1962: 87,119); tomb 70 (Mller-Karpe 1962: 119); tomb 108 (MllerKarpe 1962: 120). See also the rich in metal oerings in Elateia (Deger-Jalkotzy 1991). For SM
Lefkandi see below.

517

warrior burials, alongside rich female burials; such burials were found mostly in
the Kerameikos and, from the little we know from preliminary reports, also in the
cemetery in Vasilissis Sophias and later in the north slope of the Areopagus and in
the rich cemeteries at Kriezi Street. If this is the case then we may suggest that some
of the groups buried around Athens become gradually more important during the
course of the tenth century. Finally, during the ninth century, such earlier manifestations of status became more clearly articulated by displaying in their funerals
even more exceptionally rich oerings and imports (Whitley 1991: 137).
LEFKANDI IN THE LH III PERIOD
The EH and MH deposits on Xeropolis have established the importance of the
site in Bronze Age.47 And as has been clearly stated (Popham and Sackett 1968:
5; Popham and Milburn 1971: 3487), the LH IIIB levels at least in the small
area excavated on Xeropolis were terraced in order to build the LH IIIC houses.
It has also been argued on the basis of the pottery that perhaps Xeropolis was not
a prominent Mycenaean settlement. But LH IIIB pottery which also remains
unpublished was only found in a restricted area under the LH IIIC remains so
this evidence is not decisive. More information, however, about the whole island
during the palatial period comes from Linear B tablets in Thebes. The tablets
revealed close connections with Euboea, and strongly suggest that the island was
dependent on the palace at Thebes.48
So, it is possible to assume that Xeropolis together with other sites along the
west coast were seats of Mycenaean ocials (perhaps of a qa-si-re-u).49 The
archaeological evidence also shows that Xeropolis became an important place
after the destruction of the palace at Thebes and that it ourished in the Late
Helladic IIIC period. Both old and new excavations on Xeropolis have revealed
that the town extended over the whole of the mound indicating that during this
period there was a large settlement there.50 A sample of the history of Xeropolis
during the LH IIIC period can be followed in the excavation of the deep and wellstratied deposits investigated by Popham and Sackett on the eastern part of the
tell which covered the whole of the LH IIIC period.
The period has been divided by its excavators into three main stages.51 In Phase
1, which corresponds to the LH IIIC Early period elsewhere, houses were made
up of a number of rooms. Most of them appear to have two storeys with storage
47
48
49
50

These deposits remain unpublished; for preliminary reports see Popham and Sackett 1968: 611.
See in this volume Crielaard for references in the Linear B tablets and bibliography.
See also discussion by Crielaard in this volume.
Trial trenches investigated by Popham and Sackett showed that the whole of Xeropolis was
occupied during the LH IIIC phase and especially during the middle stage of the period
(Popham and Sackett 1968: 35; Lefkandi I: 13); see also H. Sackett in the forthcoming volume
Lefkandi IV. The size of Xeropolis is some 500 m in length and 120 m in width.
51 The publication of the LH IIIC levels is in press as Lefkandi IV (edited by D. Evely, whom I
thank for providing me with a manuscript of the volume before publication).

518

areas and workshops found on the ground oors and living quarters on the upper
oors. The latter, of course, are not preserved. We know this settlement had a long
life because the houses were found to have had structural alterations and their
oors were re-laid, allowing the excavators to divide this rst LH IIIC stage into
two sub-phases. The houses of Phase 1b were destroyed by re leaving behind a
considerable amount of evidence buried in the destruction debris which in some
cases was over a metre in depth (Popham and Sackett 1968: 1114; Popham and
Milburn 1971: 334). After the destruction of Phase 1b, the settlement was levelled
o and a new town was built on the top, but on a dierent plan and orientation.
This new settlement corresponds with Phase 2 also a long period which
roughly corresponds with the LH IIIC Middle in other sites.
Architecturally, this new settlement consisted of well-planned houses made of
large rooms, and at least one of them had a central post. The use of open spaces
between them is also a feature of the new plan (Popham and Sackett 1968: 1416).
It appears that part of this settlement was also destroyed during the stage when
pictorial pottery was in use. Some parts of the town were repaired and rebuilt
assigning the nds of the re-occupation to the second stage of this phase, Phase
2b. The houses of this phase were most probably abandoned since no destruction
level is associated with the end of this stage (Popham and Milburn 1971: 334).
An interesting feature of Phase 2 is the discovery of burials under the oors of
the rooms. So far fteen such burials have been found. All ages and both genders
are represented amongst them.52 Intramural burials were also found in the Lower
Citadel in Tiryns and dated by Kilian to LH IIIB2 IIIC (Kilian 1979: 3867;
1982: 3956).
From the pottery of Phase 2 we assume that the inhabitants had a sophisticated
lifestyle reected in the production of some of the most celebrated examples of
the pictorial style. Links with other sites within and outside the Aegean ourished
during this period and if we had discovered the cemetery corresponding to this
period we might have more evidence of the links that this ourishing community
shared with others in the Aegean and beyond.53
The nal stage of LH IIIC corresponds to Lefkandi Phase 3. The rst excavators assigned to this phase pottery which was associated with one house and was
characterised by deteriorated standards (Popham and Milburn 1971: 3426). This
picture, however, has changed since the current research and excavations have
revealed more houses dated to this stage in the eastern part of Xeropolis (Lemos
2004: 3940).
As mentioned above, no LH IIIC cemetery has yet been discovered. But two
vases found in the area to the south-east of the Skoubris cemetery are dated to
52 In particular, ve burials were adults and eight or more children and one was neonate; the precise
age of all of them was not always possible to determine. For a detailed report see Musgrave and
Popham (1991: 27391), and Musgrave forthcoming in Lefkandi IV.
53 For the ourishing LH IIIC phase around the Euboean Gulf see Crielaard in this volume and
also Lemos 1998.

519

LH IIIC. This discovery implies that perhaps cist-tombs of the LH IIIC/early SM

period were located there too.54
SM LEFKANDI
Until recently the SM period at Lefkandi was represented only by the burials
found in the Skoubris cemetery, but recent excavations on Xeropolis have revealed
SM pottery associated with soils and walls indicating continuity in the occupation of the site from the end of the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age.55
The Skoubris cemetery, however, provides us with a small number of burials
dated to the SM period.56 The SM tombs are single burials in cists and so comparable to those of Athens during this period. There are also a number of cremated burials, but at Lefkandi they are primary cremations rather than the
secondary ones which were typical in Athens (Lefkandi I: 2012, 210).
Here, as in Athens, some tombs have more rich oerings than others. As I
have already mentioned above, rich tombs during this phase are considered
those which in addition to a large number of pots were given a rich display of
metal oerings (such as bulae, pins and rings). In the case of Lefkandi,
another important element is the tomb itself which is often constructed with
great skill.57
EIA LEFKANDI
The EIA history of the site is known from the discoveries made in the cemeteries
and those made by the rst excavators on Xeropolis (Figure 27.2). The latter consisted of a number of rubbish pits dated from the LPG to the SPG and also the
house, walls, and the circular structures dated to the LG (Lefkandi I: 1125).
Recent excavations, however, have found more structures, walls and soils dated to
54 This is the Khaliotis area (Figure 27.3) see comments in Lefkandi I: 313, 355. It might be possible that here, as in Athens, a at cemetery with cist tombs was founded during the SM period.
The SM tombs in Skoubris belonged to the later phase of the SM period. Earlier tombs might
have been cut in this plot or in the Khaliotis burial ground.
55 Particularly interesting is the discovery of two complete SM/EPG vases close to walls which
were found above LH IIIC Late houses. The vases, an amphoriskos and a jug, are typical
oerings in SM and PG graves in the Skoubris cemetery. Therefore, it is possible that they were
given to a burial, although no bones were found. If there was a burial, however, it might have
been that of a child which would explain the lack of bones (Lemos 2004: 39, g. 55).
56 The number of the SM burials is 24. We have to take into account, however, the fact that only
a part of this cemetery was excavated while, as mentioned above, there might have been a cemetery to the north-east of Skoubris with earlier SM tombs.
57 For example, tombs rich in metal oerings at Skoubris are tomb 16 (Lefkandi I: 11415, pls
956) tomb 19 (Lefkandi I: 116, pls 989), tomb 38 (Lefkandi I: 1223, pl. 103), tomb 40
(Lefkandi I: 124, pl. 104); tomb 43 (Lefkandi I: 1245, pl. 43). For a well-built tomb see for
example tomb 38 (Lefkandi I: pl. 85). Considering the small number of SM tombs at Lefkandi,
the number of tombs with rich oerings is quite high when compared to Athens. For the tombs
in the Kerameikos in Athens see above.

Figure 27.2

Lefkandi: Xeropolis and the cemeteries

521

the PG and SPG periods which show that Xeropolis was occupied at the same
time as the cemeteries.58
Some 500 meters to the west of Xeropolis are located the cemeteries of
Lefkandi. Apart from the Skoubris cemetery and the other three, the Khaliotis,
Palia Perivolia and Toumba, burial plots or just clusters of burials have been
located on the whole area of the hill (Figure 27.3). For example, burials were
found in the South and the North cemeteries, none of which have been fully excavated (Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 1612).
In EIA Lefkandi both inhumation and cremation were practised as they were
during SM. Since in most of the tombs no traces of full inhumation or cremation
have been found, it has been assumed that either the skeletal remains had decayed
away or that the graves were furnished with only a few token pieces of bone from
cremations which had taken place elsewhere. Initially, the excavators were in
favour of the second possibility, but more recently the number of skeletons in a
poor state discovered in the Toumba cemetery has increased, indicating that the
corrosive eect of the soil might have been underestimated. Nevertheless, a great
number of tombs still produce no evidence of bones, so the possibility of a complicated secondary rite remains open.
It is obvious that at Lefkandi formalisation of the funeral display was not considered a priority. On the other hand, what was important here was the display of
wealth which was used extensively to construct social dierences. This immense
conspicuous destruction manifested especially at the Toumba cemetery shows
that signifying hierarchy in funeral rites was an important concern of the community at Lefkandi. Such displays started in the SM with a small number of rich
burials but they become more noticeable during the LPG and SPG periods and
even more clearly so after the funeral of the exceptional warrior found buried
under the PG building at Toumba. I have argued elsewhere in detail that the building at Toumba has never served as a Heroon but that both its construction and
destruction were part of complex funeral rites (Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean:
1628).
The most important element of this funeral was an extraordinary destruction
of wealth in which even the lives of the consort and the horses were lost. I have
also argued that this abnormal destruction should be seen as marking a socialpolitical change at Lefkandi, namely the change from the rule of a powerful
basileus to that of a dynamic elite group. I think it is also important to note that
both the construction and the destruction of the building as well as the lling-in
required the mobilisation of many people. Presumably, the entire demos was
involved in this operation. After the building was covered by an articial tumulus,
58 Some MPG sherds were known from the rst excavations (Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 140),
but now part of an apsidal building which has survived later occupation and modern ploughing is dated to the E/MPG. More walls and rooms of SM and EPG dates have also been located
in the area of the old excavation to the south-west of the LG houses (Lemos 2004: 39; Lemos
2005: 502).

522

Figure 27.3

The cemeteries at Lefkandi

523

members of an elite group, who probably belonged to the same lineage or kin
group as the rst burials at Toumba, started to be buried to the east end of the
building. At the same time it is clear that neither they nor the community as a
whole were concerned with veneration of their ancestor, since they did not make
any oerings on the tumulus. This is because, I believe, they were more interested
in securing their links as descendants of the rst occupant in the Toumba cemetery.59 It is clear from the rich oerings made in the Toumba cemetery that the
group buried there emphasised their high status more vigorously than in any of
the other contemporary cemeteries at Lefkandi.60
Nevertheless, the rich cemeteries at Lefkandi stop receiving further burials
before the end of the ninth century (Lefkandi I: 3679). Xeropolis, however, was
not abandoned; the number of known LG houses has increased with the recent
excavations, but the LG cemeteries have not yet been located.61 Even if we assume
that life continued on Xeropolis, the fact remains that in contrast to Athens,
Lefkandi did not become an archaic polis. That development took place in Eretria
which from then on was the focal site of the region.
CONCLUSIONS
The above summary of the archaeological evidence reveals interesting similarities
but also dierences between the two sites. It is obvious from their archaeology
that both had a long Bronze Age prehistory and in my view this had an eect on
later developments in the Early Iron Age.
During the Mycenaean period, Athens with or without a palace is represented by groups of burials located around the Acropolis. We assume that these
correlated to nearby settlements because in some of them pits and dump deposits
have been found, especially in areas to the south and to east of the Acropolis.
From these burial grounds and the oerings found in them, it is apparent that the
most prosperous period was that from the LH IIB to the LH IIIA1. Rich oerings
were given especially to burials in the cemetery to the north of the Acropolis, in
59 The Toumba building and its burials have been discussed by a number of scholars. Most recently
see Morris, Archaeology: 22839; Antonaccio 2002; Whitley 2002; 2004. In this volume see
Antonaccio, Crielaard and Mazarakis Ainian. I still maintain, however, as one of its excavators,
that the building was erected after the burials; that it was little or never used and nally it was
built, lled in and covered by a mound within the so-called MPG phase. Soon after the erection
of the mound the rst burials were made in the Toumba cemetery (see for more detailed discussion Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 1416, 1618, 21820). The Toumba cemetery will be
fully published in the forthcoming volume of Lefkandi III.2.
60 For one of the most important male burials in Toumba in the ninth century, Toumba tomb 79
see Popham and Lemos 1995; Lemos 2003. For the rich female burials in Toumba see Lemos
forthcoming.
61 In the 2003 and 2004 seasons at least three houses and the walls of several more have been discovered. It is also possible that some of them were occupied into the late eighth and even early
seventh century. But these observations must be considered only preliminary since the excavation on the site continues.

524

the north slope of the Areopagus, and to the south, in the cemetery located in the
north bank of the Ilissos River (Immerwahr 1971: 1501; Onasoglou 1979;
Mountjoy 1995:701). The lack of any tholos tombs is noticeable, especially since
a number of them have been found in the rest of Attica. This suggests that it was
outside Athens that the most important Mycenaean centres were located.
In Athens, however, LH IIIB is marked by the construction of fortications and
the Fountain House to secure the water supply to the citadel. Similar action was
taken as we know in other citadels but, unlike them, Athens does not seem to end
the period with either destruction or abandonment. It is possible that the danger
whatever that might have been passed Athens by. In fact the Fountain House
was abandoned within one generation and was turned into a rubbish dump,
clearly indicating that there was no need for it any longer.
As Hurwit (1999: 83) argued, however, even if the Acropolis did not suer the
same fate as other Mycenaean citadels, Athens could not escape the transformation taking place in the Aegean during the twelfth century.62 But all the same,
Athens continued to be occupied throughout the LH IIIC period. Yet according
to the available evidence the major site during this stage in Attica is not Athens
but Perati located on the east coast. During the LH IIIC it is there that one of the
most prosperous sites in the Aegean was located. This is not surprising considering that important Mycenaean cemeteries and settlements were located to the east
of Attica in earlier periods too, such as those at Spata, Marathon, and Thorikos.
The later importance of Athens, however, starts to develop more evidently in the
SM period when new and old cemeteries around the Acropolis were extensively
used and, as we have seen, there was the introduction of a new rite that of single
burials.
It has been argued above that even if there were some Athenians living and
burying their children on the Acropolis, the persisting use of most of the LH III
cemeteries into the SM and PG indicates that the same clusters of houses continued to be located close to the burial grounds. In addition the distance of some
of the cemeteries, either from the Acropolis itself or from each other, is too great
for it to be reasonable to argue that they belonged to a single community living
on the Acropolis.63 On the other hand, that there was a cultural unity among the
various groups of peoples living around Athens is suggested by the use of the
same burial rites and material culture. This becomes even clearer in the next
62 It is dicult to argue that later building activities on the Acropolis swept away evidence of such
destruction as some of it should have survived in the archaeological record. One is left to wonder
whether Athens was not much aected by the LH IIIB upheavals because it was not a central
site during the palatial era.
63 Morris argued (1994: 2730) that although Athens and Argos were made up of small groups of
scattered houses, the fact that the inhabitants were using the same resources suggests they were
one community. The distance, however, between the various burial plots suggests that each
cemetery corresponds to a cluster of houses which perhaps formed an independent socio-political unit but which had some common cultural links, as is clearly indicated by their archaeological record (Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean: 219).

525

period with the almost universal practice of cremation in the trench-and-hole

type of grave. At the same time, we can follow the rst signs of attempts to articulate a display of status in the appearance of warrior and rich female burials. This
development went further in the ninth century when we can clearly distinguish
particular groups demonstrating their status by giving to their dead exceptional
funerals and displays of rich oerings. It is of course tempting to suggest that
these clusters of burials belonged to members of the same kin group who lived
nearby and who were buried together.64
Interestingly, at the same period rich burials started appearing in the rest of
Attica from where the evidence after the end of the LH III is very scarce
(Coldstream, Geometric Greece: 7381; Morris 1987: 7981; Whitley 1991: 557).
The reason might be that Attica was more seriously aected by the upheavals in
the end of the LBA and so recovery took longer there.65
At Lefkandi, the architectural remains, the material culture and the sheer size
of the settlement during the LH IIIC period, and especially in Phase 2, illustrate
clearly that Xeropolis was one of the communities which thrived during the postpalatial period, but as we have seen not without a price. The settlement was
destroyed twice, but it was not abandoned. Recent and old nds also indicate that
Euboea together with sites on the coast of central Greece and Thessaly as well as
some of the Cyclades remained in contact throughout the LH IIIC period. Even
during the latest stages of the period, in the LH IIIC Late, pottery links between
Lefkandi, Skyros, Kea, and central Greece illustrate that such contacts in fact
never ceased.
It is almost certain, thanks to the recent excavations, that Xeropolis, like
Athens, did carry on into the EIA without ever being abandoned. I assume that
the reason was the signicant position that the site enjoyed with excellent harbours and fertile land next to it. This perhaps explains the persistence of the
inhabitants in keeping building their houses after terracing and levelling earlier
occupations and even after destructions.
Moreover, in contrast to Athens, I believe that Xeropolis was the only settlement in the area.66 And if I am right, then perhaps at Lefkandi we have a nucleus
settlement rather than a conglomeration of small villages as appears to be the
case in Athens. But this is not the only dierence between the two sites. At
Lefkandi we see a much earlier display of status manifested in the rich oerings
given to the dead from as early as the SM period. It is apparent that the Toumba
64 Runciman (1982: 3734) also prefers to see these units as small agricultural villages using their
own resources and made up by the same kin group.
65 For a survey of the archaeological material of this period see Mersch 1996: esp. 834).
66 The only other area which might in any case have been part of the same settlement is Area
SL which is located north of the Xeropolis (Lefkandi I: 223, 364). See also the results of
the survey conducted by Sackett et al. (1966: 601) before the area was overbuilt and which
shows that EIA sherds in the area are scarce except for those found on Xeropolis and in the
cemeteries.

526

cemetery preceded the other burial plots in the wealth of oerings. For these
reasons, it has been argued that the Toumba must have been the burial place of
the local elite. At the same time we must not forget that there were other groups
which continued to be buried in the other cemeteries of the necropolis and
although their oerings are not as spectacular as those found in the Toumba
cemetery, some and especially a few buried in the oldest cemetery, at Skoubris,
clearly show competition in funeral display by being given the same combination
of goods which we see in the Toumba burials.
In Athens such competition in so far as it is reected in burial practices is
not intense until the ninth century when comparably rich burials were made in the
areas of the Kerameikos, Kriezi Street and of the Areopagus.67 The question then
arises as to why the Athenians did not have such rich burials earlier. There are a
number of possibilities. One is that Athenians were simply more interested in
giving their dead a formal funeral than in providing them with exceptional grave
goods. On the other hand, it could be that formalisation of the burial custom was
an alternative to conspicuous consumption in the form of expensive burials.
Another explanation might be that there was no need of such a display of wealth
since competition among members of the same kin group or between dierent
ones was not as acute as at Lefkandi. In addition the importance of such competition at Lefkandi among the kin groups is clearly shown in the fact that the
dierent burial grounds were located very close to each other in the same area,
whereas in Athens as we have seen we have the opposite situation with cemeteries located some distance from each other.
In trying to explain the reason behind the observed dierences in funeral
display between Athens and Lefkandi, I can oer one suggestion. Athens,
without an urban centre, was divided into small villages made up of members of
the same lineage, each with a small number of equal-in-status leaders. This fragmentation of the socio-political landscape of Athens did not encourage the kind
of display in funerals as we see it at Lefkandi but rather a dependency on local
resources which nd their manifestation in the formalisation of the funeral rite.
But at Lefkandi local competition was more rigorous leading to the early and
perhaps atypical social-political developments reected in the funeral rites given
to the burials under the Toumba building and their successors in the cemetery. It
is likely that such competition led to internal conict by the members of the
groups who tried to gain primary control or by envious neighbours who wished
67 Even if we assume that it is only accidental that we do not have the equivalent of the Toumba
burial plot in Athens which according to Coldstream (1995: 393) might have been located in
the north slope of the Areopagus I believe we have enough burials from a number of cemeteries to suggest that Athens catches up with Lefkandi only in the ninth century . Even then,
however, the wealth found in the graves of Athenian elite members is not as rich as in those in
contemporary Lefkandi. Compare for example ninth century burial of the so-called Athenian
Rich Lady (Smithson 1968) and the warrior burial in Athens (Blegen 1952) with those found in
Toumba tomb 79 and tomb 80 (Popham and Lemos 1996: pls 7885).

527

to be in command of the prosperous site. Perhaps those were the reasons that the
rich cemeteries ceased to receive burials at the end of the ninth century and
although there was a settlement on Xeropolis in the LG period its importance is
not yet clear. What is certain, however, is that the more gradual developments in
Athens secured a better future for her inhabitants.
So by following the archaeological record of two of the most important sites
during the period from the wanax to basileus, we may start to appreciate that they
cannot be studied in isolation from their Bronze Age past and when that is taken
into consideration then one may start to understand better the decisions and the
development taken by the communities which lived through this important period
as they are reected in the archaeological record.
References
Antonaccio, C. (2002), Warriors, traders, and ancestors: the Heroes of Lefkandi, in Munk
Htje, J. (ed.), Images of Ancestors, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 1542.
Blegen, C. W. (1952), Two Athenian grave groups of about 900 , Hesperia, 21, pp. 27994.
Broneer, O. (1933), Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens, Hesperia, 2,
pp. 329417.
Broneer, O. (1939), A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis, Hesperia, 8,
pp. 317433.
Camp, Mck. J. (1984), Water and the Pelargikon, in Rigsby, K. (ed.), Studies Presented to
Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday, Durham, NC: Duke University, pp. 3741.
Camp, Mck. J. (1986), The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens,
London: Thames and Hudson.
Camp, Mck. J. (2003), Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 19932001, Hesperia, 24180.
Crielaard, J.-P. (1999), Greek Early Iron Age pottery, in Crielaard J.-P., Stissi, V. and van
Winjngaarden, G. J. (eds), The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and
Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (sixteenth to early fth centuries BC),
Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, pp. 4981.
Coldstream, J. N. (1995), The rich lady from the Areiopagos and her contemporaries: a tribute
in memory of Evelyn Lord Smithson, Hesperia, 64, pp. 391403.
Darcque, P. (1987), Les tholos et lorganisation socio-politique de monde mycnien, in
Laneur, R. (ed.), Thanatos: Les Coutumes Funeraires en Ege l Age du Bronze, Lige:
Universit de Lige, pp. 185205.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S. (1991), Elateia (Phokis) und die frhe Geschichte der Griechen: Ein sterreichisch-griechisches Grabungsprojekt, AW, 127, pp. 7786.
Eiteljorg, H. (1993), The Entrance to the Athenian Acropolis before Mnesicles, Boston:
Kendal/Hunt.
Gauss, W. (2000), Neue Forschungen zur prhistorischen Akropolis von Athen in Blakolmer,
F. (ed.), sterreichsche Forschungen zur gaischen Bronzezeit 1998, Vienna: Wiener
Forschungen zur Archologie, pp. 16782.
Gauss, W. (2003), The Late Mycenaean pottery from the North Slope of the Athenian
Acropolis, in Chronology and Synchronisms, pp. 93104.
Gauss, W. and Ruppenstein F. (1998), Die Athener Akropolis in der frhen Eisenzeit, AM,
113, pp. 160.

528

Hurwit, J. M. (1999), The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the
Neolithic Era to the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iakovidis, S. E. (1962), H Mukhnai kh/ Akro/poli twn Aqhnw/n, Athens: University of
Athens.
Iakovidis, S. E. (1983), Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Immerwahr, A. (1971), The Athenian Agora XIII: The Neolithic and Bronze Age, Princeton:
American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Kilian, K. (1979), Ausgrabungen in Tiryns, 1977, AA, 379411.
Kilian, K. (1982), Ausgrabungen in Tiryns, 1980, AA, 383439.
Knapp, A. B., Muhly, J. D. and Muhly, P. (1988), To hoard is human: Late Bronze Age metal
deposits in Cyprus and the Aegean, RDAC, pp. 23362.
Lemos, I. S. (1998), Euboea and its Aegean koine, in Euboica, pp. 4558.
Lemos, I. S. (2003), Craftsmen, traders and some wives in Early Iron Age Greece, in
Stampolidis, N. C. and Karageorghis, V. (eds), Plo/e, Sea Routes, Interconnections in the
Mediterranean 16th6th Century BC, Proceedings of the International Symposium held
at Rethymnon, Crete, Athens: University of Crete and A. G. Leventis Foundation,
pp. 18795.
Lemos, I. S. (2004), Lefkandi report, in Whitley, J., AR 20034, pp. 3940.
Lemos, I. S. (2005), Lefkandi report, in Whitley J., AR 20045, pp. 502.
Lemos, I. S. (forthcoming), Elite and gender in Early Iron Age Greece, in Keimelion:
The Formation of Elites and Elitist Lifestyle from Mycenaean Palatial Times to the
Homeric Period, Studies in Honour of Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Vienna: Austrian Academy
of Science.
Mark, I. S. (1993), The Sanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens: Architectural Stages and
Chronology, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Mee, C. B. and Cavanagh, W. G. (1990), The spatial distribution of Mycenaean tombs, BSA,
85, pp. 22543.
Mersch, A. (1996), Studien zur Siedlungsgeschichte Attikas von 950 bis 400v. Chr., Frankfurt:
Peter Lang.
Morris, I. (1987), Burial and Ancient Society: the Rise of the Greek City-State, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Morris, I. (1994), The early polis as city and state, in Rich, J. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds),
City and Country in the Ancient World, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 2557.
Mountjoy, P. A. (1981), Four Mycenaean Wells form the South Slope of the Acropolis at Athens,
Gent: Miscellanea Graeca IV.
Mountjoy, P. A. (1984), The Bronze Age greaves from Athens: a case for a LHIIIC date,
OpAth, 15, pp. 13546.
Mountjoy, P. A, (1995), Mycenaean Athens, Jonsered: Paul strms Frlag.
Mountjoy, P. A. and Hankey V. (1988), LH III C late versus Sub-Mycenaean: the Kerameikos
Pompeion cemetery reviewed, JdI, 103, pp. 137.
Mller-Karpe, H. (1962), Die Metallbeigaben der Frheisenzeitlichen Kerameikos-Grber,
JdI, 77, pp. 59129.
Musgrave, J. H. and Popham, M. (1991), The Late Helladic IIIC intramural burials at
Lefkandi, Euboea, BSA, 86, pp. 27391.
Onasoglou, A. (1979), Ena ne/o mukhnai ko qalamoeidh/ ta/fo sto Kouka/ki, AD, 1, 34,
pp. 1542.

529

Pantelidou, A. M. (1975), Ai Proi storikai/ Aqh/nai, Athens: Archaeological Society of

Athens.
Papadopoulos, J. K. (2002), The cultural biography of a Cycladic Geometric amphora,
Hesperia, 71, pp. 14999.
Papadopoulos, J. K. (2003), Ceramicus Redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potters Field in the area
of the Classical Athenian Agora, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Parlama, L. and Stampolidis, N. C. (eds), (2000), The City Beneath the City: Antiquities from
the Metropolitan Railway Excavations, Athens: N. P. Foundation.
Peace, M. Z. (1935), The pottery from the North Slope of the Acropolis, Hesperia, 4,
pp. 214302.
Popham, M. and Lemos, I. S. (1995), A Euboean warrior trader, OJA, 14, pp. 1517.
Popham, M. with Lemos, I. S. (1996), Lefkandi III: The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Toumba,
Oxford: Alden.
Popham, M. R. and Milburn, E. (1971), The Late Helladic IIIC pottery of Xeropolis
(Lefkandi), a summary, BSA, 66, pp. 33349.
Popham, M. R. and Sackett, L. H. (1968), Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboea 196466, AR,
pp. 335.
Ridgway, D. (1992), The First Western Greeks, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roebuck, C. (1940), Pottery from the North Slope of the Acropolis 19371938, Hesperia, 9,
pp. 141260.
Runciman, W. G. (1982), Origins of States: the case of Archaic Greece, Journal of
Comparative Study of Society and History, 24, pp. 35177.
Ruppenstein F. (1999), Geschlechtsspezische Beigabenkombinationen, AM, 114, pp. 1328.
Ruppenstein F. (2003), Late Helladic IIIC versus Submycenaean: a methodological problem,
in Chronology and Synchronisms, pp. 18391.
Sackett, L. H. et al. (1966), Prehistoric Euboea: contribution toward a survey, BSA, 61,
pp. 33112.
Smithson, E. L. (1968), The tomb of a rich Athenian Lady, ca. 850 , Hesperia, 37,
pp. 77116.
Smithson, E. L. (1977), Submycenaean and LH IIIC deposits in Athens, AJA, 81, pp. 789.
Smithson, E. L. (1982), The prehistoric Klepsydra: some notes in Studies in Athenian
Architecture, Sculpture and Topography Presented to Homer A. Thompson, Princeton:
American School of Classical Studies at Athens, pp. 14154.
Spyropoulos, T. G. (1972), Ysteromukhnai koi/ Elladikoi/ qhsauroi/, Athens: The
Archaeological Society at Athens.
Styrenius, C. G. (1967), Submycenaean Studies, Lund: Lund Cwk Greerup.
Tanoulas, T. (1987), The Propylaea of the Acropolis at Athens since the 17th century: their
decay and restoration, JdI, 102, pp. 41383.
Townsend, R. F. (1995), The Athenian Agora XXVII: The East Side of the Agora. The Remains
Beneath the Stoa of Attalos, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Travlos, J. (1971), Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London: Thames and Hudson.
Welwei, K.-W. (1992), Athen: Vom Neolithischen Siedlungsplatz Zur Archaischen Grosspolis,
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Whitley, J. (1991), Style and Society in Dark Age Greece: The Changing Face of a Pre-literate
Society, 1100700 BC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whitley, J. (2002), Objects with attitude: biographical facts and fallacies in the study of Late

530

Bronze Age and Early Iron Age warrior graves, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 12,
pp. 21732.
Whitley, J. (2004), Cycles of collapse in Greek prehistory: the House of the Tiles at Lerna and
the Heroon at Lefkandi, in Cherry, J., Scarre, C. and Shennan, S. (eds), Explaining Social
Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew, Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs,
pp. 193201.
Wright, J. C. (1994), The Mycenaean entrance system at the west end of the Acropolis of
Athens, Hesperia, 63, pp. 32460.