Feasting at the Palaces of Mycenae and Pylos: Spatial Considerations and the Manipulation of Ideological Power

Transcription

1 Feasting at the Palaces of Mycenae and Pylos: Spatial Considerations and the Manipulation of Ideological Power Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Alberti, Lauren Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 03/07/ :57:09 Link to Item

2 FEASTING AT THE PALACES OF MYCENAE AND PYLOS: SPATIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MANIPULATION OF IDEOLOGICAL POWER by Lauren Alberti A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2016

3 Alberti!2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR The thesis titled Feasting at the Palaces of Mycenae and Pylos: Spatial Considerations and the Manipulation of Ideological Power prepared by Lauren Alberti has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for a master s degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: Lauren Alberti APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: Eleni Hasaki May 2, 2016 Associate Professor of Anthropology and Classics Mary Voyatzis Professor of Anthropology

4 Alberti!3 Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my family and friends for their support in my pursuit of an M.A. in Classics, especially my husband, Victor, who has been my rock through this entire journey. I would also like to acknowledge my mom, Julie, and dad, Russell, who have always fostered my interests in archaeology and classics. Of course, I could not forget to thank my brother, Tony, who has an uncanny ability to make me laugh. I wish to thank my friends and colleagues Jeremy Turner, Shannon Ells, and Melanie Zelikovsky. Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge Stephanie Wunce, who has always been an inspiration and good friend. This project would not have been possible without the support and guidance of my thesis committee. Dr. Eleni Hasaki has always been tremendously helpful; her accessibility, encouragement, and enthusiasm during this entire process is greatly appreciated. Dr. Mary Voyatzis also deserves recognition for her invaluable insight and support. Dr. Gary Christopherson has always been a pleasure to work with; his courses in Geographic Information Systems inspired me to further pursue research oriented around spatial analyses. Dr. Christopherson s good humor was greatly appreciated during such an intense and stressful process. Dr. David Romano was particularly helpful when it came to developing this project. His knowledge of AutoCAD was indispensable and his course, Mapping Ancient Cities, inspired much of this project. Everyone involved with this process has been so kind and helpful. This study would certainly not be where it is today without the dedication of my committee. I am also honored to have been awarded the Norman Austin Award Outstanding M.A. Thesis Award from the Department of Classics at the University of Arizona.

5 Alberti!4 Table of Contents Abstract....7 Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Aegean Feasting 2.1 Feasting in Complex Societies Minoan and Mycenaean Perspectives What Constitutes a Mycenaean Feast: Paraphernalia, Food, and Drink Feasting Locales Linear B Evidence: Ritualized Feasting and Mycenaean Palatial Economy Chapter 3: State Manipulation of Ideological Power 3.1 Introduction The Mycenaean Political Landscape Fried, a State s Legitimacy, and the Ritualists Mann s Theory of the Organizational Power Network Hayden and Social Technology Power and Space: The Centralization and Monumentality of Feasting Locales Chapter 4: Potential Feasting Locales 4.1 Introduction The Megaron Courtyard Spaces Chapter 5: An Analysis of Mycenae and Pylos 5.1 Introduction Methodology Calculations and Analyses: Capacity Calculations and Analyses: Accessibility Discussion Chapter 6: Conclusion Figures Bibliography.95-99

6 Alberti!5 List of Figures Figure 2.1: Standard Mycenaean two-handled kylix. 82 Figure 2.2: Standard Mycenaean one-handled kylix Figure 2.3 Miniature kylikes from Room 7 at Pylos Figure 4.1: Pylos procession fresco from Room Figure 4.2: Pylos megaron fresco depicting possible ritual activity and banqueters Figure 4.3: Detail of drinking vessels on the Campstool Fresco,.. 84 Figure 4.4: Final Plan of Mycenae Figure 4.5: Final Plan of Pylos.. 86 Figure 4.6: Deposits of calcined bones and miniature kylikes at Pylos Figure 5.1: Capacities of Potential Feasting Locales at Mycenae Based on Density...65 Figure 5.2: Capacities of Potential Feasting Locales at Pylos Based on Density Figure 5.3: Access Points at Mycenae...72 Figure 5.4: Access Points at Pylos. 74 Figure 5.5: Citadel of Mycenae with digitized megaron and courtyard footprints 88 Figure 5.6: Close-up of Citadel of Mycenae with digitized megaron and courtyard footprints Figure 5.7: Final Plan of the Palace at Pylos with megaron and courtyard outlines. 90 Figure 5.8: Dot density map for capacity based on two people per m 2 in Courtyard 53 and Throne Room at Mycenae Figure 5.9: Dot density map for minimum capacity in Courtyard 53 and the Throne Room at Mycenae.92

7 Alberti!6 Figure 5.10: Dot density map for capacity based on two people per m 2 in Courtyards 3, 63, and 88 and the Throne Room at Pylos Figure 5.11: Dot density map for minimum capacity in Courtyards 3, 63, and 88 and the Throne Room at Pylos List of Tables Table 5.1: Potential Feasting Locales at Mycenae: Capacities and Densities...64 Table 5.2: Potential Feasting Locales at Pylos: Capacities and Densities. 66 Table 5.3: Calculations for modern standards on capacity and density, calculations from Banquet Tables Pro...68 Table 5.4: Potential Feasting Locales at Mycenae and Pylos: 10% of Space Saved for Furnishings. 69 Table 5.5: Access Point Lengths and Widths for Mycenae Locales..71 Table 5.6: Access Point Lengths and Widths for Pylos Locales 73

8 Alberti!7 Abstract Feasting has always been an important cultural activity in the Aegean Bronze Age; however, it is during the Mycenaean period in the Late Bronze Age when feasting appears to facilitate the elites hold and manipulation of the social hierarchy. At this time, the palatial centers were the political, economic, and religious seats of the Mycenaean world, used to host particular feasting events tied to religious ritual. The feast was a dynamic event that associated the elite with religious ritual in the form of a procession and sacrifice as the iconography of the Pylian frescoes, textual evidence from the Linear B tablets, and archaeological evidence suggests. These events, for the most part, seem to have been inclusive while certain parts were more selective regarding who could participate. This further distinguished the Mycenaean elites in front of a wider audience of individuals and subjects attending the feast and associated events, working to maintain stability in the social hierarchy. The built environment was particularly important for distinguishing those participating in feasting events as it added to the event s grandeur with the monumentality of the space, and restricted those able to participate with regard to smaller locales that had a low capacity and narrower entryways preventing accessibility. With Mycenae and Pylos as case studies, this research uses spatial analyses to see how inclusive potential feasting locales were.

9 Alberti!8 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Manipulation of Ideological Power in the Mycenaean Feast This study focuses on the elites control of ideological power in the context of ritualized feasting, in which the organization of resources and animal sacrifice leading to a banquet are the main components. I have three main objectives with this research project. My first objective is to demonstrate how the built environment of two particular Mycenaean palaces, Mycenae and Pylos, is used in a state-sponsored feast in order to create a dynamic event with varying levels of inclusivity. My second objective is to express how the state-sponsored feast helped to maintain a social hierarchy in a time of increased competition through the elites manipulation of ideology and exclusive access to feasting rituals. Finally, my third objective is to illustrate how the Mycenaean feast has similar elements among sites and therefore functioned in a similar way. That is to say that they were venues in which a small group could distinguish themselves demonstrating its ability to organize and move large amounts of resources, use of monumental space, and restriction on certain ritualistic activities. The Mycenaean feast seems to have been organized and conducted by elites closely associated with palatial centers, and by extension those who would participate in the administration and rule of the Mycenaean center. It also seems to have been utilized as a way to perpetuate and solidify elite status through the exclusive control of esoteric knowledge. I argue that this exclusivity can be deduced from the architectural remains of feasting locales, spaces that were made to restrict access. This architectural evidence is supplemented by associated feasting paraphernalia within storage facilities, zooarchaeological evidence with calcined bone deposits, possible ritualistic miniature kylikes, and the

10 Alberti!9 administrative Linear B tablets and sealings, especially the Pylian texts from the Ta, Tn, and Un and Theban texts from the Wu series. The main focus of this paper is the spatial analysis of the megara found at Mycenae and Pylos as well as their courtyard spaces in terms of capacity and accessibility. While previous architectural analyses have been conducted on the Mycenaean palatial structures, this study is distinct in that it considers the built environment in the context of feasting locales as a way to perpetuate social distinction in terms of capacity and accessibility. Palaima and Wright (1985) predicted the location of the entryways in the destroyed wall sections of the Archives Complex at Pylos in order to demonstrate the relationship between scribal activity and its palatial surrounding. The most recent spatial analysis on Mycenaean megara was conducted by Thaler (2015), who looked at movement into and within these spaces using visual integration and the quality of surface treatment as one moves into the megaron. While his analysis was innovative and brought forth interesting results, Thaler was not focusing on feasting locales, which is where my research attempts to make a new contribution to the scholarship. Wright (2004) alludes to potential feasting locales, but his paper is more of a comprehensive survey giving a detailed and broad description of Mycenaean feasting through archaeological, iconographic, and textual evidence. Wright s extensive special issue in Hesperia, The Mycenaean Feast (2004), has been crucial to this study, which would not have been possible without the research presented in this issue that analyzes various elements that pertain to the Mycenaean Feast. In this edited volume, Stocker and Davis (2004) consider potential feasting locales at Pylos through the large amount of archaeological evidence of a feasting event at the citadel, namely the quantity of specific animal bones, miniature kylikes, and associated Linear B tablets. This spatial study expands upon this

11 Alberti!10 earlier scholarship in order to better understand the nature of the Mycenaean state-sponsored feast within the built environment. This research is novel in that the nature of feasting and the analysis of it through a theoretical lens is a recent and relatively uncommon practice in anthropology: Feasting behavior has been largely ignored by archaeologists since the inception the discipline, and by anthropologists for the last two decades. Many accounts of feasts are described in earlier ethnographies, but few anthropologists address the theoretical importance of feasting in any specific areas. (Dietler and Hayden 2010: 23-24). The fact archaeological interpretation involving feasts is lacking in the discipline could be, in part, due to the limited theoretical attention devoted to the topic in general anthropology. While Wright s edited volume in Hesperia (2004) has given extensive attention to feasting in the Aegean, the research presented in this volume has not considered how feasting functions within politico-religious sphere in terms of ideological manipulation, a concept that is more familiar to research on statecraft. This theoretical framework allows for the application of more common features of the state in a time and place that has very little textual evidence available, and only in the form of administrative documents rather than descriptive narratives or histories. In order to analyze the importance of feasting as a vehicle for social control, it is important to take a more anthropological approach by looking at this event in the broader context of Aegean feasting in the Bronze Age. In Chapter 2, I define what I mean by state-sponsored feast and briefly describe communal eating in complex societies as a way to form social bonds. I then demonstrate how feasting ties in with ritual through key elements such as sacrifice and libations and place this within the context of Aegean feasting throughout the Bronze Age. The

12 Alberti!11 larger part of this brief history on feasting concerns the Aegean from both Minoan and Mycenaean perspectives: what commodities were gathered for larger ritual events, how this process of collecting was organized, who took part in this process, and what types of communal rituals are tied to feasting (e.g., animal sacrifice). Aegean feasting locales in Minoan and Cycladic contexts are also considered, but a more detailed account of Mycenaean feasting locales is presented in Chapter 4. This chapter explains the evidence available for feasting in the Mycenaean world with a heavier focus on Linear B tablets and sealings describing commodity items and donations to the palatial center for a religious event that would undoubtedly follow with a convivial banqueting event. In Chapter 3, I discuss the theoretical framework behind feasting as a representation of a state s power within a ritualistic activity. My primary interests are two-fold: 1) how the feast affects social relationships, increasing social bonding and networking opportunities for the elite and 2) how it provides a platform for maintaining esoteric knowledge, whether it is real or perceived. I employ Fried s theory (1967) of a state s control involving ritualists, those who maintain the power of the state through ideology and are inextricably linked to, and often the same as, those managing the state. One facet of Mann s (1986) organizational power network theory, ideological power, is crucial for understanding how the Mycenaean elite manipulated ideology in ritualistic feasting in order to maintain their status and facilitate order within the Mycenaean palace centers. Control of sacred, esoteric knowledge can be a powerful tool used by stratified societies. Dietler and Hayden (2010) provide crucial ethnographic and archeological evidence as a way for understanding how feasting played into social relations in the past.

13 Alberti!12 Hayden categorizes the feast as a type of social technology that creates and/or facilitates relationships within this specific event. Chapter 4 is exclusively devoted to potential Mycenaean feasting locales and the reasons why I consider the megaron and courtyard spaces as contenders for holding state-sponsored feasts. While other spaces can hold feasts, I am interested in these specifically because a particularly robust set of archaeological data exists that suggest the courtyards at Pylos hosted feasting events. Archaeological evidence in the form of butchered animal bone deposits and large quantities of ceramic vessels suggests that other Aegean courtyard spaces were used to hold feasts, common features that occur at sites like Myrtou-Pigadhes on Cyprus (Steel 2004) or Splantzia (Mylonas 1999) and Phaistos (Borgna 2004) on Crete. The megaron is specifically a Mycenaean feature, and, while the evidence suggests that this space did not hold feasting events, it seems to have a symbolic connection to feasting rituals and events. The Pylian megaron has evidence of a feasting ritual with the presence of miniature votive kylikes and a fresco relating to a feasting and religious event, and so it is assumed that the megaron at Mycenae would function in a similar fashion. I only focus on the palatial centers in terms of potential feasting locales because these centers seem to have supported such events based on the archaeological, iconographic, and textual evidence. The monumentality of these locales also plays a role in how these spaces functioned as they play into the ostentatious displays of the state-sponsored feast. In Chapter 4, I also describe the megaron in the Homeric tradition and how it compares to the physical structure in the archaeological record, the issues with ascribing such a literary term to the physical building, and to what degree does an epic poem recorded in the Archaic period reflect the realities of the late Bronze Age. My rationale for choosing the megaron is that, if it is

14 Alberti!13 not an area where feasting took place, it at the very least contains important symbolic elements that evoke communal eating and associating the role to the wanax; the seat of the Mycenaean king is inextricably linked to ritualized feasting. Because the archaeological evidence is not robust enough to suggest that banqueting occurred in the megaron, I consider the courtyards within close proximity of the megara because they are centralized, open-air, and would have been able to accommodate a large group of people without permanent features obstructing movement and visibility like the hearth in the megara. Chapter 5 is devoted to the spatial analyses of the megara and courtyard spaces of two case studies: Mycenae and Pylos. Plans of these architectural features have been digitized and analyzed using two different programs, Mycenae within ArcMap and Pylos within AutoCAD. 1 I analyze these spaces in terms of capacity and accessibility. In order to further determine the level of exclusivity of the banquet, I look at the maximum capacity within these spaces based on crowd density analyses. The capacity is considered for two different scenarios. The first one is to simply assign a maximum threshold by looking at the standing capacity of a crowd within the total area of each locale. The second one is to assign a capacity based on the presence of banqueting furnishings based on fresco iconography from the megaron at Pylos. With regards to accessibility, I look at how a space restricts access through the placement and number of entryways as well as their size. In my final chapter, Chapter 6, I discuss the results of my architectural analyses and the implications of these analyses on these spaces. I also explore how space accords with the anthropological theories on feasting and ritual, including the limitations of retrojecting modern 1 Using both programs allowed me to explore different technologies and how they compare as analytical spatial technologies.

15 Alberti!14 anthropological models and theories onto Mycenaean society. The limitations and benefits of using AutoCAD and ArcGIS for these analyses are discussed as well as what I hope to do with future research. This chapter concludes with how the Mycenaean elite manipulated ideology through accessibility to ritualized feasting as demonstrated by the architectural remains, an idea that is only enhanced by the Linear B tablets and archaeological evidence of feasting paraphernalia.

16 Alberti!15 Chapter 2: Aegean Feasting 2.1 Feasting in Complex Societies Before describing the history and components of the Mycenaean feast, it is important to establish what I mean by a feast and how the Mycenaean version developed out of a greater spectrum of traditions within the Mediterranean. There are many different kinds of feasts, and just as many definitions and variables. 2 It is a universal phenomenon that has always been considered a consequence of social change and growing social complexity. However, scholars now believe the feast played a more active role in the social arena, contributing more like a catalyst rather than simply being the by-product of social change (Dietler and Hayden 2010: 16-17). In the broadest sense a feast is a ritualistic event consisting of a series of cultural practices that involve communal eating and drinking. Many scholars, however, distinguish a feast as an extraordinary event separate from a more domestic, quotidian, and private consumption of food and drink. Some features of feasting include inebriation, 3 food consumption and sharing (usually with commodities that are more difficult to procure), discussion, and revelry; although idiosyncrasies certainly exist depending on the time, place, and situation. The most important attribute of feasts is that they facilitate social interaction and are crucial in building relationships (Dietler and Hayden 2010: 3-4). A feast can take place virtually anywhere, the only necessary feature is a place to cook, a simple fire, and even that does not need to be in the same area where the convivial occasion 2 Wright defines feasting as the formal ceremony of communal eating and drinking to celebrate significant occasions (2004: 133) while Dalton emphasizes the conspicuous display of power and wealth (1977: 207). 3 This could even be in the form of competitive drinking as Wright suggests for the high concentration of drinking cups at Lerna in the MH period, a trend that seems to have started in the EH (2004: 138).

17 Alberti!16 takes place. Scholars have not reached an agreement upon specifications for interpreting feasting events in a space, let alone specifications for distinguishing them from a typical meal preserved in the archaeological record. This means that ethnographic analogies are important for informing our interpretations of the past feasting events that are indicated in the archaeological record (Dietler and Hayden 2010: 4-5, 9). One of the most important purposes of banqueting is the facilitation of relationships between those in all levels of society; I focus on the aristocracy in this project and how the state hosts events for the purpose of maintaining their positions in society. This is prevalent in many complex societies. For instance, the Aztec partook in competitive feasting when new subordinate kings took power and their kings would host feasts for vassal and enemy states (Smith et al. 2003: 243-5). The state-sponsored feast was fully developed in the Mycenaean period and certainly maintained the social hierarchy; earlier feasting events could have helped with the development of this socially complex culture. 2.2 Minoan and Mycenaean Perspectives Indications of feasting events in the Late Bronze Age are derived from multiple sources, including archaeological and textual evidence. The most robust evidence for a feasting event is the presence of feasting paraphernalia, namely drinking and serving vessels such as kylikes, conical cups, and deep bowls, in highly concentrated quantities. Scholars have defined banqueting locales based on a large quantity of feasting paraphernalia (e.g., see Borgna 2004). It is important, though often difficult, to distinguish a feast from other events. This includes religious rituals, such as offering food and drink to deities, and grave depositions for funerary

18 Alberti!17 rituals. Both of these instances can cause an accumulation of vessels that deceivingly suggest a feast in the archaeological record (Wright 2004: 134). 4 Feasts associated with religious rituals, such as sacrifice, are also distinguishable in the archaeological record with the proximity of butchered calcined bones to an altar, a shrine, or cultic paraphernalia. Many of these animal bones are of a particular type, more specifically the long bones or pieces of the skull, and, most notably, the meat has been removed from the bones prior to burning like the bone deposits at Pylos (Stocker and Davis 2004: 182). To avoid misinterpretations, other pieces of evidence must be considered. While this project is primarily based on the spatial analyses of potential feasting locales, Linear B texts provide an important basis for demonstrating the existence of a statesponsored feast. The Linear B texts enhance the archaeological evidence because they are essentially administrative lists that detail a variety of transactions and available resources; the texts used for this study list commodity items as donations to the gods as well as mention titles of particular individuals involved with the donations. 5 In this study, I look at one particular type of feast with two important parameters: 1) it must contain a religious element such as a sacrifice or libation that is sponsored by the Mycenaean palatial centers and 2) is tied to a core Mycenaean citadel based on the provenance of the Linear B texts and the centrality of the administration. The first factor is considered because the breadth of Linear B evidence describing the offerings of commodity items to the gods suggests that a sacrifice and ritual feast would have ensued. The second factor is important because, as the Linear B evidence suggests, these feasts would have required the organization 4 An example of this is a sanctuary at Kato Syme where a large amount of exceptional drinking chalices were linked to ritualistic activity (Wright 2004: 137). 5 See section 2.5 for a more detailed discussion of Linear B evidence.

19 Alberti!18 and bureaucracy of an administrative center, the cores of the Mycenaean states. Linear B texts are exclusively associated with palaces and so with some certainty, we can assume their close affiliation with the ruling elite. These core centers also contain spacious areas that had the potential to host a feast. Although the textual evidence does not specify a location, some of these feasting locales are interpreted through proxy data in the archaeological record. Some of these venues are even within a close spatial proximity to where concentrations of these Linear B texts have been found. This suggests that the state-sponsored feast was a reoccurring event; it required a designated space within the palatial center. It held importance because it took place in a more monumentalized space with permanent structures, and that it was spatially linked to the ruling and administrative class. As I hope to demonstrate, the evidence from these two factors, namely the feasts association with ritual and the palatial elite, strongly suggests that the statesponsored feast had important socio-political implications; it was an overall inclusive event with an element of exclusivity that only allowed for a select number of participants. This venue was utilized by the elite so that they may distinguish themselves through conspicuous consumption and celebration as well as a way to manipulate the greater population through ideological power. The social dynamics of feasting are complex and dual-natured. They can reinforce relationships among those in the core center and wider community while allowing a certain group to separate and distinguish themselves (Wright 2004: 136). However, the Mycenaean state-sponsored feast seems to have primarily worked to facilitate relationships within the same social strata because of its exclusive elements. I argue that the Mycenaean elite used statesponsored feasting as a way to keep esoteric knowledge within a small group. This specialized knowledge could be political or religious considering the participants and context. The religious

20 Alberti!19 rites of the event would have distinguished the participants by their spiritual obligations and could come across as a more intimate relationship to the divine. The socio-political implications might include such things as participants forming alliances from simply interacting together or creating pacts to be carried out in the future, such as a marriage. Whatever the case, it is more important to understand that this select group would have benefited from safeguarding and perpetuating information among themselves. The Mycenaean feast appears to have shared elements from other Aegean Bronze Age cultures, the Neo-palatial Minoans on the island of Crete in particular (Wright 2004: 137). Due to the similar characteristics of the Minoan and Mycenaean feast, it is important to show how the two compare and which elements the Mycenaeans seem to have appropriated. Because this study also focuses on exclusion, based on the architectural analysis of feasting locales, it is insightful to analyze Minoan feasting spaces. Borgna distinguishes two types of feasts in Minoan culture, one that was more inclusive linked to social identity and one that was restricted to the elites (Borgna 2004: 247) and, at the risk of simplifying the situation into a linear evolutionary path, it appears that there is a more conscious distinction between these two different feasts as the Bronze Age progressed. From the Early Minoan period, feasting seems to have taken place in conjunction with other ritual events, such as funerals (Borgna 2004: 256); no palatial centers exist at this time and so feasting paraphernalia are associated in other contexts. The archaeological evidence for the EM period includes conical cups and serving vessels; their link to a larger feast hinges on their quantity in a space (Borgna 2004: 257). Borgna and others suggest that the feast was associated with religious ritual at this time, in the same way that popular gathering places would have been

21 Alberti!20 at sanctuaries (2004: 257). A more communal event is also suggested by the large chalice that would have been appropriate for sharing (Borgna 2004: 262). In the Middle Minoan period the characteristics of feasting seem to change, with the emergence of palatial centers. New vessel types emerged including fine Kamares ware, which is characteristic of the elite serving and drinking ware in these core centers (Borgna 2004: 258-9). Like the Linear B tablets associated with the feast at Pylos, Phaistos at this time has feasting paraphernalia associated with administrative Linear A tablets (Borgna 2004: 259). 6 This establishes a connection between the organization of commodity items and the feast itself; it appears that the Minoan palatial centers sponsored feasts just as the Mycenaean centers would later on. There seems to be a shift toward a more exclusive event that will only intensify in the LM period. 7 On the mainland in the MH, certain drinking vessels were preferred, specifically the kantharos, straight-sided cup, and goblet, deposited in mortuary contexts, for example in Grave Circle A at Mycenae (Wright 2004: 138). Social change and increased interaction with outside cultures are also reflected in the Late Helladic when foreign ceramic forms are found with indigenous ones. An increased preference for metal feasting paraphernalia, as opposed to clay, is also evident (Wright 2004: 138). It should be noted that, contrary to traditional thought, the rise of social complexity leading to the palatial societies of the Mycenaeans seems to have been independent of Minoan influence (Dabney and Wright 1990: 47) and that, while obvious 6 These administrative documents were found in Room 25 (Borgna 2004: 259); presumably this refers to the Linear A texts found within a destruction layer of the MM IIB (La Rosa 2010: 585). 7 While not discussed in this study, a repertoire of Minoan religious motifs were adopted by the Mycenaeans. This includes the double-axe motif, which was associated with both military power and ritual sacrifice (Lupack 2010: 270-1). This shows the Mycenaean appropriation of features from a Minoan palatial context and the association of a tool used in ritual sacrifice with the palatial center.

22 Alberti!21 exchange and interaction took place between the Mycenaeans and the Minoans, it is unclear and almost impossible to determine which religious practices and institutions are indigenous and which ones are appropriated. 2.3 What Constitutes a Mycenaean Feast: Paraphernalia, Food, and Drink The archaeological evidence for a Mycenaean feast includes different types of feasting and cooking paraphernalia, food in the form of butchered and burnt animal bones, and drink deduced from vessel forms and preserved residues. It is the presence of these items in a relatively large quantity that represents a feasting event in the archaeological record and so it is important to give some attention in describing these features. 8 In terms of Mycenaean feasting paraphernalia, the most prevalent item is the kylix drinking cup. The kylix has a long stem and wide angular or rounded body with either one or two handles, which makes this form appropriate for communal drinking as it can be held more than one way to facilitate movement with a drink and can be easily passed between drinkers (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). They kylix is an interesting form because it is also associated with cultic activity and has been found in religious contexts, most likely to offer libations (Lupack 2010: 270). This form has also been identified in the Pylian Archives Complex and Throne Room as miniatures. They stand only a few centimeters tall, which makes them impractical drinking vessels, but their purpose is unclear and has been linked to some sort of ritualistic function as they have been labeled as votive kylikes (Figure 2.3, Stocker and Davis 2004: 188). The kylix is heavily associated with religious activity at Mycenae as many of these vessels have been 8 Only items directly linked to a feasting event is considered in this section. There are, of course, other types of paraphernalia that are linked to the feast, including those used for storage.

23 Alberti!22 found in the cult center (French 1999: 154). Other ritualistic artifacts include rhyta, offering tables, and figurines that are either votives or cultic images (Lupack 2010: 270). Drinks that have been identified include resinated wine, barley beer, and honey mead (McGovern 1999: 176). Interestingly, wine could be mixed with narcotics and stimulants such as rue (Martlew 1999: 163), which would have no doubt impact the senses thereby enhancing any religious experience at these events. 9 The most robust evidence of food present at a banquet the presence of butchered animal remains, usually from cattle, deer, sheep, goats or pigs. Animal bones in feasting contexts are often found together, burnt, and with butchering marks. These contexts are often linked with religious ritual as many of the spaces are nearby cult areas or are associated with cultic paraphernalia; however, the types of prevalent animal bones are also important as they seem to have been used as offerings to the gods prior to feasting (Stocker and Davis 2004: 182). The long bones are specifically tied to ritual sacrifice. An Archaic text, although it is a much later example, explains why the gods receive bones without the meat in Hesiod s Theogony when the Titan Prometheus tricks Zeus into choosing the less desirable offering: For at Mekone, once there was a test when gods and mortal men divided up an ox; Prometheus audaciously set out the portions, trying to deceive the mind of Zeus. Before the rest, he put pieces of meat and marbled inner parts and fat upon the hide, and hid them in the stomach of the ox; but before Zeus the white bones of the ox, arranged with skill, hidden in shining fat (Hes. Th., , trans. by Wender 1973:40-1) 9 For a much more comprehensive analysis of the role of drinking in Mycenaean religion, see Whittaker (2008).

24 Alberti!23 Prometheus tricked Zeus into taking the white long-bones of the ox. Zeus, having discovered this trick, punishes mankind to live without fire; however, Prometheus manages to bring fire to humans (Hes. Th., ). While this source is anachronistic, it does present an interesting mythology to explain why the gods receive certain cuts of meat, especially since our best examples of calcined bone deposits primarily contain humerus and femur bones, as well as the mandible from the skull, perhaps signifying that the meat has been removed for eating while the gods are left with the bones wrapped in the aromatic, yet deceitful pieces of fat. These specific types of calcined bones are often found in feasting and ritual contexts the lack of other animal parts is strange since, presumably, they would not be wasted. Sherratt proposes that the bones and more difficult pieces of meat were used in stews (2004: 314), the only evidence of which comes from possible cooking and dining vessels. For example, the deep bowl appears to be a multi-functional vessel that held both wine and meat according to residue analyses (Martlew 1999:184). Stews would have been cooked in more robust vessels such as a tripod cooking vessel while other pieces of meat could be cooked on the so-called souvlaki tray ; examples of both have been found in the cult center at Mycenae (French 1999: ). The Mycenaean feast would have provided large quantities of meat and wine. The 10 cattle represented in Room 7 at Pylos alone could have fed approximately 1000 people (Stocker and Davis 2004: 192). 10 This deposit alone, which is only one of five around the palace, 10 The meat seems to have been immediately eaten as the bones were calcined with butcher marks. The available archaeological evidence does not suggest that butchered meat was stored for long periods of time as an excess amounts of salt was not found to suggest meat curing took place for later use. However, the meat had been cut off the bone prior to burning, so it is possible that these pieces were cured prior to the burning of the bones. It does appear that the bones were wrapped in fat, which caused them to burn intensely as their state suggests.

25 Alberti!24 suggests a highly attended feasting event, suggesting that it was inclusive. 11 However, the spaces of potential feasting locales would not have been able to accommodate such large numbers and, in fact, it seems that certain activities of the feast were more exclusive as the ritualistic miniature kylikes from Pylos suggest. 2.4 Feasting Locales In terms of feasting locales, the Minoan palaces on Crete seem to be equipped to support different types of rooms for feasts in the Proto- and Neopalatial periods (Borgna 2004: 257). These banquets appear to have been exclusionary, as the elaborate and monumental locales suggest that activities of manipulation and consumption were at the palaces expense and were subject to highly structured ritual codes, possibly including the institution of tribute to support the organization of feasts (Borgna 2004: 257). Many of these banqueting rooms are located in the western wing of the Minoan palaces, which is considered the cultic and ritual center thus suggesting that the palatial feast had a more religious connotation (Borgna 2004: 257). Banqueting at took place at Phaistos dating to the LM III period during the Mycenaean occupation of Crete. It should be noted that Phaistos at this stage is considered a chiefdom (Borgna 2004: 254), which has different social and political implications than the Mycenaean state. A large amount of feasting paraphernalia, including deep bowls and kraters, has been found at the highly visible locale of the Acropoli Mediana, a highpoint to the west of the palace at Phaistos. Due to the high concentration of ceramic vessels with many variations of the fabric and morphology, Borgna has interpreted this locale hosting an inclusive type of feast with the 11 This deposit in Room 7 at Pylos was of special consideration since it is in the same context as the miniature kylikes and administrative tablets.

26 Alberti!25 possibility of different Phaistian neighborhoods communing in a shared space (2004: 248). These vessel types, based on Mycenaean functional models, also show the reciprocal relationship between Mycenaean and Minoan feasting practices (Borgna 2004: 250). The deep bowls and kraters also show that wine was consumed, much like the Mycenaean practice (Borgna 2004: 256). While some level of exclusion seems to have taken place at this locale, there is a conscious effort to identify as a group rather than individually as the mass-produced and undistinguished ceramics suggest (Borgna 2004: 262). The western court at the palace of Phaistos is an example of a more restricted feasting locale that contains vessels dating to the LM IIIB and LM IIIC period. This locale seems to have additional ritualistic significance, possibly in the form of gift exchange, as indicated by the ritual furniture (e.g., pictorial stand), kraters, and bronzes (knives and sickles) found there (Borgna 2004: 255). These spaces seem to have been an integral part of palatial architecture in the Aegean as they are a common feature within the both Minoan and Mycenaean palatial centers. Potential feasting locales throughout the Late Bronze Age are discussed in further detail in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 contains a more detailed analysis of the megaron and closely associated courtyard space within Mycenae and Pylos. 2.5 Linear B Evidence: Ritualized Feasting and the Mycenaean Palatial Economy One of the main lines of evidence that enhance our understanding of the Mycenaeans compared to other Aegean cultures is textual evidence. Scholars have used Linear B texts to better understand the Mycenaean economy, agricultural wealth, religion, and more pertinent to this study, feasting. The Linear B evidence is crucial in establishing the occurrence of a

27 Alberti!26 Mycenaean state-sponsored feast; it is a palatial marker, demonstrating how involved the state was in managing and recording inventories. While not made explicit, the offerings mentioned in such texts are most likely components of a sacrificial ritual. The character of such a ritual implies that the sacrifices inevitably led to a feast, for which substantial archaeological evidence exists. Even though a feast is not explicitly mentioned, scholars established a clear relationship between the allocated commodities, sacrifice, and feasting. The sacrifice and feast are, of course, implicit in many of these texts. Other texts more clearly link the convivial consumption of food to a more religious aspect. Not only are the commodity items listed in these texts, but also the inventories of banqueting paraphernalia and instruments of cult thus linking the state-sponsored feast with religious activity (Palaima 2004: 218). The tablets and sealings containing Linear B text come from different Mycenaean centers, especially Pylos, Thebes, and Knossos. Due to the limited textual evidence for feasting, texts from multiple sites are analyzed in order to get a more general understanding of the Mycenaean state-sponsored feast. While there may be religious or feasting characteristics particular to each center, the available texts are relatively uniform in terms of administration systems. This uniformity suggests a more widespread feasting practice among Mycenaean centers (Palaima 2004: 220). For the purposes of this project it is more beneficial to compile the data from multiple sites and analyze them together rather than try to establish the different ritualistic practices but it is still important to recognize the potential for idiosyncrasies with respect to this dataset. In order to demonstrate the connection between religious ritual and feasting within the palatial centers, I have chosen a small sample of Linear B tablets from Pylos and Thebes. All of these tablets describe some component pertaining to either donations or the

28 Alberti!27 management of feasting paraphernalia. It should be noted that some of the scholarly interpretations of these tablets, particularly PY Ta 711, are somewhat speculative, but they are still important to consider when describing the administrative aspects of Mycenaean feasting. The most informative texts come from Pylos as they place the offering of commodity items within a religious context. One of the best examples of this is PY Un 718, which describes food and drink offerings to Poseidon: at sa-ra-pe-da donation(s) to Poseidon to the sheep-flayers a donation of such an amount: e-ke-ra2-wo will give wheat 384 liters, wine 86.4 liters, cattle 1 cheese 10 units, fleece hide 1 of honey 4.8 liters thus also the dāmos wheat 192 liters, wine 57.6 liters sheep 2, cheese 5 units, anointing oil 3.2 liters, hide 1 and so much the lāwāgetās will contribute sheep 2, flour grain 57.6 liters wine 19.2 liters thus also the wo-ro-ki-jo-ne-jo ka-ma wheat 57.6 liters, wine 9.6 liters, cheese 5 units honey 9.6 liters (Un 718, trans. by Nakassis 2012: 3) This commodity tablet is commonly interpreted as an inventory of donations for a feast in the sara-pe-da region (Nakassis 2012:2). It demonstrates wine s importance as an offering as it is the only commodity that each donor provides (Palmer 1994: 103). 12 It should be noted that all of these offerings would have been used in a single feasting event; the commodities intended for Poseidon could have helped to support the politico-religious sector in a type of temple economy model. 12 Palmer, whose analysis focuses on Mycenaean viticulture, postulates that the quantity of wine shows that it was readily available for collection; however, its availability does not imply accessibility as wine does not appear in tablets that are used to describe the rations that would be distributed to the lower class working within the palatial complex (1994: 117, 119). It should be noted that the wine ideogram is found in other religious contexts such as tablets found at Knossos, but the amount would be too small to accommodate a larger number of people participating in a feast (Palmer 1994: 125). The ability to donate wine is significant since it is a product that requires fecund land and intensive labor, resources that were not accessible to everybody (Palmer 1994: 187).

29 Alberti!28 The head of the Mycenaean centers was the wanax who as chief political authority controlled at least part of the religious, economic and military life of the Mycenaean state (Shelmerdine 2008: 129). The wanax would have overseen donations described in the Linear B texts. PY Un 718 describes a few important donors including the dāmos, lāwāgetās, wo-ro-ki-jo-ne-jo ka-ma, and e-ke-ra-wo. It is unclear exactly who these groups or people were; it seems that the dāmos is a body within the palatial administration associated with agricultural production, the lāwāgetās seems to be an individual also associated with palatial administration, the wo-ro-ki-jo-ne-jo ka-ma could have been involved with landholders or managers, and the e- ke-ra-wo has been equated to the wanax because of the large amount of donations the e-ke-ra-wo provided (Nakassis 2012: 2-4, 14). 13 The lāwāgetās has been identified as another high-ranking official, often considered second only to the wanax (Kelder 2010:15). If the e-ke-ra-wo was the wanax, 14 the large donation associated with king could represent both an obligation and a social strategy (Nakassis 2012: 2). PY Tn 316 is another Pylian tablet that describes the donations of gold feasting paraphernalia to multiple deities: Within [the month] of Plowistos (?) performs the holy ritual at Sphagianes, and brings gifts that leads Pylos po-re-na to Potnia gold kylix 1 woman 1 to Manassa gold bowl 1 woman 1 to Posidaeia gold bowl 1 woman 1 to Thrice-Hero gold chalice 1 to House-Master gold kylix 1 (PY Tn 316, trans. by Palaima 2004: 240-1) This text describes a specific ritual that was religious in nature because the participants donated items to deities. The received donations are prestigious feasting paraphernalia, the chalice and kylix being more closely associated to drinking and revelry. The reverse of the tablet continues 13 This term has even been speculated to be a personal name for the king at Pylos (Nakassis 2012:1) and, if this is so, it shows some level of familiarity between the king and the other groups/individuals mentioned. 14 It has even been suggested that this is the only instance of a named wanax (Kelder 2010: 15).

30 Alberti!29 to describe donations at the sanctuaries of Iphimedeia and Diwia with similar donations (Palaima 2004: 241). Six sealings from Thebes, TH Wu 46, TH Wu 56, TH Wu 58, TH Wu 64, TH Wu 76, and TH Wu 88, all describe an animal that has been brought for sacrifice as implied by the term o-pa. According to Palaima, this term means that the animals were in a condition that made them eligible for sacrifice (2004: 237-8). 15 A deity has yet to be associated with these sealings, but the act of sacrificing implies a ritual that is religious in nature. In regards to cooking and banqueting furniture, a number of tablets from Pylos in the PY Ta series record specific items, some of which are lacking in the archaeological record. These implements include braziers, fire tongs, and kindling equipment (Bernabé and Luján 2008: 226). This equipment would have been associated with cooking areas in the palace, for which a definitive location has yet to be assigned. 16 PY Ta 711 is one such tablet that is interpreted as describing feasting paraphernalia: pu2-ke-qu-ri saw as follow (??), when the king appointed 17 au-ke-wa as/the dāmo-ko-ro; ewer of wanasseus type (?), with bull s head, with sea-shells; ewer of cartwright type (?), decorated with curves (?); ewer of wanasseus type (?), of women type (?), with bull s head decorated with torsades (PY Ta 711 trans. by Duhoux 2008: 316) This tablet is a description of different types of ewers listed by an individual named pu2-ke-qu-ri, jugs with wide mouths that were ornately embellished and decorated. It is assumed that these 15 The term o-pa is translated as finishing and can refer to more than one thing, including the fattening of an animal prior to slaughter or placing the finishing touches on manufactured products (Palaima 2004: 227). 16 See Chapter 3 for further discussion of the megaron with regard to feasting. 17 Thēke, translated as appointed here, can be translated as buried with additional funerary terms lacking in this text. However, Duhoux does not dismiss the possibility that this text refers to mortuary practices (2008: 316).

31 Alberti!30 vessels were metal (Duhoux 2008: 316), which makes them more valuable and extraordinary. The bull s head could mean that these vessels were rhyta, a vessel used for libations and typically associated with religious ritual. It is clear that the individual au-ke-wa was appointed as the dāmo-ko-ro, a high official (Duhoux 2008: 316), but it is speculated that the dāmo-ko-ro was responsible for overseeing sacrificial and feasting paraphernalia (Palaima 2004: 234). These texts demonstrate the substantial involvement of the palatial administration with religious activity involving feasting. The Linear B tablets and sealings are also spatially associated with Mycenaean palaces and are a special feature of the core centers. In the case of Pylos, Linear B texts were found associated with burnt animal bones and in rooms nearby potential feasting locales. These documents were essential to the elites management of palatial affairs, but they also attest to the ruling body s use of a religious and presumably highly conspicuous event in order to create a sense of legitimate superiority cloaked in ideology. The Mycenaean state-sponsored feast provided an opportunity for the elite to distinguish themselves in an ostentatious ritual, which at times could also be secretive and exclusive, thereby legitimizing power through their hold on specialized and restricted knowledge.

32 Alberti!31 Chapter 3: State Manipulation of Ideological Power 3.1 Introduction The Mycenaean state-sponsored feast appears to have been ritualistic with its ties to religious activity, the impressiveness of which increased by the monumentality of the palatial complex. While the feasting event itself my have been more inclusive, it seems that particular rituals had varying degrees of participation. For example, the procession and might have been a more heavily attended event based on the fresco iconography depicting a long line of participants. However, if the miniature kylikes have a religious connection and each one is supposed to represent a participant as the Linear B PY Ta tablet suggests, it would seem that a smaller, restrictive feasting ritual took place within a larger, more inclusive event. The exclusivity of the feast seems to play into aristocracy s role of maintaining power; certain individuals are distinguished by participating in the feast. 18 Instances would have occurred when spectators would have been reminded of the state s power in highly visible events such as the procession of goods and sacrificial animals, and the potential separation of the elite could suggest exclusive access to specialized knowledge (whether real or perceived), as well as the potential to form advantageous social bonds. In this chapter, I discuss the theoretical framework behind feasting as a representation of power within a ritualistic activity inspired by Mann s organizational power network theory. In order to better contextualize Mann s theory, I describe Fried s work on how a state legitimizes sovereignty through ideology. I consider how control of sacred, esoteric knowledge can be a powerful tool used for control in stratified societies. Dietler and Hayden (2010) provide crucial 18 See chapter 2 for further discussion on participants and contributors in the Linear B tablets.

33 Alberti!32 ethnographic and archeological evidence as a way for understanding how feasting played into social relations in the past. I aim to demonstrate the motivations behind a Mycenaean statesponsored feast and why it was important to keep it centrally located in a monumentalized context. Maran (2006) elaborates on the function of the built environment as its influence on social practices are pertinent to the large and complex feasting event. 3.2 The Palaces in the Mycenaean Political Landscape It is generally agreed upon that the Mycenaean realm was composed of different palacecentered states that were autonomous yet shared a uniform culture; a model that is derived from Linear B texts and which describes the palaces as storehouses and administrative centers (Kelder 2010: 1). The wanax was the central authority figure who took part in religious, economic, and military functions (Kelder 2010: 11). The Mycenaeans maintained a dominate presence in the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age from around 1400 BCE until the destructions of the palatial centers at around 1200/1180 BCE and beyond. Some palatial sites in the Middle Bronze Age were built upon previous settlements (Kelder 2010: 7). Mycenaean culture develops in the transition between MH III and LH I (ca BCE) periods when social stratification and complexity was increasing. 19 There seems to be continuity between the two periods, at least with regards to settlement and cemetery locales (Dabney and Wright 1990:48-50). Pylos and Mycenae were both settled by the Middle Bronze Age; Pylos has an earlier settlement dating to 2000 BCE (Shelmerdine 1998: 81) and Grave Circle B at Mycenae dates to the MH around BCE (Gates 2011: 131). Increased social stratification is observed on the mainland during the Middle Helladic period and continuity from the MH through the LH is evident at these 19 These dates follow the chronology after Gates (2011: 118).

34 Alberti!33 two sites as well as Voidokoilia in Messenia and Marathon in Attica (Dabney and Wright 1990: 48-9). Mycenae held quite a presence in the Argolid, but the palace underwent several stages of development before its destruction. Grave Circle B was in use by the MH period and some buildings might have been constructed at this time, including the Ramp House and Tsountas House (Iakovidis et al. 2003: 9). Grave Circle A was in use in the 16th century BCE and was not originally encircled by the circuit wall, which had started construction in the LH IIIA2 period. These cyclopean walls were built in multiple stages in the LH IIIA-B periods ( BCE) with the monumental Lions Gate entrance and built around 1250 BCE (LH IIIB) as well as an extension that wrapped around Grave Circle A (Morgan 2005: 159). A large-scale building and remodeling program of the citadel started in the LH IIIA2 period, which includes the building of the megaron in its current location (Iakovidis et al. 2003: 10). At the end of the 13th century, the palace experienced a series of fires, but many of these buildings were repaired. Mycenae continued to be inhabited through the 12th century in the LH IIIC period (Iakovidis et al. 2003: 10). As previously mentioned, a group settled at Pylos as early as 2000 BCE with the remains of a fortified wall dating to 1700 BCE (Shelmerdine 1998: 81). The exact building sequence of the palace is unclear, as the later buildings were built on top of the earlier ones. Some of the structures date to the end of the 14th century but were replaced by a new palace (Shelmerdine 1998: 81). The palace was destroyed at around 1200 BCE, but it was reoccupied by a small group, presumably squatters, during the so called Dark Age (Griebel and Nelson 1998: 97). The palace prior to its reoccupation was in ruin; however, the site s setting makes it highly defensible

35 Alberti!34 for the sporadic and temporary settlements that followed in the Dark Age (Griebel and Nelson 1998: 100). The Pylian palace itself was not built upon or modified after the Early Iron Age and strange and sporadic nature of Messenian settlement is not entirely understood; this is in part due to the Spartan subjugation of Messenia in the 7th century BCE (Harrison and Spencer 1998: 152). While the Pylian kingdom seems to have been roughly the area of modern day Messenia, the Mycenaean kingdom appears much larger spanning into the Argolid, Korinthia, and Achaea (Kelder 2010: 9). Mycenae was occupied into the 5th century BCE, but with a smaller population and little building activity (Kelder 2010: 93). Unfortunately, we do not have the detailed Linear B texts that describe the kingdom of Mycenae as we do for Pylos. 3.3 Fried, a State s Legitimacy, and the Ritualists Fried, in his work on the progression of societies and their different stages, argues for the continued use of the ambiguous term state with clearly defined characteristics in anthropological and sociological literature. In an attempt to disambiguate the term and everything it encompasses, Fried describes a state s basic features and tactics for maintaining itself internally and externally (1967: 239). Although Fried s evolutionary approach to a society s development is an antiquated idea in anthropological thought at this point, his analysis of common state features and the mechanisms behind their rule is insightful and applicable to this study. Essentially, he argues that the state must maintain internal sovereignty in ways other than raw power, specifically through ideology, which Mann later uses as an important characteristic in his subsequent description of the state. Rulers must maintain, or be perceived to

36 Alberti!35 maintain, some form of esoteric knowledge and that no state known has ever been devoid of an ideology that consecrated its powers and sanctioned its use (Fried 1967: 238-9). One way a state perpetuates its sovereignty is through its agencies that work under the rulers, those working within ideology are termed as ritualists (Fried 1967: 239). Political authority and economic power were entwined in Aegean societies and in fact, Mycenaean sanctuaries can be associated with workshops. The Pylian Northeast Building seems to work as both shrine and workshop (Lupack 2008: 19-20) and Knossos has a LM II-IIIA stone vase workshop associated with its cult center in the West Magazine (Lupack 2008: 31). This temple economy could also explain the lists of commodities brought in for the gods and the detailed accounts required to manage the stored items. The role of the ruler vis a vis the religious sphere is nebulous, but it seems to have been a mutually beneficial exchange. The religious leaders apparently legitimized the wanax s power, likewise the wanax s acknowledgement of certain sanctuaries legitimized those sites (Lupack 2008: 44). This is further complicated by the overlapping roles of the elite and the religious hierarchy. The Mycenaean state used the statesponsored feast as a venue in order to legitimize their rule using ideology. I will discuss the implications of esoteric and perceived esoteric knowledge under Mann s Theory of the Organizational Power Network in the following section, but it is worth noting this need and the apparent universality concerning the state s use of ideological power. This also puts an importance of exclusivity on the Mycenaean state-sponsored feast in order for it to function in a way that maintains the sovereignty of its rulers; they must monopolize esoteric knowledge (perceived or not) in order to distinguish themselves and show that they have legitimate reasons

37 Alberti!36 to be in positions of power. It helps them with their task to maintain general order and to defend central order (Fried 1967: 230). Socially stratified and complex societies often have high ranking individuals who are affiliated with the religious sphere (Fried 1967:137). Fried goes further to associate a society s religious rituals with feasting events, noting the relationship within societies in which status is linked to lineage rather than merit: Given the value of nearness of relationship, recognizing the overlap between the ancestors and the significant gods, acknowledging the close tie between religious ritual and episodes of feasting (my emphasis), it is understandable that rank and religious status would be vested in the same individual (1967: 137). It is a typical characteristic of socially stratified societies that the elite are inherently closely involved with religion. Aside from the presented textual and archaeological evidence, there is an apparent universality in stratified societies in which the leaders are typically involved with religious ritual; it seems likely that the Mycenaean elite played an active role in the religious sphere. This, in turn, helped those managing the Mycenaean state to use ideological power in order to manipulate the larger society as a whole. 3.4 Mann s Theory of the Organizational Power Network This research uses one facet of Mann s organizational power network theory, the state s maintenance of ideological power. This is crucial for understanding how the Mycenaean elite manipulated ideology in ritualistic feasting in order to maintain their status and facilitate order within the Mycenaean centers. According to Mann, societies work within four types of power networks: ideological, economic, militaristic, and political. These networks are essentially used

38 Alberti!37 as a way to steer the majority within a society towards the same collective goals in order to, theoretically, benefit the majority within that society (Mann 1986: 2). 20 Ideological power, the most common network operating within the religious sphere, can encourage efficiency within a group. As Mann states, An ideological movement that increases the mutual trust and collective morale of a group may enhance their collective powers and be rewarded with more zealous adherence. To monopolize norms is thus a route to power (1986: 22). Manipulating an ideological power network can not only be beneficial not only for the society as a whole in terms of increasing trust and the overall spirit of a group, but also in terms of maintaining power efficiently while at the same placing it within a deeper religious context that can be more meaningful for the participants. This mechanism can be applied to the state-sponsored Mycenaean feast with some important changes because the feast seems to have been primarily inclusive with exclusive elements. Aspects of the events that took place in conjunction with a feast would have been more highly visible. The procession of goods and animals, as demonstrated by fresco fragments, moving into what is presumably the palatial area would have been a quite the spectacle. The banquet event itself might have had some visibility to those within the palace even though it took place within palatial walls. 21 This pomp and circumstance would contribute to the heightened importance of such an event. Non-elite participants in a feast would witness a visual demonstration of the state s ability to gather and organize resources, a testament to its power and capabilities; Mycenaean elites were able to aggrandize their position. This ostentatious event is 20 For example, a priest in a Christian church may convince the congregation to follow certain policies based on an interpretation in doctrine. 21 See Thaler (2015) for further discussion on the movement in-between and within spaces on the palaces of Mycenae, Pylos, and Tiyrns with visual integration and changing surface qualities.

39 Alberti!38 marked with further importance with the monumentality of feasting locales, which themselves have some degree of visibility from the perspective of outsiders, at least within the palatial area. 22 These outsiders would have been able to at least witness the procession leading to the palace prior to the feasting event. The exclusivity of the feasting event would give a smaller group of people greater accessibility to restricted information and the potential to maintain and improve social situations by forming bonds and pacts with others within the group. This private affair could also function, or be perceived, as the maintenance and perpetuation of esoteric knowledge. This could be religious due to the nature of the event, which would add to the participants ideological authority within the center. Mann describes one manifestation of ideological power with religious practices, such as the procession; he states that a distinctive power is conveyed through song, dance, visual art forms, and rituals (1986: 22-3). The acquisition of privileged knowledge at the Mycenaean banquet can work in two ways it can be perceived as a special and authoritative information based on a religious connection and also acquired information that is exclusive to those ruling. 3.5 Hayden and Social Technology Hayden believes that feasting behavior is primarily motivated by feasting relationships. He uses the term social technology, which is defined as: 22 the creation and maintenance of social relationships that are predicted on securing access to resources, labor, or security. Other facets of social technology certainly include many aspects of kinship (real and fictive), ritual, gift giving, and language. Indeed, since all these behaviors can have the same ultimate goal, such as establishing subsistence or defensive alliances, it is far from coincidental that they all tend to occur and be used For further discussion, see Thaler (2015).

40 Alberti!39 together in the same contexts, although the relative emphasis may vary from one instance to another. Development of such an elaborate social technology (rather than material technology, communication, or intellectual abilities) is perhaps the most distinctive aspect of human nature that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. (Hayden 2010: 26) Many facets of social preservation occur in feasting contexts, especially in terms of forming advantageous bonds. These bonds can later be used to acquire other important goods or services, such as resources and security as Hayden notes. The acquisition of specific resources is already detailed in the Linear B tablets, which describe certain participants as I have already discussed in the Chapter 2. The social consequences of the state-sponsored feast has important implications as to why it would be held in a powerful and politically-centered area, the palatial complex. This location allows elites to congregate in a conspicuous way that also facilitates their ability to communicate with other high ranking elites. While some aspects of the feast would have most likely been highly visible, such as the procession, the architecture of the feasting locales would prevent outsiders from participating. 23 This would keep the competition and social benefits to a minimum as well as allow for the most desired social relationships to be acquired among a group seeking political and social power. One form of social manipulation that is inherent in the feast is the debt relationship. Hayden describes this integral part of feasting and that one of the most powerful enforcing criteria is the acceptance of contractual debt when one accepts an invitation to a feast intended to create social bonds or reciprocal obligations (2010: 35). 3.6 Power and Space: The Centralization and Monumentality of Feasting Locales 23 See Chapters 4 and 5 for further discussion and architectural analyses.

41 Alberti!40 Now that the theoretical framework explaining the probability, practicality, and motivations of the Mycenaean elite s deep involvement in religious ideology has been established, it is important to show how the feasting locales are evocative of ritual and rule in terms of centralization and monumentality. Architecture plays an important role in demonstrating power since a built environment can function as both document and precondition of social realities, both platform for the self-projection of those in power and an arena for a continuing renegotiation of power, both a medium of codified messages and a means of spatial ordering (Maran et al. 2006: preface). The built environment is a reflection of the society; the form, in theory, should follow the functions required of that society s practices, including feasting events. A space, however, is not always built for one intended purpose and rather than being built for a particular social practice, it can work to further encourage social practices in what is termed the duality of structure (Maran 2006: 75). In this way, the structures of the Mycenaean palace are dynamic. I propose that the state-sponsored feast is centrally located in the Mycenaean palatial centers, allowing for the direct spatial association between the seat of the elites and the feasting event. Not only does this create a strong association, but logistically, organizing a feast in the palatial center would be the easiest for those in charge of arrangements, especially given the close proximity of the storage facilities. Most of the literature focusing on Mycenaean architecture in the citadels focuses on their defensive capabilities; however, Maran characterizes the Mycenaean citadels as performative spaces that were built to guide visitors and inhabitants according to the aesthetics and forms of the built environment (2006). Those approaching the Mycenaean palatial centers of Mycenae and

42 Alberti!41 Tiryns are immediately confronted with their monumentality with the cyclopean architecture, a testament to the organizational capabilities and resources of the core area. 24 The palatial structures within the walls were highly visible, but the events taking place within them, including courtyard spaces, were obscured by walls and other buildings. The Pylian palace, however, does not have cyclopean walls surrounding it, which makes the it more visible to onlookers. This palace has an advantage in terms of defense since it sits on the Ano Englianos ridge (Davis 1998: xxxiii). The level of visibility from outsiders, those not actively participating in the events, is disputed as some scholars believe that they could have watched from the surrounding buildings of Mycenae and Tiryns rather than be blocked by them (Maran 2006: 79-80). In fact, it is commonly believed that the courtyard space in front of the megaron at Mycenae, the very one that I propose to be a feasting locale, held a parapet for spectators on its southern side (Maran 2006: 80). Processions, which would have most likely taken place prior to the feasting event, are a type of presentation that would have worked with the Mycenaean citadels as a performative space 25: In the case of the Mycenaean citadels, processions are likely to have been the kind of interaction which left the most marked imprint on the layout of architecture. During the processions, the meaning encoded in certain architectural cues was recalled by the participants and integrated by into ritual practices through which the social order and the relation to supernatural powers were simultaneously expressed and newly constituted. (Maran 2006: 85) 24 Cyclopean fortifications, however, were not always apart of the Mycenaean built environment. The earliest example comes from Tiryns in LH IIIA2 (first half of 14th century) and Mycenae s fortifications were built in multiple stages, starting in the LH IIIA2 period in the mid 14th century but primarily dating to the LH IIIB period in the mid 13th century (Maner 2012: 63). Pylos does not have any fortifications, which could be because of its advantageous position on a ridge. A performative space is not exclusive to those spaces that host feasts. It is a term that can describe any 25 area that hosts a spectacle, performance, or ritual.

43 Alberti!42 The procession that seems to be such an essential feature to the state-sponsored feast held a high level of interplay with built environment in which it took place. While we do not know the exact route of such processions, we may deduce that the destination was most likely the megaron based on the fresco iconography from Pylos (Maran 2006: 78). The courtyard spaces and megaron would have been equally involved as physical expressions of the exclusivity of the Mycenaean feast and the power of its participants. Wright also argues that the palace was built to draw visitors into its center as the entire spatial organization of the palaces is one of a progressive movement through concentric rings of space to a central point, the monumental hearth at the center of the megaron (2006: 61). The Mycenaean palace is a space that manipulated and controlled its visitor s experience through the built environment. This spatial manipulation is extended to the locales that held state-sponsored feasting events. These banquets were not simply held in a location that met the most basic requirements for such an event; they were held in centrally monumentalized areas that controlled the participation and visibility of certain components that made up the event.

44 Alberti!43 Chapter 4: Potential Feasting Locales 4.1 Introduction One of the most prominent features of the Mycenaean state is the palace around which everything was centered including administration, production, and religion; it is a physical reflection of the Mycenaean social structure (Wright 2006a: 7-8). The development of the palace seems to have started through a more organic process with regional variation until later in the LH IIIA2 (ca BCE) when they appear more uniform and share similarities (Wright 2006a: 8). These commonalities in Mycenaean palatial planning and, by extension its administration and social structure, coincide with the uniformity of the Linear B texts. 26 Spaces were monumentalized and stood as a testament to the increased competition and the conspicuous display of power and wealth. The period in which this occurs lasts from the LH II-III (ca ) period when Mycenaean elites were more politically and militarily involved in external affairs (Wright 2006a: 13). Monumentalization can be attributed to greater social stratigraphy and so it could work hand-in-hand with establishment of a group s social standing. The monumentalization of a space demonstrates one s command of resources and controlled accessibility by using rigidly defined spaces. Architecture inherently breaks up a space in a way that creates a differentiation between an in-group and an out-group creating a sense of inclusion and exclusion (Thaler 2015: ). Feasting locales in the Mycenaean palaces could have functioned in a similar manner. The Mycenaean palaces served as the political seats of their surrounding areas, but they also held importance in the religious sphere. Cult buildings have been identified in Mycenaean 26 See Chapter 2.5 for further discussion of Linear B texts.

45 Alberti!44 palaces associated with revealing items linked to feasting and religious practices including, rhyta, kylikes, and burnt animal bones (Lupack 2010: 270). Due to the prevalence of cultic buildings, artifacts, and symbolism in the palaces, Lupack notes the importance of these religious practices to the elite (2010: 270). The religious symbolism is particularly interesting because the Mycenaeans use imagery associated with animals and sacrifice, including the double-axe motif and the so-called horns of consecration, which are borrowed from Minoan iconography that is also found in palatial contexts (Lupack 2010: 270). This project is heavily focused on the spatial and architectural evidence pertaining to feasting locales and how they facilitated the state-sponsored Mycenaean feast. I define two particular spaces as potential feasting locales in the Mycenaean palace: 1) the megaron and 2) the forecourts of the megaron as well as courtyards adjacent to the Main Building at Pylos. These spaces are only considered with regards to participation in feasting events, rather than the cooking activities that would have accompanied them, due to the lack of archaeological evidence for cooking within the selected spaces. While the lack of cooking evidence in these locales places some constraints on this project s capabilities to paint a more holistic picture of the Mycenaean feast, it is still worthwhile to consider how the megaron and courtyard spaces would have catered to a group of participants in one aspect of this event. The megaron, a tripartite structure with an open front porch with two columns in-antis, a vestibule or prodomos, and an inner chamber often called a throne room or domos, was chosen as a potential feasting locale because of its connection to the wanax, its location near courtyard spaces and auxiliary storage areas, the presence of a hearth feature, and its frescoes with feasting

46 Alberti!45 iconography. 27 The domos of the megaron contains a hearth surrounded by four columns and evidence for a stone seat characterized as a throne. No archaeological evidence has revealed that feasting events took place in the megaron; however, scholars have associated the hearth with ritualized drinking in connection to libation offerings (Wright 2006b: 62). 28 The courtyard space in the immediate vicinity of the megaron is the second chosen locale that had the potential to sponsor feasting events. It is an outdoor space that is more appropriate to accommodate a sizable group of people who would be consuming large quantities of food and drink, therefore requiring space for feasting and drinking vessels. The courtyards are also located near storage rooms and the courtyards at Pylos are within close proximity of bone deposit sites (Figure 4.6). While the palaces at Mycenae and Pylos have more than one courtyard space, I only analyze the forecourts of the megaron and two other courtyard spaces in immediate association to the Main Building at Pylos because they are the most sizable courtyard spaces in the vicinity of the megaron the most accessible according to the most recent archaeological plans. 29 It is worth repeating that the megaron and courtyards are not the only potential feasting locales. Feasting could have taken place in other locales including the Cult Center at Mycenae as it also has a megaron-labeled structure and courtyard space; 30 however, I chose to narrow the scope of my research to the spaces around the megaron, within the vicinity 27 The term megaron stems from the Homeric tradition; however, we do not know what the Mycenaeans would have called these structures. 28 In earlier scholarship largely influenced by textual evidence (e.g., Wake 1962), it was more common to interpret the megaron as a banquet hall. 29 Courtyards 42 and 47 at Pylos are adjacent to the Main Building; however, one would be required to enter multiple spaces to reach them, suggesting that their accessibility is limited. Also, no calcined bone deposits have been found nearby these courtyards to suggest a related feasting event. 30 While this structure has been labeled as a megaron (e.g., Iakovidis et al. 2003) it appears to be more simplified and would probably be best characterized as a megaron-like, or megaroid, structure (after Erarslan 2015:228-9).

47 Alberti!46 of the supposed political seat of the wanax. The palace at Pylos contains more substantial evidence that feasting events occurred near these potential locales, as well as ritual events tied to feasting, so this model was applied to the locales at Mycenae. In this chapter, I discuss descriptions of the megara and the courtyard space in detail while Chapter 5 deals more with the analysis of these two specific structures in two case studies, Mycenae and Pylos. 4.2 The Megaron I discuss feast related evidence and its connection to the megaron in this section, focusing on the throne room. I first introduce fresco iconography as it creates the strongest connection between the megaron and the feast. The accessibility to nearby storage facilities, which held various types of vessels associated with the feast is also taken into account. Next, I consider the potential symbolic significance of the megaron with relation to feasting by discussing the presence and monumentality of the hearth, an essential feature of the megaron, as well as the presence of miniature kylikes and in the Throne Room at Pylos. Feasting in palatial contexts of the Homeric epics, although questionable, is also considered in order to provide a more complete picture of Aegean feasting events and highlight its importance in this culture. The Throne Room at Pylos has the strongest iconographic evidence that connects the megaron to feasting activities. Along the walls of the vestibule (Room 5) and Throne Room (Room 6), depictions of feasting and ritual activity are preserved. The content and location of these frescoes leads scholars to believe that these frescoes are to be read as a continuous piece (Wright 2004: 161). The first scene one would encounter upon entering the vestibule is a procession scene followed by a sacrificial and feasting scene in the Throne Room. This could

48 Alberti!47 suggest a specific order of events in a Mycenaean state-sponsored feast; the procession was followed by a sacrifice that was later followed by a banquet. The fresco with a procession scene is the most complete fresco (Figure 4.1). It shows two rows of people carrying items (it is uncertain whether they are food items, furnishings, gifts, or something else). A bull dominates the space as the largest figure in the scene taking up both registers; its prominence and centrality hint at its significance. The figures move toward an architectural entrance of some sort, perhaps representing the megaron itself, which suggests the ritual events took place within some sort of built space. This is not the only procession fresco; in fact, this scene is quite common and can be found at Knossos, Thebes, and Tiryns. Even with these other examples, the meaning of this procession scene remains unclear and its significance can only be speculated (Wright 2004: 162). The fresco in the Throne Room depicts various scenes that could relate to a banquet, including a bull resting on a table or altar, a lyre player, and two sets of seated male figures reconstructed holding kylikes (Figure 4.2, Wright 2004: 161-4). This fresco is extremely fragmentary, some of it reconstructed based on frescoes from other sites as it comes from a broader tradition of feasting depictions in the Aegean world. The reconstruction of men holding kylikes assumes a conventional depiction based on similar representations. The Campstool Fresco from a palatial context at Knossos shows an individual raising a two-handled kylix and another individual holding the stem of an unspecified vessel (Figure 4.3). This is a more tentative interpretation; however, it is uncertain whether or not these images on the Campstool fresco are directly linked to feasting (Wright 2004: 164). Even though the Pylian fresco is fragmented and its partially reconstructed from the Campstool Fresco, it is still informative as the preserved section shows what kind of furniture would be at a banquet with depictions of two

49 Alberti!48 people sitting on stools across each other over a table (Wright 2004: 161-4). It also details other activities and forms of entertainment that could relate to the banqueting individuals as the depiction of the lyre-player indicates. If the vestibule and Throne Room frescoes are to meant to be read together, a direct connection can be made between the procession, sacrifice, and feast, which is ambiguous in the Linear B texts. Feasting iconography is not restricted to the Mycenaean palaces, but it does appear in other elite structures demonstrating a close association between the upper class and banqueting. Ayia Irini on Kea and Tyssilos on Crete have preserved fragments of frescoes depicting possible feasting events that date to the LM I period (ca BCE). These examples are from upper class contexts rather than the palatial contexts analyzed in this study (Wright 2004: 156-8). Feasting frescoes are not common in Aegean iconography, but these few examples give a glimpse of a broadly defined Aegean feasting event, although interpretations are tenuous. Even if feasting iconography is not the most popular fresco motif in the Aegean, its presence in Minoan, Cycladic, and Mycenaean contexts suggests that the feast held some level of importance, prestigious enough to have it on elite structures. This iconography, considered with its contexts, has been interpreted as a representation of the elite closely connected with the divine: all these examples must be considered as representations of formal ceremonies of presentation to deities. It seems likely that the accepted convention was to depict deities seated while they received honors or tribute, signified by these special vessels. The chalice and goblet thus appear to be signs of divine participation in the feast, and the connection between the portrayal of these vessels and their use by elites may demonstrate the special relationship with the gods that was enjoyed by high-status individuals. (Wright 2004: 165-6)

50 Alberti!49 The iconography of the palatial feasts demonstrate that these were events that were deeply entrenched in religious ideology. A banqueting scene in a Pylian fresco shows a bull lying on the table or altar with seated individuals nearby. The bull seems to have been recently sacrificed and the seated individuals are reconstructed holding kylikes as the established iconographic convention suggests. A connection could be made between the miniature kylikes a form commonly used in feasting events and ritual; the responsibilities of the elite blended into religious sphere. The megaron at Pylos has the easy access to the various storage facilities surrounding it, in which various types feasting paraphernalia have been found (Figure 4.5). Hundreds of broken kylikes were found in Room 19 (Shelmerdine 1998: 85) and Room 21 had approximately 1,100 bowls and 1,024 of the so-called teacups (Hruby 2006: 7). The storage facilities at Pylos held 6,700 vessels in total (Hruby 2006: 202); the shear number of these vessels at Pylos suggests the feast could have been more inclusive at a grandiose scale while still contained within the limits of the palace. 31 The megaron at Mycenae at its current state of preservation has not provided fresco iconography; however its proximity to storage areas is comparable to the Pylian Throne Room at a much smaller scale. A few vessels associated with feasting, including the stirrup jars and kylikes, have been found in Room 31 and Room 32 (Figure 4.4, French 1999: 151-3). The hearth is a central feature in the megaron, typically raised, constructed out of permanent materials that allowed it to be recognizable millennia later. The reason for such Another point of interest is that a shrine was identified in a storage space, Room 18, located just east of 31 the Throne Room (Hruby 2006: 60). This shrine shows that cultic activity took place near the Throne Room again emphasizing the close connections between the political seat and religion. It is for these reasons that the Throne Room (Room 6) is considered as a feasting locale at Pylos.

51 Alberti!50 monumental hearths remains uncertain; however, they appear significant in their size, ubiquity, and location in Mycenaean megara. The hearth at Pylos is 4.02 meters in diameter with a height of approximately meters (Blegen 1953: 61). The hearth at Mycenae only partially exists, but enough of it remains to suggest the total diameter was close to 4 meters. The Pylian hearth is coated with layers of painted lime plaster, suggesting repair and redecoration, and intricately decorated with notched plumes, spiral designs, and eyes that are detailed with black, white, yellow, and red colors (Blegen 1953: 61). The grandeur of these hearths is incredible and their extravagance hints at a significance beyond practicality. It seems improbable that the hearth would have been used for cooking; if their large sizes were meant to cook large amounts of food, there should be some archaeological evidence to confirm this. Not to mention, such a large cooking surface in a limited space associated with the seat of the wanax is unlikely as it would have been a messy and smokey process. While the hearths at Mycenae and Pylos have evidence that burning occurred, they lack any associated animal bones or feasting apparatus that would suggest cooking took place (Knox 1973: 3). 32 Even though the hearth may not have been directly linked to actual feasting events, it at least seems to have significance in its symbolism. The hearth represents an important tradition recorded in the Homeric texts, as it is associated to the elite who actively participated in the A more likely scenario is that the bones were burnt on an altar; but it is unclear if just the bones 32 wrapped in fat would be offered here or if the meat that was to be consumed was also cooked in this kind of space. The cult center at Mycenae contains cooking vessels, and so it seems that this would be an ideal candidate (French 1999: ).

52 Alberti!51 cooking of meat (Knox 1973: 4). 33 These hearths are also significant in their monumentality; they up a large amount of space in the megaron yet they would not be conducive to hosting feasting events as the space is fragmented by this feature. 34 While the hearth s practical considerations for feasting are questionable, its symbolism associating the wanax as a host strengthens the connections between the palatial elite and the feast. Another line of symbolic evidence links the Throne Room at Pylos to libation rituals. Approximately three miniature kylikes have been found in the Throne Room (Stocker and Davis 2004: 190) and there is even evidence for a specified libation area in depressions found near the throne (Shelmerdine 1998: 83). This bolsters the ritual significance of this space at Pylos, which can be expanded onto the Throne Room at Mycenae. Three miniature kylikes were also found in the Throne Room at Pylos, which corroborates this symbolic linkage of the megaron to the drinking ritual (Stocker and Davis 2005: 190). Other miniature kylikes were found in the a shrine, Room 93, in the Northeast Building. Room 93, which is interpreted as a shrine, had at least one miniature kylix with the bases of 15 miniature vessels (Lupack 2007: 474-5). Miniature kylikes bear a strong connection to ritual as they have been found in religious contexts, not just the administrative Archives Complex where approximately 22 miniature kylikes were found. These non-functional kylikes have been categorized as votive offerings by 33 The hearth is also associated with feasting in a camp context, an extension of what the elites would have been accustomed to back home in the palaces. Achilles and his warrior companions, who shared a higher ranking in their society, cooked the meat on the hearth in their camp at Troy; however, they did this not without offering a sacrifice to the gods (Hom. Il ). The area around this hearth represents a space where Greek noblemen participating in the war can gather to cook and share meat and wine; but the hearth in this context also represents a sacred space as Patroclus gives a burnt-offering to the gods in the fire pit. 34 For more detail on the hearth in terms of capacity and spatial analysis for Pylos and Mycenae, see Chapter 5.

53 Alberti!52 Blegen (1952: 92). Whatever the function of these miniature kylikes, it is interesting that they are so closely connected to the palatial center at Pylos. What iconographic and archaeological evidence does not preserve for us may be gleaned from a passage in the much later Homeric epics. 35 In the Homeric tradition, the megaron was a space in which meals on every scale took place; however, it is not clear whether the cooking took place in the megaron or a nearby room (Knox 1973: 3,5). In the Odyssey, Penelope s suitors occupy themselves at Odysseus home with the cooking of meat even though servants are available. They have a feast with meat, wine, and bread, a detail that can enhance our understanding of feasting on the mainland. In this passage, Odysseus has just made it home, unbeknownst to the suitors,who had been discussing whether or not to murder Telemachus. Amphinomus, one of the suitors, decides that it is better to feast than to dwell on this subject, which would prove to be an unfavorable path of action according to the auspices: Amphinomus spoke, and they agreed with him. So they went inside godlike Odysseus home, threw their cloaks on stools and chairs, and sacrificed big sheep and fattened goats. They killed plump swine, as well, and the heifer from the herd. They roasted the entrails, passed them round, and blended wine in mixing bowls. The swineherd handed out the cups. Philoetius, an outstanding man, served bread in a fine basket. Melanthius poured their wine. And then their hands reached out to take the fine food set before them. Thinking it would work to his advantage, Telemachus sat Odysseus down inside the well-constructed hall, beside the entrance made of stone, then set for him a modest stool and tiny table. He placed before him a share of inner organs and poured out some wine into a golden cup (Hom. Od ; trans. Johnston 2010) 35 For an extensive discussion on this issue, see Knox 1973.

54 Alberti!53 First of all, the suitors actively participate in the sacrifice. They themselves roast the entrails and mix the wine before sharing these commodities amongst each other. Two servants, Philoetius and Melanthius, from Odysseus household also serve the suitors, but they do not seem to participate in the actual sacrificial event. Second, the feast and the sacrifice take place within Odysseus palace (although it is unclear whether this is an indoor space). 36 The suitors went inside godlike Odysseus home and sacrificed big sheep and fattened goats (249-51). Even though the exact location is not specified, it should be considered that the sacrifice event leading up to the feasting activity could have taken place inside. Finally, this passage describes what should be expected at a feast in terms of food, drink, furniture, cooking apparatuses (including the spits), and serving vessels, aspects largely absent from Linear B texts and other archaeological evidence Courtyard Spaces A second choice for a designated feasting locale is the courtyard; a common feature in Mycenaean palatial complexes. The palaces have multiple courtyard spaces; however, the one that I focus on in particular in my analysis is the courtyard space that is adjacent to the megara at Mycenae and Pylos. I also consider Courtyard 63 and Courtyard 88 at Pylos, which are not directly adjacent to the megaron but are within close proximity it and share a wall with the Main Building that houses the megaron. These spaces are good for feasting events for a number of 36 Interestingly, the feast continues in outdoor space that is called Apollo s shadowy grove ( ). This shows that this feasting event occurs in a sacred space.

55 Alberti!54 reasons: as they are open-air allowing for better smoke ventilation and messy cooking; they can hold a sizable number of people; and are within a close proximity of storage facilities. Courtyard 3 at Pylos, the forecourt of the megaron, is one of the most promising spaces for hosting a feasting event. It is the sizable space without any features fragmenting it, such as the hearth in the Throne Room. It is very close to Room 7, an area that belongs to the Archives Complex and contains numerous animal bones, miniature kylikes, Linear B tablets, and a pithos. The animal bones found in this room represent a feasting event that occurred soon before the site was destroyed. Not only does it represent an example of a feasting event with the prevalence of burnt animal bones and miniature kylikes, but it also links the feast directly to sacrifice as many of the bones belong to the same part of the animal, which seems to have been mostly from cattle (Stocker and Davis 2004: 179, 182-3). The preference for certain bones, namely the mandible, humerus, and femur (Stocker and Davis 2004: 182), is similar to the animal parts preferred at the feasting event recorde at Myrtou-Pigadhes; although, in this case, cattle were the most prevalent animal rather than the deer found at the Late Cypriot site. 38 The chosen courtyards at Pylos are spaces likely to have hosted feasting events given their proximity to bone deposits; Stocker and Davis are confident that the contents in Room 7 are remnants of animal sacrifice and ritual dining (2004: 190). It is thought that these remains were in Room 7 for administrative purposes, to tally the commodity items after the fact. 39 Courtyards 63 and 88 also are particularly good contenders for feasting locales as they are much larger areas (Stocker and Davis 2004); in this study they are considered both as individual and combined spaces. Other 38 There was evidence of the remains of one red deer along with the cattle bones at Pylos (Stocker and Davis 2004: 182). 39 While there is no more obvious reason, it seems odd that the animal remains would be counted after having been consumed rather than as whole animals.

56 Alberti!55 spaces have been categorized as courtyards in the Pylian palace, such as Courtyards 42 and 47, but they are much smaller in size compared to the other spaces, they are much less accessible, and they are not associated with any bone deposits. These courtyards were also not associated with any bone deposits. At Mycenae, Courtyard 53 is the only courtyard space that has been excavated near the megaron; a smaller courtyard is located in the cult center, but it would not be ideal to hold larger feasting events and so it was not considered for this study. While it does not have the strong archaeological evidence for holding a feasting event like the spaces at Pylos, Courtyard 53 at Mycenae is a large open space that is nearby storage facilities that contained vessels used for drinking. Feasting events took place in other Bronze Age Aegean courtyard spaces, albeit not in palatial contexts. A few other BA examples, albeit not palatial, provides us with ritual evidence for courtyard feasting that are lacking from the Mycenaean palatial examples. The courtyard at the LM I site of Splantzia located in Chania on Crete contains a pile of bones belonging to pigs, goats (both wild and domestic), sheep, and a bird within a pyre that have been tied to ritual activity. These animals were not merely sacrificed; butcher marks were found on the bones suggesting a feasting event took place in the same space where these animals were burnt in a pyre (Mylonas 1999: 106). A Cypriot site called Myrtou-Pigadhes has a courtyard space with a large amount of Mycenaean ceramic vessels, including bell kraters, deep bowls, cups, and a kylix, that were popular from the LC IIC to the LC IIIA (Steel 2004: 295-7). Evidence for sacrificial feasting has also been recovered from this site. The prevalence of burnt skeletal remains, including the skulls, antlers, and long bones of deer recovered from this site are

57 Alberti!56 indicative of this. The courtyard is located near an altar within a sanctuary area and suggests a feasting event in connection with religious activity (Steel 2004: 295). The megaron and the courtyard spaces are contenders as feasting locales for the statesponsored Mycenaean feast. Both are located in a central area within a short distance from each other as well as a short distance from storage rooms. Based on this evidence and my spatial analyses presented in Chapter 5, the courtyards seem to be the best choice for the location of feasting activity while the megaron seems to have had a more symbolic connection to the feast and the responsibilities of the wanax and other palatial administrators.

58 Alberti!57 Chapter 5: Spatial Analyses of Mycenae and Pylos 5.1 Introduction Analyses of potential feasting locales within the Mycenaean and Pylian palaces were conducted via ArcGIS and AutoCAD, respectively. The analyses include a calculation of capacity within the megaron and courtyard space areas, 40 as well as an architectural analysis on accessibility within each locale. I have already described my reasoning for choosing these spaces and the archaeological and textual evidence supporting my decision in previous chapters, so this chapter focuses on the analyses concluding with an interpretation and discussion of the results. 5.2 Methodology Before conducting any analysis in ArcGIS, a map of the Mycenaean citadel had to be digitized (Figures 5.5 and 5.6). Two maps from the Archaeological Atlas of Mycenae by Spyros Iakovidis et al. (2003) were digitized in order to recreate the architectural features of the potential feasting locales. A digitizing tablet was used to make an outline as a line feature class of the citadel fortification wall at Mycenae because it is prominent feature on the landscape and was required in order to georeference the architectural features of interest. Once the outline of 40 The courtyard space is the one directly adjacent to the megaron structure at both sites.

59 Alberti!58 the citadel was created with its known coordinate points, 41 control points with known coordinates were placed around the outline as a points feature class. These control points were created from the irregular and arbitrary rectangles that Iakovidis et al. created to mark a space within the smaller scale map of 1:5000 meters that corresponded to a more detailed, larger scale map of 1:100 meters. 42 The control points were used to snap the corresponding corners of the rectangular spaces marking a specific area of interest in the citadel. While the citadel fortifications and control points were created via a digitizing tablet, the megaron and courtyard features were created with the heads up digitizing method using the ArcMap program to create the line and polygon feature classes of each locale. All feature classes are organized and stored within the same file geodatabase. Each locale at Mycenae, including Courtyard 53 and the Throne Room, was represented by a line feature class and a polygon feature class of the interior footprint of each space. This is also true for the features in the megaton s Throne Room, including the footprints of what remains of the columns and hearth. The calculation of square meters for each polygon feature was handled by ArcGIS. Each feature class is vertically integrated so that each data layer has the 41 While the authors of the Archaeological Atlas of Mycenae did include coordinates on some of their maps, they did not reference the projection used. It seems that Iakovidis et al. used the HATT projection as it was the best fit to the coordinates they used. These coordinates were projected into the Greek Army Mapping Service, GGRS 87 in ArcGIS. This is a popular projection used in mainland Greece and it is the most recent from 1987, and, unlike the HATT projection, it is widely supported by many GIS applications including ArcMap. It is also important to note that, while the HATT projection is the system that was most likely used, the coordinates were not correct and the projective transformation from HATT to GGRS87 left the digitized features some 400 meters southwest of the correct position. It is not clear if this was because of a coordinate calculation error by Iaokvidis et al. or because the projection was not actually HATT. In any event, features were ultimately moved into GGRS87 using an affine transformation. This process left the features close, but not absolutely accurate likely leaving the features with some shape error. Overlaying the features on a satellite image (Figures 5.5 and 5.6), it is clear that the shape error was slight and would not substantially affect the analyses. 42 The larger scale maps in the atlas did not have coordinates from which control points could be created, and so it was necessary to create control points based on the smaller scale map.

60 Alberti!59 same scale, the same shape, and is located in the same space as the georeferenced raster image. In the Throne Room of the megaron, I wanted to exclude the area of the hearth and column structures since they would affect the number of people able to fit inside. 43 In order to exclude these features from the total area, I created separate polygon feature classes for each feature and removed the area from the area of the megaron polygon. 44 The Pylian palace was digitized using AutoCAD rather than ArcMap (Figure 5.7). This allowed for an exploration of different technologies in the digitizing process. 45 Unlike Mycenae, no comprehensive atlas for Pylos was available; the map of the citadel was digitized from a map of the megaron and courtyard space in Palaima and Wright s article, Ins and Outs of the Archives Rooms at Pylos: Form and Function in a Mycenaean Palace (1985: 253). The raster image of the Pylian palace after Palaima and Wright (1985) was imported into AutoCAD as a pdf underlay and scaled according to the scale bar provided in the image. A layer was created for the internal megaron space with a separate layer for the features within the megaron, in this case, the hearth and throne. A layer was also created for the internal courtyard spaces, including Courtyards 3, 63, and The layers are closed polylines and so the areas for each closed polyline unit is automatically calculated. A digitized layer for the megaron features, 43 This is particularly true of the hearth, with a size close to 4 meters in length according to my reconstructions. 44 The hearth is only partially preserved at Mycenae, and so I calculated the diameter based on the visible structure. 45 However, these data layers from the AutoCAD drawing can be exported into ArcMap for future spatial analyses. 46 The porches of other buildings were not considered in this space since they are entrances to other buildings, physically marked as separate architecturally, and contain columns that would take up space and block views.

61 Alberti!60 including the hearth, columns, and throne were created so that their areas could be subtracted from the total area of the Throne Room. Maximum capacity and density were calculated after the potential feasting locale layers were created and the areas were recorded. The maximum capacity of six people per square meter comes from a modern day empirical model of people moving through a sports stadium after Still s dissertation (2000). According to Still s research on crowd dynamics, approximately four to six people can fill a square meter at a time and still allow for some movement and flow (2000: 106). 47 Even though this maximum is extremely unlikely, it is important to set a maximum threshold so that the data can be compared within a range since the exact number of participants in a given feasting event is unclear and would, undoubtedly, change according to the event. The minimum capacity in any given room is set to 22 participants based on the number of participants alluded to in the Pylian Ta tablets and, perhaps coincidently, the number of ritualistic kylikes in Room 7 (Palaima 2000: 237). 48 Items such as furniture, cookware, storage vessels, serving vessels, and other types of feasting paraphernalia would have been present as well, but it is not clear how much space these items would have taken up in a locale and if every item would have been in the same space where the eating and drinking was occurring. No Mycenaean feasting furniture has been preserved in the archaeological record, but it is clear that furniture was present from depictions in the frescoes. The fresco imagery does not account for the other types of feasting paraphernalia that could be present at a feast, including large serving vessels, 47 While the density of six people per square meter in a modern day stadium is extremely unlikely to also represent a Mycenaean feast, this number provides a maximum threshold to show how many people can fit into a space without any furniture taken into account. 48 Stocker and Davis proposed that the number 22 could represent the number of banqueters as representatives in different Pylian regions or high-ranking officials (2004:191). However, each kylix does not necessarily have to correspond to one individual, it just seems to be a more likely scenario.

62 Alberti!61 tables, and possibly cooking vessels and apparatuses. For this reasoning, the minimum capacity is set to 22. This minimum was also used to calculate the minimum density for each area. Two methods were employed in order to account for feasting paraphernalia and furniture. In one method, an online calculator was used to determine capacity for modern cocktail parties based on the feasting locale spaces. While this assumes that today s set-up and space requirements for a banquet event are similar to those in Greece during the Late Bronze Age, it is a good method for getting a general idea about a furnished space. 49 This calculator determined a maximum capacity of standing participants (this was the same number as the rows with chairs category), which was based on a density of 1.79 people per m 2. The calculation of standing and seated was chosen because this seemed to be a likely reflection of the mixed movement that could occur at a Mycenaean feast. The capacity with both 18 in and 24 in tables were considered because the tables depicted in the Pylian fresco seem to be of a similar size in relation to the seated figures. Inomata calculated the maximum density for performative spaces for the Ancient Maya at Tikal, Copan, and Aquteca are also considered as a cross-cultural comparison (Inomata 2006). The maximum density determined from this study allowed for 0.46 m 2 of personal space per person, which falls in between a density of three people per m 2 and two people per m 2. This further demonstrates that the most likely capacity range falls in between two and three people per m The Room Space Calculator by Banquet Tables Pro was used for these calculations ( accessed April 2016). The purpose of this calculator is to determine an appropriate capacity of participants for various communal scenarios (e.g., cocktail parties, conferences, banquets, etc.). This tool considers the different seating and standing scenarios in order to calculate the appropriate maximum number of people based on predetermined densities for each scenario.

63 Alberti!62 The second method set aside 10% of the space for furnishings and feasting paraphernalia. Once 10% of the space was removed from the total area, the capacities were calculated for a density of three people per m 2 and two people per m 2. Because the high density of four to six people per m 2 does not take into account space for furnishings, these densities were not considered in this analysis. The minimum capacity was also considered; the density of each square meter was calculated for 22 participants with the new area. Cooking paraphernalia was not considered as it does not appear that cooking took place in any of the chosen locales. The smaller densities of two and three people per m 2 are meant to be read as a range with the densities calculated with the minimum capacity as it is impossible to know exactly how many people were able to attend the larger feasting event, not to mention its constituent events. Relative ease of accessibility into each feasting locale is considered. This analysis assumes that potential participants in a feasting event already had access to the palace. Pylos, while it sits on a high point in the landscape, is not fortified and so accessibility to Pylian palace is different than the citadel at Mycenae, which was heavily fortified with cyclopean architecture and has limited access through gates (the Lions Gate to the west, the Postern Gate to the northeastern area, and two other entryway in the northeastern section of the citadel). This specific analysis is based on impedance and how many access points, entryways, or rooms one would have to cross in order to reach a space. 50 Impedance, or the level of resistance based on accessibility through the various access points, was only considered from within the first access point one would have to cross to get into a space. The length and width of entryways leading 50 Not all of the spaces were not entered through thresholds and so the more generic term access points is used to appropriately describe all of the entryways considered in this study.

64 Alberti!63 into the potential feasting locales are also considered. These measurements were determined from the Measure tool in ArcMap or by creating measurable polylines in AutoCAD. 5.3 Calculations and Analyses: Capacity Using the footprint of the feature class to determine the internal area, I calculated the maximum capacity based on Still s modern analysis of crowd density (2000). First, even though it is improbable, I wanted to calculate maximum standing capacity in order to create a maximum threshold, in which six people fit into a 1-meter space. This of course assumes that virtually no feasting furniture was present and that all participants were standing. The more unreasonable density levels between four and six people per m 2 are marked off in the in two line graphs demonstrating the capacity levels for each potential feasting locale at Mycenae (Figures 5.1 and 5.2). The second, and more realistic capacity numbers have a much lower density that would account for feasting paraphernalia, furniture, and room for other activities that would require more movement, such as dancing and other forms of entertainment. These lower density levels are indicated in the graphs as well. The density of two people per m 2 is also close to the density of 1.79 people per m 2 used to determine capacity by the online Room Space Calculator and so it seems that this is a more reasonable density. 51 Based on the area of the Mycenaean Courtyard 53, a realistic standing crowd capacity for two people per m 2 is approximately 441 people, this number is lower for Throne Room 57 at the 51 The density of 1.79 people per m 2 is a realistic one, and so I decided to only represent the density of two people per m 2 as it keeps the density rounded to whole numbers to represent participants.

65 Alberti!64 same density with a capacity of 297 (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1). The minimum capacity of 22 people would allow for a large amount of space for furniture and feasting paraphernalia as there would be a density of about 0.15 people per m 2 in the Mycenaean Throne Room or 0.10 people per m 2 in Courtyard 53 (Table 5.1). Assuming the number for any given feasting event was quite sizable based on the thousands of kylikes and 10 cattle found at Pylos, it is reasonable to say that the density fell in between three people per m 2 and the minimum capacity based on the 22 participants. However, when considering modern calculations used to determine appropriate capacities for today s cocktail party, the maximum density never rises above two people per m 2 (Table 5.3). Of course, the capacities are much lower with modern considerations. When 10% of the area is removed to account for furniture, the capacity changes, but not too drastically as it does not decrease by more than 100 people for each space (Table 5.4). Table 5.1: Potential Feasting Locales at Mycenae: Capacities and Densities

66 Alberti!65 Mycenae: Capacity of Potential Feasting Locales Based on Density Throne Room 57 Courtyard Number of Participants Min People per m2 Figure 5.1: Potential Feasting Locales at Mycenae Based on Density The red area is extremely dense and would be the least ideal for feasting events. The area within the grey dashed lines represents the density that is the most ideal for feasting as it would accommodate for proper flow within a space and allow space for feasting paraphernalia.

67 Alberti!66 The smallest of the Pylian courtyards, Courtyard 3, has an appropriate capacity of approximately 187 people at a density of two people per m 2 and, with the minimum capacity of 22 people, a density of about 0.23 people per m 2 (Table 5.2 and Figure 5.2). At this density, Courtyard 63 has a capacity of 503 people, which increases to 802 people when combined with Courtyard 88. The Throne Room is similar in size to the one at Mycenae with a capacity of 279 people with two peopler per m 2 and a minimum density of 0.16 people per m 2 with a capacity of 22. The total area of the courtyard spaces is m 2, which could hold close to 1,000 people with a density of two people per m 2. This capacity estimate is close to the number of people that could have been fed by the 10 animals represented by the burnt bone deposit as described by Stocker and Davis (2004) and so it seems multiple spaces would have been required for the feasting event. When 10% of each space is set aside for furniture, the capacity levels change, but again, not too drastically (Table 5.4). The most drastic change occurs for the larger spaces; the combined space of Courtyards 63 and 88 decrease from a capacity of 1203 people to 1083 for three people per m 2 and from 802 to 722 for two people per m 2. Table 5.2: Potential Feasting Locales at Pylos: Capacities and Densities

68 Alberti!67 Pylos: Capacity of Potential Feasting Locales Based on Density Figure 5.2: Capacity of Potential Feasting Locales Based on Density This graph depicts the capacities for potential feasting locales. This number depends on the number of people within a one square meter space. The red area is extremely dense and would be the least ideal for feasting events. The area within the grey dashed lines represents the density that is the most ideal for feasting as it would accommodate for proper flow within a space and allow space for feasting paraphernalia.

69 Alberti!68 Calculations for Modern Standards on Capacity and Density Potential Feasting Locale Total Area (m2) Max Capacity standing and rows of chairs Cocktail Parties Standing and Seated Cocktail Parties Capacity with 18 in Capacity with 24 in tables Density with Max Capacity (people per m2) Density with Min Capacity (people per m2) (P) Throne Room 6 (P) Courtyard 3 (P) Courtyard 63 (P) Courtyard 88 (P) Courtyard (P) Sum of Courtyard spaces (M) Throne Room 57 (M) Courtyard Table 5.3: Calculations for modern standards on capacity and density, calculations from Banquet Tables Pro P stands for Pylos and M stands for Mycenae.

70 Alberti!69 Table 5.4: Potential Feasting Locales at Mycenae and Pylos: 10% of Space Saved for Furnishings 5.4 Calculations and Analyses: Accessibility The level of accessibility was calculated by analyzing the number and width of entryways as well as the number of access points that are required to enter a space. The widths and lengths were recorded and, based on relative size, the access points and access points were compared. 52 The number of rooms one must enter a space from the outside was also considered in this analysis. At Mycenae, the forecourt entrance, or Access Point A, is long and narrow with a length of 0.93 m and a width of 7.87 m. The entryway leading into the front porch from the 52 It should be noted that sizes of access points could be determined based on what is necessary to accommodate the weight of the building rather than a way to control the flow into buildings. However, these entryways are highly visible in the building plan and so it seemed to be a reasonable proxy to measure accessibility.

71 Alberti!70 courtyard, or Access Point B, has a length of approximately 1.22 m and a width of 3.05 m. This entryway is aligned with the entryway leading into the megaron, Access Point C, which has a length of about 1.03 m and a width of 2.99 m. Only three thresholds lead into the Throne Room from Courtyard 53, which is similar to the Pylian megaron (Table 5.5 and Figure 5.3). The Throne Room at the Pylian megaron is accessible from the outside through three entryways, the first one leading into the courtyard space and the second and third centrally aligned leading into the front porch and Throne Room. At Pylos, the first and smallest entryway, Access Point A, leads into Courtyard 3 with a length of 0.66 m and a width of 2.34 m. This is more than enough space for one individual to enter at a time like the other entrances; however, this space is the narrowest one. The second entryway, Access Point B, leading from the courtyard into the megaron s front porch has a length of 0.91 m and a width of 3.49 m. Only one entryway leads into the main room of the megaron at Pylos, Access Point C, with a length of 1.06 m and a width of approximately 3.55 m, enough space to allow for one person to enter at a time. Courtyard 63 has two paths from which it can be entered. The southwest entrance is the path of least resistance in order to enter Courtyard 63. The access point between Courtyards 63 and 88 would not impede anyone from entering as it stands now with a width of over 7 m. This makes these spaces easily transformable into one larger courtyard space (Table 5.6 and Figure 5.4). One of the most interesting things concerning the architecture at Mycenae and Pylos is the narrowing of the space that one must enter in order to reach the forecourt and megaron areas. The Mycenaean forecourt entryway is over one meter smaller in width compared to the other two entryways and it does not align as the other two entryways. This entrance is also long and

72 Alberti!71 narrow, which restricts the number of people that can enter at a time. At Pylos, the first entryway that one encounters is approximately 0.3 meters smaller in length than the other two access points with a width that is almost one half meter less than the others. All of the entryways have enough space to allow for one or more individuals to enter at a time; however, the initial entryway would limit the visibility into the courtyard space and make visibility into the megaron almost impossible based on its smaller size, non-alignment with the other two entrances, and the fact that it was smaller, especially because only the two entrances associated with the megaron are aligned along the same axis. Mycenae: Access Point Measurements Access Points length (m) width (m) in-between rooms A B C Table 5.5: Access Point Lengths and Widths for Mycenae Locales (See Figure 5.3)

73 Alberti!72 A B C Figure 5.3: Access Points at Mycenae, after Mylonas 1966, fig. 15

74 Alberti!73 Pylos: Access Point Measurements Access Point length (m) width (m) in-between rooms A B C D N/A E F G unexcavated-61 H N/A Table 5.6: Access Point lengths and widths for Pylos Locales (See Figure 5.4) The N/A areas on the graph designate lengths that were not measured. These spaces had longer hallways that were not uniform in length, and so, only the width was measured.

75 Alberti!74 H C B G F E A D Figure 5.4: Access Points at Pylos, after Palaima and Wright 1985, 253

76 Alberti! Discussion In terms of capacity, the courtyard spaces at both Mycenae and Pylos are better suited as feasting locales than the main rooms in the megara. In terms of accessibility and capacity as the courtyards are able to host the largest number of people; this is especially true for the combined spaces of Courtyards 63 and 88 at Pylos. This, however, does not mean that these spaces were filled to capacity at any given banquet and it seems that the most reasonable density for participants is around two people per m 2. Dot density maps for Mycenae and Pylos graphically demonstrate this density in these spaces (Figures 5.8 and 5.10). The archaeological and textual evidence suggests that more intimate feasting events took place; Stocker and Davis suggest that the 22 ritualistic mini-kylikes were for 22 banqueters (2005: 191) and Palaima has found in the Pylos Ta tablets that 22 objects as well as 22 seats and 11 tables suggests that 22 people participated at this event (2000: 237). This capacity is also represented in dot density maps (Figures 5.9 and 5.10). Stocker and Davis note the coincidence and postulate that the participants at the Pylian feast are representatives from the principal subcenters of the kingdom of Pylos, perhaps with the addition of several high-ranking officials of the palace itself (2004: 191). This more intimate number is quite a bit smaller than estimations that place the capacity well over one hundred participants with two people per m 2. Stocker and Davis go on to state that more participants were present at the sacrifice event than the banquet based on the amount of animal bones in the Pylian Archives Complex (2004: 191-2). It is difficult to determine the number of participants in an intimate feasting event at Mycenae. However, the throne rooms between the two sites are similar in size and so, if an intimate feasting event or ritual took place within the domos of the megaron as the miniature kylikes from Pylos suggest, maybe the

77 Alberti!76 Mycenaean megaron would have hosted a similar number of participants. The forecourts of each megaron, Courtyard 3 at Pylos and Courtyard 53 at Mycenae, differ greatly in size so using a minimum capacity of 22 participants for Mycenae could be an unrealistic speculation as Courtyard 53 is twice as large as the Pylian courtyard. The palace at Pylos seems to have been able to accommodate many different feasting events depending on the size and occasion with a total area of m 2 between the three courtyards alone. The combination of Courtyard 63 and Courtyard 88 make up the largest and most easily accessible spaces and would have been able to reasonably accommodate hundreds of people when used as a combined space. Courtyard 3 is more appropriate for intimate gatherings. With a total area of m 2, it is the smallest space out of the potential feasting locales. The Throne Room is the least likely space to have hosted a feasting event; however, it has the capacity to hold a reasonable number of people for rituals that may have been linked to the feast as the presence of the miniature kylikes suggests.

78 Alberti!77 Chapter 6: Conclusion The space associated with a specific human event can be very telling in terms of how a society is structured, even if the space is not necessarily built for a specific function. The proposed feasting locales presented in this paper have their connections to the Mycenaean feast, whether through archaeological data such as the closely associated burnt animal bones and miniature kylikes, textual data with the Linear B tablets of the Pylian courtyard, the iconographic representations of associated events in the Pylian megaron. Previous examples of Aegean feasting events have been found in courtyard spaces, and, given their open plan and proximity to storage rooms and the political seat of the Mycenaean state, I suggest that this is the most likely location for a state-sponsored feasting event. The entryways for the courtyard spaces at Mycenae and Pylos are both more restrictive than the thresholds into the megara, less-inviting passageways that help to separate the elite from a wider range of participants. This space would have distinguished those participants as it seems only a select few would have taken part as some Linear B and archaeological evidence suggests. This study focused on feasting locales as exclusionary spaces; however, it appears that multiple feasting events occurred simultaneously as a way to include more of the community involved with earlier religious events, including the sacrifice and procession. The quantity of archaeological evidence, namely the large amounts of cattle and kylikes, suggests feasting was communal and inclusive. Linear B tablet Un 718 lists such large amounts that it would seem most likely that many of the listed commodities would be used within a short period of time while the rest would be stored. The number of kylikes found in Room 19 at Pylos also falls within the estimates for the total population around the palace, which points to the feast as an

79 Alberti!78 inclusive activity. On the other hand, evidence shows that more intimate feasting events took place as the Ta tablet series suggests. This Linear B evidence specifically lists 22 seats and 11 tables to accommodate 22 guests and this number corresponds to the 22 miniature kylikes found in Room 7. Assuming the bone deposit and miniature kylikes in Room 7 at Pylos relate to the same feasting event, the Mycenaean state-sponsored feast had events with different levels of inclusivity. While this study could not possibly narrow down the how many participants would be accommodated in each space, this study demonstrates a reasonable capacity range. I conclude that the Mycenaean state-sponsored feast was able to support multiple events simultaneously, one for the larger community and one for a more select group of individuals; the palace was able to adjust its available space to accommodate a particular number of participants. It seems reasonable that the feasting events at Pylos, the one larger event suggested by the burnt animal bone deposits and the smaller event involving the miniature kylikes, took place either simultaneously or within a short time frame as they are associated in the same archaeological context. If this is the case, then multiple feasting locales would have to have been used simultaneously to accommodate such a gathering. The architectural analysis for Pylos shows that multiple spaces would be ideal for feasting events; all of the courtyard spaces in this analysis are within close spatial proximity to calcined bone piles. I suggest that Courtyard 63 and Courtyard 88 were used in conjunction with one another to support the larger community as they are the easiest to access and can support the largest number of people. Courtyard 3 would be a good contender for a more intimate feasting event as it is the smallest space and allows for direct access to the megaron. This courtyard is also situated in between the throne room and the

80 Alberti!79 Archives Complex, both areas had contained votive kylikes and so movement into this space was at least necessary to transport the miniature kylikes from one locus to another. Evidence for a state-sponsored feast at Mycenae is much more elusive. Frescoes pertaining to religious and feasting events do not survive in the Mycenaean megaron, nor have associated ritualistic miniature kylikes or bone deposits been found or recorded near Courtyard 53 or the Throne Room. The feasting paraphernalia are located in nearby storage rooms, but this does not in itself show that feasting took place in these proposed locales, only that it would have been convenient to hold a feast nearby storage facilities. However, because evidence suggests feasting events at Pylos in occurred in similar locales, it is very possible that the events at Mycenaean locales functioned in a similar way. The exact details of a Mycenaean feast are unknown; evidence from Pylos suggests that the state-sponsored feast was a part of a larger religious event and the feasting activity could have also been separated from the ritual events as animal remains or feasting paraphernalia associated with the miniature kylikes are absent in the Throne Room. The fact that these kylikes were found in an area designated as a shrine at Pylos further demonstrates their significance as ritual items, possibly as votive offerings. Stocker and Davis suggest that the composition of the banqueting fresco in the Throne Room depicts the activity taking place outdoors while a ritual involving the miniature kylikes would have taken place indoors based on their provenience (2004: 193). Most of the community would have been involved with the other events, at least the procession, while other activities would be more restricted, including whatever involved the miniature kylikes. Those select few who participated in more restricted activities as a part of the

81 Alberti!80 entire event would be distinguished, marked out from the rest of the participants. Accessibility to the Main Building through Propylon 1 at Pylos and into Courtyard 53 at Mycenae certainly seems to be restrictive as this initial entrance is the most narrow compared to the thresholds leading into the megaron. This restricts one s view into a space and shows a potential restriction to participate in certain ritual elements, perhaps to demonstrate the elites hold on specialized knowledge, which could be perceived by the larger community as the their divine right to rule and help to legitimize their power. However, it was still able to hold approximately 441 people. Aside from the elite legitimizing their power at a feast, they were able to facilitate potentially advantageous social relationships among a small, select group. However, the entire feasting event does not appear to be restricted to a few individuals. Different events took place along with the feast, which could be more or less inclusive with other elements, like obscure rituals, that were exclusive. Prior to the sacrifice and feast events, it seems there would be an ostentatious procession with people carrying commodity items and sacrificial animals being led into the palace as the Pylian procession fresco suggests. The specific calcined bones in the Pylian deposit suggests that these pieces were offered to the gods as bone deposits in other contexts with a clearer religious connotation show. The placement of these deposits suggests that the bones were in the process of being recorded for administrative purposes, and we know from Linear B tablet PY Un 718 that some commodity items were recorded as being donated to the gods. After the sacrifice, the remains would be cut up for consumption as the butcher marks suggest. This larger feast would feed hundreds of people as the calculation for the Pylian bone deposit and the number of stored Pylian kylikes suggests. A more exclusive ritual seems to have taken place in more restricted locales, such as the Throne Room of the megaron, as the miniature

82 Alberti!81 kylikes deposited there suggest. This could have also involved a small, intimate banquet; the Pylian Ta tablets list tables and chairs that would accommodate 22 people, coincidently the same number of kylikes found in Room 7. While this event would have taken place in the Throne Room, at least in Pylos, the courtyard spaces would have been ideal for the more inclusive feast as they could maintain a decent capacity, especially when combined as is a likely case for Courtyards 63 and 88 at Pylos, with a combined reasonable capacity range of While the evidence suggests that the courtyard spaces functioned as feasting locales, it would be worthwhile to analyze the architectural features of the cult center at Mycenae since as cooking vessels were found there (French 1999: 134). The location of the cult centers at Mycenae and Pylos differs greatly; the cult center at Pylos, which includes Room 93 and Room 92, is located near Main Building where the megaron and Courtyard 3 are located. The Mycenaean cult center, on the other hand, is further removed from the megaron and Courtyard 53. The Mycenaean cult center has a courtyard space more closely associated with religious paraphernalia and cooking equipment has even been found there. This would be a more likely space to host a state-sponsored feast as it has a processional road. This would make this area a better contender for a feasting locale; however, the differences in the arrangements of buildings at both palaces are striking. It seems that each Mycenaean center was setup in such a way that reflected their different relationships between the elite and religion. The Pylian megaron seems to have stronger connections to feasting and religious ritual; the excavations at the less-preserved Mycenaean megaron has yielded no such evidence to make that connection. Further investigation into state-controlled sanctuaries would also benefit this study For example, the Pylian sanctuary in the Pa-ki-ja-ne area seems to have maintained a close relationship with the wanax (Lupack 2008: 44).

83 Alberti!82 Figures Figure 2.1: Standard Mycenaean two-handled kylix, after Hruby 2006, 189 Figure 2.2: Standard Mycenaean one-handled kylix, after Hruby 2006, 189

84 Alberti!83 Figure 2.3: Miniature kylikes from Room 7 at Pylos, after Stocker and Davis 2004, 188 Figure 4.1: Pylos procession fresco from Room 5 (vestibule), after Wright 2004, 162 This procession shows two rows of individuals carrying items, perhaps gifts to the deities as described in the Linear B tablets. Central to this procession is the bull, which is given importance through hierarchical scale. The procession moves towards an architectural feature, which could be the megaron or the palace in general.

85 Alberti 8! 4 Figure 4.2: Pylos megaron fresco, depicting possible ritual activity and banqueters, after Wright 2004, 163 This image shows possible male banqueters. The lyre player appears to be sitting on a rock, which suggests these events, including the drinking, took place outside. There is also a bull lying on a platform, which could be a table or altar. Figure 4.3: Detail of drinking vessels on the Campstool Fresco, after Wright 2004, 164 The Campstool Fresco provides an artistic convention for the reconstruction of the seated men holding kylikes in the megaron fresco at Pylos.

86 Alberti!85 Figure 4.4: Final Plan of Mycenae, after Mylonas 1966, fig. 15 This plan shows a simplified version of the Mycenaean citadel with the Throne Room (Room 57) and Courtyard 53.

87 Alberti!86 Figure 4.5: Final Plan of Pylos, after Palaima and Wright 1985, 253 This plan shows the Pylian palatial center during the LH IIIB period. Room 6, or the Throne Room of the megaron and Courtyards 3,63, and 88 are of interest for this study. The Archives Complex is composed of Rooms 7 and 8.

88 Alberti!87 Figure 4.6: Deposits of calcined bones and miniature kylikes at Pylos, after Palaima and Wright 1985, 253 The calcined bone deposits are represented by the femur bone of a cattle and the miniature kylike find spots are represented by a miniature kylix.

89 Alberti 8! 8 Figure 5.5: Citadel of Mycenae with digitized megaron and courtyard footprints This plan of Mycenae shows the entire citadel area with the megaron footprint (without the hearth and column features) and the Courtyard 53 footprint. The digitized footprints are depicted over a satellite image.

90 Alberti!89 Figure 5.6: Close-up of Citadel of Mycenae with digitized megaron and courtyard footprints This is a close-up view of the megaron and courtyard space over a satellite image of the Mycenaean citadel.

91 Alberti!90 Figure 5.7: Final Plan of the Palace at Pylos with megaron and courtyard outlines, after Palaima and Wright 1985, 253 This plan shows the Pylian palace after it was rebuilt in the LH IIIB period along with the numbers assigned to each room during excavation. The courtyard spaces are highlighted in green, the Throne Room is outlined in magenta, and the features of the Throne Room are outlined in red. The access points are highlighted in turquoise. This AutoCAD drawing was used to calculate the areas of each space as well as the length and width of the access points. The Archives Complex is composed of Room 7 and Room 8.