Circulation, Deposition and the Formation of the Greek Iron Age
Author(s): Ian Morris
Source: Man , Sep., 1989, New Series, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 502-519
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2802704
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Man
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CIRCULATION, DEPOSITION AND THE
FORMATION OF THE GREEK IRON AGE
IAN MORRIS
University of Chicago
The beginning of the Iron Age in the eastern Mediterranean is currently explained as a response to a
bronze shortage following the collapse of the palatial systems around 1200 B.C. In this article the
archaeological data are related more to depositional patterns. The model is challenged for ancient Greece
and the dominance of iron in graves after 1050 B.C. is explained as an elite monopoly on iron, forming
part of a new, stable ideological system and the rise of small-scale, inward-turned communities. This
argument is important for our understanding ofthe Greek city state, for recent debates about the structures
of Early Iron Age European society and for our definitions of 'Iron Ages' in prehistory.
Around 1025 B.C. bronze more or less vanishes from excavated sites in central Greece,
being replaced by a previously rare metal: iron.1 In this article, I argue that the dominant
interpretation of this process assumes too direct a link between the circulation ofmetals
in the past and the material record in the present. I contrast two approaches to the
shift from bronze to iron in the archaeological record, which I call the 'circulation
model' and the 'deposition model'. The currently popular circulation model sees a
decline in long-distance trade causing a bronze shortage and the rise of an iron-based
economy. The deposition model explains the same data in terms of the choices of
actors creating the material record, thus severing the simple link between our evidence
and the ancient uses of metals.
Close analysis of context can invalidate old theories and stimulate new ones (e.g.
Bradley 1985; S0rensen 1987). Most of the Greek finds were deliberately deposited;
I argue that regional patterns in deposition may be evidence not for the rise of Europe's
first iron-based economy but for the divergence of two types of social structure in
mainland Greece. One, where iron displaced bronze in burial customs, grew in the
eighth century into the polis city state. The other, where metals were used very
differently in rituals, developed into the larger, looser ethnos states or the more 'archaic'
city states of Crete. Ethnos states such as Macedonia and Achaea dominated Greece
after 350 B.C., but in the poleis (city states), above all Athens in the sixth to fourth
centuries, a unique cultural system developed which has affected all subsequent
European history. The 'deposition model' lets us study the start of this divergence.
On a more general level, I follow up what Hodder calls 'a lack of emphasis on the
internally generated meaning of the exchange system' (1982: 204) in studies of prehis-
toric trade. Sophisticated work is being done on long-distance contacts (e.g. Rowlands
et al. 1987; Champion 1989), but more attention could be paid to cultural dynamics
within small groups (e.g. Hodder 1989). The Greek data allow such a study. Gosden
Man (N.S.) 23, 502- 519
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IAN
MORRIS
503
(1985) has criticised models of European prehistory which emphasise long-distance
trade. Like him, I describe the rise of a highly regionalised system, a typical process in
Iron Age Europe. As Rowlands points out (1984; 1986; 1987), great sensitivity is
needed in generalising about 'European' trends; and the unique palatial prehistory of
Greece further complicates the issues. Simply opposing production and exchange or
'internal' and 'external' dynamics as prime movers is inadequate. I argue here that the
collapse of east Mediterranean trade by 1050 was a crucial event in that locally-obtained
prestige goods-iron artefacts-came to play a vital role in creating and maintaining
alliances and hierarchy.
Some of the problems addressed here, such as how to distinguish between types of
prehistoric state and how to move from deposition to daily use of artefacts, are widely
relevant. But the clearest need is for further detailed regional studies, paying close
attention to local processes. Alternative general propositions about Iron Age Europe
must be evaluated empirically, not at the level of competing paradigms.
Two models: circulation and deposition
There is a consensus that the first Iron Ages began before 1000 B.C. around the shores
of the east Mediterranean (e.g. Waldbaum 1978; Snodgrass 1983), but Childe's theory
that 'Cheap iron democratized agriculture and industry and warfare too' (1942: 191)
is out of favour. Iron is seen as a symptom, not a cause, of upheavals (e.g. Snodgrass
1971: 239; Stech Wheeler et al. 1981: 268). The motor for change is located in the
eclipse of the Bronze Age kingdoms.
Simplifying somewhat, the Near Eastern metals trade before 1200 was largely run
from the palaces, with raw materials moving as gifts between kings, each controlling
a discrete area. The merchants were, at least till the thirteenth century, usually palace
dependants (Zaccagnini 1977; Heltzer 1977; McCaslin 1980; Liverani 1987). The
situation in Greece and Cyprus is less clear (Muhly 1983; Knapp 1986), but the
Mycenaean palaces were involved in bronze production (Lang 1966). The circulation
model explains the spread of iron in Syria: Palestine, Cyprus and Greece as a functional
response to problems in obtaining copper and tin after the fall of many palaces around
1200 B.C. These regions had long known iron (Waldbaum 1983; Muhly et al. 1985)
and after 1200 they were forced to exploit locally available iron ore on a larger scale.
The circulation model thus provides a motive for the adoption of innovation.
Snodgrass suggests a three-stage typology for the development of the Iron Ages (1980:
336-7);
1) Iron is known but is rare, and is used mainly for decoration;
2) Iron is used as a 'working metal'2 for weapons and tools, but bronze dominates for practical implements;
3) Iron is the main working metal, although it does not completely replace bronze.
Snodgrass identifies stage 2 in Cyprus, Greece, Syria and Palestine by 1200, and sees
Cyprus as the first iron-based economy, entering stage 3 around 1100 (1983: 285-94).
Stage 3 begins in the Aegean islands and parts of the mainland by 1050. Crete was
perhaps fifty years behind, while western Greece and western Mediterranean Europe
lagged by up to 300 years (Snodgrass 1980: 359-66), and 'barbarian' Europe by longer
still (Snodgrass 1965; in press).
Snodgrass identifies three regional patterns in Greece (fig 2):
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
504
IAN
MORRIS
Olynthus,
Kastanas * Assiros E
Vergina
ou ou
TIo ro ne
Phiki
Stavros
Gavala
* Atalandi
0 0 * * t Lefkandi
- Kalapodi
AAegira'hIsthmia Athens
Mycenae
=
Olympia> Argos *fV L ion
Asine
= PyloSi Nichorlia r0
n, ~ Knos os
A) LY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it
T
_
~~~~~~Kommo
FIu y
1 Sts
meniond n te txt
s
FIGUR,E 1. Sites mentioned in the text.
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
*
Palaio
IAN
MORRIS
505
1) Around the Aegean (particularly in Attica, the Argolid, Thessaly, the Cyclades, southwest Asia
Minor and perhaps the Dodecanese) iron weapons become relatively common around 1050 and very
few bronzes at all date from between 1025 and 950, with even intricate ornaments being made from
iron;
2) In Macedonia and Crete, iron becomes common for weapons after 1000, but bronze remains the
main material for ornaments;
3) In the western parts of Greece (particularly Elis, Phocis, Kephallonia, Ithaca and Achaea) iron is
very rare in deposits until the ninth century, and such bronzes as occur are either heirlooms or
typologically backward copies of Bronze Age objects.
2
I~~~~~ 1
FIGURE. 2. Regional patterns of deposition (see text for expl
Snodgrass suggests that advanced areas of Greece learned iron technology from Cyprus
before 1050, but a collapse in long-distance trade cut off supplies, of copper, tin, gold
and ivory. The Cypriot kingdoms probably survived the disasters around 1200 B.C.
(Snodgrass 1988; contra, Rupp 1987; 1988) and stayed in touch with the Levant (Bikai
1987); but Greek objects vanish from Cyprus until the late tenth century (Coldstream
1986: 325) and even after this, the best evidence for contacts comes from Crete
(Coldstream 1984). There is a major tin source in the Taurus mountains (Yener &
Ozbal 1987) and much copper may have come from Sardinia (T.R. Smith 1987:
32-46), but if contact with Cyprus was lost it could have been lost with these regions
too. The Aegean went over almost entirely to iron, even forjewellery; western Greece,
where imports were rare but the new iron technology was not in use, struggled on
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
506
IAN
by
MORRIS
recycling
old
bronzes.
tin, gold and ivory, taking advantage of iron for functional items after 1000 while
keeping other media for ornaments. By 925, trade was resuming. Bronze again became
common around the Aegean. Corinthians began to penetrate northern Greece for
copper (Morgan 1988) and iron reached the west (Snodgrass 1971: 228-68).
The weakness in this model is its assumption of a direct link between the circulation
ofbronze and its recovery by excavators, treating deposition as a neutral process. Nearly
all the Greek metal has come from burials, and the implicit hypothesis that grave goods
are a constant cross-section of the material culture of the living is questionable (Morris
1987: 29-43). Bronze might equally well have disappeared from graves because it was
no longer appropriate for funerals. Desborough (1972: 316-18) suggested that 'personal
preference' played a role, but he left choice as a whimsical factor, either too frivolous
or too psychologically embedded to pursue further. Yet these 'preferences'; created
strong regional patterns in ritual practices.
The shift from bronze to iron is part of a larger set of changes in burial in central
Greece around 1050. A basically Mycenaean material culture survived until about
1125, but the 'Sub-Mycenaean' evidence3 suggests rapidly changing systems of ritual
meanings (Morris 1987: 172-3; Whitley 1987: 136-42). Around 1050 this chaos was
swept away and new patterns emerged, which were stable till nearly 900 (Morris 1987:
179-83). Several distinct material cultures formed in the central Aegean region in the
twelfth century. The pottery styles fall into two main groups: the Attic and the
Thessalo-Euboean (Desborough 1975: 673-5), while burial customs are even more
diverse (Snodgrass 1971: 147-64). However, beneath the formal variation, the whole
region shares the same structure in its archaeological record.
The new funerals made a distinction within the community, between an elite of
perhaps a quarter to a third of the adult population, and an inferior group. This was
marked most clearly by the informal disposal of the 'inferiors', so that their burials
leave few traces (Morris 1987). Membership of these groups probably depended on
control of land, not on genealogical position within a lineage (Finley 1978: 59-60;
Morris 1987: 87-93). This burial pattern appears in the areas of the proposed 'bronze
shortage', along with sweeping changes in all aspects of material culture the invention
of the Protogeometric pottery style, new locations for settlements, new burial customs
and, above all, the replacement of bronze by iron. At Athens, metalwork is distributed
far more evenly after 1050 than before. For over 100 years no intact adult grave is
either very rich or very poor (table 1): there is a marked uniformity in grave goods
for each sex.
The change from bronze to iron must be interpreted within this overall funerary
framework.
The age of iron
People in many parts of the world give objects (and other people) 'exchange order'
rather than 'exchange value' (Firth 1965: 336-44). Objects are classed in separate
spheres of exchange and evaluated ordinally rather than cardinally. It can be difficult
to break into the top-ranked sphere, especially if an individual or group wants to
monopolise it (Appadurai 1986). Access to metals need not be easy or equal, even if
they are mined locally. If an elite could control dependent smiths and/or the ores
themselves-situations common enough in the ethnographic record (Rowlands 1971;
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
M
IAN
MORRIS
507
TABLE 1. Distribution of vases and metal objects in intact adult burials at Athens, 1125-900
B.C.
Period Percentage Mean number of. Gini coefficient:
ofgraves
with metal Vases Metal Vases Metal
objects
objects
Submycenaean (1125-1050) 28.9% 1.3 1.7 .525 .879
Protogeometric (1050-900) 74.5% 4.9 1.8 .441 .502
Source: Morris 1987: 140-4, 147-51
Welbourn 1981)-they could forge a powerful weapon of exclusion (Morris 1986a).
By controlling iron and making it the only metal appropriate for grave goods in formal
burial, the symbol of membership of the elite, the leaders of Greek communities could
solidify their powers, creating a nrtual gap between themselves and those excluded
from iron and the formal cemetery. Gifts ofiron weapons andjewellery to less powerful
households would admit them as lower order members of the elite; lower still were
those households excluded entirely from the ceremonial creation of the community
in formal burials (cf. Morris 1987: 93-6). The prohibition of bronze for grave goods
might represent not scarcity but the inability of the elite to monopolise it.
Why iron? It may have given the elite a decisive military advantage, although we
know little about its hardness (Snodgrass 1971: 215-16). In this case, iron would
maintain the new order not only as a prestige good but also as the means of destruction
guaranteeing unequal access to wealth (cf. Goody 1971). Retaining the core idea of
the circulation model, a decline in bronze supplies would further increase the military
advantages of control over iron. It would also explain the elite's inability to monopolise
bronze, if most of it was spread around in recycled Mycenaean objects rather than
being concentrated in trade routes.
Emulation of Near Eastern metal use may have added to iron's attractions; and the
history of the metals suggests a third possibility. In the eighth century, when iron was
no longer so highly ranked as bronze and was used for more everyday tasks (Finley
1978: 61-8; Brookes 1981; Rhodes 1987), bronze weapons appear in poetry as symbols
to mark the heroes of the Trojan War as superhumans, playing a potent role in
underwriting elite authority (Morris 1986b: 115-29). Iron weapons may have had a
similar 'historical' role in the eleventh century, setting their owners off from previous
generations of bronze users, distancing the elite from the chaos of an unwelcome past
and establishing a stable world order.
Snodgrass's three regional patterns would then be not three types of circulation and
technology, but three systems of funerary ideology. Using iron for complex jewellery
would point not to a bronze shortage but to conspicuous use of a highly charged
medium to assert the status of the buriers of the women with whom most of these
ornaments were deposited. The main difference between Athenian and Macedonian
metal use would be that the Macedonians thought along the lines
iron:bronze::male:female, while Athenian rituals were based on the assumption
iron:bronze::elite:commoner. Similarly, putting a small bronze, ivory or bone globe
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
508
IAN
MORRIS
on the shaft of an iron pin need not mean that bronze was scarce. Catling felt that it
'suggests more a delight in the decorative quality in terms of colour, first, of the iron,
then of the strong contrast offered by the copper/bronze of the boss' (1983a: 333)-not
a bronze shortage, but a relaxation of exclusiveness for aesthetic effect.
This possibility cuts us off from direct evidence for circulation. We do not know
how common bronze was; because it was not used in the only social context to produce
deposits which we have chosen to excavate, it is invisible. For example, a dump of
foundry refuse shows that bronze tripods were being cast at Lefkandi c. 925-900 B.C.
(Catling & Catling 1980). Catling (1984; cf. Rolley 1977: 133-4; Magou et al. 1986:
126) has argued that production was not continuous from 1200 to 950 B.C. and that
most examples from eighth-century contexts were in fact made in Cyprus before 1150.
Even accepting this (Muhly [1988: 333-5] disputes it), these objects were in circulation
throughout the period, but are very rare in the archaeological record because they
were used in situations which produced no recognisable material residue. In Homer,
tripods moved as gifts at weddings, in initiation ceremonies, and between guest-friends.
They were used at feasts and as treasure to gloat over. Their potential for becoming
our data was minimal until they were turned into sanctuary dedications, at Olympia
after 950 and elsewhere after 800. The only trace dated 1025-950 is a group ofpostholes
at Lefkandi, possibly the base for a giant tripod (Popham & Sackett 1980a: 105).
Around 925, bronze, gold, ivory and other Near Eastern imports return to central
Greek graves, and more Greek pottery is found overseas. In the deposition model, this
is seen as the breakdown of the stable system, through the inability of the elite to
control iron any longer. Competition within elites intensified; at Athens we see new
restrictions on access to formal burial (Morris 1987: 180-3) and on the range of motifs
acceptable on grave pots (Whitley 1987: 166-93). When iron lost its potency as a
symbol, elites turned to imports, encouraging Greek voyaging beyond the Aegean and
providing greater incentives for Phoenician traders to come to Greece. Snodgrass
(1987: 193-209) has argued for agricultural intensification after 900; the evidence is
thin (Garnsey & Morris 1989: 99), but it is a plausible idea, and the growth in settlement
c.900 certainly took more land into cultivation. The wealth of burials at Athens, Argos
and Lefkandi escalated until c. 825, when a balance returned, before the entire structure
collapsed around 750 with the rise of the institutions of the polis (Qviller 1981; Morris
1987: 183-205).
In the next sections I examine the two models against burial finds, which generally
fit Snodgrass's patterns, and against settlement evidence and technical analyses, which
the circulation model will not accommodate. Sanctuaries do not provide a test: the
circulation model is itself one reason for dating the Olympia bronzes after 950 (Rolley
1977: 133-4), so using them as evidence could be self-defeating. Recent excavations
in early sanctuaries at Aegira, Isthmia, Kalapodi, Kommos and Koukounaries have
found almost no metal before 700.
Regional patterns: burial evidence
Western Greece. New finds fit the pattern of little iron and possibly recycled bronze
(see Morgan 1986: 15-63, 198-9), but a late tenth-century tomb with iron and bronze
near Pylos may be a problem (Blegen et al. 1973: 237-42). Snodgrass, pointing out
that Pylos was a major centre before 1200, suggests that this may have lasted long
enough for iron working to get established (1980: 354). Graves at Atalandi (Catling
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IAN
MORRIS
509
1986: 136-7), Stavros (Dakoronia 1978: 136-7) and Gavala (Stavropoulou-Gatsi 1980)
are unusually rich, but their dates are not secure. Two wealthy graves at Phiki
(Batziou-Efstathiou 1984) with bronze and gold date c.1000-950, but the site has
distinctly northern pottery types, and may belong with the Macedonian pattern.
Northern Greece. Most evidence comes from Vergina, where iron rules for weapons
and bronze for ornaments. Table 2 divides the finds into categories of ornaments and
'functional items' (weapons and tools). Unfortunately, the dating is poor.4 The rich
cemeteries at Palaio Gynaikokastro (Catling 1987: 37) and Koukou (Catling 1988: 49)
may alter the picture when published, but the large necropolis at Torone in Chalcidice
fits expectations, although metal is rare (A.M. Snodgrass, pers. comm.).
TABLE 2. Bronze and iron finds at Vergina, Macedonia
Ornaments 'Functional' items
Bronze
Number
*
The
Iron
240+
Bronze
5
bronze
1*
Iron
151
sword
from
Sources: Petsas 1962; 1963; Andronikos 1969
Crete. The main work has been in the Knossos North Cemetery.5 Bronze and gold
were quite common in the early Greek tombs (Catling 1979: 46-7; Whitley 1987:
284-5), but the iron is very interesting (table 3). In Subnminoan (c. 1100-925), over 50
per cent. of the iron finds are ornaments; after 925, the figure falls below 25 per cent.
Iron was used for ornaments very selectively, with pins heavily favoured (table 4).
Much the same pattern appears at Skales in Cyprus (table 5). Both Cretan and Cypriot
buriers had access to bronze but liked iron pins. Factors of choice intervene here.
The central Aegean area. Cemeteries dating 1100-825 have been explored at Lefkandi.
Catling compared this material with Snodgrass's theory, suggesting that
A salient fact is that the period of bronze shortage at Lekandi (if that is the correct way to interpret
the change of balance in bronze and iron objects in LPG) comes later than its supposed occurrence at
Athens. In fact, at least until SPG II, bronze was always used rather sparingly at Lekandi and if bronze
objects appear numerically abundant, particularly in SM and EPG, it must be remembered that they
are all small and their total weight is relatively tnvial (Catling 1980: 263-4).
This is a serious challenge to Snodgrass's patterns, but I do not think the evidence
bears it out (table 6 and fig. 3). In Middle and Late Protogeometric, which probably
correspond to the period when bronze is scarce in Athenian graves,6 bronze is underrepresented and iron over-represented in the Lefkandi burials.
The spectacular 'hero' graves of c.1000-950 B.C. (Popham et al. 1982a) are more
ambiguous. The male cremation was in a twelfth-century Cypriot bronze burn, and
some of the jewellery with the woman went back to 2000 B.C. This seems to me
more like the deliberate use of heirlooms to express the prestige of the dead than
desperate reuse of old metalwork in a shortage, but any interpretation of this unique
discovery is highly subjective.
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
g
510
IAN
MORRIS
TABLE 3. Iron finds from the Knossos North Cemetery
Period
Ornaments
Subminoan
Subminoan/
'Functional'
(1100-925)
7+
Protogeometric
Protogeometnrc
items
(925-800)
7
1
5
2
126
Early-Middle Geometric (800-740) 10+ 46
Late
Late
Geometric
Geometric/
(740-710)
7
Orientalising
Orientalising
(710-625)
29
10
12
17
58
A further 30 functional items can be dated only as Protogeometric-Middle Geometric, and a further 10
ornaments and 60 functional items only as Geometric.
Source: A.M. Snodgrass, unpublished report.
TABLE 4. Iron ornaments from Knossos
Period Fortetsa North Cemetery
Subminoan 1 pin 4+ pins, 2 fibulae, 1 ring
Subminoan/ Protogeometric none 1 pin
Protogeometric 4 pins 3 pins, 2 fibulae
Early-Middle Geometric 8 pins 9+ pins,*, 1 fibula
Late
Geometric
7
pins
7+
pins
Late Geometric/ Orientalising None 8 pins, 1 bracelet, 1 fibula
Orientalising
*The
pins
1
ring
from
12+
tomb
pins
75
were
rusted
together
tomb 294 could be Middle or Late Geometric.
Sources: Brock 1957; A.M. Snodgrass, unpublished report.
TABLE 5. Finds in the Skales cemetery, Paphos, Cyprus
Period
Ornaments
'Functional'
items
Gold/silver Bronze Iron Bronze Iron
a) Metal use
Cypro-Geometric I (1050-950) 99 9 59 20 21
Cypro-Geometric
Cypro-Geometric
b) Iron
0
17
4
1
15
III (850-750) 6
II
(950-850)
22
1
9
22
ornaments
Cypro-Geometric I 6 pins, 2 fibulae, 1 ring
Cypro-Geometric II 4 bowls (all from tomb 80)
Cypro-Geometric III 1 pin
Sources: Karageorghis 1983; see also Snodgrass 1983
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
in
IAN
MORRIS
511
TABLE 6. Mean numbers of objects of iron and bronze per grave at Lefkandi
Period
Iron
Bronze
Submycenaean
Number
(1125-1050)
of
0.2
graves
2.0
22
Early Protogeometric (1050-1025) 0.6 2.4 11
Middle Protogeometric (1025-1000) 0.75+ 0.6+* 12
Late Protogeometric (1000-900) 1.25 0.6 24
Sub-Protogeometric I (900-875) 0.5 1.2 26
Sub-Protogeometric II (875-850) 0.4 2.5 14
Sub-Protogeometric III (850-825) 0.5 3.7 6
Overall
0.6
1.6+
115
The Middle Protogeometric uncertainty concerns the number of grave goods with the Toumba heroon
female inhumation; the mean figures are probably only very slightly higher than those shown.
Sources: Popham & Sackett 1980a; Popham et al. 1982a; 1982b. Other graves are described in less detail in
Catling 1985: 15-16; 1987: 12-14.
'Bronze shortage'
+ 150%
+100%
Ca
E
0%
- 50%
-10
SM
EPG
MPG
LPG
SPG
I
SPG
11
SPG
111
Chronological phase
FIGURE 3. Mean numbers of bronze and iron objects per adult burial at Lefkandi, shown as a
percentage of the mean number of objects of each material per grave across the whole
period of use of the cemeteries, c.1100-825 B.C. (see table 6).
Regional patterns: settlement evidence
Western Greece. The main site is Nichoria (table 7). In Dark Age It and III iron is more
common for functional items, but bronze always dominates the ornaments. On Coulson's dating (1983: 318-22) Snodgrass's stage 3 of iron use begins only around 850 and
Nichorians continued to have bronze for ornaments throughout the supposed shortage.
This difference between settlement and burial uses fits the deposition model, but there
are problems. The sample is tiny and its dating is weak, resting largely on parallels for
a single bronze pin. Snodgrass (1984: 153) rightly points out that Coulson's dates could
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
512
IAN
MORRIS
TABLE 7. Bronze and iron finds from Nichoria
Period
Ornaments
'Functional'
items
Bronze Iron Bronze Iron
Dark
Age
I
Dark
Age
I-II
Dark
Age
Dark
Age
Dark
(1075-975)*
II
(975-850)
(975-850)
II-III
Age
III
0
4
5
0
8
2
16
8
9
(850-800)
(800-750)
*Excavator's
1
1
3
6
1
2
1
1
2
3
3
chronology
(Coulson
Source: McDonald et al. 1983
be 50-200 years too early. The site's relevance is therefore questionable.
Northern Greece. The shallow Early iron Age layers at Assiros produced only a stone
mould for casting bronze knives and an iron double axe, both from disturbed contexts
(Wardle 1980:261; 1987: 320; Catling 1988: 42-5). Some metal has been found at
Kastanas (table 8), but the sample is again small.
TABLE 8. Bronze and iron finds from Kastanas
Period
Ornaments
'Functional'
items
Bronze Iron Bronze Iron
Transition
Early
Early
Iron
Developed
Late
to
Iron
Age
Age
Age
Iron
Iron
*The
Iron
I
II
3
Age
Age
bronze
4
6
6
0
0
8
0
0
3
1
0
8
3
0
1
0
0
3
1
spearhead
Source: Hochstetter 1987
The central Aegean area. The main published settlement of this period is Asine. Here,
gr. 1970-15 (c.950-900 B.C.) fits Snodgrass's pattern of iron and no bronze (Wells
1976: 16-19), but in the houses seven small bronzes, a lead clamp and traces of bronze
and iron working were found (Wells 1983: 79-80, 101, 116, 227, 255, 278). This
would fit the deposition model best, but once more the sample is small. In the Lefkandi
'heroon' bronze and iron fragments were found, probably from a door fastening (Catling
1983b: 14).
Technical studies
Twenty-four bronzes from Nichoria have been analysed. The tin content was high,
reaching 25 per cent. This was perhaps deliberate: Catling (1983a: 283) comments
that 'a significant correlation seems clear between bronzes with a very high tin content
and their decorative function'.
The dating problems ofNichoria have been mentioned, but there is no such difficulty
at Lefkandi, where 102 bronzes were studied. The mean tin content was stable at
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IAN
MORRIS
513
around 5 per cent. from c.1 100-900, before shooting up to 10.5 per cent. in the ninth
century. Jones concluded that 'there was a ready availability of the base metals to the
metalsmiths at Lefkandi during the time span of the cemeteries' (1980: 457).
Another series of analysed bronzes, tripods from sanctuaries, begins c.925, just as
the hypothesised bronze shortage ends; but down to 750, they were made from almost
pure copper. What tin does occur is almost certainly accidental (Filippakis et al. 1983:
127). Further, the increase in tin after 750 was not simply a result of improved supplies
but of deliberate imitation of oriental tripods with a higher tin content, or even of the
presence ofNear Eastern craftsmen in Greece. The late eighth century mainland tripods
which copy Oriental designs have a mean tin content of 6.0 per cent., while those
continuing earlier mainland traditions have low and erratic tin contents, like their
ninth-century models (Filippakis et al. 1983: 118). In ninth-century Crete, tripods
were almost pure copper, like those on the mainland and on Ithaca, while Cretan
bronze shields had a higher and more regular tin level (Magou et al. 1986: 130-3).
Tripod makers chose to use tin-free copper after 925, or in some cases even to cast
tripods in iron (Maass 1979: 126-30,225-7). Trade had increased, but creative selection
of materials intervened between supply, production, circulation and deposition. Lead
isotope analysis reveals that eighth-century Athenian tripods were made from copper
from Lavrion (Magou et al. 1986: 133). Unless this source was forgotten between 1050
and 900, the Athenians could have cast low-tin bronzes without suffering from any
trade decline.
Summary
The evidence suggests complex metal use, with hidden factors affecting the archaeological record and the ways we have created the Greek Early Iron Age. The material
is consistent with the theory that iron drove bronze from central Aegean graves between
1025 and 950 as part of the rise of a new social structure, and less consistent with the
idea that a decline in trade is a sufficient explanation. The circulation model by itself
does not account for the patterns.
Cold iron
Gold is for the rnistress-Silver for the maid-
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade.
'Good!' said the baron, sitting in his hall,
'But Iron-Cold Iron-is master of them all'.
Rudyard Kipling, Cold Iron
How are we to imagine this age of iron? I have proposed a prestige economy, with
iron monopolised by elites and circulated as gifts among them. The local chief, the
basileus of eighth-century poetry, would hold loose and probably unstable control over
one or more villages in a lightly-settled countryside. Several basileis (the plural form)
would concentrate where villages were grouped together, as at Athens, which may
have numbered as many as 3,000-5,000 souls before 900 B.C. One of these men would
probably be recognised as dominant, although it might be difficult for him to transfer
this status to his children. Power would be based on control of land and dependants
and alliances through gifts with lesser local households and with basileis in other areas.
Short-distance gift relationships between basileis could act as buffers against the inter-
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
514
IAN
MORRIS
annual variability in rainfall which Greece is prone to (Gamsey 1988: 8-39; Gamsey
& Morris 1989) and provide political support. Iron was not only a symbol of the elite
group but also a means of enforcing its power. Control of the means of destruction
was probably a vital part of the 'social caging' which the elites struggled to create to
prevent their dependants from escaping into unoccupied lands. Some basileis might
extend their power over a wider area or head leagues of chiefs, but such larger units
would have been short-lived.
The system ran into trouble by 900, and collapsed around 750, with the rise of the
polis. This process of secondary state formation was perhaps predictable, given the
proximity of imperial civilisations, and can be seen at one level as an example of peer
polity interaction (Renfrew & Cherry 1986). However, its importance lies not in its
'complexity' but in the uniqueness of the citizen ideologies which emerged at this
time. The structure of the archaeological record is totally transformed around 750.
The change is abrupt and has been difficult to explain in other than the most general
terms (Morris 1987: 201-5). The 'deposition model' of the bronze/iron transition
allows a longer perspective on the rise of the polis. As early as the eleventh century,
the central Aegean areas where the polis was to appear diverged from north and west
Greece and Crete. Whether we emphasise differences in the Mycenaean world before
1200, or variations in responses to the twelfth-century breakup, or a more catastrophic
rupture around 1050, this approach opens the way for a more detailed analysis of the
rise of the polis. Many scholars have stressed the power of aristocrats in Archaic Greece,
but the most remarkable feature of the polis was the solidarity of the citizen body as a
whole against elite interests, culminating in the Classical Athenian democracy (Morris
in press). We might see this communal strength growing up as a popular culture
response to the very sharp ritual division created in 'official' burial practices, eventually
creating enough subversive power to begin a social revolution in the eighth century,
while outside the regions where this system was established c.1050 no such polarisation
occurred. In Classical times, north and west Greece and Crete continued to be
dominated by relations of production based on dependent serf-like groups within the
community rather than the strictly delimited citizen body with deracinated chattel-slave
labour force of the developed polis (Finley 1981: 97-166).
The deposition model severs the link between our data and the use of metals in
everyday life, raising the question of what it means to speak of the 'Early Iron Age' at
all. Iron reigned supreme as a prestige good and on the battlefield, but metals were
apparently little used otherwise-until c.700 or even later most tasks were probably
carried out with stone, bone or wood (Runnels 1982; Blitzer & McDonald 1983;
Morris 1986a: 10-11; Hochstetter 1987: 46-82). Compared to Greek settlements of
the fifth and fourth centuries, the Early Iron Age was almost metal-free (e.g. Robinson
1941; Burr Thompson 1960).
Metal tools were much commoner in Cyprus and the Levant than in Greece
(Waldbaum 1978: 24-31). Genuine steel was produced in Palestine in the twelfth
century (Davis et al. 1985) and perhaps earlier still in Jordan (R.H. Smith et al. 1984);
thorough carburisation and quench-hardening were used in Cyprus well before 1000
B.C. (Tholander 1971; Maddin 1983; Stech et al. 1985). Both regions have a better
claim than Greece to be called iron-based economies, although there are some unexpected patterns. McGovern (1986: 277) questions the circulation model's relevance
to Jordan: in twenty analysed bronzes from burials in Baq'ah valley cave A4, the mean
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IAN
MORRIS
515
tin content rises steadily from 6.1 per cent. in Late Bronze I to 10.6 per cent. in Iron
IA (McGovern 1986: 283). In the eleventh-century graves steel was used only for
jewellery (McGovern 1986: 272-3, 338-9). Similarly, Astrom et al. (1986: 40) suggest
that iron was highly valued in some parts of Cyprus, being found in tombs in association
with gold (cf. Waldbaum 1983: 335-6).
Braudel observed that 'the iron age had hardly begun for the entire chronological
span of this book [A.D. 1400-1800]. The farther back in time one goes from the great
turning point of the industrial revolution, the smaller the role played by iron ... The
period covered by this book was still very much the age of wood' (1981: 382). Any
definition of 'Iron Age' is of course relative, but to call the Aegean an iron-based
economy before the sixth century would be a distortion. Iron moved around in a very
restricted sphere of exchange, divorced from everyday activity, but it was that sphere
which had the greatest influence on the creation of our archaeological record.
To conclude: I propose a new interpretation of the replacement of bronze by iron
in the archaeological record of eleventh-century Greece, seeing it as evidence for the
rise of a new stable order after the fall ofthe Mycenaean palaces. This challenges current
assumptions about the beginning of the Iron Age in the eastern Mediterranean and
the construction of concepts of the 'Iron Age'.
NOTES
A shorter version of this article was discussed at the Cambridge Iron Age conference in December
1988, organised by Cathy Morgan, Sander van der Leeuw and Greg Woolf, and the argument has
benefited from the participants' suggestions. I particularly want to thank Anthony Snodgrass, who has for
more than six years helped me to propose interpretations of early Greece which differ from his own. He
offered valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article, as well as allowing me access to his notes on
the iron finds from the Knossos North Cemetery. Neither he nor anyone else named necessarily agrees
with the results.
1 I follow the absolute chronology suggested by Snodgrass (1971: 134-5). Renfrew (1985: 84-7) and
Mountjoy (1986: table 1) propose lower dates, and the best answer is still unclear. The calendar years are
used as conventional signposts for the relative positions of different local sequences, not firm points
(Morris 1987: 10-18).
2 Snodgrass's use of the expression 'working metal' was queried by Maddin (in Snodgrass 1983: 295),
but confusion seems unlikely so I retain it here.
3 The best discussion of the problems of defining a Sub-Mycenaean culture in the period 1125-1050 is
still Snodgrass (1971: 28-40).
4 Hammond (1972: 219-36, 384-99) and Kilian (1975: 65-74) challenged the excavator's dating, and
Snodgrass (1971: 132-3, 160-3, 253-5; 1980: 350) has argued that all three systems are too high.
5 This cemetery is in the process of publication. Professor Snodgrass very kindly allowed me to read
his report on the iron finds, but I have not yet seen accounts of the bronzes. The conventional chronology of Knossian metalwork may need to be revised in the light of this important excavation.
6 The chronological relationship of the Athenian and Lefkandian Protogeometric sequences is still
unclear, but Desborough (1980: 285-92) put the start of both Early phases around 1050 on the absolute
system used here and had Lefkandian Late Protogeometric begin at some point during the Attic Late
style. Sub-Protogeometric II overlapped with Attic Early Geometric II, and Sub-Protogeometric III with
Attic Middle Geometric. Popham and Sackett (1980b: 355) suggest c.1050-1000 for Early and Middle
Protogeometric, and c.1000-900 for Late Protogeometric.
REFERENCES
Andronikos, M. 1969. Vergina L Athens: Vivliothiki tis en Athinais Arkhaiologikis Etaireias, no. o2.
Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction. In The social ife of things (ed.) A. Appadurai. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
Astr8m, P., R. Maddin, J.D. Muhly & T. Stech 1986. Iron artefacts from Swedish excavations in Cyprus.
Opuscula Atheniensa 16, 27-41.
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
516
IAN
MORRIS
Batziou-Efstathiou, A. 1984. Protogeometrika apo ti Dytiki Thessalia, Athens Annals Archaeol. 17, 74-87.
Bikai, P.M. 1987. The Phoenician pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: Dept. of Antiquities.
Bintliff, J. (ed.) 1984. European social evolutions. Bradford: Univ. Press.
Blegen, C.W., E. Rawson, W. Taylour & W.P. Donovan 1973. The palace of Nestor at Pylos in western
Messenia III. Princeton: Univ. Press.
Blitzer, H. & W.A. McDonald 1983. A note on stone and bone artifacts. In McDonald et al. 1983.
Bradley, R. 1985. Exchange and social distance-the structure of bronze artefact distributions. Man (N.S.)
20, 692-704.
Braudel, F. 1981. The structures of everyday lIfe. London: Fontana.
Brock, J.K. 1957. Fortetsa: early Greek tombs near Knossos (Brit. Sch. Archaeol. Athens Supp. 2). Cambridge:
Univ. Press.
Brookes, A.C. 1981. Stoneworking in the Geometric period at Corinth. Hesperia 50, 285-90.
Burr Thompson D. 1960. The house of Simon the shoemaker. Archaeology 13, 234-40.
Catling, H.W. 1979. Knossos, 1978. Archaeological Reportsfor 1978-79: 43-8.
1980. Objects of bronze, iron and lead. In Popham et al. 1980c.
1981. Archaeology in Greece, 1980-81. Archaeological Reports for 1980-81: 3-48.
1982. Archaeology in Greece, 1981-82. Archaeological Reportsfor 1981-82: 3-62.
1983a. The metal objects. In McDonald et al. 1983.
1983b. Archaeology in Greece, 1982-83. Archaeological Reports for 1982-83: 3-62.
1984. Workshop and heirloom: prehistoric bronze stands in the east Mediterranean. Report of the
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 69-91.
1985. Archaeology in Greece, 1984-85. Archaeological Reportsfor 1984-85: 3-69.
1986. Archaeology in Greece, 1985-86. Archaeological Reportsfor 1985-86: 3-101.
1987. Archaeology in Greece, 1986-87. Archaeological Reports for 1986-87: 3-61.
1988. Archaeology in Greece, 1987-88. Archaeological Reports for 1987-88: 1-85.
Catling, H.W. & E.A. Catling 1980. the mould and crucible fragments-the foundry refuse. In Popham et
al. 1980.
Champion, T.C.(ed.) 1989. Centre and periphery. London: Unwin & Hyman.
Childe, V.G. 1942. Wat happened in history. Harmondsworth: Peregrine Books.
Coldstream, J.N. 1984. Cypriaca and Cretocypriaca from the North Cemetery of Knossos, Report of the
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 122-37.
1986. Kition and Amathus: some reflections on their westward links during the Early Iron Age.
In Karageorghis 1986.
Coulson, W.D.E. 1983. The pottery. In McDonald et al. 1983.
Curtis,J. (ed.) 1988. Bronze-workingcentres ofwesternAsia, c. 1000-539 B.C. London: Kegan Paul International.
Dakoronia, F. 1978. Ephoreia proistorikon kai klasikon arkhaiotiton Lamias, Arkhaiologikon Deltion 33(2),
132-41.
Davis, D., R. Maddin, J.D. Muhly & T. Stech 1985. A steel pick from Mt Adir in Palestine. J. Near East.
Stud. 44, 41-51.
Desborough, V.D. 1972. The Greek Dark Ages. London: Methuen.
1975. The end of the Mycenaean civilisation and the Dark Age: the archaeological background,
Cambridge Ancient History II part 2B (3rd edn.). Cambridge: Univ. Press.
1980. The Dark Age pottery (SM-SPG III) from the settlement and cemeteries. In Popham et al.
1980c.
Filippakis, S., E. Photou, C. Rolley & G. Varoufakis 1983. Bronzes grecs et onentaux: influences et
apprentissages. Bull. Corresp. hellen 107, 111-32.
Finley, M.I. 1978. The world of Odysseus (2nd edn). London: Chatto & Windus.
1981. Economy and society in ancient Greece (eds) B.D. Shaw & R.P. Saller. London: Chatto &
Windus.
Firth, R. 1965. Primitive Polynesian economy (2nd edn). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gamsey, P. 1988. Famine andfood supply in the Graeco-Roman world. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
Gamsey, P. & I. Morris 1989. Risk and the polis. In Halstead & O'Shea 1989.
Goody, J.R. 1971. Technology, tradition and the state in Africa. Cambridge: Univ. Press for the International
African Institute.
Gosden, C. 1985. Gifts and kin in Early Iron Age Europe. Man (N.S.) 20, 475-93.
Halstead, P. & J. O'Shea (eds) 1989. Bad year economics: cultural responses to uncertainty. Cambridge: Univ.
Press.
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
56 UTC
IAN
MORRIS
517
Hammond, N.G.L. 1972. A history of Macedonia I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heltzer, M. 1977. The metal trade of Ugarit and the problem of transportation of commercial goods. Iraq
39, 203-11.
Hochstetter, A. 1987. Kastanas: die Kleinfunde (Prahist. Archaol. Suidosteuropa 6). Berlin: Volker Spiess.
Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in action. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
(ed.) 1987. The archaeology of contextual meanings. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
(ed.) 1989. The meanings of things. London: Unwin Hyman.
Jones, R.E. 1980. Analyses of bronze and other base metals from the cemeteries. In Popham et al. 1980c.
Karageorghis, V. 1983. Alt-Paphos III: Palaepaphos-Skales, an Iron Age cemetery in Cyprus. 2 vols. Konstanz:
Univ. Press.
(ed.) 1986. Cyprus between the orient and the occident. Nicosia: Dept. of Antiquities.
Kilian, K. 1975. Trachtzubeh6r der Eisenzeit zwischen Agais und Adria. Prahist. Z. 50, 63-104.
Knapp, A.B. 1986. Copper production and divine protection: archaeology, ideology and social complexity in Bronze
Age Cyprus. G6teborg: Stud. Med. Arch. Pocketbook 42.
Lang, M. 1966. In formulas and groups. Hesperia 35: 397-412.
Liverani, M. 1987. The collapse of the Near Eastern regional system at the end of the Bronze Age: the case
of Syria. In Rowlands et al. 1987.
Maass, M. 1979. Olympische Forschungen X: die geometrischen Drefuisse von Olympia. Berlin: de Gruyter.
McCaslin, D.E. 1980. Stone anchors in antiquity: coastal settlements and maritime trade routes in the eastern
Mediterranean. Goteborg: Stud. Med. Arch. 61.
McDonald, W.A., W.D.E. Coulson &JJ. Rosser (eds) 1983. Excavations at Nichoria in southwest Greece III.
Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
McGovern, P.E. 1986. The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of central Transjordan: the Baq'ah Valley project
(Philadelphia: Univ. Mus. Monogr. 65). Philadelphia: Univ. Museum.
Maddin, R. 1983. Early iron technology in Cyprus. In Muhly et al. 1983.
Magou, E., S. Philippakis & C. Rolley 1986. Tr6pieds geometriques de bronze, analyses complementaires.
Bull. Corresp. hellen 110, 121-36.
Morgan, C.A. 1986. Settlement and exploitation in the region of the Connthian Gulf, c.1000-700 B.C.
Thesis, Cambridge University.
1988. Corinth, the Corinthian Gulf and western Greece during the eighth century B.C. Ann. Brit.
Sch. Archaeol. Athens 83, 313-38.
Morris, I. 1986a. Gift and conumodity in Archaic Greece. Man (N.S.) 21, 1-17.
1986b. The use and abuse of Homer. Class. Antiq. 5, 81-138.
1987. Burial and ancient society: the rise of the Greek city state. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
in press. The early polis as city and state. In Rich & Wallace-Hadrill in press.
Mountjoy, P. 1986. Mycenaean decorated pottery: a guide to identfication. Goteborg: Stud. Med. Arch. 73.
Muhly, J.D. 1983. The nature of trade in the LBA east Mediterranean: the orgamsation of the metals' trade
and the role of Cyprus. In Muhly et al. 1983.
1988. Concluding remarks. In Curtis (ed.) 1988.
, R. Maddin & V. Karageorghis (eds) 1983. Early metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000-500 B.C. Nicosia:
Dept. of Antiquities.
, T. Stech & E. Ozgen 1985. Iron in Anatolia and the nature of the Hittite iron industry. Anatol.
Stud. 35, 67-84.
Petsas, Ph. 1962. Anaskaphi arkhaiou nekrotapheiou Verginis. Arkhaiologikon Deltion 17(1): 218-88.
1963. Anaskaphi arkhaiou nekrotapheiou Verginis. Arkhaiologikon Deltion 18(3): 217-32.
Popham, M.R. & L.H. Sackett 1980a. The excavation and layout of the cemeteries. In Popham et al. 1980c.
1980b. Historical conclusions. In Popham et al. 1980c.
, L.H. Sackett & P.G. Themelis (eds) 1980c. LeJkandi I (Brit. Sch. Archaeol. Athens Supp. 1).
London: Thames & Hudson.
, E. Touloupa & L.H. Sackett 1982a. The hero of Lefkandi. Antiquity 56, 169-74.
1982b. Further excavations of the Toumba cemetery at Lefkandi, 1981. Ann. Brit. Sch. Archaeol.
Athens 77, 213-48.
Qviller, B. 1981. The dynamics of the Homeric society. Symbolae Osloenses 56, 109-55.
Renfrew, A.C. 1985. The archaeology of cult: the sanctuary at Phylakopi. (Brit. Sch. Archaeol. Athens Supp.
18). London: Thames & Hudson.
Renfrew, A.C. & J.F. Cherry (ed.) 1986. Peer polity interaction and the development of sociocultural complexity.
Cambridge: Univ. Press.
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
518
IAN
MORRIS
Rhodes, J.F. 1987. Early stone working in the Corinthia. Hesperia 56, 229-32.
Rich, J. & A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds) in press. City and country in the ancient world. London: Routledge.
Robinson, D.M. 1941. Excavations at Olynthus XI: metal and minor miscellaneous objects. Baltimore & London:
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
Rolley, C. 1977. Fouilles de Delphes V. 3: les trepieds a cuve clouee. Paris: Editions de Boccard.
Rowlands, M.J. 1971. The archaeological interpretation of prehistoric metalworking. Wid. Archaeol. 3,
210-24.
1984. Conceptualising the European Bronze and Iron Ages. In Bintliff 1984.
1986. Modernist fantasies in prehistory? Man (N.S.) 21, 745-6.
1987. The concept of Europe in prehistory. Man (N.S.) 22, 558-9.
, M. Larsen & K. Kristiansen (eds) 1987. Centre and periphery in the ancient world. Cambridge: Univ.
Press.
Runnels, C. 1982. Flaked stone artifacts in Greece during the historical period. J. Fld. Archaeol. 9, 363-73.
Rupp, D.W. 1987. Vive le roi: the emergence of the state in Iron Age Cyprus, in Western Cyprus: connections
(ed.) D.W. Rupp. G6teborg: Stud. Med. Arch. 77.
1988. The 'Royal Tombs' at Salamis (Cyprus): ideological messages of power and authority. J.
Medit. Archaeol. 1, 111-39.
Smith, R.H. R. Maddin,J.D. Muhly & T. Stech 1984. Bronze Age steel from Pella,Jordan. Curr. Anthrop.
25, 234-6.
Smith, T.R. 1987. Mycenaean trade and interaction in the west central Mediterranean, 1600-1000 B.C. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports.
Snodgrass, A.M. 1965. Barbarian Europe and Early Iron Age Greece. Proc. prehist. Soc. 31, 229-40.
1971. The Dark Age of Greece. Edinburgh: Univ. Press.
1980. Iron and early metallurgy in the Mediterranean. In Wertime & Muhly 1980.
1983. Cyprus and the beginnings of iron technology in the eastern Mediterranean. In Muhly et al.
1983.
1984. Review of Coulson (1983). Antiquity 58, 152-4.
1987. An archaeology of Greece. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: Univ. of California Press.
1988. Cyprus and early Greek history. Nicosia: Bank of Cyprus.
in press. The bronze/iron transition in Greece. In Thomas & S0rensen, in press.
S0rensen, M.L.S. 1987. Material order and cultural classification: the role of Bronze objects in the transition
from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in Scandinavia. In Hodder 1987.
Stavropoulou-Gatsi, M. 1980. Protogeometriko nekrotapheio Aitolias. Arkhaiologikon Deltion 35(1), 102-30.
Stech, T. J.D. Muhly & R. Maddin 1985. The analysis of iron artifacts from Palaepahos-Skales. Report of
the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 197-202.
Stech Wheeler, T.,J.D. Muhly, K.R. Maxwell-Hyslop & R. Maddin 1981. Iron at Taanach and early iron
technology in the eastern Mediterranean. Am. J. Archaeol. 85, 245-68.
Tholander, T. 1971. Evidence for the use of carburized steel and quench hardening in Late Bronze Age
Cyprus. Opuscula Atheniensa 10, 15-22.
Thomas, R.L. & M.L.S. S0rensen (eds) in press. The archaeology of contextual meanings. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports.
Waldbaum, J. 1978. From bronze to iron. Goteborg: Stud. Med. Arch. 54.
1983. Bimetallic objects from the eastern Mediterranean and the question of the dissemination of
iron. In Muhly et al. 1983.
Wardle, K.A. 1980. Excavations at Assiros, 1975-9. Ann. Brit. Sch. Archaeol. Athens 75, 229-67.
1987. Excavations at Assiros Toumba 1986. Ann. Brit. Sch. Archaeol. Athens 82, 313-29.
Welbourn, D.A. 1981. The role of blacksmiths in a tribal society. Archaeol. Rev. Cambr. 1, 30-40.
Wells, B. 1976. Asine II.4. 1. Stockholm: Skrifter Utgvina i Svenska Institutet i Athen.
1983. Asine 11.4.2-3. Stockholm: Skrifter Utgvina i Svenska Institutet i Athen.
Wertime, T.A. &J.D. Muhly (eds) 1980. The coming of the age of iron. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Whitley, AJ.M. 1987. Style, burial and society in Dark Age Greece: social, stylistic and mortuary change
in the two communities of Athens and Knossos between 1100 and 700 B.C. Thesis, Cambridge
University.
Yener, K. & H. Ozbal 1987. Tin in the Turkish Taurus mountains: the Bolkardag mining district. Antiquity
61, 220-6.
Zaccagnini, C.C. 1977. The merchant at Nuzi. Iraq 39, 171-89.
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IAN
MORRIS
519
Circulation, depot et la formation de l'age du fer grec
Resume
Le commencement de l'age du fer en M6diterran6e Orientale est expliqu6 a pr6sent comme une r6ponse
au manque de bronze faisant suite a l'effondrement des syst&mes de palais aux environs de 1200 avant
Jesus Christ. Dans cet article, les donnees archeologiques se rapportent davantage aux modeles de depots.
La situation consid6ree ici est pour la Grece Antique, et la predominance de fer dans des tombes apres
1050 avantJ6sus Christ est expliqu6e comme un monopole du fer par 1'elite, faisant partie d'un nouveau
systeme id6ologique stable et de la montee de communaut6s a petite echelle, repliees sur elles-memes.
Cette discussion est importante pour notre comprehension de la cite-etat grecque, pour des debats recents
a propos des structures de la societe europeenne du d6but de l'age du fer et pour nos definitions en
pr6histoire des 'Ages du Fer'.
This content downloaded from
140.112.25.39 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:24:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms