SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD:

PRESENTATION OF A NEW PROJECT

S. VOUTSAKI*

ABSTRACT This paper presents a new interdisciplinary project (financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific
Research and the University of Groningen), which endeavors to interpret the important social, political and cultural changes
that took place in the southern Greek mainland during the MH period and the transition to the Mycenaean period (ca. 2000–
1500 BC). This task is undertaken by means of an integrated analysis of settlement, funerary, skeletal and iconographic data
from the Argolid. The central question of the project is the redefinition of personal, social and cultural identities within wider
processes of change.

KEYWORDS Sociocultural change, identity, process, Middle Helladic period, early Mycenaean period.

I. INTRODUCTION
Oliver Dickinson’s The Origins of Mycenaean
Civilisation (1977) provided the first synthesis on the
MH period and constituted the earliest attempt to
understand the changes that took place in the southern
mainland towards the end of the MBA. It remains to
our day the starting point of any investigation on this
era—and it is therefore only appropriate that a paper
on social and cultural change in the MH period opens
with a summary of the evidence largely based on his
book.1
The MH period is characterised by depopulation,
relative material poverty, and the absence of overt
social differentiation, especially during the earlier and
middle phases (MH I–MH II) (Dickinson 1977: 38,
106). There is no pronounced site hierarchy, nor do
houses within a settlement vary significantly in terms
of architecture, size, or contents (1977: 33–4). There is
some differentiation among graves in terms of tomb
type, or in the presence and diversity of offerings: the
dead were buried in intramural graves below or
between houses, or in extramural cemeteries; they
* Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen, Poststraat 6,
Groningen 9712 ER, The Netherlands. E–mail: s.voutsaki@rug.nl.
1
I would like to thank Oliver for being a constant source of
inspiration, sound advice and constructive criticism over more
than a decade. I am looking forward to our collaboration in this
project and to long conversations on the MH period!
were placed in burial jars, cists or pits, and sometimes
under burial mounds (tumuli); they usually received no
offerings, but were at times accompanied by one or
two vases, or a few simple ornaments made of bone,
stone or paste (1977: 33–4, 38). Metal finds are quite
rare, and precious metal (gold, silver) virtually absent
(1977: 34–6).
During this period, the southern mainland was
culturally rather isolated, although economic
exchanges are attested through the presence of ceramic
imports from Aegina, the Cyclades and Crete along
the eastern coast of the mainland (1977: 36–7).
Cultural influence from the neighbouring areas can be
seen only in the production of local pottery imitating
Cretan wares, found once more mainly in the south–
eastern mainland.
However, at the end of the period, i.e. during the MH
III–LH I phases, important changes took place,
especially in the mortuary sphere (1977: 38). This
period saw the introduction of more labour–intensive
tombs, the adoption of a complex burial ritual, a sharp
increase in the deposition of valuables with the dead,
and the introduction of figurative art. These
developments find their most dramatic manifestation
in the Grave Circles of Mycenae (Karo 1930–1933;
Mylonas 1973; Dickinson 1977: 39–58). The people
buried in the two Grave Circles were treated in a way
 S. VOUTSAKI
that elevated them above the rest of the community:
their burial place was demarcated by a circular
enclosure and made more conspicuous by the use of
funerary stelae; the dead were buried in increasingly
large and deep shaft graves, designed especially for
reuse; some of the people buried received secondary
treatment, and their funeral involved complex rites,
such as animal sacrifices and ‘funerary meals’; finally,
the dead were accompanied by unprecedented
amounts of mostly imported, finely crafted offerings,
made of precious materials and decorated with
complex figurative scenes. These burials clearly mark
the emergence of a social élite at Mycenae (Kilian–
Dirlmeier 1986; Graziadio 1991), that used mortuary
display and conspicuous consumption as a strategy of
exclusion and differentiation (Voutsaki 1995; 1997).
While the wealth of the Mycenae Grave Circles is
unique, in MH III–LH I the entire southern mainland
witnessed a general increase in prosperity, more
marked differentiation between and within
communities, as well as increasing interaction with the
Aegean. The mainland regions participated in these
developments in different degrees.2 I have argued
elsewhere (Voutsaki 1993: 163–4, 167–8) that social
and political imbalances within and between regions
set off a process of competition and emulation, which
soon engulfed the entire southern mainland and led to
the emergence of small principalities in the early
Mycenaean period, and the formation of larger palatial
states in the late Mycenaean period.
The seeds of these developments, however, should be
sought further back in time, during the MH period.
Therefore, explaining social change in the latter period
becomes an imperative task. This is the main objective
of a new five–year project based at the Groningen
Institute of Archaeology in the Netherlands.3
2
For instance, a certain concentration of moderately rich tombs
can be seen in Messenia (Dickinson 1977: 91–4; for a more
recent synthesis, see Boyd 2002) and a scatter in Thebes, Attica
and Corinth (see Cavanagh & Mee 1998: passim).
3
The project is directed by myself, and financed by the
Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and
the Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen. For more
information on the project, see Voutsaki et al. 2004 [2003];
Voutsaki et al. in press; and, on the internet,
http://www.MHArgolid.nl. I would like to thank Mrs Z.
Aslamatzidou, ephor of the Fourth Ephorate of Classical and
Prehistoric Antiquities at Nauplion, and the Department of
Conservation of the Greek Ministry of Culture for granting us
permission to examine and sample the skeletal material from
Lerna and Aspis (Argos). I would also like to thank the
American School of Classical Studies at Athens, as well as
Prof. M. Wiencke, Dr. C. Zerner and Prof. E. Banks, for
allowing us to examine the Lerna skeletons and finds, and to
take samples from the skeletons. We are equally thankful to the
French School of Archaeology, in particular to Prof. G.
Touchais and Mrs. A. Philippa–Touchais, for allowing us to
examine the finds from Aspis and to take samples from the
II. THE AIMS OF THE PROJECT
The central aim of this project is to explain the changes
that took place during the MH period, and their
intensification in the transition to the LH period. The
project focuses on the Argolid and, in particular, the
Argive plain [Pl. 1]. More extensively, the key
objectives are:
ƒ To establish the nature of social organisation
during the MH period.
ƒ To reconstruct the process of social change during
the MH period, and to assess the changing
articulation of kinship and status at that time.
ƒ To reconstruct the process of political change,
and, in particular, to explain the rise of Mycenae
towards the end of the MH period.
ƒ To explore the role of external contacts in the
cultural transformation of the Greek mainland
societies.
ƒ To explore the redefinition of personal and group
identities in wider processes of cultural and social
change.
III. THE PROBLEM: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHANGE
DURING THE MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD
A. SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND SOCIAL CHANGE DURING THE
MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD
O. Dickinson has described MH society as ‘not
particularly complex’ (1977: 38). To quote him: “[…]
few tumuli and big houses are the only possible
evidence of a ‘ruling class’ until the […] Late Phase,
which suggest some social stratification, although they
are not separated or in any way different from the rest
[…]” (1977: 38). His conclusions have been largely
confirmed by more recent and detailed studies. For
instance, G. Nordquist has suggested that the Lerna
society did not develop from a more egalitarian to a
more complex one, but “from a society with fewer and
less marked rank groups to one with larger social
divisions and more marked ranking, and clearer sex
differences” (Nordquist 1979: 44; 2002: 29). In their
recent monograph on mortuary practices in the
prehistoric Aegean, W. Cavanagh and C. Mee (1998:
35) have concluded that “there was some degree of
social hierarchy in this [MH] period which can be
skeletons. Finally, we would like to express our thanks to the
Swedish Institute of Archaeology, Prof. G. Nordquist, Prof. R.
Hägg and Prof. C.–G. Styrenius for permission to examine the
finds and skeletons from Asine. We are deeply grateful to Dr.
Zerner, Prof. Touchais, Mrs. Philippa–Touchais and Prof.
Nordquist for giving us access to unpublished information,
deriving from their work at the respective sites.
 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD: PRESENTATION OF A NEW PROJECT
traced back to the beginning of the period.” It is
therefore generally agreed that some form of social
differentiation existed towards the end of the period,
but there is some ambivalence about the nature and
degree of differentiation during the earlier phases.
One scholar, however, has offered a substantially
different reading of the data: I. Kilian–Dirlmeier, in
her recent publication of the ‘shaft grave’—or better,
‘built tomb’—of Aegina (1997) has proposed the
existence of an élite and social stratification already in
the earlier phases of the MH period. In this study, she
presents a list of élite burials (Hervorgehobene
Bestattungen), which she interprets as the burials of
MH chiefs. These élite graves consisted usually of
single burials, deposited in large graves in a
conspicuous location, and were sometimes enhanced
by a burial mound. They were accompanied by rich
offerings, including weapons, and date primarily to the
MH II period. Typical examples are the built tomb in
Aegina and the so–called Ampheion at Thebes, while
other tombs, such as the ones at Dramesi,
Kephalovryso, Ayia Irini (Grave 28), Marathon
(Tumulus I, Tomb 1), Thorikos (Tumulus V, shaft
grave), and the tumuli at Asine (IQ), Pappoulia and
Voidokoilia (Kilian–Dirlmeier 1997: 83–106, with full
references) are also included in her list of early MH
élite burials. The inclusion of weapons in some of
these tombs and the absence of overt signs of Minoan
influence led Kilian–Dirlmeier to conclude that the
basis of power in the early MH period was a
combination of military achievement and economic
activities, rather than a connection with, or influence
by, the Minoan élite. She, therefore, explains the Shaft
Grave phenomenon as the intensification of earlier
patterns of differentiation, and attributes it to internal
developments.
There is, however, a logical weakness in this
explanation: if we accept that there is already social
hierarchy in the MH I–MH II periods, or, to put it
differently, if we see the Shaft Grave phenomenon as a
culmination of internal processes, we run the risk of
seeing the dramatic changes that took place in MH III–
LH I as natural and inevitable; in fact, we almost evade
the need to explain them.4
In addition, the homogeneity of this group of tombs in
terms of chronology, location, grave architecture,
mode of disposal and wealth is questionable. Most
importantly, their date is problematic: while the
Aegina grave certainly belongs to the MH II phase, for
the others a MH III date cannot be excluded or is even
4
As J. Wright (2001: 182) has observed: “Kilian–Dirlmeier has
collected evidence of early MH high status burials, but has not
situated them within the dynamic processes that led to the more
elaborate burials of the end of the period.”
preferable.5 In terms of wealth, again there are
exceptions: neither the Marathon tomb, nor the tumuli
in Pappoulia and Voidokoilia (Kilian–Dirlmeier 1997:
103–4) contained any valuable items during their
earlier phase of use.
I would also like to express a methodological
reservation. Kilian–Dirlmeier singles out élite burials
from different regions, and thereby treats the entire
southern mainland as an undifferentiated entity. In this
way, both regional differences and differences among
specific sites are obscured. The publication of the
Aegina tomb has initiated a very interesting discussion
on MH society, but I believe that the evidence for the
existence of a clearly demarcated élite in the earlier
part of the period is not overwhelming.
Our project will adopt a different approach in order to
reconstruct social structure during the MH period: we
intend to undertake a detailed, contextual and
statistical analysis of all attested tombs in one region.6
If we undertake such an analysis in the Argolid,7 the
following picture emerges. Under the apparent
simplicity and homogeneity of MH mortuary
practices, there is a wide diversity of forms. Burials
were either intramural or extramural, while the
possibility of separate burial plots in abandoned areas
of the settlement should also be mentioned; there are
‘flat’ cemeteries and tumuli; there are several tomb
types—simple inhumations, pits, cists, pot burials and
some hybrid forms; most burials were single
contracted inhumations, but there are a few multiple
5
I cannot do full justice to Kilian–Dirlmeier’s complex
arguments here because of space limitations, but it should be
pointed out that the tomb in Thebes is generally thought to
belong to the ‘transition from MH to LH I’ (e.g. Rutter 1999:
357; cf. Dickinson 1977: 97–8) rather than the MH II period;
the tomb at Dramesi was totally destroyed and has never been
properly excavated. Kephalovryso contained multiple
interments and its use in MH II (and more specifically, the
attribution of some of the metal finds to MH II) is uncertain.
Finally, the Ayia Irini, Marathon and Thorikos tombs have been
assigned to a later phase by their excavators (see Kilian–
Dirlmeier 1999, for full references). If these tombs belong to
the MH III period, as it is suggested here, they are part of the
Shaft Grave phenomenon, i.e. the growing elaboration and
ostentation of the mortuary practices in MH III–LH I, and not
its prelude.
6
Ideally, of course, the next step would be to undertake
comparisons between regions; this is, however, beyond the
scope of this project.
7
The observations are based on a preliminary analysis of the
data. I would like to acknowledge the financial assistance of the
Aylwin Cotton Foundation, as this analysis was undertaken
while I held an Aylwin Cotton Foundation fellowship. More
recently, further preliminary analyses of the Lerna cemetery
have been carried out, partly in collaboration with E. Milka (a
Ph.D. student at the Institute of Archaeology, University of
Groningen, who is studying the funerary data). I have also
consulted the following studies: Nordquist 1979; 1987; 2002;
Mee & Cavanagh 1984; Cavanagh & Mee 1998.
 S. VOUTSAKI
graves and some cases of secondary treatment. The
result is a complex and diffuse patterning, rather than
clear–cut differentiation. We can observe some general
trends and associations, but there is no consistent
correlation among the various aspects of mortuary
practices, e.g. the type and construction of the grave,
the number of grave offerings, the age and sex of the
deceased, etc. If, for instance, we consider age as a
differentiating criterion, it is true that children were
more often buried in intramural graves—but, on the
other hand, children’s burials were also richly
furnished on occasion. If we examine gender, no
pronounced differences can be observed.8 It is difficult
to distinguish clear status distinctions, or to isolate a
group that can be designated as the élite. It has been
pointed out that the people buried in tumuli
represented a more privileged group (Dickinson 1977:
38). However, the distribution of such mounds is
markedly uneven (cf. Dickinson 1982: 134): they are
found mostly in Argos, while the majority of burials
belongs to the later phase of the MH period (Deilaki
1980; Dietz 1991: 281–5).9 Nordquist (2002: 29) has
recently suggested that the group of people buried in
extramural cemeteries constituted the MH élite. It is
difficult, however, to see these people as an exclusive
group. While it is true that MH III tombs in extramural
cemeteries tended to be larger, more complex and
better furnished than those found in the settlements, no
similar pattern can be established for the MH I–MH II
phases.10
To conclude, so far: the variety of forms and
combinations and the absence of clear levels of wealth
or grave elaboration indicate a subtle categorisation
rather than strict differentiation. This lack of emphasis
on distinction through material signs is reinforced by
the general austerity of the MH material culture, which
shows a remarkable lack of ritual or specialised
artefacts and a total absence of what we could call ‘art’
(cf. Dickinson 1977: 36).
How should we explain the absence of clear
distinctions in the mortuary record? Nordquist has
made an interesting remark: “since the wearing [of
jewellery] is not restricted by age or sex, its limited use
is probably due to status in a society where status is
transmitted and inherited through, e.g., family ties”
(Nordquist 1987: 45). Equally, Cavanagh and Mee
(1998: 34) have suggested the existence of social
hierarchy in MH times (see above), but at the same
time they have stressed the role of kinship: “family
8
For a full discussion of age and gender differentiation in the
MH period, see Voutsaki in press.
9
But see J. Maran’s remarks on the dating of the tombs (Maran
1992: 357–8).
10
Needless to say, these two suggestions are being carefully
checked during the systematic analysis of the funerary data by
E. Milka (see footnote 7).
groupings were emphasised, and status was mediated
through kinship.” It is interesting that these scholars
have introduced kinship and descent into the
discussion about social structure—after all, kinship is
the main organising principle in premodern, small–
scale, ‘face–to–face’ societies. However, their views
about the articulation between kinship and status
during the MH period are ambivalent. I believe that
this is not fortuitous; in fact, I would like to propose
that it is in the changing articulation of kin and status
that an explanation of the transformation at the end of
the MBA can be sought. Let me clarify this statement:
I believe that the main structuring principle underlying
mortuary patterning in MH I–MH II was kinship
rather than social status; that as authority was
‘inscribed’ and embedded in kin relations, it did not
require elaborate practices and material distinctions for
its legitimation. However, in the MH III–LH I periods
a new mode of social evaluation was introduced, one
based on ostentatious practices (such as conspicuous
consumption at death, see Voutsaki 1997), and
possibly military achievement. This is the working
hypothesis of our project, formulated on the basis of
the preliminary analyses of the evidence.
However, only a systematic examination of all aspects
of the funerary data from the MH Argolid will allow
us to establish whether this hypothesis is correct. The
analysis of the funerary data will proceed in four
stages:
ƒ A radiocarbon analysis11 of the human skeletal
material, to increase the chronological resolution
of our investigation.
ƒ The analysis of the archaeological data,12 to
determine if there is variation between individual
burials, groupings and cemeteries, and to
reconstruct change through time.
ƒ The reexamination of all extant skeletal
material,13 with a view to confirm age and sex
identifications, but also to examine variation in
occupational activities, pathologies and diet.
11
The radiocarbon analysis will be done by Dr. A.J. Nijboer
(Groningen Institute of Archaeology), in collaboration with the
Centre for Isotope Research of the University of Groningen.
12
This analysis is being carried out by E. Milka (see footnote
7).
13
Dr. S. Triantaphyllou (Department of Archaeology,
University of Sheffield) and Dr. A. Ingvarsson–Sundström
(Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala) will reexamine
the skeletal material from Lerna and Asine respectively. Dr.
Triantaphyllou has already examined the human skeletons from
Aspis for the publication of the site. We would like to thank
Prof. Touchais and Mrs. Philippa–Touchais for allowing us to
use the results of Dr. Triantaphyllou’s study in advance of
publication.
 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD: PRESENTATION OF A NEW PROJECT
Dental microwear analysis14 and Stable Isotopes
analysis15 will be used in parallel, in order to
reconstruct the diet of the MH populations.
ƒ At a final stage, the integration of the radiocarbon,
archaeological and anthropological information,
which will allow us to reconstruct variation within
and between communities, as well as change
through time.
A further goal of our project is to reconstruct kinship
relations within communities. Three methods are
employed: the first involves a purely archeological
analysis of variation between clusters of graves (rather
than individual burials), in order to establish if entire
groupings ‘behave’ in a similar way. Second, we hope
to be able to reconstruct domestic groups and
households by examining (intramural) burial
groupings in relation to floors, houses and open
spaces.16 These archaeological analyses may allow us
to suggest kinship ties, but archaeological data alone
cannot prove the existence of such ties. For this reason,
we are carrying out DNA analysis on selected burials
from the main MH cemeteries at Lerna, Argos and
Asine.17 DNA analysis is a powerful method which
allows to establish blood relations (albeit only down
the maternal line). It is not a panacea, however:
extracting and amplifying ancient DNA presents
severe problems, and the risk of contamination with
modern DNA is considerable. Nevertheless, we have
devised a sampling and processing strategy allowing
us to enhance the chances of extracting DNA and to
minimise contamination risk.18
To sum up: a contextual and statistical analysis of MH
funerary data19 will allow us to understand the way in
which MH societies were organised during the earlier
part of the period, and will constitute a crucial first step
towards reconstructing processes of change during the
MH period.
14
The dental microwear analysis is undertaken by Dr.
Triantaphyllou as part of a separate project, financed by the
Institute of Aegean Prehistory (Philadelphia).
15
The stable isotopes analysis is carried out by Prof. M.
Richards, Department of Archaeological Science, University of
Bradford.
16
This will be undertaken in collaboration with the excavators,
or scholars entrusted with the publication of the MH material
from the main sites: Dr. Zerner (Lerna), Prof. Nordquist
(Asine), Prof. Touchais and Mrs Philippa–Touchais (Aspis).
We are deeply grateful to these scholars for sharing their
knowledge of MH Argolid with us.
17
The pilot analysis of 12 samples from Lerna and five samples
from Aspis are currently under way. Asine will be sampled in
2005.
18
The DNA analysis is carried out by Prof. S. Kouidou–
Andreou and Dr. L. Kovatsi, both at the Medical School of the
University of Thessaloniki.
19
For more details on the methods employed, see Voutsaki et
al. 2004 [2003]; in press A; cf. http://www.MHArgolid.nl.
B. POLITICAL CHANGE AND SITE HIERARCHY IN THE
ARGIVE PLAIN
Social change constitutes only one aspect of the
transformation of the MH societies. The uneven
distribution of rich and elaborate tombs—and most
significantly, their concentration in Mycenae—adds a
further dimension that needs to be investigated: the
changing political interrelations in the Argive plain.
Two questions need to be addressed: first, what caused
the rise of Mycenae? And second, what was the status
of Mycenae during the MH I–MH II period?
The initial analysis of mortuary data from the Argolid
can provide some answers. During the earlier part of
the period (MH I–MH II), non–ceramic offerings
(ornaments, tools and weapons) are found mostly
(though always in small quantities) in Lerna, Asine
and Argos.20 It is interesting that hardly any non–
ceramic offerings have been found in Mycenae and
Tiryns in this period. However, a word of caution is
necessary here: most of our evidence comes from
Lerna, Asine and Argos. The situation in Mycenae is
unclear, as only the tombs from the Prehistoric
Cemetery have been published (Alden 2000), while
most of the (unpublished) tombs found in the (later)
settlement area are robbed and/or poorly preserved.
Nevertheless, the few rich tombs that are found are
consistently late in the sequence, i.e. of LH I and LH II
date.21 The situation is even more unclear in Tiryns,
where only a few graves have been uncovered—again,
most of them unfurnished.
The uneven intensity of research, the state of
publication, the chronological uncertainties, and the
problems of preservation prevent us from reaching a
definite conclusion. Nevertheless, on the basis of the
evidence as we now know it, we have no reason to
think that Mycenae occupied an important position in
the plain already in MH I–MH II.22
This conclusion renders the problem even more acute:
how and why did Mycenae grow in significance
during the ensuing, MH III–LH I periods? In order to
provide an answer, we need to investigate the nature of
relations between Mycenae and the other sites in the
Argolid. Moderately rich burials dating to MH III–LH
20
The cemeteries in Prosymna and Myloi date to the MH III
period. No MH I–MH II tombs are known from Dendra, while
the MH tombs in Berbati are unpublished.
21
I should add that I have examined all the MH burials,
including those outside the Prehistoric Cemetery, e.g. those in
the area of Building M, House N, the East House, etc. Once
more, these are unfurnished. A useful summary of the
distribution of MH finds and graves in Mycenae is given by
Dietz (1991: 286, with full references).
22
Oliver Dickinson has also pointed out (1982: 134) that there
is no evidence for a steady increase in the significance of
Mycenae. Needless to say, this conclusion can be reversed with
new discoveries, or with the publication of earlier findings.
 S. VOUTSAKI
I are attested in Argos, Asine, Lerna and Dendra, but
their wealth cannot in any way be compared to that of
the Grave Circles of Mycenae. If we look at the
settlement evidence—keeping in mind, of course, the
problems of preservation or intensity of research, the
idea of a certain decrease in importance for Lerna,
Argos and Asine can receive some confirmation.
There are indications that the size, and possibly also
the importance of these sites, changed during the
crucial MH III–LH I periods. In the case of Lerna, we
can see a clear contrast between the thriving MH I–
MH II settlement and the virtual absence of
architectural remains in the excavated area during the
MH III–LH II periods (Dietz 1991: 286). Argos
appears to have grown in MH III in terms of
settlement size, but to have declined in importance
(and shrunk in size?) already in LH I (Dietz 1991:
281–3; Touchais 1997). In Asine, we see a clear
expansion of the settlement in MH III, but hardly any
architectural remains and finds can be dated to the LH
I–LH II periods (Dietz 1984).23 Therefore, in the MH
III–LH II periods we can observe the reversal of the
earlier (MH I–MH II) pattern of concentration of
richer tombs in Lerna, Asine and Argos. Disentangling
cause from effect is very difficult in the prehistoric
record, but I have suggested elsewhere that these two
processes, the rise of Mycenae and the decline of rival
sites in the plain, are clearly connected (Voutsaki
2001).
These thoughts, however, are based on preliminary
observations on the distribution of valuable items in
the graves. Power shifts in the plain can only be
reconstructed by means of a detailed, comparative
analysis of all Argive cemeteries. The analysis will
proceed in three stages: first, the data from the large
and well documented cemeteries at Argos, Asine and
Lerna will be carried out.24 At a second stage, the
evidence from Mycenae and Tiryns, two very
important, but less documented sites, will be added.
During the final stage, the lesser sites (e.g. Dendra,
Berbati, Prosymna, Myloi, etc.) will be included.
C. THE CAUSES OF CHANGE: TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH
So far, I have discussed how MH societies changed: I
have tentatively suggested that in the MH III–LH I
periods kinship became replaced by status as the main
criterion of social categorisation, and that Mycenae
rose to prominence by eliminating rival sites in the
plain. But we still need to address the crucial question:
why did MH societies change?
23
No comparative data exist for MH Dendra.
24
The comparative analysis of the well–documented cemeteries
(Lerna, Asine, Argos) is carried out by E. Milka (see footnote
7).
The traditional, but still prevailing, explanation
attributes the changes on the Greek mainland to
influence from the more sophisticated, palatial
societies of Minoan Crete. Indeed, the period that I am
covering (MB III–LB I) represents the peak of Minoan
expansion in the Aegean. However, Minoan influence
cannot explain the timing of the changes, since the
southern mainland had been in contact with Crete
since the MH I period.25 Second, it cannot explain the
distribution of imports and rich tombs in the MH III–
LH I periods, as at least two concentrations of rich
tombs—the Grave Circles at Mycenae and the
Messenian sites—are found in sites or areas which did
not seem to participate actively in exchanges with the
Aegean during the earlier phases of the MH period.
Finally, Minoan influence cannot explain the nature of
the changes, and in particular the adoption of new
mortuary forms and practices during the MH III–LH I
periods, as these practices bear little similarity to
Minoan customs.26 Generally, in Crete the emphasis
was on the elaboration of the domestic and ritual
sphere in this period, rather than funerary practices.
This stands in clear contrast to the mainland, where no
significant changes can be detected in the domestic
sphere. We can conclude, therefore, that Minoan
influence must have played a role, but it cannot be the
sole cause of the changes that occurred on the
mainland at this time.27
More recently, and primarily under the influence of
systemic models (e.g. Renfrew 1972), the emphasis
has shifted away from external cultural stimuli to
internal social factors.28 According to Renfrew’s
model, agricultural intensification led to the production
of surplus and the emergence of a redistributive élite,
who promoted trade and craft specialisation in order to
acquire valuable items and strengthen their position.
The model can be criticised on theoretical grounds for
being deterministic and too focused on the economy,
for neglecting external stimuli (and thereby, the wider
historical context), and for disregarding the role of
social agents (Voutsaki 1993: 46–9). In the case of the
MH mainland, it can also be refuted on purely factual
grounds: a process of economic growth, settlement
expansion, intensification of production and trade can
be observed at best in parallel with, but mostly after,
25
The presence of plentiful Minoan ceramic imports, as well as
of local imitations, throughout the MBA testifies to this.
Imports from Aegina and the Cyclades are also found on the
southern mainland.
26
Dickinson (1989: 135) has stressed that there is no evidence
for Minoan influence on MH III burial customs.
27
For a more extensive discussion on this point, see Voutsaki
1999.
28
As we have seen, Kilian–Dirlmeier (1997) shares with
Renfrew an emphasis on internal developments rather than
external influences; but neither does she adopt his economic
determinism, nor does she provide an explanation for the
intensification of change in the MH III–LH I periods.
 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD: PRESENTATION OF A NEW PROJECT
the transformation of the mortuary practices in the MH
III–LH I periods.29 Therefore, the changes on the
mainland occurred in the first instance in the sphere of
ritual and sumptuary practices, and only subsequently
in the sphere of economy and production.
An objection to Renfrew’s internalist model has been
voiced by A. Sherratt and S. Sherratt (1991).
According to them, the transformations of the Aegean
societies should be attributed to their integration into
the eastern Mediterranean networks of alliances and
exchanges. While I agree with their position in general
terms (see below), their model pays little attention to
differences in the way specific regions, sites or social
groups became incorporated into these networks. For
instance, their model may explain the changes on the
mainland during MH III–LH I, but it cannot account
for the absence of change in the MH I–MH II periods.
Therefore, if internalist models ignore external stimuli
and the wider historical framework, this last model
pays little attention to local motives behind cultural
receptivity or resistance.
We see, therefore, that that neither purely external
stimuli, nor purely internal developments can account
for the transformation of MH societies. Both sets of
factors need to be combined in order to reach a more
balanced explanation. We intend, therefore, to
reconstruct internal processes of change by observing
differentiation across space and through time (see
above), but also to situate these processes in their
wider historical context:30 the Minoan expansionist
pressures, the growth of the Aegean maritime polities
(Aegina, Ayia Irini, Akrotiri and Phylakopi), and the
increasing interaction, mobility and tension in the
Aegean.
However, combining internal conditions and external
factors is not sufficient. We need to develop an
approach to change that transcends the division
between culture and society. Overcoming this
dichotomy is one of the main tenets of the post–
processual approach. Yet, we cannot seek inspiration
for the explanation of change in post–processual
studies, as they tend not to address this question.31 This
is to a large extent understandable, as the post–
processual approach was shaped under the influence of
post–structuralist thought (Foucault 1972), which not
only cast doubt on earlier (marxist, positivist,
29
As Dickinson (1989: 133) has pointed out, we do not observe
a process of gradual change during MH: the “first signs of […]
irreversible change only appear in the latest stages of MH,
perhaps the last century or so […]”.
30
See also Wright 2001, for a similar approach. Dickinson
(1989: 136) has also suggested that the expansion of trade and
Minoan influence during the Second Palace period must have
played a role in the changes that occurred on the mainland.
31
See, for instance, Barrett 1994 and Thomas 1999 in the field
of European prehistory.
functionalist, etc.) models of change, but also
questioned the very need for explaining change and
the principle of linear causality. However, for a
discipline such as archaeology, which deals primarily
with the long term, understanding change remains a
crucial question. The otherwise valid points made by
post–structuralist critics need to be integrated into
archaeological interpretations, and alternatives to
previous deterministic models need to be formulated.
In order to formulate a new approach to change, we
first need to move beyond the social determinism that
characterised earlier archaeological interpretations. We
need to acknowledge the importance of ideological
and cultural factors, alongside social tensions and
economic imbalances. The approach proposed here
combines some of the insights gained in
anthropological theory (Douglas & Isherwood 1979;
Appadurai 1986); the causes of change on the
mainland will be sought in the changing patterns of
consumption and demand, associated with the
emergence of new personal, social and cultural
identities.
I mentioned earlier that social status replaced kin as the
main criterion of social categorisation in the MH III–
LH I periods. However, we still need to explore the
cultural dimension of the changes that took place in
MH III–LH I. There are two issues that need to be
considered here: first, the meaning of the new
mortuary practices; and second, the significance of
representational art.
I have discussed the significance of the new mortuary
forms and practices adopted towards the end of the
period extensively elsewhere (Voutsaki 1998); here I
can only summarise my argument. I have proposed
that the changes in MH III–LH I cannot be reduced to
social change alone (i.e. the emergence of an élite), but
signal a deeper transformation, which involved the
redefinition of cosmological and cultural boundaries. I
have suggested, first, that the more widespread use of
extramural cemeteries created a new spatial division
between the realm of the living and the realm of the
dead. Second, I have argued that the increasing
complexity of the mortuary ritual, which started to
involve a first burial followed by secondary treatment,
set up a new cyclical temporal scheme. Finally, the
adoption of multiple tombs and the ritualisation of the
mortuary sphere implies an emphasis on ancestors, and
thereby the assertion of common descent and identity.
I suggested that this emphasis on cosmological and
cultural boundaries should be understood against the
increasing receptivity to external influences, but also a
need to express a separate mainland cultural identity.
While some suggestions towards the interpretation of
the new forms have already been made, we still need
 S. VOUTSAKI
to reflect on the meaning of the ‘classic’ MH customs:
the practice of intramural burial underneath or between
houses, the habit of burying single contracted
skeletons in fairly small and simple tombs, and the
rarity of offerings.32 We need to elucidate the attitudes
to death that underlie these practices. We also need to
understand MH funerary ideology and its relationship
to social life. This brings us back to the hypothesis
formulated earlier namely that MH burial customs
were permeated by a preoccupation with kinship. If
this proves to be correct, and if burial groups point to
kinship ties, then we will need to explore how the
emphasis on kin and descent was reproduced (or
subverted) through mortuary practices. We can only
explain the transformation of the burial practices at the
end of the MH period if we understand their meaning
during the earlier MH phases.
The second issue, the relatively sudden adoption of
representational art in the MH III–LH I periods, has
never attracted the attention that it deserves.33 In stark
contrast to the Minoan or Cycladic cultures, the MH
culture is uniconic: there are virtually no
representations of the human or natural world, and
ornaments on pottery are restricted to simple
geometric motifs. Likewise, the concentration of
representational scenes in the assemblages from the
shaft graves has not been adequately commented
upon. It is deemed obvious and natural that an
emergent élite on the mainland should have adopted
Minoan, or generally Aegean styles, motifs and
scenes. The adoption of figurative art is indeed a
symptom of cultural receptivity towards Minoan and
Aegean influences. But it also needs to be understood
as part of the social strategies adopted by an emergent
élite during the transition to the Mycenaean period.34
On the other hand, even if the adoption of figurative
art is primarily a social strategy, its cultural content
cannot be ignored. The first figurative scenes reveal a
strong Minoan influence, but they also reflect
indigenous identities, norms and values. The
preponderance of scenes of men fighting and hunting
in the Shaft Grave assemblage, and the strong
emphasis on violence, may be interpreted as a
manifestation not only of an élite ideology, but also of
a mainland ethos.
In order to understand the emergence of figurative art,
a systematic analysis of all representational scenes and
artefacts found in the Greek mainland between MH III
32
For the significance of intramural burials, see now Philippa–
Touchais in press.
33
Rutter (2001: 128–30, 139–41), however, has stressed this
point in his recent review on the MH period.
34
Rutter (2001: 149) has also posited that the adoption of
representational art served to enhance individual status.
and LH I needs to be undertaken.35 While the
emphasis will inevitably be on élite assemblages, and
notably on the finds from the Shaft Graves, it is
important to study figurative scenes found in non–élite
contexts as well.36 This systematic investigation will
allow us to understand the gradual infiltration of, or
sudden exposure to, external influences and their
adaptation to local social and cultural needs.
In a nutshell, this project will attempt to break through
dichotomies established by earlier models of change: it
will investigate both internal conditions and external
stimuli; both social manoeuvres and cultural strategies.
However, explaining change cannot stop at
reconstructing or elucidating general processes. An
attempt will be made to understand the position of
social actors within wider processes of change, and to
see how individuals, kin groups and entire
communities redefined their position in these period of
shifting values and emergent divisions.37
CONCLUSION
This project addresses two general problems which
occupy a central position in current archaeological
theory: the interpretation of change, and the
conceptualisation of the person and his/her role in
wider processes of change. The project will examine
different types of data from the MH Argolid and will
combine both traditional and innovative methods. The
data will be analysed by different specialists, including
archaeologists, physical anthropologists and those
specialising in radiocarbon and biomolecular analyses.
In outline, the analytical techniques employed are:
ƒ The radiocarbon analysis of human bones from
Argos, Asine and Lerna.
ƒ The statistical and contextual analysis of funerary
data from the Argolid.
ƒ The analysis of skeletal material from the main
cemeteries at Argos, Asine and Lerna, which will
35
This investigation will be carried out by myself. Needless to
say, the few representational artefacts from the MH period will
be included as well.
36
An example of this is the depiction of a human figure on a
coarse vessel from Tsoungiza (Rutter 2001: 141).
37
The study of variation at the level of individual graves, burial
groups, and cemeteries as a whole will provide us with the
resolution necessary for such an analysis. The analysis of the
mortuary data by E. Milka (see footnote 7) will be combined
with an investigation of well–preserved household assemblages,
which will allow us to detect differentiation in the domestic
sphere. This investigation will be undertaken by myself, in
close collaboration with the excavators, or scholars responsible
for the publication of the MH material of the main sites (i.e. Dr.
Zerner for Lerna, Prof. Nordquist for Asine, and Prof.
Touchais and Mrs. Philippa– Touchais for Aspis).
 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE HELLADIC PERIOD: PRESENTATION OF A NEW PROJECT
include an osteological analysis, as well as DNA
and Stable Isotopes analysis.
ƒ The analysis of well–documented house
assemblages from the large sites.
ƒ The analysis of imagery introduced at the end of
the MH period.
With this combination of diverse analytical methods
and the integration of different types of data, it is
hoped that the transformation of the MH societies, one
of the most pressing questions of Aegean prehistory,
will be elucidated.
REFERENCES
Alden, M. 2000. Well–Built Mycenae, VII. The Prehistoric
Cemetery. Pre–Mycenaean and Early Mycenaean Graves,
Oxbow: Oxford.
Appadurai, A. 1986 (ed.). The Social Life of Things,
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Barrett, J. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity, Blackwells:
Oxford.
Branigan, K. 1998 (ed.). Cemetery and Society in the Aegean
Bronze Age, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1,
Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield.
Boyd, M.J. 2002. Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean
Mortuary Practices in the Southern and Western
Peloponnese, British Archaeological Reports International
Series 1009, Archaeopress: Oxford.
Cavanagh, W. & Mee, C. 1998. A Private Place. Death in
Prehistoric Greece, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology
125, Ǻström: Göteborg.
Cullen, T. 2001 (ed.). Aegean Prehistory. A Review,
American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1,
Archaeological Institute of America: Boston.
Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1977. The Οrigins of Mycenaean
Civilisation, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 49,
Ǻström: Göteborg.
Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1982. “Parallels and contrasts in the
Bronze Age of the Peloponnese”, Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 1 (2): 125–39.
Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1989. “‘The origins of Mycenaean
Civilisation’ revisited”, in Laffineur 1989 (ed.): 131–6.
Dietz, S. 1984. “Kontinuität and Kulturwende in der Argolis
von 2000–700 v. Chr: Ergebnisse der neuen schwedischen–
dänischen Ausgrabungen in Asine”, in Frey & Roth 1984
(eds.): 23–52.
Dietz, S. 1991. The Argolid at the Transition to the
Mycenaean Age. Studies in the Chronology and Cultural
Development in the Shaft Grave Period, National Museum,
Denmark: Copenhagen.
Douglas, M. & Isherwood, B. 1979. The World of Goods.
Towards an Anthropology of Consumption, Allen Lane:
London.
Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge
(translated from the French by A.M. Sheridan Smith),
Tavistock: London.
Frey, O.–H. & Roth, H. 1984 (eds.). Zur Ägäischen Frühzeit,
Kleine Schriften aus dem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar
Marburg 17, Philipps–Universität Marburg: Marburg.
Gale, N.H. 1991 (ed.). Bronze Age Trade in
the Mediterranean, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology
90, Ǻström: Göteborg.
Graziadio, G. 1991. “The process of social stratification at
Mycenae in the Shaft Grave period: a comparative
examination of the evidence”, American Journal of
Archaeology 95 (3): 403–40.
Karo, G. 1930–1933. Die Schachtgräber von Mykene,
volumes 1–2, Bruckmann: Munich.
Kilian–Dirlmeier, I. 1986. “Beobachtungen zu den
Schachtgräbern von Mykenai und zu den Schmuckbeigaben
mykenischer Männergräber. Untersuchung zur
Sozialstruktur in späthelladischer Zeit”, Jahrbuch des
Römisch–Germanischen Zentralmuseums 33: 159–98.
Kilian–Dirlmeier, I. 1997. Das mittelbronzezeitliche
Schachtgrab von Ägina, Philipp von Zabern: Mainz am
Rhein.
Kilian–Dirlmeier, I. & Egg, M. 1999 (eds.). Eliten in der
Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und
Athen, Römisch–Germanisches Zentralmuseum
Monographien 43 (1), Römisch–Germanisches
Zentralmuseum: Mainz am Rhein.
Laffineur, R. 1989 (ed.). Transition. Le monde égéen du
Bronze Moyen au Bronze Récent. Actes de la deuxième
rencontre égéenne internationale de l’ Université de Liège
(18–20 avril 1988), Aegaeum 3, Université de Liège,
Histoire de l’ Art et Archéologie de la Grèce Antique &
University of Texas at Austin, Program in Aegean Scripts
and Prehistory: Liège and Austin.
Laffineur, R. & Niemeier, W.–D. 1995 (eds.). Politeia.
Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of
the Fifth International Aegean Conference, University of
Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut (10–13 April 1994),
Aegaeum 12, Université de Liège, Histoire de l’ Art et
Archéologie de la Grèce Antique & University of Texas at
Austin, Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory: Liège and
Austin.
Maran, J. 1992. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der
Peukakia–magula in Thessalien III. Die mittlere Bronzezeit,
Habelt: Bonn.
 S. VOUTSAKI

Mylonas, G.E. 1973. Ο Ταφικός Κύκλος Β των Μυκηνών, Voutsaki, S. 1997. “The creation of value and prestige in the
Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 73, Late Bronze Age Aegean”, Journal of European
Archaeological Society at Athens: Athens. Archaeology 5 (2): 34–52.

Nordquist, G.C. 1979. Dead Society. Α Study of the
Intramural Cemetery at Lerna, unpublished M.A. thesis,
University of Southampton.
Nordquist, G.C. 1987. A Middle Helladic Village. Asine in
the Argolid, Boreas 16, University of Uppsala: Uppsala.
Nordquist, G. 2002. “Intra– and extramural, single and
collective, burials in the Middle and Late Helladic periods”,
in Wells 2002 (ed.): 25–9.
Pariente, A. & Touchais, G. 1998 (eds). Argos et l’ Argolide:
topographie et urbanisme. Actes de la table ronde
internationale, Athènes, Argos (28 avril–1 mai 1990),
Recherches Franco–Helléniques 3, Diffusion de Boccard:
Paris.
Philippa–Touchais, A. in press. “Les tombes intra muros de
l’ HM à la lumière des fouilles de l’ Aspis d’ Argos”, in
Conference sur les pas de W. Vollgraff. Un siècle d’ activités
archéologiques à Argos (Athènes–Argos, 25–28 septembre
2003), Editor ? Intended publisher/place ?
Protonotariou–Deilaki, E. 1980. Οι Τύµβοι του Άργους,
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Athens.
Renfrew, C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilization. The
Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC,
Methuen: London.
Voutsaki, S. 1998. “Mortuary evidence, symbolic meanings
and social change: a comparison between Messenia and the
Argolid in the Mycenaean period”, in Branigan 1998 (ed.):
41–58.
Voutsaki, S. 1999. “The Shaft Grave offerings as symbols
of power and prestige”, in Kilian & Egg 1999 (eds.): 103–17.
Voutsaki, S. 2001. “The rise of Mycenae: political inter–
relations and archaeological evidence,” Bulletin of the
Institute of Classical Studies 45: 183–4.
Voutsaki, S. in press. “Age and gender in the southern Greek
mainland, 2000–1500 BC”, Ethnographisch–Archäologische
Zeitung 45.
Voutsaki, S., Triantaphyllou, S., Kouidou–Andreou, S.,
Kovatsi, L. & Milka, E. 2004 [2003]. “Lerna, 2000–1500
BC. 2004. A pilot analysis”, Pharos 11: 75–80.
Voutsaki, S., Triantaphyllou, S. & Milka, E. in press.
“Project on the Middle Helladic Argolid: a report on the
2004 season”, Pharos 12.
Wells, B. 2002 (ed.). New Research on Old Material from
Asine and Berbati in Celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary
of the Swedish Institute at Athens, Acta Instituti Atheniensis
Regni Sueciae, Series –8o 17, Svenska Institutet i Athen:
Stockholm.

Rutter, J.B. 1999. Review of ‘Das mittelbronzezeitliche Wright, J. 2001. “Factions and the origins of leadership and
Schachtgrab von Ägina’ (I. Kilian–Dirlmeier), American identity in Mycenaean society”, Bulletin of the Institute of
Journal of Archaeology 103: 357–8. Classical Studies 45: 182.

Rutter, J.B. 2001. “The pre–palatial Bronze Age of the

southern and central Greek mainland”, in Cullen 2001 (ed.):
95–155.

Sherratt, A. & Sherratt, S. 1991. “From luxuries

to commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age
trading systems”, in Gale 1991 (ed): 351–86.

Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic, Routledge:

London (revised second edition).

Touchais, G. 1998. “Argos à l’époque mesohelladique: un

habitat ou des habitats?”, in Pariente & Touchais 1998 (eds.):
71–84.

Voutsaki, S. 1993. Society and Culture in the Mycenaean

World. An Analysis of Mortuary Practices in the Argolid,
Thessaly and the Dodecanese, unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
University of Cambridge.

Voutsaki, S. 1995. “Social and political processes in the

Mycenaean Argolid: the evidence from the mortuary
practices”, in Laffineur & Niemeier 1995 (eds.): 55–65.