The Mycenaean Settlement on Tsoungiza Hill. By James C. Wright and Mary K. Dabney (Nemea Valley Archaeological Project 3). Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens 2020. Pp. 1240. $150. ISBN 978-0-87661-924-7 (cloth).

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeBook ReviewThe Mycenaean Settlement on Tsoungiza Hill. By James C. Wright and Mary K. Dabney (Nemea Valley Archaeological Project 3). Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens 2020. Pp. 1240. $150. ISBN 978-0-87661-924-7 (cloth).Alex R. KnodellAlex R. KnodellCarleton College Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThis volume is the third in the series of final publications of the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP), which carried out survey and excavation fieldwork in the southern Corinthia from 1981 to 1986. The publication reviewed here presents fieldwork and data relevant to the Mycenaean period at Tsoungiza, a multiperiod prehistoric site, excavated first by Carl Blegen and James Harland in the 1920s, then by teams from the Greek Archaeological Service and the University of California at Berkeley in the 1970s, and by NVAP in the 1980s. While the focus of this volume is the investigations of NVAP, the authors also report on earlier excavations that have not been published previously.Tsoungiza was first occupied in the Early Neolithic period and was home to a substantial settlement in the Early Helladic (EH) II period, which included a tiled building at the summit of the hill (this was the subject of an earlier NVAP volume by Daniel Pullen). After a gap in the early Middle Helladic (MH) period, the site was occupied continuously for some 500 years, from the later MH period through Late Helladic (LH) IIIC. Finds from subsequent ancient and medieval periods are negligible. During the early Mycenaean period (late MH–LH II), Tsoungiza was home to a small settlement, including about five domestic buildings on the summit and slopes of the hill. During the Palatial period (LH IIIA2–B), the authors argue, the site expanded in size to about 10 households and became a subsidiary of Mycenae (about three hours away by foot).The volume is organized into two separately bound parts, the first entitled “Context Studies” and the second “Specialist Studies,” with the second about twice the length of the first. Part 1 contains seven chapters that describe the fieldwork and its results, most of which are by one or both of the primary authors, Dabney and Wright. After an introduction about the history of fieldwork, a chapter on topography focuses mostly on the geomorphology, soils, and stratigraphy of the site. The results of various survey activities at the site are described in chapter 3 (by Phoebe Acheson), while chapters 4–6 are dedicated to excavation results (with Konstantina Kaza-Papageorgiou as an additional contributor to chapter 5). Chapter 7 presents the conclusions of the work as a whole.Part 2 contains 10 specialist studies by various authors on the following subjects: building materials and techniques (Rebecca Mersereau); MH–LH pottery (Jeremy Rutter); neutron activation analysis (S.M.A. Hoffman, Jonathan Tomlinson, Hans Mommsen, and Rutter); Late Bronze Age cooking pottery (Bartłomiej Lis); chipped stone (Anna Karabatsoli); ground stone (Wright); tools, weapons, figurines, ornaments (Dabney and Wright); archaeobotany (Susan Allen and Kathleen Forste); aquatic fauna (Tatiana Theodoropoulou); and faunal remains (Paul Halstead).This major publication brings together a remarkable amount of material and collective knowledge concerning Mycenaean archaeology. The level of detail is also impressive, with multiple maps, plans, illustrations of artifacts and architecture, and catalogues. One potential criticism is that the sheer volume of descriptive detail washes out some of the interpretative aspects of the work and how it relates to wider contexts. For example, one might expect to see more explicit discussion of the research questions that drove this work, previous NVAP scholarship, or contributions to larger debates in Aegean prehistory. The relatively short concluding chapter in Part 1 (347–69) provides some broader reflections, as do individual contributions in Part 2, but readers interested in the wider regional context should also consult the following: J.F. Cherry and J.L. Davis, “‘Under the Scepter of Agamemnon’: The View from the Hinterlands of Mycenae,” in K. Branigan, ed., Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, Sheffield Academic Press 2001, 141–59; J.C. Wright, “The Nature of Mycenaean Occupation of the Watersheds that Comprise the Longopotamos, Nemea, and Asopos Valleys,” in A.-L. Schallin and I. Tournavitou, eds., Mycenaeans Up To Date: The Archaeology of the North-Eastern Peloponnese. Current Concepts and New Directions, Swedish Institute at Athens 2015, 211–19; R.A.K. Smith, M.K. Dabney, E. Pappi, S. Triantaphyllou, and J.C. Wright, Ayia Sotira: A Mycenaean Chamber Tomb Cemetery in the Nemea Valley, Greece, INSTAP Academic Press 2017.Large, complex projects tend to generate complex publications. In this case, the volume contains more than 500 illustrations, and it is often necessary for the authors of one chapter to refer to maps or plans in other chapters or in the other part of the volume. Nevertheless, it would have helped to include a site plan showing all fieldwork locations and topographic information in a single document and a regional map illustrating all (or at least major) sites mentioned in the text—the largest-scale map is limited to the Corinthia and leaves out places in the Argolid (like Mycenae) and in the Saronic Gulf, which are significant and frequent points of reference. Some other elements seem out of place, such as a nine-page “Object Format” example of the project data structures for recording objects, which appears at the end of the introduction without comment (18–27). There is also a section on relative and absolute chronology, in which 13 radiocarbon dates are provided in figures and tables but are not discussed in detail (13–17). Surely these are both good things to include in the publication, though perhaps would be better in an appendix or digital supplement.Chapter 3, on the archaeological survey, provides the clearest overview of the site as a whole. The locations of excavated areas and survey units are shown in several maps but are somewhat difficult to parse since surface collections were made in three different types of survey units: 1 × 1 m grid squares were collected in areas that would be excavated, and 10 × 10 m and 20 × 20 m units were collected in areas designated as “sites” by the survey component of NVAP. It is disappointing that the planned survey of the entire hill was never completed (46), meaning that our knowledge of the site as a whole remains patchy. This has consequences in terms of understanding the overall site size, which Cherry and Davis (2001, 150) estimated at 7.5 ha, a continuous area that covers all surveyed and excavated areas, as well as the large gaps between them. By contrast, Dabney and Wright estimate numbers of households based primarily on excavated areas (363)—a box drawn around all of these would cover about 1 ha. The present volume does not provide areal estimates of site size, making it difficult to evaluate the relative significance of Tsoungiza and how it fits into wider regional settlement patterns. One excellent contribution of this publication is its discussion of the correspondence between surface finds and excavated deposits. Survey evidence was a fairly reliable indicator of periods represented by subsurface remains: all periods represented on the surface were also found in excavations, and only a small number of excavated finds dated to periods not represented on the surface (Middle and Late Neolithic) (54–55).Chapter 4 provides a diachronic summary of the phases of occupation documented at Tsoungiza, from late MH to LH IIIC. This is the clearest chronological summary of occupation at the site and is an important reference point for the detailed descriptions of excavation trenches and pottery groups in chapters 5, 6, and 9. The longest chapter (ch. 5) provides a trench-by-trench description of NVAP’s excavations. The excavations of University of California Berkeley teams and of the Greek Archaeological Service on the slopes of the hill are also included. A fourth set of excavations, by Harland, on the summit of the hill, receives its own chapter (ch. 6). The trench descriptions are accompanied by photographs, plans, sections, and finds catalogues, mostly of decorated pottery but also including figurines and other objects.The conclusions (ch. 7) summarize the total evidence for the Mycenaean period. After a break in occupation beginning in EH III, new inhabitants settled at Tsoungiza during MH III, though their origins are largely unknowable (357–58). The most substantial architectural remains were found in Excavation Unit (trench) 7 and include the West Building and subsequent East Building, which provide a detailed picture of domestic life through the LH I period; finds suggest “near subsistence-level production” of fruits, cereals, and pulses, and the consumption of both wild and domestic animals (356). While contemporary with the Shaft Graves at Mycenae, Tsoungiza during this time suggests a very different mode of life in the early Mycenaean world—that of a small, independent settlement that was nonetheless connected to wider networks of production and consumption. In the Palatial period, the number of households seems to have increased from about five to ten, as Tsoungiza came into the sphere of influence of Mycenae (both materially and politically). The inhabitants produced surplus grain through crop rotation and animal traction, while adopting Mycenaean ritual behaviors (figurines and ceramic assemblages associated with feasting) and burial practices (chamber tombs at Ayia Sotira); the social mechanisms behind these behavioral changes remain largely unknown, though the authors speculate about a range of possibilities (369).The specialist studies in Part 2 provide detailed accounts of different materials from Tsoungiza and discuss how these assemblages fit into the wider Mycenaean world. Mersereau’s contribution (ch. 8) is a magisterial study of Mycenaean vernacular architecture, going well beyond wall descriptions to describe building materials and techniques related to mudbrick, roofing, and interior furnishings. The pottery chapters by Rutter and Lis (chs. 9, 11) are comprehensive in scope, with ample illustrations and complete catalogues. Rutter’s chapter is also noteworthy for its intermittent summaries and reflections that contain a wealth of insights from one of the foremost experts in Aegean Bronze Age pottery. Lis’ work on cooking vessels illustrates the importance of a category of material long overlooked in scholarship. Both chapters detail fluctuations in patterns of pottery consumption connected to Aegina and to more local producers in the Corinthia, the Argolid, and elsewhere in Greece.Specialist studies on other artifact classes, as well as floral and faunal assemblages, comprise thorough reporting by leading experts and provide crucial data on modes of subsistence and economic activity at Tsoungiza and in the surrounding area. They underscore the importance of, first of all, detailed excavation methods to recover a wide range of information and, secondly, the time and effort to carefully study, publish, and interpret this material.As a whole, the volume is a welcome and important contribution to Aegean archaeology. The main challenges stem from its organizational complexity, which is partly attributable to the long history of fieldwork at the site (nearly 100 years) and the admirable goal of corralling this work into a single publication. While even the most recent fieldwork at Tsoungiza was carried out more than 30 years ago, Wright and Dabney deserve credit for bringing all this work to full publication. The study of legacy data and the length of time from fieldwork to publication remain major issues in our field. Decades of successive excavations and accumulated data make it difficult to produce monograph-style publications of such sites because of both the amount of variously collected data and the lack of coherent research questions unifying multiple projects. Numerous articles featuring NVAP’s work at Tsoungiza have appeared since the 1980s, which in a way seems backwards, at least if the goal of such comprehensive volumes is to present the raw data from fieldwork, which also formed the backbone of previously published articles. If fieldwork volumes are so complex and difficult to produce, perhaps our discipline should rethink the role and nature of “final” publication. Such disciplinary reflections notwithstanding, the present volume remains an exemplary publication of a Mycenaean site.Perhaps the most significant contribution of this volume is that it is a detailed publication of a high-quality excavation of a relatively unremarkable site. Tsoungiza was never more than a small community of a few households. It does not appear in Linear B documents. It does not appear to have had subordinate sites or evidence of social stratification or specialized activity. It is entirely ordinary. While we have over a century of excavation data from palatial centers, a handful of other major sites, and hundreds of Mycenaean cemeteries, minor settlements like Tsoungiza have received little attention in the form of large-scale excavation and publication. Because this work includes the results of both excavations and surface surveys at Tsoungiza, it also provides information on the correspondence between surface remains—the only data we have for the majority of Mycenaean settlement sites—and how they relate to excavated material. These aspects, along with the erudite contributions of leading scholars that put the Tsoungiza material in context, make this volume essential reading for Aegean prehistorians and useful also to anyone interested in the long-term history of the Corinthia and Argolid.Notes[email protected] Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Archaeology Volume 126, Number 3July 2022 The journal of the Archaeological Institute of America Views: 323 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/720173 Views: 323 HistoryPublished online April 05, 2022 Copyright © 2022 by the Archaeological Institute of AmericaPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.