MediterraneanArchaeologyandArchaeometry,Vol.10,No.2,pp.2543 Copyright2010MAA PrintedinGreece.Allrightsreserved.

PRACTICINGIDENTITY:ACRAFTYIDEAL?
Brysbaert,A.&Vetters,M.
SchoolofMuseumStudies,SchoolofArchaeologyandAncientHistory,UniversityofLeicester, UniversityRoad,LE17RH,Leicester,U.K.

Received:15/05/2010 Accepted:18/09/2010
Correspondingauthor:anbrysbaert@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Thispaperfocusesonthematerializationoftechnologicalpracticesasaformofidentityexpres sion.ContextualanalysesofaMycenaeanworkshopareaintheLateBronzeAgecitadelofTiryns (Argolis, Greece) are presented to investigate the interaction of different artisans under changing sociopoliticalandeconomiccircumstances.Thecasestudyindicatesthatalthoughcertaintechno logicalpracticesareoftenlinkedtospecificcrafts,theydonotnecessarilyimplytheseparationof jobtasksrelatedtotheworkingofonespecificmaterialversusanother.Sharedtechnologicalprac tices and activities, therefore, may be a factor in shaping cohesive group identities of specialized artisans.Sincetracingartisansidentitiesiseasiersaidthandoneonthebasisofexcavatedmaterials alone,weemploytheconceptsofmultiplechanesopratoirescombinedwithcrosscraftinteractions asamethodologyinordertoretrievedistinctivesetsofbothsocialandtechnologicalpracticesfrom the archaeological remains. These methodological concepts are not restricted to a specific set of stepsintheproductioncycle,butideallyencompassreconstructingcontextsofextraction,manufac ture, distribution and discard/reuse for a range of artefacts. Therefore, these concepts reveal both technologicalpractices,and,bycontextualisingthesetechnologicalpracticesintheirspatiallayout, equallyfocusonsocialcontactsthatwouldhavetakenplaceduringanyoftheseactions.Ourde tailedcontextualstudydemonstratesthatthematerialremainswhenanalysedintheirentiretyare complementary to textual evidence. In this case study they even form a source of information on palatialspheresoflifeaboutwhichthefragmentaryLinearBtexts,sofar,remainsilent. KEYWORDS:LateBronzeAge,Tiryns,Architecture,Artifacts,Myceneanworkshops,ChainesOp eratoires

26

BRYSBAERT,A.&VETTERS,M.

INTRODUCTION
Identities can be inclusive and result in so cialcohesionwhenformedbyagroupmember ship related to geographic areas, common lan guage, religious beliefs or genealogical links. More fragmented groups identities pertain to social status, age, gender or occupation (Daz Andreu et al. 2005). Most identities are created throughcertainpracticesandperformances,by whichindividualsorgroupsmayprofilethem selvesversusthosewhodonotbelong.Techno logical practices and performances may, there fore,formandtransformpeoplesidentities.By contextualising technological practices we can analyse social acts that bring people together, including some and excluding others. Because such performances connect and may create a bondbetweencertainindividuals,theycancon stituteactsofconsciousidentityformingorsig nalling. Since peoples relationships and thus their identities are always dynamic and often contextspecific, such bonds are prone to shift over time and geographically. These shifting relationshipsandbondsbetweenpeoplearean integral part of their identity formation, main tenance and/or transformation, and materialize in a variety of ways. It is exactly these materi alizations of different technological practices whichwecontextualiseinourcasestudyinor dertotraceshiftingartisansidentities. In this paper we present a case study of technological practices which are traced in a series of material remains, from obsidian tools to gold foil, excavated in the Lower Citadel of Tiryns,chronologicallyspanningthefinalpala tial (LH III B Final, ca. 1230/25 1210/00 BCE) and one postpalatial phase (LH III C Devel oped, ca. 1170/60 1150/40 BCE). The area un der study is located in the northern tip of the LowerCitadelandwasalreadyinterpretedasa workshopareabyKlausKilianandJosephMa ran(Kilian1984:56,fig.1;1988:111fig.9;Ma ran 2008: 9091). Through investigating the ar chitecturalunitsandfindsfromthiscontextwe aim to answer specific questions about how peoples identities were formed and trans formed, i.e. how their social relationships and identities may have shifted over time in this specific location, and, moreover, how such so

cial shifts would be consciously or uncon sciously played out in material terms. Investi gating and subsequently interpreting material remains as identity markers in the sphere of craftactivityisacommontopicinarchaeologi calresearch,butreflectionuponthespecificlink between material remains and identity is often lacking. For instance, an assemblage of objects interred with a single individual in a Mycena ean burial on the Athenian Agora has been in terpretedassignifyingtheprofessionofthede ceased,becausethetypeofobjectsandtools,(a steatitemouldforjewellerycasting,astonecelt, a possible bone handle and a chiselshaped bone implement with four drillholes) are un usualgravegoodsinMycenaeanfunerarycon texts(Immerwahr1971:110,231232pls.55,77; KilianDirlmeier2009:385No.23).Whatexactly wouldhavebeenhisprofessionisleftopen,al though the deceased is implicitly linked to Mycenaeanglassworkers.Judgingbythescar cityoftoolsetsinMycenaeanburialcontexts,it seemsthatonlyrarelyweretoolsdepositedina funerary context, either because they were handeddowninthefamily,possiblybecauseof theirusevalue,orbecauseprojectingaspecific artisan occupation was generally not consid eredthemostimportantaspectofonesidentity to be signaled in the funerary realm. Ethno graphicaccountsdemonstratethatartisanshad averypersonalrelationshipwiththeirworking toolsandcertainobjectsineveryphaseoftheir life. Many such examples are illustrated in the Museum of Man and Tools, Athens, and one marriagecontracttherehighlightsthefactthata tool set was often part of the dowry which moved, as a very valuable commodity, from onefamilyintoanother.Thetoolsetwasama terialandsocialinsurancethatthegroomhada profession, and thus a source of income, in or der to sustain his future family. His identity and that of his future family was very closely tiedtothistoolsetandremainedsofortherest of their lives ( 2008: 6769). This intimacy may have lived on in af terlife as well (see for instance Egyptian arti sans depictions and tools in funerary contexts (e.g.Tomb2,atBersheh:Smith1951:323,fig.1; Terrace 1968: 15, fig. 6, PL. XX) and, more re cently, depictions of peoples professions on

PRACTICINGIDENTITY:ACRAFTYIDEAL?

27

19thcenturyGreektombstones, 2008: 112, 115). However, it can be argued that since the dead do not bury them selves, funerary gifts might not adequately re flect occupational status or selfperception of thedeceased.Ontheonehand,theunusualoc currenceoftoolsinaclosedcontextsuchasthe Athenian Agora tomb (see above) may be ac ceptedasanindicationtotheformerprofession of the deceased as an artisan. However, this doesnotgiveusdetailedinsightsintotheproc ess of shaping an artisans identity due to the oftenrathergenericcharacterofthosetoolsand the static or frozen character of such inter ments which are far removed from actual con textsofcraftpractice. Archaeologicaldiscoursetendedtofocuson certain objects and has interpreted these as so cialmarkers.Forexample,doublemouldmade reliefglassbeadsofvariousshapeswerewidely spreadintheMycenaeaninteractionsphereand areoftenfoundinLateBronzeAgeMycenaean tholos and chamber tombs (Nightingale 2008: 8284; HughesBrock 1999: 289). These beads most probably functioned as signifiers of pala tial craft production, but, were also, by large, material evidence to the inclusion of the per sonswearingthemintotheideologicalambitof the palace, as John Bennets term (2008: 155), tokens of the palace indicates. These objects thusseemedtohavesignalledabelongingtoa certain social class (HughesBrock 1999: 291) andhenceimpliedtheexclusionofotherpeople from that social class, if such beads were not part of their possessions. If we link the discus sionofapersonsoccupationandhisorherso cial standing, highly specialized technological practicesinvolvedincraftproductionprobably would have increased the value of a finished object and will have reflected back upon the artisans social role. Therefore, the artisans in volved in the production of relief glass beads could have attained an elevated social status merely by their craft activity, since it involved anexpertlyproducedcommodity,ittookplace in a palatially supervised environment, and it involved very specific pyrotechnological knowledge. However, while the examples aboveseemtoillustrateapossiblelinkbetween material remains and identities, the interpreta

tions of the former as identity markers often tendtobebasedonasinglegravecontextoron onetypeofmaterialorobjectonly.Inthispaper, we try to approach the study of identities throughmaterialmarkersmoreholistically.We believe that the full integration of all material categoriesfromagivencontextandwidercon textual studies form a much stronger basis in arguing for a link between material remains and identities, especially when focusing on the actualplaceofpractice,i.e.workshopcontexts.

METHODOLOGY
ArchaeologicaldatafromtheMycenaeansite of Tiryns allow for a very tight contextual analysis, which we combine with a detailed technologicalstudyofaseriesoffindsandfea turesthatcrossoverseveralmaterialcategories. Furthermore, in the technological investigation of each material category we employ the con ceptofthechaneopratoire(termcoinedbyLe roiGourhan 1964; see also e.g. Pfaffenberger 1998),inordertomapouteachstepinvolvedin forming and transforming raw materials into finished objects. In doing so for every material preserved, we investigate potential crosscraft interactionsthatmayhaveexistedbetweendif ferent chanes opratoires. These chanes opra toires themselves, however, may only partially berepresenteddependingonhowmuchofthe entire production process had taken place in onefixedspot,i.e.aworkshop,andhowmuch of that evidence is still preserved when exca vated. Crosscraft interaction was first coined by McGovern (1989: 19); Costin (2005: 11016) mentioned it briefly and Miller (2007: final chapter)implementedittosomeextenttostudy technologies in the ethnographic and archaeo logicalcontextoftheIndiansubcontinent. With regard to the Eastern Mediterranean andtheAegean,noindepthorsystematicwork on the interplay of the social and the techno logical, supported by a theoretical framework, hasyetbeenundertaken(Brysbaert2004,2007). The need for such research became especially acutesinceithasbeendemonstratedthatcom biningthechaneopratoireandcrosscraftinter action forms a useful and flexible framework, by which one can investigate a specific craft in

28

BRYSBAERT,A.&VETTERS,M.

detail (vertical investigation), and, at the same time study several crafts comparatively (hori zontal investigation) (Brysbaert 2008, 2011). This combined approach allows us to investi gate technologies from a technical viewpoint, but it also gives insights, through the material remains, whether certain sociopolitical and economic aspects of societies may have changed, shifted or remained constant over time as a result of technological and social in teraction.Inthispaper,wethustrytointegrate new concepts in interdisciplinary research (as evidenced by a fiveyear research project funded by the Leverhulme Trust; www.tracingnetworks.ac.uk) that brings to gether archaeometric, ethnographic, archaeo logical and sociological approaches in order to answerquestionsofimportancetoarchaeologi cal research and modern social sciences alike. At Tiryns we investigate a) what material evi dence may belong to or indicate a workshop, andb)ifany,whatcraftsmightberepresented within such contexts. Subsequently we aim to establish whether, on the one hand, any of the seemingly unassociated finds may well be part and parcel of one set of crafts or, on the other, whether other social practices lead to their deposition in the contexts under study. We, therefore,combinebothaverticalsequence,i.e. oneentirechaneopratoireofonespecificmate rial,withseveralhorizontalones,too,i.e.multi ple chanes opratoires at work at the same time on several different materials, in order to find and interpret the crosscraft interactions (Brys baert2008:22,chapter7;2011).Combinedwith aspatialandcontextualanalysistheconceptof thechaneopratoirealsohelpstotracepotential social interaction via technological links be tween these different material remains. By ex tension, it may hint at specific social identities connected to the production, acquisition and consumptionofdifferentcraftobjects.Thecon struction of these identities, through material meanswithinacontributingarchitecturalframe and surrounding landscape, was probably en meshedwithceremonialpractices,publicactivi tiesandrituals(Brysbaert:forthcoming),which, however,arenotfurtherexploredinthispaper. Assuch,anysocialexchange/contact/linkbe tweenpeopleandtheirthingswithintheirsur

roundings would have had an impact upon peoples multiple identities. Especially, but not only in a workshopcontext, crosscraft interac tion can thus be understood as a constantly changing and dynamic situational platform for communication where people and objects meet andwheretheycreate,communicateandnego tiatetheirsocialidentities(Brysbaert2007:329). Asreflectedinthemoderndescriptivevocabu lary, the technological and social are linked: raw materials were formed and transformed, andsowereidentities.

ARCHAEOLOGICALBACKGROUND
The hill of Tiryns, situated on the southeast fringe of the Argive plain, has been used as a settlement and harbour site since the Middle Neolithic period and, in the second half of the second millennium BCE, evolved into one of the largest Mycenaean palatial centres on the Greekmainland.ThehillisdividedintoanUp per, Middle and Lower Citadel. A multiphase palace with two Mycenaean megara occupied thesummit,i.e.theUpperCitadel(Kilian1987: 2528, 3233). The last phase of the extensive Cyclopean fortifications around the entire hill datestothemid13thcenturyBCE.Archaeologi cal research on the site started in the late 19th century and has been directed mainly by the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) in col laboration with the Greek Antiquity service which also excavates in and around the site since the late 1950s. These investigations have, besidesthearchitecturalstructuresofthepalace and parts of the settlement, revealed a multi plicityoffindsrangingfromhumbleremainsof dailylifetoelaborateexpressionsofthepalatial elites which substantially enlarge our under standing of Mycenaean society. Monumental architectural projects such as the western stair case,theeasternandsoutherngalleries,andthe socalledSyringes,testifytothepowerandthe externalconnectionsofthelocaleliteduringthe finalpalatialperiod(ca.1230/251210/00BCE; Maran 2004b: 267275; Maran, forthcoming; FIGURE1).Studiesintheplainsurroundingthe citadelhaveshownthatanextensivesettlement existed in this area during the palatial (ca. 1425/1390 1210/00 BCE) and, of even larger

PRACTICINGIDENTITY:ACRAFTYIDEAL?

29

extension, in the postpalatial period (ca. 1210/001070/40 BCE) (Kilian 1978: 468470). Moreover, material remains at Tiryns bear tes timony to widespread interrelations with the eastern Mediterranean (Cohen et al. forthcom ing; Kostoula and Maran, forthcoming; Maran 2004a),andtoalesserextentwiththewesteven after the collapse of the palatial system. While the architectural remains testify to a hierarchi callyandcentrallyorganizedcommunitywhich combined highly developed engineering skills with and within an intimate collaboration of differentcrafts,intricateplanningandorganisa tion,theportableobjectsfoundonsiteareoften alsoofhighaestheticandtechnologicalquality. Ingeneral,whilethetechnologiesandprocesses related to most preindustrial crafts are well understood, a detailed investigation into how thesecraftswerelinkedtoeachotherandhow

thesocialinteractionsinpalatialandothercon texts may have underpinned technological transfers of materials, techniques, recipes and knowledge,islacking.Inthispaperweinvesti gate two different chronological phases in the northerntipoftheLowerCitadel:first,thefinal palatial occupation layer (i.e. LH III B Final or late LH III B2) and second, one postpalatial phase (i.e. LH III C Developed, i.e. the earlier part of LH III C Middle) (FIGURE 1). The area has been excavated in 1982/83 by Klaus Kilian and from 2000 to 2003 by Joseph Maran, both successive directors of the DAI excavations at Tiryns. Preliminary reports have included in formation on the late and postpalatial architec tureandsomeoftheassociatedfinds(Cohenet al. forthcoming; Kilian 1984: 56; 1988: 111; Ma ran2004a:1314,16,17fig.5,18figs.79;2008; Rahmstorf2008:240241).

Figure1:MapoftheLowerCitadelofTiryns(withBuildingXIindicatedintheNortherntip),Tirynsarchive, withkindpermissionofJ.Maran

CASESTUDYCONTEXTANDFINDS During the final palatial period the plot on the terrace immediately east of the Cyclopean fortification wall was occupied by Building XI (FIGURE2).Thisbuildingcomprisedonetrian gular room (Room 1/02) and three rectangular rooms along the fortification wall (Rooms 78a, 78b, 78c), and one additional trapezoidal room (Room 4/02) adjacent to and on a lower level

than the passage way which connected the NorthgatewiththeMiddleandUpperCitadel. The main entrance to Building XI lay in the southeast of the structure (Room 78c). The building did not house fixed installations, but Kilian (1984: 56, 69 fig. 1) identified a fireplace and an associated ash concentration in Room 78a. The finds excavated in and around the fireplace of Room 78a consisted of two well

30

BRYSBAERT,A.&VETTERS,M.

preservedwallbrackets(TN22;Maran2008:51, 52fig.27;TN29;fordetailsoftheseandfurther unpublishedfindsseeTABLE1),faiencevessel fragments(TN207;TN208;TN209;TN210;TN 211;KostoulaandMaran,forthcoming),arelief bracketbead(TN160)and,withinthefireplace, an amber bead (TN 58; Rahmstorf 2008: 241 Cat.No.2023,pl.52:11),aglassorfritspherule (TN 56; Rahmstorf 2008: 241 Cat.No. 1916, pl. 85:51), two bronze spills (Rahmstorf 2008: 240 Cat.Nos. 1770, 1774) and a knobshaped,

crudely made object with a tiny fragment of gold foiladhering to it (TN 57; Kilian 1984:56, 71 fig. 3:9; Rahmstorf 2008: 241 Cat.No. 1786, pl.35:10).

(TNreferstothedatabasenumberofeachobject
andfeatureincludedintheTracingNetworksproject at Tiryns Cross Craft Interaction in the Cross Cultural Context of the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean (www.tracingnetworks.org/content/ web/cross_craft_interaction.jsp).)

Figure2:PlanofBuildingXIintheLowerCitadel,Horizon17a5(LHIIIBFinal),Tirynsarchive,adaptedfigure basedondrawingbyM.Kostoula,withkindpermissionofJ.Maran

South of the fire place, immediately next to the wall brackets, an extraordinary find was recorded: an ivory rod with a cuneiform in scription (TN 190; Cohen et al. 2010: in press; Maran 2004a: 14,25; Maran 2008: 52 fig. 29).A betterpreservedexampleofafaiencerhytonin the shape of an animals head (Maran 2008: 57 fig. 38; Kostoula and Maran, forthcoming) was foundeastofBuildingXIonthecontemporary walking horizon of the passage way, together withanotherwallbracket(Maran2004a:13,18 fig.7;Maran2008:56figs.36,37).Incontrastto Room 78a, where only two prismatic obsidian

blades(TN43,TN46)wereassociatedwiththe floor, Room 1/02 housed an exhausted core fragment,corticalflakes,flakeandbladeblanks as well as retouched blades (TABLE 2). The rooms assemblage on the LH III B Final floor andthedestructionfillabovethefloor(TABLE 3)isfurthercharacterizedbyaconcentrationof lead clamps (TN 69, TN 59, TN 62, TN 68, TN 60) and sheets (TN 63, TN 64, TN 67, TN 61), two of them with cut marks (TN 64, TN 61), probably scrap metal, lead clamps and half a crucibleshowingastainofametallicsubstance on the rim (TN 191) which was found close to

PRACTICINGIDENTITY:ACRAFTYIDEAL?

31

thesupposeddoorwaybetweenRoom1/02and Room 78a. Room 4/02 yielded a Lapis Lacedae moniusfragmentwithtracesofsawing(TN183; Maran 2008: 53). This unfinished object may point to stone working, possibly associated with a smallscale lapidary workshop (Maran 2008: 90). Another worked fragment of diorite porphyry (TN 184) and small pieces of partly worked rock crystal (TN 218) were found in a secondaryfill.Acompletebonepin(TN84)was also associated with the LH III B Final floor of theroom.ClosetothethresholdintoRoom78a, the floor assemblage of Room 78b consisted of two tiny fragments of gold foil (TN 35, TN 36; Rahmstorf 2008: 241 Cat.Nos. 1738, 1741, pl. 104), as well as two faience vessel sherds (TN 204, TN 205; Rahmstorf 2008: 241 Cat.Nos. 18391840pls.87:45;96:89;104).Threesteatite

conuli(TN47,TN48;Rahmstorf2008:241Cat. Nos.176,186,246,pls.48:1,89;104),andabone button with incised decoration (TN 196; Krzyszkowska 2005: 186, 203 Cat.No. 17 pls. 2:17;6:17),werefoundscatteredinthewestern part of the room. Finally, in the northwest cor ner of Room 78c a marble weight apparently conformingtoaMycenaeanmainlandstandard (TN223;Rahmstorf2008:155,158,163,Cat.No. 1207pls.57:11;93:1)wasrecorded.Abonepin (TN193)wasfoundatthedoor. The occupation of Building XI is terminated by the conflagration at the end of the palatial period. After an occupational break of ap proximately a generation during the LH III C Early phase (ca. 1210/00 1170/60 BCE) in this area, settling started again in LH III C Devel oped(FIGURE3).

Figure3:PlanofHorizon20a3intheNortherntipoftheLowerCitadel(LHIIICDeveloped),Tirynsarchive, adaptedfigurebasedondrawingbyM.Kostoula,withkindpermissionofJ.Maran

This time, a clear change in its architectural layoutisevident:thesequenceofroomsisnow replaced by an open courtyard layout. A stor age bin (preserved in the shape of a pit) and perhaps some clay installations are located in the western part, in the area of the former

Rooms 78b and 78a, the latter of which now formsavestibuletothetriangularRoom2/02in theveryNortherntipoftheLowerCitadel.The north and east parts of the courtyard feature a cluster of at least three oven installations (Ma ran2008:fig.55,67fig.56;68fig.57).Thelithics

32

BRYSBAERT,A.&VETTERS,M.

of this phase indicate an increase in chert, and obsidian finds are located mostly in the fill above the floor (TABLE 4). However, obsidian toolsshowaconcentrationinthecourtyardbe tweenthedifferentoveninstallations.Asecond material cluster, of copper alloy fragments and lead, is located between the mudbrick installa tions No. 78/02 and No. 79/02 (Maran 2008: 68 fig. 57), in a fill above the floor (TABLE 5). Moreover, two spilled lead dribbles (TN 215, TN 231) were found next to installation No. 79/02 and a piece of lead slag (TN 235: Ti 02 LXIII 35/25 a13.08), came to light close to the steps, which links the courtyard with the pas sagewayonthehigherterracetotheeast.Small copper alloy tools and objects (TN 79, TN 219, TN 220, TN 221), are clustered at the southern entrancetotheyard.

DISCUSSION
How can these finds and features within theirarchitecturalunitstellussomethingabout

the identities, contemporaneously and dia chronically, that were formed by the people whooccupiedtheseareasandwhowerelinked to each other by the architectural setting and thematerialassemblages? Fromthedistributionoffindsinthedifferent rooms of Building XI interaction of different crafts within the same building is a potential scenario. The excavated objects point to obsid ianknapping,gildingandprobablystonework ing of nonlocal varieties into inlays and small architectural pieces (see workshop contexts at Thebes: Demakopoulou 1974; Symeonoglou 1973: 15, 6371, pls. 8891; DakouriHild 2005, andatMycenae:Mylonas1966:423,425426). Yet, within this close proximity of activities shown by a series of rooms right next to each other, there is also a separation visible in the distribution or clustering of the objects, clearly enhancedbythearchitecturallayoutofasetof roomsratherthanoneopenarea(FIGURE4).

Figure4:ComparisonofarchitecturallayoutduringHorizon17a5(LHIIIBFinal)andHorizon20a3(LHIIIC Developed)intheNortherntipoftheLowerCitadel,Tirynsarchive,withkindpermissionofJ.Maran

PRACTICINGIDENTITY:ACRAFTYIDEAL?

33

The archaeological remains show a cluster ingofpeculiarartefactsaroundthefireplacein Room 78a which are foreign to mainstream Mycenaeanassemblages: 1the rod, possibly in ivory with cuneiform inscription(Maran2004a:25;2008:90;Cohenet al.2010:inpress), 2locallyproducedwallbrackets(Rahmstorf 2008: 9195, 108, 110111; Maran 2004a: 1213) and 3fragments of zoomorphic faience rhyta (KostoulaandMaran,forthcoming). Kostoula and Maran (forthcoming) recently interpretedthefaiencematerialremainsasevi dence for the final embellishment of animal shaped faience rhyta which were potentially also inlayed with different materials, probably semiprecious stones and glass. They pointed out that faience vessels are common parapher nalia in elite consumption contexts in the East ern Mediterranean (Maran 2004a: 13, note 6), but the specific Mycenaean trait in the vessel foundinTirynsistheholeinthemouthofthe animal (Maran 2008: 90, note 49). This deter minesitsfunctionasarhytonincontrasttothe headshapedfaiencecupsasseenintheLevant (Zuckerman 2009). Furthermore, the marble weight found in Room 78c and the probable function of the ivory rod as a label, measuring stick or, most likely, a tally stick, point to the use of standardized measurements. The loca tion of the workshop in the Lower Citadel as well as the items for labelling and measuring indicatetheinvolvementofthepalatialadmini strationintheproductionofthesegoodsofin ternationalstylewhichservedineliteconsump tion contexts (Zuckerman 2009: 119; Maran 2008: 90; Kostoula and Maran, forthcoming). Although it cannot be supplemented with tex tual evidence, the archaeological remains strongly suggest that this workshop area was under the supervision of the palace. Further data more clearly confirm a palacecontrolled setupfortheproductionandfinishingofvitre ous materials. Out of context, but probably from Tiryns Upper Citadel are remnants of production waste from the making of glass beads and other objects excavated by Heinrich Schliemann (Schliemann1886, 176; Panagiotaki etal.2005).Furthermore,thementionofkuwa

nowokoi (kyanoworgoi/glassworkers) in the LinearBtexts(MYOi701,702,703,704;Night ingale2008:7980),foundintheCultCentreof Mycenae, document that these artisans were closely supervised by the palace (Bennet 2008: 161; Panagiotaki 2008: 47; general: Bech Gre gersen1997). But how to interpret the contents of Room 1/02 which is, contextually, closely related to theroomswithexoticelitegoodproduction?In Room1/02wewitnessallthestepsthatconsti tutethetechnicalsideofthechaneopratoirefor obsidian knapping, here a mundane material amongluxuriousgoods(foradiscussiononthe chane opratoire related to stone knapping, see e.g. Dobres 2000: 170ff.: following gestures flake by flake; Kardulias 2009: 317324; on ob sidian,thechaneopratoireapproachandhabitus see Carter 2003: 76). Obsidian knapping is a craft not recorded in any palatial documents (Newhard 2003: 2021, 118). Our evidence, however, points into the direction of intimate crosscraft interaction (see Evely 2000: 445469 ontoolkits;Nightingale2008:92oncrosscraft interaction of glass bead production and stone mould carving; upcoming work by Heidi Dierckx at Mycenae), if we consider links be tween several chanes opratoires. Considering thepuretechnicalaspectsofthechaneopratoire of gilded faience production will clarify this immediately. If the artisans in our context ob tained an already fired faience vessel for final embellishingandgilding,theystillwouldhave to shape and apply the gold foil. To this end, they would have to cut strips of gold. More over,theywouldneedabindingmaterialanda setofverysmallandfinetoolsinordertowrap thegoldfoiltightlyaroundthebodyoftheob ject,sothatcreasesandtearswouldbeavoided sincethesewoulddiminishthecontinuouslus treofthegoldeffect.Inordertoshapethegold foil,asharpandpointedtoolwouldhavebeen needed so an obsidian blade would work well (seealsoTournavitou1995:253). Subsequently, in order to press the foil in place over the faience with the binder as me dium in between, tiny but firm tools would have been required to reach all corners and crevicesofthemouldedfaience,e.g.oneofthe metalorboneimplementsfoundinBuildingXI

34

BRYSBAERT,A.&VETTERS,M.

(Mossman 2000: 91 furthermore mentions the use of lead in repouss and gold working). It has already been suggested (Kostoula and Ma ran,forthcoming)thatgoldfoilmayhavebeen adhered to faience by means of employing a binder or glue (see Kilian 1986: 165166 on co niferous resin or tar in Tiryns; Pulak 2005: 295 onterebinthresinontheUluBurunshipwreck; Mossman2000:98onleadasasolder),whichat the moment we assume to be bitumen (for the use of bitumen in Late Bronze Age Ugarit see Deschesne1990).Whilewehavenotyethadthe chancetoconfirmthisbyanalysis,smalltarlike blackclusterswerefoundatthebackofoneof the gold foil fragments (PLATE 1; TN 31; Rahmstorf 2008: 241 Cat.No. 1739, pl. 104; for an example from Mycenae Mylonas 1966: 425 426; from Nichoria see McDonald and Wilkie 1992: 268). Despite the apparent lack of fixed installations, the area can be characterized as a workshop area (see criteria outlined by Tour navitou1988:447;1997:230232,238)inthelate palatialperiod,becauseaseriesoftools(obsid ianandother),halffinishedproducts,aswellas scrapsofmaterialswerefoundonthefloorsof theroomsandarespatiallyconfined.

Plate1:Fragmentofwarpedgoldfoilwithtraceof blackresidue,probablyremnantsofabinder/glue preserved

In sum, the archaeological remains attest to the establishment of a palatial workshop in

BuildingXIoftheLowercitadelatTiryns.Cir cumstantialevidencepointstothecontrolofthe artisans by the palatial administration since theywereworkingwithexoticimportedgoods, the distribution of which was normally moni tored by the palace. They were, furthermore, producing composite objects consisting of stone, gold and vitreous materials (see also Bennet2008:161)which,mostlikely,cateredto the tastes of an elite belonging to an interna tionalkoin. Approximately a generation later, in LH III C Developed (ca. 1170/60 1150/40 BCE), the excavated evidence attests to renewed work shop activities in the same place (yet differing in construction from the previous layout), this timeintheformoffixedinstallationswhichare not of domestic origin and which involve the melting of lead. The tool and artefact assem blages associated with these fixed structures have not yielded any exceptional or prestige items. Howcanthesedatabetiedintoadiscussion onidentities?Weproposethat,fortheLHIIIB Final phase (ca. 1225 1210/00 BCE) there are reasonstoinferfromthematerialremainsthata group of people likely working for the palace, maybeagroupofforeigners,interactedclosely with obsidian knappers who were apparently notsupervisedbythepalace.Baseduponscat tered evidence in the Linear B texts and on other archaeological remains of palatial work shopsontheMycenaeanmainlandandseenin the historical frame of Eastern Mediterranean elite interaction, we assume that the highly skilled artisans active in this workshop were most likely under palatial control. They had access to glass, gold, and possibly bitumen, threerawmaterialsthatwereacquiredandim ported, distributed and controlled by the pal ace. The cuneiform signs on the ivory rod (which is purely utilitarian in character) point tointimatecontactswithforeignersifnotactual knowledge of this recording system. Since the signs carved into the rod represent cuneiform and the closest parallels for such an object are found on Cyprus and in Ugarit, this might ei thersuggestthatforeignersfromthisregionor individualsfamiliarwiththislanguage,e.g.via

PRACTICINGIDENTITY:ACRAFTYIDEAL?

35

trading with people from the Near East, were present. Our suggestion that we may be looking at foreigners at work does not merely rest on a singleobject,i.e.thecuneiformrod,butalsoon the peculiar association of that rod, the locally produced wall brackets which have a Cypriote pedigree (Cline 1999; Maran 2004a: 1216; Rahmstorf 2008: 9111, esp. 103104), and the animalshaped faience vessels which are well known from Near Eastern elite contexts. Al though we are not able to present conclusive evidenceastotheethnicoriginoftheindividu als working in Building XI, (who in any case, will have been a mixed group of supervisors belonging to the local elite, specialized foreign artisans and local help), this interpretation is a hypothesis which needs further consideration. The exchange of highly skilled craft personnel in the context of Eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern elite interaction is a well known phenomenon(seeZaccagnini1983;Muhly2005; Brysbaert 2008). We concede that identifying such foreign artisans in the archaeological re cordisfraughtwithproblems.However,inthe caseofBuildingXIsuchahypothesiswouldget some support from the curious association of foreign objects and singular practices (i.e. the faience vessels in the shape of rhyta) and also from the architectural outline. The segregation of rooms in this phase may physically indicate palatial control via the architecture, too. By keepingpeopletogethernearthepalace,butat theverytipofthefortifiedareaandinanarchi tectural setting where circulation patterns are restricted(ingeneralMaran2006b;Thaler2006), closesupervisionandcontrolwouldhavebeen possible. In this sense, the architectural layout plays an active role (allowing passage, restrict ing access, shaping work units, etc.), in proc esses whereby artisans social relationships al low,restrictandshapetheformationandtrans formation of their identities. However, other individuals who are almost hidden and erased from(pre)history,notmentionedinthetablets and leaving behind only a series of flakes, bladesanddebris,mayhaveworkedalongside these specialists in those same workshop spaces. They would have worked for the gild ers, as obsidian knappers, apprentices, or local

labour, providing the former with obsidian tools and equipment, possibly also fuel, water andothervitalmaterials. Weliketolinkthissuggestionwithanother ethnographicaccountwhichillustratesthehid dencharacterofapprenticesverywellinGreece two centuries ago. The testimony of Ioannis Topouzidis,bornin1892inthePontosarea(i.e. the Greek settlements on the Black Sea coast) and trained as bronze worker, tells the story about his life as an apprentice: the time you are student is as if you are a newly wedded bride. Just as the bride you would enter this new house and you would not talk to your fa therinlawandmotherinlaw,we[theappren tices]wereinthesameposition.Onlylateryou would start getting water for him [the master artisan] ( 2008: 154). This exemplary account shows clearly how many of thefirst steps of the craft were taught without any verbal communication but were transferred via observation by the young ap prentice watching carefully and quietly his/her master,untilshewasdeemedadvancedenough by the master to start helping out. It, further more, shows how difficult it would be to find anymaterialremainsproducedbytheseyoung apprentices (because they might have been re worked/recycled immediately), although they were present in the workshop for most of the daytimeandforanextendedperiod. Whilewecannotassesstheactualnumberof people working within the rooms under inves tigation at Tiryns, it seems that activities were spatially confined and would probably have been performed by a range of people of differ ing social status. However, in view of the spa tial layout, interaction must have taken place between the palatially supervised artisans and the other individuals, a point we hope to ex ploremorethoroughlyinourongoingresearch atTiryns.Inthelaterphase,thesameareawas rebuilt, but made more accessible by a re modellingoftheearliersetup,whileincorporat ing some of the former walls (FIGURE 4). An open plan with a courtyard would stimulate contact,interaction,andexchangeofdailytalk, butalsoofknowledge(verbalortacit),possibly even a level of equipment sharing where neededorwanted.Again,thearchitectureitself

36

BRYSBAERT,A.&VETTERS,M.

playsanimportantactiverole:byunifyingfor merroomsintoanopenspacemoresocialcon tact was possible between people who worked withinandthosethatcameinfromoutside. Thearchaeologicalremainsofthelaterphase alsogiverisetoanotherquestionabouttheso cialsignificanceofspace:whydidpeopleofthe postpalatialperiodestablishaworkshoponthe same spot as in the final palatial phase? Since onlyagenerationstimehadlapsed,certainin dividuals very probably remembered the for mer use of the place, perhaps even what valu able elite objects were crafted there. Moreover, thephysicalremainsoftheolderwallswerenot altogether forgotten or invisible, so they may have actively triggered memories, too. Taking the hypothesis one step further, perhaps some of the later individuals were genealogically linked to the ones who worked there previ ously, not an altogether impossible hypothesis in view of the fact that only one generations timesatbetweenthetwobuildingandoccupa tion phases. Many examples in Greece and elsewhereareknownofindividualswhoreturn tothehouseandworkspacewheretheirprede cessors (ancestors?) were rooted. Especially in times where stability was lacking, feeling rooted somewhere was crucial. The architec tural layout and remains may, therefore, have alsohadastrongsymbolicattractiontothenew generationasbeingthespotthatlinkedthemto theirownstableandknownpast,bothinlocale and in people (for similar processes see Maran 2001; 2006a). Obviously, those artisans who used the open courtyard for craft activities ac tivelyreinforcedtheremembranceofthosepast activities performed by the palatial artisans, eventhoughthesedidnolongerhaveaplacein the changed sociopolitical landscape. How ever,byunblockingpreviouswallsintoanopen space,thenewoccupantsallowedwiderphysi calaccessandconsequentlymoresocialcontact thanpreviouslypossible.Bydoingso,theycre atedtheirownsocialidentitiesbutmadeacon scious decision to link these to past artisans identities as well, probably for many reasons. Architecturalmodellingandremodelling,over this time span, of the far north corner of the LowerCitadel,alsoallowedremodelledidenti ties over time but did not disconnect the later

from the earlier ones altogether, inasmuch as the actual architecture itself connected the ear lier and later period. In this sense, mundane stones used as building blocks through the technology of architecture, were linking the pasttothepresent(Chapman2000:64;Cooney 2009:72).

CONCLUSIONS
The hypothesis of a workshop consisting of highly skilled artisans working on luxurious commoditiesunderpalatialadministrationand control may turn into a social reality when we lookatallexcavateditemsandthetechnologies they imply, not just in terms of raw material transformation into finished objects, but also seeing every activity as a social technology. Hitherto hidden people, not mentioned in the Linear B texts, seem to emerge from such a study and, with them, their own technological and social contributions to the workshop play ground. Moreover, these activities, technologi cally and socially shaped, were reflected in the spatialsettings,inandaroundwhichtheytook place. They were, furthermore, bound to shift over time when the sociopolitical system changedorshifted.WhereastheLHIIIBFinal workshop was apparently under palatial con trol and involved perhaps foreign artisans, ac tivities during LH III C Developed seem to be much more grounded in local practices. This had,aswesawclearly,itsrepercussionsonthe architecturallayout.Theopencourtyardisless segregated and more communally accessible, i.e.artisansweremoreintegratedintothelocal community. This spatial integration would have potentially affected not only the bonds that the artisans had with other members in theircommunity,butalsowitheachother,since anychangeinadynamicsystemofsocialbonds and interactions necessarily affected associated bonds and relations as well, materialising in dynamically shaped and shifted identities. Therefore, the reestablishment of a workspace using the same locale for similar pyrotech nological crafts, points to the conscious actions ofartisansinactivelycraftingtheiridentity. In sum, such a detailed contextual analysis caneventuallyprovideuswithinformationre

PRACTICINGIDENTITY:ACRAFTYIDEAL?

37

gardingthesocialintricaciesoftheseworkshop setups,aboutwhichtheLinearBtextsaremute. This shows that despite the immense heuristic valueofthetablets,wemightgainamuchmore nuanced insight into past social interaction via thearchaeologicalremains,evenwithinthepa latial sphere. From a methodological perspec tive,certaininformationsourcesmay,therefore, betoocoarsegrainedorbiasedtorevealmean ingful answers to the scale and scope of the questionsposed.Inallowingtightlycontextual isedmundaneremains,bothportableandarchi tectural, to be active players in technological studies with an explicit emphasis on social in teractionaswell,thisenablesusnotonlytobe

more nuanced and conclusive about what a workshop consists of and piece together the evidence,butalsotorevealamorefinegrained socialsetupintheseactivelynegotiatedwork spaces.Atthesametime,bystudyingthesear tisans within their actively constructed, main tained or changed contexts, i.e. their dynamic workspaces, we may understand better how theseartisanswouldhaveprofiledtheiridenti ties to each other, and how they might have been perceived by their contemporaries. While practicingidentitiesismostobviousinthecraft output,i.e.thefinishedproduct,itisalsototally enmeshedineverymaterialandsocialreality.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
WeverymuchliketoacknowledgethattheresearchpresentedisfundedpartlybyaLeverhulme Trust Research Grant and partly by INSTAP. A. Brysbaert also wants to acknowledge her A. von HumboldtSeniorFellowshipfor20101012.WearegravelyindebtedtoProfessorJosephMaranas directoroftheexcavations.Withouthisconstanthelpandsupportthisprojectwouldnotbepossi ble.WealsowholeheartedlythankDrAlkestisPapadimitriou,epimeleteofthe4 EphorateofPre historicandClassicalAntiquitiesatNafplio,forherpracticalandadministrativesupport,especially providinguswiththepermissiontouseamicroscopefromtheArgosMuseum.Weareverymuch indebted to Dr Lorenz Rahmstorf for his generous sharing of his personal database on the small findsofTiryns.WealsogratefullyacknowledgethehelpofHansBirkandRoxanaDocsaninpre paringfigure3.WeliketothankDrUlrichThalerforhishelpinprovidinguswithdatabasemate rialfromthecurrentexcavation.Last,butnotleast,wethankalltheguardsatTiryns.
th

BIBLIOGRAPHY
.(2008)(Peopleandtools:views ofpreindustrialsociety)ExhibitioncatalogueMuseumofFolklore,Athens. Bass,G.F.,Pulak,C.,Collon,D.,andWeinstein,J.(1989)TheBronzeAgeShipwreckatUluBurun: 1986Campaign,AmericanJournalofArchaeology93,129. Bech Gregersen, M.L. (1997) Craftsmen in the Linear B Archives. In: Production and the Craftsman, Proceedingsofthe4thand5thInternationalWorkshops,Athens1994and1995,Gillis,C.,Risberg, C.,andSjberg,B.,(eds.),TradeandProductioninPremonetaryGreece,Gteborg,4355. Bennet, J. (2008) PalaceTM: Speculations on Palatial Production in Mycenaean Greece with (Some) ReferencetoGlass.In:VitreousmaterialsintheLateBronzeAgeAegean,Jackson,C.M.,and Wager,E.C.(eds.),SheffieldStudiesinArchaeology9,Oxford,151172. Brysbaert, A. (2004) Technology and Social Agency in Bronze Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean PaintedPlaster(PhDthesis,Dept.ofArchaeology,UniversityofGlasgow,Scotland). Brysbaert, A. (2007) CrossCraft and CrossCultural Interactions during the Aegean and Eastern MediterraneanLateBronzeAge.In:MediterraneanCrossroads,Antoniadou,S.andPace,A. (eds.),Athens,325359. Brysbaert,A.(2008)ThepoweroftechnologyintheBronzeAgeEasternMediterranean,Monographsin MediterraneanArchaeology12,London/Oakville.

38

BRYSBAERT,A.&VETTERS,M.

Brysbaert,A.(forthcoming)TechnologiesandRepresentationswithinBronzeAgeAegeanArchitec ture.In:TechnologiesofRepresentationintheAegeanandEastMediterraneanBronzeAges,Shef fieldRoundTableJanuary2008,Bennett,J.(ed.),Oxford. Brysbaert,A.(2011:inpress)GenderdisplayofGreekPrehistoricarchaeologicalcollectionsthrough theconceptsofchaneopratoireandcrosscraftinteraction.In:WomeninMuseums.Reality andRepresentation.Museums08,InternationalSymposium,Thessaloniki,1113April2008, Skaltsa,M.(ed.),(publicationdate:2011). Carter,T.(2003)ProblematizingtheAnalysisofObsidianintheAegeanandSurroundingWorlds. In:METRON.MeasuringtheAegeanBronzeAge,Proceedingsofthe9thInternationalAe gean Conference/9e Rencontre genne international, New Haven, Yale University, 1821 April 2002, Polinger Foster, K., and Laffineur, R., (eds.), Aegaeum 24, Annales darchologiegennedelUniversitdeLigeetUTPASP,Lige,7582pl.XV. Chapman,J.(2000)PitdiggingandstructureddepositionintheNeolithicandCopperAge,Proceed ingsofthePrehistoricSociety66,6187. Cline,E.H.(1999)CoalstoNewcastle,WallbracketstoTiryns:Irrationality,GiftExchange,andDis tanceValue.In:Meletemata:StudiesinAegeanArchaeologyPresentedtoMalcolmH.Wieneras He Enters His 65th Year. Vol. I., Betancourt, P.P., Karageorghis,V., Laffineur, R., and Nie meier,W.D.(eds.),Aegaeum20,AnnalesdarchologiegennedelUniversitdeLige etUTPASP,Lige,119123. Cohen,C.,Maran,J.,andVetters,M.(2010:inpress)AnIvoryRodwithaCuneiformInscription, MostProbablyUgaritic,fromaFinalPalatialWorkshopintheLowerCitadelofTiryns,Ar chologischerAnzeiger2010(2). Cooney,G.(2009)MundanestoneanditsmeaningintheNeolithic.In:Materialitas.WorkingStone, CarvingIdentity,OConnor,B.,Cooney,G.,andChapman,J.(eds.),PrehistoricSocietyRe searchPaper3,Oxford,6474. Costin,C.L.(2005)Craftproduction.In:HandbookofArchaeologicalMethods,Maschner,H.D.G.,and Chippindale,C.(eds.),Lanham/NewYork,10341107. DakouriHild,A.(2005)BreakingtheMould?ProductionandEconomyintheThebanState.In:Au tochthon. Papers presented to O. T. P. K. Dickinson on the occasion of his retirement, Dakouri Hild, A., and Sherratt, S. (eds.), British Archaeological Reports International Series 1432, Oxford,207224. Demakopoulou, K., (1974) , 7,162173. Deschesne,O.(1990).ExamplesdutilisationdubitumenRasShamra,Syria67,29. DazAndreu, M., Lucy, S., Babi, S., and Edwards, D.N. (2005) The Archaeology of Identity. Ap proachestogender,age,status,ethnicityandreligion,London/NewYork. Dobres,M.A.(2000)TechnologyandSocialAgency.OutliningaPracticeFrameworkforArchaeology,Ox ford. Evely,R.D.G.(2000)MinoanCrafts:toolsandtechniques;anintroduction,StudiesinMediterraneanAr chaeology92,Gteborg. HughesBrock,H.(1999)Mycenaeanbeads:genderandsocialcontext,OxfordJournalofArchaeology 18,277296. Immerwahr,S.A.(1971)TheAthenianAgoraXIII:TheNeolithicandBronzeAges,ResultsofExcavations ConductedbytheAmericanSchoolofClassicalStudiesatAthens,Princeton,NewJersey. Kardulias,P.N.(2009)FlakedStonefromIsthmia,Hesperia78,307346. Kilian,K.(1978)AusgrabungeninTiryns1976.BerichtzudenGrabungen,ArchologischerAnzeiger 1978,449498. Kilian,K.(1984),:JournalofTheory andPractice6,1984,5557,6972.

PRACTICINGIDENTITY:ACRAFTYIDEAL?

39

Kilian,K.(1986)EinmykenischesBeleuchtungsgert.In: 60 , Zepos, D., Platon, N., Sakellarakis, J., Travlos, J., and Chatzidakis, M. (eds.), . 103,Athens,152166. Kilian,K.(1987)ZurFunktiondermykenischenResidenzenaufdemgriechischenFestland.In:The FunctionoftheMinoanPalaces.ProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalSymposiumattheSwed ishInstituteinAthens1984,Hgg,R.,andMarinatos,N.(eds.),SkrifterUtgivnaavSvenska InstitutetiAthen4:35,Stockholm,2138. Kilian,K.(1988)AusgrabungeninTiryns1982/83.BerichtzudenGrabungen,ArchologischerAnzei ger1988,105151. KilianDirlmeier, I. (2009) Burials with tools: Evidence for Aegean craftspeople? In: . ,Daniilidou,D.(ed.), ,,6,Athens,383390. Kostoula,M.andMaran,J.(forthcoming)AGroupofAnimalHeadedFaienceVesselsfromTiryns. In:FestschriftinHonorofEliezerOren,Lehmann,G.,Talshir,Z.,Gruber,M.I.,andAhituv,S. (eds.),OrbisBiblicusetOrientalis. Krzyszkowska, O.H. (2005) Mycenaean Ivories from Tiryns, Tiryns XIII, Forschungen und Berichte, Mainz,179213. LeroiGourhan,A.(1964)LeGesteetlaParole,vol1:TechniqueetLangage;vol2:laMmoireetlesRyth mes,Paris. Maran, J. (2001) Political and Religious Aspects of Architectural Change on the Upper Citadel of Tiryns.TheCaseofBuildingT.In:Potnia.Proceedingsofthe8thInternationalAegeanConfer ence,Gteborg,GteborgUniversity12th15thApril2000,Laffineur,R.,andHgg,R.(eds.), Aegaeum22,AnnalesdarchologiegennedelUniversitdeLiegeetUTPASP,Lige, 113122pls.XXXIXXXIII. Maran, J. (2004a) The Spreading of Objects and Ideas in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterra nean:TwoCaseExamplesfromtheArgolidofthe13thand12thCenturiesB.C.E.,Bulletinof theAmericanSchoolofOrientalResearch336,1130. Maran, J. (2004b). Architektonische Innovation imsptmykenischen Tiryns Lokale Bauprogram meundfremdeKultureinflsse.In:AlthellenischeTechnologieundTechnik,ConferenceProcee dingsOhlstadt21.23.03.2003,Kyriatsoulis,A.(ed.),Weilheim,261286. Maran,J.(2006a)ComingtoTermswiththePastIdeologyandPowerinLateHelladicIIIC.In:An cientGreecefromtheMycenaeanPalacestotheAgeofHomer.ProceedingsoftheThirdA. G.LeventisConference,2225January2003,DegerJalkotzy,S.,andLemos,I.,(eds.),Edin burghLeventisStudies3,Edinburgh,123150. Maran, J. (2006b) Mycenaean Citadels as Performative Space. In: Constructing power architecture, ideologyandsocialpractice;KonstruktionderMachtArchitektur,IdeologieundsozialesHandeln, Maran,J.,Juwig,C.,Schwengel,H.,andThaler,U.(eds.),Geschichte,ForschungundWis senschaft19,Mnster,7591. Maran,J.(2008)ForschungeninderUnterburgvonTiryns20002003,ArchologischerAnzeiger2008, 35111. Maran,J.(forthcoming).TheCrisisYears?ReflectionsonSignsofInstabilityintheLastDecadesof theMycenaeanPalaces.In:ReasonsforChange:Birth,DeclineandCollapseofSocietiesbetween theEndoftheFourthandtheBeginningoftheFirstMillenniumB.C.,Cardarelli,A.,Cazzella, A.,Frangipane,M.,andPeroni,R.(eds.),Scienzedellantichit15. McDonald,W.A.,andWilkie,N.C.,eds.(1992)TheBronzeAgeOccupation.ExcavationsatNichoriain SouthwestGreeceII,Minneapolis. McGovern, P.E. (1989) Ceramics and craft interaction: a theoretical framework, with prefatory re marks. In: CrossCraft and CrossCultural Interactions in Ceramics, McGovern, P.E., Notis, M.D.,andKingery,W.D.(eds.),CeramicsandCivilizationIV,Westerville,Ohio,111.

40

BRYSBAERT,A.&VETTERS,M.

Miller,H.M.L.(2007)ArchaeologicalApproachestoTechnology,Amsterdam/Boston/Heidelberg. Mossman,S.(2000)MycenaeanAgeLead:aFreshLookatanOldMaterial.In:TradeandProduction in Premonetary Greece: Acquisition and Distribution of Raw Materials and Finished Products, Proceedingsofthe6thInternationalWorkshop,Athens1996,Gillis,C.,Risberg,C.,andSjberg, B.(eds.),StudiesinMediterraneanArchaeologyandLiteraturePocketbook154,Jonsered, 85119. Muhly,J.(2005)Travellingcraftsmen:loveemorleaveem.In:EMPORIA.AegeanintheCentraland Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, 1418 April2004,Laffineur,R.andGreco,E.(eds),Aegaeum25,Annalesdarchologiegenne delUniversitdeLigeetUTPASP,LiegeTexasAustin,685690. Mylonas,G.(1966)TheEastWingofthePalaceofMycenae,Hesperia35,419426. Newhard,J.M.L.(2003)AspectsofLocalBronzeAgeEconomies:ChippedStoneAcquisitionandProduc tion Strategies in the Argolid, Greece, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati,Cincinnati. Nightingale,G.(2008)Tiny,Fragile,Common,Precious.MycenaeanGlassandFaienceBeadsand OtherObjects.In:VitreousmaterialsintheLateBronzeAgeAegean,Jackson,C.M.,andWager, E.C.,(eds.),SheffieldStudiesinArchaeology9,Oxford,64104. Panagiotaki,M.(2008)TheTechnologicalDevelopmentofAegeanVitreousMaterialsintheBronze Age. In: Vitreous materials in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, Jackson, C.M., and Wager, E.C., (eds.),SheffieldStudiesinArchaeology9,Oxford,3463. Panagiotaki, M., PapazoglouManioudaki, L., ChatziSpiliopoulou, G., AndreopoulouMangou, E., Maniatis, Y., Tite, M.S., and Shortland, A. (2005) A Glass Workshop at the Mycenaean Citadel of Tiryns in Greece. In: Annales du 16e congrs de lAssociation internationale pour lhistoire du verre, London 2003, lAssociation internationale pour lhistoiredu verre (ed.), Nottingham,1418pls.58. Pfaffenberger, B. (1998) Mining communities, chanes opratoires and sociotechnical systems. In: Social Approaches to an Industrial Past. The Archaeology and Anthropology of Mining, Knapp, A.B,Pigott,V.,andHerbert,E.W.(eds.),London,291300. Pulak,C.(2005)WhoweretheMycenaeansaboardtheUluburunship?In:Emporia.Aegeansinthe CentralandEasternMediterranean,Proceedingsofthe10thInternationalAegeanConference,Ath ens,1418April2004,Laffineur,R.andGreco,E.(eds.),Aegaeum25,Annalesdarchologie gennedelUniversitdeLigeetUTPASP,LiegeandTexas,295310pls.LXXLXXI. Rahmstorf,L.(2008)KleinfundeausTirynsausTerrakotta,Stein,BeinundGlas/Fayencevornehmlichaus derSptbronzezeit,ForschungenundBerichte,TirynsXVI,Wiesbaden. Schliemann, H. (1886) Tiryns. Der prhistorische Palast der Knige von Tiryns. Ergebnisse der neuesten Ausgrabungen,Leipzig. Stevenson Smith, W.M. (1951) Paintings of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom at Bersheh, American JournalofArchaeology55,321332. Symeonoglou,S.(1973)KadmeiaI:MycenaeanFindsfromThebes,Greece.Excavationsat14OedipusSt., StudiesinMediterraneanArchaeology35,Gteborg. Terrace,E.L.B.(1968)EgyptianPaintingsoftheMiddleKingdom,London. Thaler,U.(2006)Constructingandreconstructingpower.ThepalaceofPylos.In:Constructingpower architecture, ideology and social practice; Konstruktion der Macht Architektur, Ideologie und sozialesHandeln,Maran,J.,Juwig,C.,Schwengel,H.,andThaler,U.(eds.),Geschichte,For schungundWissenschaft19,Mnster,93116. Tournavitou,I.(1988)Towardsanidentificationofaworkshopspace.In:ProblemsinGreekPrehis tory.PapersPresentedattheCentenaryConferenceoftheBritishSchoolofArchaeologyatAthens, Tournavitou, I. (1995) The Ivory Houses at Mycenae. Supplementary volume 24. London: TheBritishSchoolatAthens.Manchester,April1986,French,E.B.,andWardle,K.A.,(eds.), Bristol,447467.

PRACTICINGIDENTITY:ACRAFTYIDEAL?

41

Tournavitou, I. (1997) Jewellers Moulds and Jewellers Workshops in Mycenaean Greece. An Ar chaeologicalUtopia.In:ProductionandtheCraftsman,Proceedingofthe4thand5thInternational Workshops,Athens,1994and1995,Gillis,C.,Risberg,C.,andSjberg,B.,(eds.),Tradeand ProductioninPremonetaryGreece,Gteborg,209256. Zaccagnini, C. (1983) Patterns of mobility among ancient Near Eastern Craftsmen, Journal of Near EasternStudies42(2),245264. Zuckerman,S.(2009)Fitfora(notquitesogreat)King:AFaienceLionHeadCupfromHazor,Le vant40,115125.

TABLES
Table1:UnpublishedTNobjectsmentionedinthetextwithrespectivefindspots

Tracing Networks Findspot databasenumber TN22 LXII34/100IVb,Ti02LXIII34/81VI,LXIII 34/91 VI a12.90, LXIII 34/91 VI, LXIII 35/01 VIAunterFuboden TN29 LXII34/100IVb,LXII35/10IVb,LXII35/19 IVb,Ti02LXIII34/91VI TN207 Ti02LXIII34/91VIf12.81 TN208 Ti02LXIII34/91VIg12.83 TN209 Ti02LXIII34/91VIBc12.77 TN210 Ti02LXIII34/81VIbc12.86 TN211 Ti02LXIII34/81VIbb12.87 TN160 Ti05LXIII34/71Ofl.VIAa12.86 TN191 Ti02LXIII34/63VIa12.97,LXIII34/63VC TN183 Ti02LXIII35/03VIba12.92 TN43 Ti02LXIII34/81VIa12.80 TN46 Ti02LXIII34/81VIa12.90 TN184 Ti02LXIII34/61IVGa13.26Kilianstrung TN218 Ti02LXIII34/92VAa13.24 TN84 Ti02LXIII35/12VCb12.93 TN193 Ti02LXII35/48VIa12.88

Description Wallbracket

Wallbracket Fragmentoffaiencevessel Fragmentoffaiencevessel Fragmentoffaiencevessel Fragmentoffaiencevessel Fragmentoffaiencevessel Reliefbead Crucible WorkedfragmentofLapisLacedaimonius Prismaticblade,obsidian Prismaticblade,obsidian Workedfragmentofdioriteporphyry Workedfragmentsofrockcrystal Bonepin Bonepin

Table2:Lithics:obsidianartefactsfoundinRoom1/02ofBuildingXI,inHorizon17a518(LHIIIBFinal)

Tracing Networks database Findspot number TN112 Ti02LXIII34/63VIAb12.82Hor.17a5 TN108 TN111 TN118 TN110 TN173 TN107 TN114 TN117 TN128 Ti02LXIII34/64VIAa12.84Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/52VIAb12.84Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/63VIAa12.84Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/42VIAa12.85Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/63VIb12.85Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/54VIAa12.85Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/52VIAc12.90Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/33VIAHor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/52VIf12.92Hor.17a5

Description Obsidian,secondarydecortication flake Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank Obsidian,retouchedflake,scraper Obsidian,tertiaryflake Obsidian,flake,blank Obsidian,primarydecortication flake Obsidian,exhaustedcore Obsidian,retouchedflake,scraper Obsidian,flakeblankfromblade production Obsidian,flakeblankfromblade production

42

BRYSBAERT,A.&VETTERS,M.

TN98 TN121 TN102 TN122 TN123 TN129 TN126 TN130 TN131 TN132 TN101 TN104 TN105 TN125 TN133 TN138 TN137 TN139 TN99 TN96 TN141 TN135 TN140 TN97 TN134

Ti02LXIII34/62VIa12.93Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/43VIa12.93Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/42VIb12.94Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/53VIe12.94Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/52VId12.95Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/52VIe12.96Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/42VIa12.97Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/53VIa12.97Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/52VIa12.98Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/43VIb12.98Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/53VIf12.99Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/52VIb13.00Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/43VIHor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/63VIHor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/63VIHor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/63VCf13.01Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/42VCa13.03Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/64VCa13.03Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/83VIa13.03Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/52VCg13.04Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/52VCb13.04Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/63VCe13.06Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/63VCd13.08Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/63VCb13.10Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/64VCHor.1820

Obsidian,prismaticblade, retouched Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank Obsidian,retouchedblade Obsidian,prismaticblade, retouched Obsidian,blade,blank Obsidian,tertiaryflake Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank Obsidian,secondaryflake Obsidian,tertiaryflake Obsidian,secondarydecortications flake Obsidian,flakeblankfromblade production Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank Obsidian,burin Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank Obsidian,tertiaryflake Obsidian,tertiaryflake Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank Obsidian,prismaticblade, retouched Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank Obsidian,prismaticblade,burin Obsidian,tertiaryflake Obsidian,prismaticblade, retouched Obsidian,secondarydecortication flake Obsidian,prismaticblade, retouched Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank

Table3:LeadandcopperalloyobjectsandassociatedcruciblefoundinRoom1/02ofBuildingXI,inHorizon17 a518(LHIIIBFinal)

Tracing Networks databasenumber TN78 TN72 TN83 TN69 TN63 TN88 TN59 TN81 TN191 TN62 TN90 TN91 TN64

Findspot

Description

Ti02LXIII34/42VIBa12.85Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/63VId12.90Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/53VIa12.90Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/43VIAb12.91Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/63VIb12.93Hor.17a5 LXIII34/52VIc12.95Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/53VIb12.95Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/53VIc12.96Hor.17a5 Ti 02 LXIII 34/53 VI a12.97, Ti 02 LXIII 34/63 VC Hor.17a5 Ti02LXIII34/84VBa13.00G2/02Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/53VCd13.01Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/63VCg13.01Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/52VCe13.01Hor.1820

Copperalloy,amorphousfragment Copperalloy,amorphousfragment Copperalloy,awl Lead,clamp Lead,sheet Copperalloy,amorphousfragment Lead,clamp Copperalloy,wire? Clay,crucible Lead,clamp Copperalloy,amorphousfragment Copperalloy,amorphousfragment Lead,sheetwithcutmarks

PRACTICINGIDENTITY:ACRAFTYIDEAL?

43

TN87 TN77 TN67 TN68 TN60 TN61

Ti02LXIII34/53VCc13.02Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/53VCb13.03Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/53VCa13.04Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/52VCf13.04Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/52VCd13.04Hor.1820 Ti02LXIII34/52VCc13.04Hor.1820

Copperalloy.amorphousfragment Copperalloy,strip? Lead,sheet Lead,clamp Lead,striporclamp Lead,sheetwithcutmarks

Table4:Lithics:selectionofobsidianandchertartefactsfoundincourtyardarea,inHorizon20a321a0(LHIIIC Developed)inareaunderstudy

Tracing Networks databasenumber TN186 TN185 TN169 TN136 TN145 TN165 TN163 TN148

Findspot Ti02LXIII35/11VCb13.04 Ti02LXIII35/12VCa13.08 Ti02LXII35/40VCb13.05 Ti02LXII35/40VCc13.05 Ti02LXII35/40VCd13.05 Ti02LXII35/40VCa13.07 Ti02LXIII35/11VCa13.10 Ti02LXIII35/03VBa13.12

Description Radiolarit,retouchedblade,denticulate Chert,prismaticblade,retouched Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank Obsidian,trimmingflake Obsidian,retouchedblade Obsidian,secondarydecorticationflake Obsidian,prismaticblade,blank

Table5:Copperalloyartefactsandleadobjectsfoundincourtyardarea,inHorizon20a321a0(LHIIICDevel oped)inareaunderstudy

Tracing Networks Findspot databasenumber TN215 TN231 TN212 TN80 TN75 TN219 TN106 TN220 TN79 TN221 Ti02LXIII35/11VAb13.23 Ti02LXIII35/11VAa13.27 Ti02LXIII35/02VAa13.25 Ti02LXIII35/21VCa12.96 Ti02LXIII35/11VCc13.08 Ti02LXII35/40VAa13.31 Ti02LXIII35/21VICa12.98 Ti02LXII35/49IVHa13.49 Ti02LXII35/39VCa13.05 Ti02LXII35/39VAa13.33

Description Lead,spillordriblet Lead,spillordriblet Lead,weightoringot? Copperalloy,fragmentofpin,wireorhook? Copperalloy,awlorchisel Copperalloy,awlorchisel Slagfragment Copperalloy,rivet Copperalloy,pinorstud Copperalloy,awlorchisel