MacGillivray J.A., Barber R.L.N. The Prehistoric Cyclades contributions to a workshop on Cycladic chronology

Edinburgh : Dept. of Classical Archaeology, 1984. — 327 p.This commendably speedy publication contains most of the papers delivered at the London workshop on prehistoric Cycladic chronology held in June 1983. The format is modest, with paper binding and microprocessor-typed text, but appropriate for useful but, in that many will be superseded by fuller publications, largely ephemeral papers. The text is not always easy to read fast, but is nearly free of errors (p. 254, n. 2: Fig. z should be 4a). The volume is dedicated to the memory of J. L. Caskey,and it is noteworthy how prominent his site, Ayia Irini, is in the discussions (5 papers cover different groups of material, and it receives constant references elsewhere) ; this is a reminder of how narrow the data-base is still, for many phases. The papers, in their concentration on certain periods, the EBA and early LBA, reflect the currently favoured areas of research, though the greatest quantity of new material is provided by those which concern the final stage of the LBA. Most rewarding, in that they explore issues beyond the chronological, are Renfrew’s introductory remarks to his paper, which include a whole series of important questions about the neolithic and EBA, Cherry & Torrence on stonework, Warren on EM-EC relations, Schilardi’s general account of Koukounaries, and the Gales’ latest progress report on their research into metal sources, with particular Cycladic emphasis. This is not to disparage the rest, which are concerned with issue of substance-in particular, the increasingly crucial but still unresolved question of sequence and correlations in the late EBA (MacGillivray; Wilson & Eliot; Barber; Rutter) and the evidence for a pre-eruption earthquake and reconstruc- tion at Akrotiri (Marthari; Palyvou)-but most attempt to elucidate a phase in the sequence by detailed pottery analysis, which will induce ceramic indigestion in the non-specialist and provides much useful information but relatively few surprises. Betancourt and Lawn draw on the whole Aegean to give a useful discussion of absolute chronology as suggested by radiocarbon dates, and the editors present a summary of the findings and their bearing on Cycladic prehistory. The most striking pieces of information to emerge are only partly chronological: the identification of Laurion and probably Kythnos as copper sources; the discovery of arched as well as violin-bow fibulae in the Koukounaries destruction deposit of ‘Developed’ LH IIIC date (p. 202); the apparent certainty that cult-activity continued uninterrupted into the Dark Age at Ayia Irini, as shown by the stratigraphic sequence in Shrine BB (p. 252); and the strong likelihood that Koukounaries also saw continuity of activity if not full-scale occupation (the ‘Submy- cenaean’ lekythos (p. 199 Fig. 10) would not look out of place in an early PG context). It is useful to have more detailed accounts of various stages at Ayia Irini and Phylakopi, particularly the MB phases of the former (the MBA remains notably under-represented in Cycladic material). But, as the editors comment, important questions of principle, first raised in the discussion of the ‘Kampos Group’, but recurrent not only in Cycladic but generally in Aegean prehistory, were not really con- fronted, let alone resolved. For the editors, these centred on terminology, in particular the assumption that what could be shown to be contemporary with, e.g., EH 11 should be termed EC 11; but for the reviewer the crucial question is rather, can we continue to use the tripartite system of terminology at all? This is not the place to repeat the cogent criticisms of Renfrew, McNeal, and D. H. French; but it is increas- ingly evident that the system is totally inadequate as a classificatory device, for it cannot cope with the diversity of local sequences being revealed, and unnecessary as a chronological device, in that it does not reflect the actual historical development. An outstanding example, it has to be said, is the editors’ own proposed usage of EC IIIA and IIIB. This is methodologically difficult as a classification, since, even if proved to be immediately successive, the two are not stages of the same cultural group, as would be expected for an A-B usage on all previous precedent, and the ‘EC IIIA’ material is closely related to material from Euboea, Boeotia, and Aegina that would require a different classification-term in the traditional scheme. Nor is it logical as a chronological arrangement, since, as representing two phases of Cycladic development that are very different in character, they might be better termed ECIII and IV! The time for fundamental change, foreseen by Caskey (as quoted at the front), has in the reviewer’s opinion arrived. A method of ordering the material that does not assume a framework apnbn’ but is more flexible, to allow for continuing gaps in our knowledge, is needed. Only then can questions like the ‘EC 111 gap’ be discussed without the intervention of terminological traditions that obscure rather than clarify. That said, this group of papers is a notable contribution to the better understand- ing of the prehistoric sequence in the Cyclades.