Our goal is to analyse private dwellings in Phaistos and Hagia Triada as households using the perspective derived from the House concept (in Lévi-Strauss’ interpretation) defined by González-Ruibal (2005: 146), in order to review certain phenomena regarding the persistence or destruction of houses at the two sites, which have until now been generally considered within political contexts. We also intend to follow up on previous suggestions (Militello 2000; 2012a; 2012b; 2014; Palio 2000; 2008; Figuera 2012) regarding the role of the household in the production systems of the two sites from MM IB to LM IB, according to the model that Ames (1995) and later Costin (2001) define as ‘embedded production’, the manufacture of classes of objects by members of the elite in chiefdom and state level societies. Embedded and dependent productions differ in that ‘elite members themselves are the producers’ in the former case. While distinguishing between the two production systems is archeologically complex, embedded production is indeed suggested for MM II Phaistos (Palio 2008) and Hagia Triada (Militello 2018), allowing possible ideological connections between central buildings (the ‘Palace’ in Phaistos, the Villa in Hagia Triada) and elite groups who affirm their membership within power structures through the production of prestige items such as textiles and stone vases, probably for ritual consumption. In order to confirm or disprove the suggested hypothesis, we perform a distributional analysis and a cluster analysis of findings in the houses from Phaistos and Hagia Triada and compare the results with analogous groups of artefacts (including tools and wastes) from Levi’s Quarter and the Villa.

Houses, Central Buildings and Embedded Production. Interpreting the Role of Households in Phaistos and Hagia Triada during the Palatial Periods

Pietro Militello
Co-primo
;
Orazio Palio
Co-primo
;
Marianna Figuera
Co-primo
2020

Abstract

Our goal is to analyse private dwellings in Phaistos and Hagia Triada as households using the perspective derived from the House concept (in Lévi-Strauss’ interpretation) defined by González-Ruibal (2005: 146), in order to review certain phenomena regarding the persistence or destruction of houses at the two sites, which have until now been generally considered within political contexts. We also intend to follow up on previous suggestions (Militello 2000; 2012a; 2012b; 2014; Palio 2000; 2008; Figuera 2012) regarding the role of the household in the production systems of the two sites from MM IB to LM IB, according to the model that Ames (1995) and later Costin (2001) define as ‘embedded production’, the manufacture of classes of objects by members of the elite in chiefdom and state level societies. Embedded and dependent productions differ in that ‘elite members themselves are the producers’ in the former case. While distinguishing between the two production systems is archeologically complex, embedded production is indeed suggested for MM II Phaistos (Palio 2008) and Hagia Triada (Militello 2018), allowing possible ideological connections between central buildings (the ‘Palace’ in Phaistos, the Villa in Hagia Triada) and elite groups who affirm their membership within power structures through the production of prestige items such as textiles and stone vases, probably for ritual consumption. In order to confirm or disprove the suggested hypothesis, we perform a distributional analysis and a cluster analysis of findings in the houses from Phaistos and Hagia Triada and compare the results with analogous groups of artefacts (including tools and wastes) from Levi’s Quarter and the Villa.
978-2-87558-996-5
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/457757
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact