To Interact, Possess and Express: Glass Jewellery and its Social Meaning in the Mid-Late Mycenaean Bronze Age

互动、拥有和表达：玻璃首饰及其在迈锡尼青铜时代中晚期的社会意义

• 批准号: 2637447
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Southampton
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2021
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2021 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2637447
• 关键词: Interact; Possess; Express; Glass; Jewellery

Research Question and ContextThe proposed project seeks to provide a detailed reassessment of glass and faience beads, the latter of which began to occupy funerary deposits on the Greek mainland during the 18th-17th centuries BC. Interpreting the distribution, chaine operatoire, and burial context of these small, wearable ornaments will facilitate an improved understanding of the role these artefacts played in the construction of individual and group identities over an extended period. As items which were regularly deposited in both high-status chamber tombs and larger burial areas geographically distinct from urbanised centres, this material offers a novel way to explore the multiple echelons of Mycenaean society. What also makes this corpus of evidence stand out is its almost consistent inclusion in burial deposits from the Middle Helladic until the Late Bronze Age collapse, a period of some c. 800 years. Over this same period, there is remarkable continuity in relief bead typology (see Nightingale, 2018:43), and this raises interesting possibilities as to how predetermined rituals were constructed and passed on to successive generations. In order to access the full potential of this hitherto untapped dataset, this PhD asks: How was the medium of vitreous or glassy substances utilised in the expression of Mycenaean social identity within the north-east Peloponnese region?The Mid-late Mycenaean Bronze Age (c. 2000-1050 BC) is commonly regarded as a period of dynamic social and cultural change. In the north-east Peloponnese, the pre-Helladic settlements of Mycenae and Tiryns rose to prominence, with economies based on the redistribution of foodstuffs, taxes and services (see Halstead, 1993). With the benefit of regular maritime trade routes (see Knapp & Demessticha, 2017), craftworkers on the Mycaenaean mainland were granted access to regular supplies of raw materials (i.e. gold, silver, semi-precious stones, ivory), manmade ones (i.e. bronze, glass), and the technical knowledge required to produce objects to a fine standard. Of these materials, glass and faience (compositionally related materials both used for personal adornment) have been well-studied archaeometrically (i.e. Polikreti, et al, 2011; Smirniou, et al. 2012; Zacharias, et al, 2018). However, knowledge of their social meaning is more restricted to general typological overviews (i.e. Higgins, 1980; Nightinglae, 2008, 2018 vs. Hughes-Brock, 1999), and work that quantifies the material itself is severely limited (Konstantinidi, 2001). My MA thesis made clear this dearth in essential contextual information, which through literature survey alone found over 3000 glass and faience artefacts across 25 burial locations surrounding Mycenae *Cummings, 2020: 55); a reality that starkly contrasts with the summation of Walton et al (2009: 1496) that 'the material is so scarce'. Despite limited descriptive data, it was possible to define the beads into three groups (simple, composite, and relief), and analyse the artefacts based on type, pattern, size, and distribution. Perhaps most significantly, the material was found to appear in burials of all sexes and ages, including juveniles. The prospect that these near-consistent inclusions are evidence of ritualised breakage or intentional necklace reduction by the griever, raises vital questions as to the perceived importance of the artefacts.The decision at Mycenae to expend resources to produce specialised tools, allocate craft space, and source raw material is certainly evidence of a shift in perception that identified glass as status-defining. However, in the same way that swords did not simply represent military function (Dirlmeier, 1990), Mycenaean glass jewellery held an array of complex motives ranging from conveyors of religious belief (Schallin, 2016: 176), to identity badges (Nikita, 2003: 29).

研究问题和背景拟议的项目旨在提供一个详细的重新评估玻璃和彩陶珠，后者开始占据丧葬存款在希腊大陆在公元前18 - 17世纪。解释这些小的，可穿戴的装饰品的分布，chaineoperatoire和埋葬环境将有助于更好地理解这些人工制品在很长一段时间内在个人和群体身份的构建中发挥的作用。作为定期存放在高地位墓室和地理上与城市化中心不同的较大墓葬区的物品，这些材料提供了一种探索迈锡尼社会多层次的新方法。使这一证据库脱颖而出的另一个原因是，它几乎一致地包含在从中赫拉迪克时代到青铜时代晚期崩溃的埋藏沉积物中，这一时期大约有100万年。800年了。在同一时期，浮雕珠子类型学有着显著的连续性（见Nightingale，2018：43），这就提出了关于预定仪式是如何构建并传递给后代的有趣可能性。为了充分利用这一迄今尚未开发的数据集的潜力，这位博士问道：在伯罗奔尼撒半岛东北部地区，玻璃质或玻璃质物质的媒介是如何用于表达迈锡尼社会身份的？迈锡尼青铜时代（Mycenaean Bronze Age）公元前2000-1050年）通常被认为是一个充满活力的社会和文化变革时期。在伯罗奔尼撒半岛东北部，前希腊人的迈锡尼和梯林斯定居点崛起，其经济建立在食物、税收和服务的再分配基础上（参见Halstead，1993）。得益于定期的海上贸易路线（见克纳普和德梅斯蒂查，2017年），迈锡尼大陆上的工匠可以获得定期供应的原材料（即黄金、银、半宝石、象牙）、人造材料（即青铜、玻璃）以及生产高标准物品所需的技术知识。在这些材料中，玻璃和彩陶（均用于个人装饰的成分相关材料）已在考古学上得到充分研究（即Polikreti等人，2011; Smirniou等人，2012; Zacharias等人，2018）。然而，关于它们的社会意义的知识更局限于一般类型学概述（即Higgins，1980; Nightinglae，2008，2018 vs. Hughes-Brock，1999），量化材料本身的工作非常有限（Konstantinidi，2001）。我的硕士论文清楚地表明了这种缺乏必要的背景信息，仅通过文献调查就在迈锡尼周围的25个埋葬地点发现了3000多件玻璃和彩陶文物 *Cummings，2020：55）;这一现实与Walton等人（2009：1496）的总结形成鲜明对比，“材料是如此稀缺”。尽管描述性数据有限，但可以将珠子分为三组（简单，复合和浮雕），并根据类型，图案，大小和分布分析人工制品。也许最重要的是，这些材料被发现出现在所有性别和年龄的墓葬中，包括青少年。前景，这些近乎一致的内含物是仪式性的断裂或悲伤者故意减少项链的证据，提出了关于人工制品的感知重要性的重要问题。迈锡尼决定花费资源生产专门的工具，分配工艺空间，并采购原材料，这无疑是将玻璃视为地位定义的观念转变的证据。然而，就像剑并不仅仅代表军事功能一样（Dirlmeier，1990），迈锡尼玻璃珠宝也有一系列复杂的动机，从宗教信仰的传达者（Sjuin，2016：176）到身份徽章（Nikita，2003：29）。