Bronze Age Intergenerational Dialogues (BA.ID), 2: Early Career Researchers (ECRs) at MASt. Papers and Summary of the Discussion held at the Summer 2024 MASt Seminar (Friday, June 28)
§1. Following the pioneer session “Mentors and Mentees” held at the Summer 2022 MASt seminar and its implementation throughout the Winter 2023 MASt seminar, the Summer 2024 MASt Seminar, held on June 28, hosted a session fully devoted to Early Career Researches (ECRs).
§2. To select the ECRs presenting their work at the Summer 2024 MASt Seminar, the MASt board designed a multi-step process, involving both the MASt board and internationally renowned leading experts in each subject, who acted as double-blind peer-reviewers.
§3. Circulating an open call for papers in Summer 2023 was the first concrete step of such a multi-step process. The call for papers was aimed at graduate students and post-docs up to four years post PhD defense.
§4. The call for papers successfully received a strong response with numerous high-quality proposals. The MASt Board individually evaluated each proposal, a substantial abstract of approximately 750 words, against nearly 10 criteria and assigned scores to each criterion. In case of neck-to-neck scenarios, in addition to criteria such as excellence and relevance to the Aegean studies, the MASt board further considered elements such as feasibility within a 15-20 minute presentation timeframe.
§5. After notifying the selected presenters, each ECR submitted the full paper, which underwent review by three evaluators—one MASt Board member and two external double-blind reviewers. The MASt board made the decision to let each selected ECR give their talk regardless of the results of the review process, but to move forward with the paper publication only if the paper got the green light from at least two out of three reviewers. As Editor-in-Chief of the MASt series, Rachele Pierini was happy to report that all the papers of the Summer 2024 MASt seminar received the green light from three out of three reviewers.
§6. The ECRs presenting their work at the Summer 2024 MASt Seminar were Diana Wolf, Lavinia Giorgi, Tore Rovs Kristoffersen, and Jasmine Zitelli.
§7.1. Wolf presented “The Enigmatic Exchange: Cross-Material Influence Between Crete and the Mainland in Late Bronze Age Glyptic”. Her presentation offered an overview and analysis of cross-material influences in Late Bronze Age Aegean glyptic, drawing from an examination of over 1000 Late Minoan soft-stone seals.
§7.2. Wolf analyzed the transfer or imitation of stylistic features between different seal materials, thus revealing links between different materials and specialized craftspeople. Moreover, she discussed the recurrence of several distinctly soft-stone seal-related motif groups on semi-precious seals that were found not on Minoan Crete, but in Mainland contexts—notably, on Crete, these images never appear in hard-stone seals. Finally, Wolf concluded with a discussion of a suggested culmination of this phenomenon in a gold signet ring found in the Pylos ‘Grave of the Griffin Warrior’.
§8.1. Lavinia Giorgi discussed “What do Linear B tablets tell us about Mycenaean diplomatic relations? A comparison between Mycenaean and Hittite documents recording vessels and furniture”. Her paper aimed to investigate diplomatic relations between the Mycenaean and Hittite kingdoms using administrative written sources.
§8.2. Giorgi assumed that Mycenaean and Hittite administrative documents can be compared since they may reflect gift-exchanges that accompanied diplomatic relations. She compared the precious items listed in the Mycenaean and Hittite inventory texts, as they can provide indirect evidence of the flow of goods underlying diplomatic relations. Next, she used the Amarna letters and the Uluburun wreck as comparisons because they document the circulation of luxury materials and goods in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East during the second millennium BCE. Finally, Giorgi suggested that Mycenaean furniture may have been produced locally, whereas precious vessels may have actually accompanied diplomatic relations.
§9.1. Tore Rovs Kristoffersen followed with his perspective on “Homeric εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς and the etymology of PIE ‘cow’”. His presentation focused on the Homeric epithets εἰλίπους and ἕλιξ and the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root *u̯elh1(u̯)- they stem from. Rovs Kristoffersen argued that the PIE root does not refer to the animals ‘rolling gait’ or ‘curved horns’, as often assumed, but, rather, it was used to describe the movement of grazing cows, as further comparisons show.
§9.2. Rovs Kristoffersen compared the PIE root *u̯elh1(u̯)- with its variant *kwelh1-, meaning ‘turn, wander around grazing’ when used for cows, and Hittite wellu- ‘pasture, meadow’, deriving from the same root. Hence, he argued that the Homeric forms may be explained as inherited epithets of cows, meaning ‘wandering around grazing’. Additionally, he proposed that the PIE word for ‘cow’ may be explained within this framework, too. Rovs Kristoffersen argued that Greek βοῦς ‘cow’ should not be reconstructed as *gwh3–éu̯–s ‘graze’ but, rather, as *gweu̯– ‘turn, wander around’. He concluded that word for ‘cow’ originally meant ‘the one that moves around’—a designation of great significance within the pastoral economy reconstructed for PIE society, with the cow being the moveable property par excellence.
§10.1. Jasmine Zitelli concluded with “The Enigma of the Eteocretans: Language, Identity, and Politics in Ancient Crete”. Her presentation focused on the Eteocretans’ role within the polis and the significance of their inscriptions.
§10.2. Zitelli stressed how bilingualism played a crucial role in the emergence of Eteocretan poleis, with its characteristics varying across different sites. In particular, she focused on Praisos as a case study, where the primary seat of the Eteocretans showed the most enduring bilingualism, asserting its autochthony in contrast to other Cretans on the island. Additionally, Zitelli drew attention on how the Eteocretan texts shed light on the process of city identity consolidation, with ethnicity and language serving as means for a collective group to identify itself. She concluded by offering an overview on how Eteocretans were a complex and multifaceted people with a rich cultural heritage in ancient Crete—their inscriptions, bilingualism, and political strategies provide valuable insights into the island’s history and the formation of its poleis.
§11. In addition to the MASt board members (Editor-in-Chief: Rachele Pierini; Associate Editor: Tom Palaima; Editorial committee members: Elena Džukeska, Joseph Maran, Leonard Muellner, Gregory Nagy, Marie Louise Nosch, Thomas Olander, Birgit Olsen, Helena Tomas, Agata Ulanowska, Roger Woodard; Secretary: Giulia Muti; Editorial Assistants: Harriet Cliffen, Linda Rocchi, Katarzyna Żebrowska; Student Assistant: Matilda Agdler), roughly 70 attendees took part in the Summer 2024 MASt seminar, among whom Julia Binnberg, Andrea Cesaretti, Eric H. Cline, Stephen Colvin, Janice Crowley, Paola Dardano, Louis Dautais, Panagiotis Filos, Georgia Flouda, Lavinia Giorgi, Daniel Kölligan, Tore Rovs Kristofferson, Hedvig Landenius Enegren, Olga Levaniouk, Monika Łapińska, Nicoletta Momigliano, Giulia Paglione, Peter Pavúk, Paula Perlman, Gudrun Samberger, Andrew Shapland, Maxwell Stocker, Carlos Varias, Diana Wolf, Jasmine Zitelli.
§12. Substantial discussions followed the ECRs’ presentations. Specifically, contributions to the seminar were made by Janice Crowley (see below at §166), Lavinia Giorgi (§§193—194), Olga Levaniouk (§179), Joseph Maran (§§170—171), Tom Palaima (§§195—198), Peter Pavúk (§169), Paula Perlman (§§182—184), Tore Rovs Kristoffersen (§§172; 180—181; 190; 199), Andrew Shapland (§§173; 189), Carlos Varias (§§191—192), Diana Wolf (§§167—168; 174—178), Jasmine Zitelli (§§186; 188).
- Diana Wolf’s paper, §§13-49, https://doi.org/QSMN2851
- Lavinia Giorgi’s paper, §§50-89, https://doi.org/10.71160/QLGX4215
- Tore Rovs Kristoffersen’s paper, §§90-117, https://doi.org/10.71160/WFAV7354
- Jasmine Zitelli’s paper, §§119-165, https://doi.org/10.71160/XPWU8208
- Discussion of all four papers, §§166-199
Discussion following ECRs’ presentations
§166. Janice Crowley asked Diana Wolf about her analysis of cross-cultural links in late seals. Crowley inquired if she correctly understood Wolf’s suggestion that the commissioners of seals were making significant changes from traditional Minoan ways in terms of size, color, and motifs on hard stone seals.
§167. Diana Wolf confirmed this, adding that while discussions usually focus on craftsmen and users, commissioners are often overlooked. She suggested that seals were likely commissioned for specific groups, serving as identity devices, noting the repeated motifs like gesturing female figures across different seals in Central and North-Central Crete, which always follow the same pattern.
§168. Wolf suggested that someone was likely using a pattern book, but different craftsmen created the seals, as evidenced by the distinct ways they employed their tools. Wolf proposed that hard stone seals were likely commissioned by individuals who decided on motifs and had an agenda, indicating a consumer-oriented approach. She noted that this idea is theoretical but intriguing, as it reveals connections beyond the seal users (possibly higher-ranking) and craftsmen (possibly lower-ranking). She acknowledged that these are preliminary suggestions and that no definitive answers are yet available.
§169. Peter Pavúk remarked that, despite not specializing in seals, he found Crowley’s point about commissioning hard stone seals for the mainland particularly compelling and believed she was on the right track.
§170. Joseph Maran asked Tore Rovs Kristofferson for confirmation on whether the reconstructed PIE term *kʷélh₁– is sometimes associated with a wheel, which would make sense due to the connection between cattle, wheels, and wagons, and he requested an opinion on this association.
§171. Maran also commented that the hypothesis proposed by Snodgrass (A. Snodgrass, An Archaeology of Greece: the present state and future scope of a discipline, 1987) regarding the alleged abandonment of settlements and a shift to pastoralism at the end of the 2nd millennium BCE lacks archaeological support. He noted that bone assemblages and archaeobotanical evidence from Nichoria and other Dark Ages sites indicate a continued strong presence of sedentary elements, thus suggesting that while herding may have played a significant role during the Dark Ages, it would be incorrect to conclude that there was a complete shift away from sedentary lifestyles towards a nomadic one.
§172. Tore Rovs Kristofferson referred to the traditional interpretation of the wheel as something that turns itself, potentially related to draft animals. He referred to a recent talk by Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead at Leiden, where it was suggested that *kʷé-kʷl(h₁)o-, usually interpreted as ‘wheel’, could refer to various circular objects, including disks, the sun, and other circular shapes, not just the wheel. Rovs Kristofferson admitted that this perspective offers a different approach. Concerning the comment on Snodgrass and the partial abandonment of sedentism, Rovs Kristofferson observed that he ought to further investigate this part.
§173. Andrew Shapland asked Diana Wolf whether there might be a connection between the material of the seal and the status or identity of the user. He found it intriguing that there is some overlap between soft and hard stone seals, yet they retain distinct graphic styles. Shapland wondered if these variations in seal materials and designs correlate with different human groups.
§174. Diana Wolf expressed her belief that seals are indeed connected to human groups, but she finds it increasingly challenging to categorize them solely based on material. She believes it is incorrect to classify seals as belonging to distinct groups simply by whether they are made of soft or hard stone.
§175. Additionally, Wolf pointed out that even within what is conventionally called the “soft stone group”, there are significant differences. Some seals within this category exhibit unique iconography and superior engraving quality, suggesting they were carefully preserved and valued over time. She noted that some seal groups exhibit significant abrasion and poor preservation, indicating they were used differently and possibly by different groups of people for their imagery. Wolf acknowledged that it might have been misleading to present outliers influenced by either soft or hard stone. In reality, the majority of seals from the late Bronze Age feature motifs like individual quadrupeds (such as goats, rams, bulls) depicted in similar ways across both materials, albeit in distinct styles, Wolf continued.
§176. Moreover, in her PhD research, Wolf had begun examining the distribution of materials in closed contexts. For example, she highlighted the Armeni cemetery as an excellent case study where she could observe the relationships between various objects such as soft stone seals or hard stone seals and other materials.
§177. Continuing, Wolf observed that soft stone seals frequently appear alongside upscale materials such as gold, bronze, swords, jewelry, ivory objects, and that hard stone seals also accompany these contexts with the soft stone seals. She pointed out that previous scholarship often categorized soft stones as associated with low-ranking social units. However, upon closer examination of contexts, despite the typically poor preservation and documentation in the early stages of Minoan archaeology (particularly for soft stones due to historical neglect and storage in archival), she highlighted the need for more nuanced understanding.
§178. To conclude, Wolf mentioned the challenges in contextualizing soft stone seals, noting that sometimes the only documentation found might be an inventory list mentioning them. She emphasized the difficulty in achieving a robust contextual approach due to inadequate preservation and documentation historically. Looking forward, she expressed optimism that pending publications of, for example the Poros workshop and cemetery, could provide clearer insights into these questions.
§179. Olga Levaniouk started by thanking Tore Rovs Kristoffersen for his paper, and asked, given his interpretation of ἕλιξ and εἰλίπους, how he understands the adjective ἑλίκωψ or the Homeric ἑλικῶπις, which is usually translated as ‘sideways-glancing’. In particular, she wondered whether Rovs Kristoffersen’s etymological proposal would affect the meaning of that adjective.
§180. Tore Rovs Kristoffersen replied by saying he is unsure whether his etymology would affect that. He explained that the traditional and more usual way of dividing the adjective is *ἑλικ-ωψ, thus, ‘with rolling eyes’. Additionally, he added that Le Feuvre (C. Le Feuvre, Ὅμηρος δύσγνωστος. Réinterprétations de termes homériques en grec archaïque et Classique, 2015) has a different analysis, by which she interprets it as *ἑλι-κωψ, meaning ‘with rolling oars’—as, for example, the Achaeans, who are the one who turn their oars on the ships.
§181. However, Rovs Kristoffersen conceded that this analysis would perhaps bring ἑλικῶπις morphologically closer to his interpretation of the *ἑλι- element. On the other hand, he also stressed that the semantic interpretation of this element is different from what he envisaged. Therefore, he is not sure to what extent he can offer more elements to answer this question. He concluded by adding that he tends to favor the above-mentioned Le Feuvre’s interpretation, because it makes sense morphologically, but he has not explored yet whether his explanation would change anything in the meaning of the epithet.
§182. Paula Perlman thanked Jasmine Zitelli for her interesting paper and asked whether she think that the use of the Greek script for non-Greek inscriptions at Praisos would be largely for an internal audience. Perlman pointed out that later Greek inscriptions in the Greek language from Praisos are outward looking—they are directed at an external audience.
§183. Perlman continued by stressing that this is a really interesting way to think about the choices that the Praiseans are making. She further pointed out that, if that is the case—if the foreign, non-Greek language is used for an internal audience—it is striking that the Praiseans are referring to themselves (that is, that we find the name Phraisioi, in the non-Greek language).
§184. As such, Perlman highlighted that it would indeed be very unusual to have a reference to the internal population as a group rather than to a part of it—Perlman cannot think of any parallels in Cretan inscriptions (that is, they do not refer to themselves in inscriptions that are just for the local audience). To gain a better knowledge about this, Perlman suggested to consider more potential explanations for that phenomenon.
§185. Jasmine Zitelli thanked Perlman for her feedback and remarked that she had been looking for some parallels, especially because part of her research focuses on the epigraphical analysis of this text—particularly on details such as the layout of the text.
§186. Zitelli added that the study of the Dreros Greek inscriptions for local audience demonstrates that the inhabitants of Dreros do not mention themselves. As such, some parts of her hypothesis might have to be rethought and that Praisos could indeed be an unicum, especially considering its myth of autochthony in Crete—which is why she proposed this hypothesis, which she would like to investigate further, Zitelli concluded.
§187. Perlman brought into the discussion also one additional piece of evidence, namely the Praisaean coins. The Praisaean coins sort of sit in the gap between the epic references to the Eteocretans and the references in the later literary sources (later historians in particular, but also lexicographers), Perlman remarked. The legend is in Greek, but interestingly, for the sibilant, they used the three-bar sigma, which occurs nowhere else in Cretan inscriptions—Perlman continued. Therefore, she added, this would potentially be the earliest outward-looking, public use of Greek at Praisos. Perlman concluded by stressing that the Praiseans would be still making a statement, with the script that they are using, in choosing, rather than the Ionic four-bar sigma, what we think of as an archaic three-bar sigma.
§188. Zitelli thanked Perlman for her suggestions since she was not aware of this particular example. She then highlighted that the classical coins are in Greek. Therefore, this supports the hypothesis that, at Praisos, the use of the local language for monumental and official inscriptions is a deliberate choice, which points towards clear political and ‘elite’ implications—Zitelli concluded.
§189. Regarding Tore Rovs Kristoffersen’s paper, Andrew Shapland commented that one way of managing cattle, which is seen in the Bronze and Iron Ages—particularly in Crete, where there are no predators—is ranching, as in the American West: one would leave cattle to roam free, even go feral, and then round them up to kill them. Thus, he explained, cattle can roam even if people do not. Perhaps, then, Kristoffersen’s very interesting observations on these terms do not require the practice of mobile pastoralism, Shapland concluded.
§190. Tore Rovs Kristoffersen remarked that this would allow him to avoid using Snodgrass’ explanation, because this would be the explanation instead, and thanked Shapland for his comment.
§191. Carlos Varias commented on Lavinia Giorgi’s paper and stressed that some Hittite items mentioned by Giorgi like beds are lacking in the Linear B tablets of the Ta series. Varias also stressed that beds in the Ta series would not be expected since the Ta series is a specific inventory for a specific occasion (the preparation of a banquet). However, beds as such are attested in Linear B (de-mi-ni-ja in Mycenae tablets), Varias continued.
§192. Next, Varias asked Giorgi if it is possible to carry on such a comparative investigation given the relatively little Mycenaean evidence and the bigger corpus of data from the Hittite or Egyptian documents.
§193. Lavinia Giorgi thanked Varias for his question and replied that the reason why she did not take into account the tablet’s mentioning beds is because they do not add any information about luxury materials. Therefore, she explained, it would be more difficult to compare them with Hittite texts.
§194. Giorgi added that it would be possible to gather more information by investigating not only other items, but also other resources, as, for example, scented oils that are recorded in Linear B tablets, and other materials that were exported by the Mycenaeans into the Eastern Mediterranean. She concluded that oils are sometimes recorded as one of the items that were used as gifts in diplomatic exchanges, thus presenting themselves as a potentially fruitful area of investigation.
§195. Tom Palaima enquired as to Rovs Kristoffersen’s opinion on the relation between the three PIE roots *u̯elh₁, *kʷelh₁– and *gʷeu̯-. Drawing on Rovs Kristoffersen’s reconstructions presented above, Palaima highlighted the fact that they seem to have had roughly the same meaning—something along the lines of ‘to turn around, move oneself’. As such, Palaima asked if they might have been used simultaneously alongside each other, or if there could be an internal diachronic hierarchy between them—with, for example, one of them the source for the others.
§196. Further, Palaima expanded on words used for describing the tending of different domesticated animals. By way of example, he mentioned that the word relating to the tending of pigs, as seen in Greek βόσκω ‘graze’, stems from a word describing the agent who feeds them. Additionally, he highlighted that the word for ‘shepherd’, ποιμήν, has a root sense of ‘protection’, while the etymology for the tending of cows goes back to *kʷelh₁– ‘turn, turn around’, seen in βουκόλος ‘cowherd’ (Mycenaean qo-u-ko-ro).
§197. Provided that Rovs Kristoffersen’s etymology of Greek βοῦς ‘cow’ < *gʷō̆u̯-s, to PIE *gʷeu̯- ‘turn, wander around’, βουκόλος strikingly seems like a pun, with the meaning ‘the one turning the turning ones’ vel. sim., Palaima argued that these words point to an attentive, non-haphazard way of talking about domesticated animals by describing their functions within the speakers’ society, and that this pattern lends strength to Rovs Kristoffersen’s etymology of βοῦς.
§198. Palaima also compared ‘wandering around, circling’ to modern herding practices, where methods which include ‘encircling’ the cows are still in use.
§199. To address Palaima’s comments, Rovs Kristoffersen added details about the second part of his talk, which he summarized during the Summer 2024 MASt seminar and is presented in full in the above written version of the paper.
Final remarks
§200. Rachele Pierini thanked the presenters for their great papers and anonymous reviewers for their exceptional feedback. She announced that the next Summer Seminar will continue to focus on ECRs and invited participants to share the call for papers with their colleagues. Pierini emphasized MASt’s commitment to nurturing young scholars by providing them with a platform to showcase their ideas on an international stage. Pierini also invited everyone to join the upcoming Fall 2024 MASt Seminar scheduled for October, featuring presentations by Tom Palaima and Livio Warbinek.