“semitisches pantheon”. eine “männliche tyche” - MOSAIKjournal.com

DOMESTIC SPACE AND COMMUNITY IDENTITY |101
topographical criteria for the “upper” and “lower” model of settlements
as exemplified by Vrokastro or the “Ano/Kato” system as
defined by J. L. Bintliff. 79 The “Ano/Kato” system requires the
settlements to be located in different ecological or agricultural environments.
In contrast the “dual settlement” system may be defined
as two separate sites of equivalent date and population capacity,
which occupy the same environment (nearly 0,5 km apart) but are
situated in such topographically diverse locations as to suggest
functional differences. 80
III. GENDER AND EARLY IRON AGE ISLAND SOCIETIES
Gender is a fundamental component of one‟s social identity and
this idea has become widely accepted in discussions of society on
ancient Greece. The Early Iron Age and Archaic time however,
were until recently less privileged by such discussions. The task of
engendering ancient Greek societies was first introduced by scholars
working within the discipline of ancient literature than Classical
archaeology. S. Walker for example aimed to “assimilate” the archaeological
and literary evidence by searching for aspects of domestic
architecture which correspond to the literary-based model
of women. 81 Later, M. H. Jameson was probably the first to set a
critical eye to the kind of evidence that both archaeological and
literary material can provide on ancient Greek households, as well
as to acknowledge that each class of this material presents different
potential and also has different constraints. 82 L. C. Nevett was next
to examine gender relations for Classical houses in Greece, and in
particular the results of applying terms originating from the literary
evidence to the archaeological material of Greek houses. She emphasised
that the gender associations of particular areas of the
house is only one aspect of what is likely to have been a complex
pattern of spatial usage. 83
Of the three Early Iron Age geographical clusters presented
here, I want to discuss issues of gender ideologies in relation with
79 HAYDEN (1983) 369; BINTLIFF (1977) 114.
80 HAGGIS – NOWICKI (1993) 334–335; HAYDEN (1988) 21.
81 WALKER (1983) 81–91.
82 JAMESON (1990a) 92.
83 NEVETT (1995) 363–381; NEVETT (2005) 5–7.