Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Islands 9781841711706, 9781407352718

Citation preview

Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Islands Nikolas Papadimitriou

BAR International Series 925 2001

Published in 2019 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 925 Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Islands © Nikolas Papadimitriou and the Publisher 2001 The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781841711706 paperback ISBN 9781407352718 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841711706 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by John and Erica Hedges in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2001. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2019.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Dedicated to my parents, ee6l5wpoc; and Af!Jpol5irtT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents List of Figures List of Abbreviations Acknowledgements Abstract

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 . The Subject 1.2. Reasons for the study 1.3. What a Built Chamber tomb (BCT) is 1.4. History ofresearch 1.5. Chronological and geographical limits ofthe study 1.6. Theoretical and methodological issues 1.7. Historical issues 1.8. Method ofpresentation

V

X

xii xiii 1 1 2 3 4

5 10 13

PART 1: Presentation ofthe data Chapter 2: Argolid 2.1. Argos 2.1.1. The BCTs 2.1.2. Other tombs in the area 2.1 .3. Settlement evidence 2.1.4. Discussion 2.2 . Mycenae 2.2. 1. The BCT 2 .2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 2 .2.3. Discussion

17 17 20 22 23

26 26 27

28

Chapter 3: Laconia - Arcadia

A. Laconia 3.1. Sparta 3.1.1. The BCT 3.1.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 3 .1.3. Discussion

29 29 29 30

B. Arcadia 3.2. Vaskina- Kotroni 3.2.1. The BCT 3.2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 3.3. Palaiochori 3.3.1. The BCTs 3.3.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 3.3.3. Discussion

Chapter 4: Messenia 4.1. Ay. Ioannis Papoulion 4.1.1. The BCT 4.1.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 4.1.3. Discussion 4.2. Routsi 4.2.1. The BCT 4.2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 4.3. Nichoria 4.3.1. The BCTs 4.3.2. Other tombs in the area 4.3.3. Settlement evidence 4.3.4. Discussion

31 31 31 32 32 34 34

35 35 36 36 37 37 37 37

38 39 40 41

ChapterS: Elis- Achaea

A. Elis 5.1. Kato Samikon 5 .1.1. The BCTs 5.1 .2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 5.1.3. Discussion

43 43 44 45

B. Achaea 5.2. Pharai- Katarraktis 5.2.1. The BCT 5.2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 5.2.3. Discussion 5.3. Chalandritsa 5.3.1. The BCT 5.3.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 5.3.3. Discussion 5.4. Portes - Kephalovryso 5.4.1. The BCTs 5.4.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 5.4.3. Discussion

Chapter 6: The Ionian islands 6.1. KephaUenia - Kokkolata 6.1.1. The BCT 6.1.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 6.2. KephaUenia- Oikopeda 6.2.1. The BCT 6.2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 6.3. KephaHenia - Tzannata 6.3.1. The BCT 6.3.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 6.3.3. The rest of the island 6.3.4. Discussion 6.4. Zakynthos- Keri 6.4.1. The BCT 6.4.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 6.4.3. The rest of the island 6.4.4. Discussion Chapter 7: Attica 7 .1. Eleusis 7.1.1. The BCTs 7 .1.2. Other tombs in the area 7.1.3. Settlement evidence 7.1.4. Discussion 7.2. Thorikos 7 .2.1. The BCTs 7 .2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 7.2.3. Discussion 7.3. Marathon- Vrana 7.3.1. The BCTs 7.3.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 7.3 .3. Discussion

46 46 47 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 53 54

57 57 57 59 59

60 60 60 61 61 61 62 62 63 63 64

65 65 87 88 90 91 91

97

98 100 100 107 108

Chapter 8: Euboea, Boeotia and Phocis

A. Euboea 8.1. Xeropolis (Lefkandi) 8.1.1. The BCT 8.1.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 8.1.3. Discussion

Ill Ill 112 ll2

B. Boeotia 8.2. Dramesi 8.2. 1. The BCT 8.2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 8.2.3. Discussion

11

113 113 114 114

C. Phocis 8.3. Medeon 8.3.1. The BCTs 8.3.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 8.3.3. Discussion

114 114 119 120

Chapter 9: Thessaly 9.1. Pefkakia 9.1.1. The BCT(s) 9.1 .2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 9 .1.3. Discussion 9.2. Pharsala 9.2.1. The BCTs 9.2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 9.3. Ay. Antonios 9.3.1. The BCTs 9.3.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 9.4. Discussion ofThessaly as a whole

123 123 123 124 124 124 126 127 127 128 128

Chapter 10: The Aegean islands 10.1. Aigina- Lazarides 10.1.1. The BCTs 10.1 .2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 10.1.3. The rest ofthe island 10.1.4. Discussion 10.2. Keos- Ay. Irini 10.2.1. The BCTs 10.2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 10.2.3. Discussion 10.3. Delos (Temenos) 10.3.1. The BCT 10.3.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 10.3.3. Discussion 10.4. Paros- Koukounaries 10.4.1. The BCTs 10.4.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 10.4.3. Discussion 10.5. Naxos - Lygaridia 10.5.1. The BCT 10.5.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 10.5.3. The rest of the island 10.5.4. Discussion 10.6. Samos - Heraion 10.6.1 . The BCT 10 .6.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 10.6.3. Discussion 10.7. Psara- Archontiki 10.7.1. The BCTs 10.7.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 10.7.3. Discussion 10.8. Lesbos- Makara 10.8.1. The BCTs 10.8.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence 10.8.3. Discussion

131 131

131 131 132

132 132 134 136 136 136 137 138 138 138 140 140 140 140 141 141

142 142 142 143 143 143 143 145 146 146 146 147 147

PART ll: Analvsis o(the data

Chapter 11: The Architecture of BCTs 11.1. The architectural type 11.2. Location 11.3. Orientation 11.4. Typology ofBCTs 11.5. Construction techniques 11.5.1. Apsidal tombs

151 152 152 152 155 156

111

156 157 162

11.5.2. Elliptical- oblong tombs 11.5.3. Rectangular tombs 11.6. Summary

Chapter 12: Chronology of BCTs 12.1. Methodological problems in dating BCTs 12.2. The sequence of development 12.2.1. Apsidal BCTs 12.2.2. Oblong/elliptical BCTs 12.2.3. Rectangular BCTs 12.2.4. General trends 12.3. The chronological relation ofBCTs with tholoi and chamber-tombs 12.4. Summary

163 164 164 164 164 166 166 168

Chapter 13: Origins 13 .1. Previous research 13.2. Apsidal and horse-shoe tombs 13.3. Rectangular BCTs 13.4. Oblong- elliptical tombs 13.5. Summary

169 170 171 173 174

Chapter 14: Burial practices 14.1. Mode ofburial 14.2. Position ofthe body 14.3. Sex and age 14.4. Secondary treatment 14.5. Sets of offerings 14.6. Evidence for rites 14.6.1. Ashes and animal bones 14.6.2. Pottery and figurines in dromoi 14.6.3. Altars and other ceremonial devices 14.6.4. Other special features 14.7. Summary

175 177 178 178 179 182 182 183 183 185 185

Chapter 15: Social analysis 15.1. Relation ofBCTs to contemporary graves 15 .1.1. Categories of comparison 15.1.2. Relative wealth 15.1.3. Mode ofburial 15.1.4. Architectural elaboration 15.1.5. Location 15.2 . Relation to general developments 15.3. Discussion 15.4. Summary

187 187 187 188 188 189 190 194 201

Chapter 16: Conclusions 16.1. Summary of the results 16.2. Historical implications ofthe study 16.3. Epilogue

203 205 210

Appendix 1: The construction ofEleusinian BCTs Appendix 11: Addendum to the statistical charts Bibliography Index of sites Index of tombs

213 219 221 235 236

Table A Tables I-IV Tomb Inventory Figures

iv

LIST OF FIGURES FIG. I : FIG.2: FIG.3: 0

FlG.4:

FIG.5:

FIG.6:

FIG.7:

FIG.8:

FIG.9:

FIG.10:

FIG.11 :

FIG.12:

Map of sites with BCTs Plan of Argos (Pariente & Touchais 1996, pi. V) Argos a) The> area of 'tumulus f' (Papadimitriou N. 2001, fig.2) b) T .164, plan (Papadimitriou N. 2001, fig.3) Argos a) T.164, the stomion, view from theN (Papadimitriou N. 2001) b) T.l64, the paved floor and pit A, view from the W (Papadimitriou N. 2001) c) T.164, pit A (left), pit B (right) and the rear wall, view from the S d) T.29, the interior and the rear side, view from theE (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1990, 74 fig.7) e) T.29, view from theW (Courtesy of Dr. Protonotariou-Deilald) Argos a) Tomb 22, plan of the tomb and section of the W wall (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1964b, 241 fig. 1) b) Tomb 22, section of the rear side (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1964b, 243 fig.2) c) Tomb 22, view from the S (ProtonotariouDeilaki 1964b, pl.X1a) d) Tomb 22, the interior, view from theN (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1964b, pi.XLP) Argos a) Location of the various 'tumuli' (T6ppm, gen. plan 1) b) Plan oftumulus A (Tvppol, gen. plan 2) Argos a) Plan of'tumulus Z' (T6ppm, gen. plan 12) b) Plan of'tumulus E ' (Tvppo,, gen. plan 10) c) Plan of ' tumulus I' (T6ppm, gen. plan 13) Argos a) General plan of the cemetery ofDeiras (Deshayes 1966, pl.I) b) ' Dromos X ', plan and sections (Deshayes 1966, pl.V) Argos a) General plan of Aspis (Philippa-Touchais & Touchais 1997, 77) b) Aspis, area V (Philippa-Touchais 1998, 32 fig.3) Argos, E flanks of Aspis a) MH occupation (Pariente & Touchais 1996, pl. VII, detail) b) LH occupation (Pariente & Touchais 1996, pl.VIII, detail) Argos a) LH ' megaron' in the Vlachos plot (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1973, 101 fig.11) b) MH and LH houses in the area of the 6th Demotikon (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1973, 104 fig.l3) c) MH house in the Tzafas plot (Divari-Valakou 1996, 95 fig.1)

FIG.13:

FIG.14:

FIG.15:

FIG. l6:

FIG.17:

FIG.18:

FIG.19:

V

Mycenae a) General plan of the site b) Plan of Grave Circle B' (Mylonas 1973, pl.l) Mycenae a) Tomb Rho, plan and section (Mylonas 1973, 212 fig.25) b) Tomb Rho, the covering slabs, view from the S (Mylonas 1973, pl.193a) c) Tomb Rho, the entrance, view from theN (Mylonas 1973, pl.196p) d) Tomb Rho, the burial chamber, view from the N (Mylonas 1973, pi.195P) e) Tomb Rho, the 'vestibule' , view from the S (Mylonas 1973, pl.l96y) BCTs from other areas ofthe Eastern Mediterranean a) Ras Shamra (Schaeffer 1939/40, 86 fig. 79) b) Enkomi (Pelon 1973, 247 fig.2) Laconia- Messenia a) Vaskina, the elliptical tomb (Laconia /1, pl.22d) b) Palaiochori- Mikri Tourla I, the lintel and the interior (Laconia //, pl.22c) c) Ay. Ioannis Papoulion, plan of the tumulus (Korres 1978, 328 fig. I) d) Ay. loannis Papoulion, the apsidal BCT, view from the SE (Marinatos 1955, pl.77P) Messenia a) Ay. loannis Papoulion, aerial view of the tumulus (Korres 1980, pl.1 06a) b) Voidhokoilia, aerial view of the tumulus (Korres 1980, pl.l17) c) Ay. Ioannis Papoulion, the tumulus, view from the SE (Korres 1980, pl.115P) d) Ay. loannis Papoulion, the stomion of pithos 19 surrounded by flat slabs (Korres 1980, pl.l11a) Nichoria a) General plan ofthe area (Choremis 1973, 26 fig.1) b) Plan of the Tourkokivoura mound (Choremis 1973, 27 fig.2) Nichoria a) Tomb Nikitopoulou 2, plan (Choremis 1973, 28 fig.3) b) Tomb Nikitopoulou 2, view from the SE (Choremis 1973, pl.6a) c) MHILHI tomb at Peristeria, detail of construction (Korres 1977b, pl.169a) d) MHILHI tomb at Peristeria, aerial view (Korres 1977b, pl.l69P) Nichoria a) Akones, plan of tombs 1-III (Parlama 1972, 263, fig.3) b) Akones, tomb I, view from the W (Parlama 1912, pi.198P) c) Akones, tomb III, view from the NE (Parlama

FIG.20:

FIG.21:

FIG.22:

FIG.23:

FIG.24:

FIG.25:

FIG.26:

FIG.27:

FIG.28:

1972, pl.l99~) Nichoria, the Dark Age BCTs a) The Lambropoulos cluster, plan of tombs 1-4 (McDonald et al. 1983, 268 fig.4-3) b) Tomb Nikitopoulou I, plan (Choremis 1973, 70 fig.26) c) Tombs Tsagdhi I and 2, plan (Choremis 1973, 72 fig.27) Nichoria a) General plan of the settlement area (Nichoria 11, 5 fig.1-2) b) Plan of the 'megaron' (Nichoria 11, 434 fig.758) Achaea a) Distribution map ofMH sites (Papadopoulos 1979, fig.29) b) Distribution map ofLHI-11 sites (Papadopoulos 1979, fig.30) c) Map of the region of Pharai and Chalandtritsa (Papadopoulos 1979, fig.19) Pharai a) The tumulus, sketch plan of the excavation trenches (excavation notebook) (Courtesy of Dr. Zapheiropoulou) b) The apsidal BCT, sketch plan (excavation notebook) (Courtesy of Dr. Zapheiropoulou) c) The neck of the burial pithos d) The burial pithos, plastic band with rows of incised dots Achaea a) Pharai, the architectural complex at Drakotrypa (Zapheiropoulos 1958, 168 fig.1) b) Pharai, the structural remains at Ay. Athanasios (Zapheiropoulos 1958, 171 fig.2) c) Chalandritsa, the Troubes tomb, the dromos and the stomion (Kyparissis 1929,90 fig.6) d) Chalandritsa, the Troubes tomb, plan (Kyparissis 1930, 84 fig.5) The Ionian islands a) The 'tumulus' at Kokkolata, plan (tomb 9, top left) (Kavvadias 1912, tab.A) b) The BCT at Oikopeda, plan of the tomb and drawings of the architectural members incorporated into the masonry (Marinatos 1932, 11 fig.12) c) The oblong/elliptical tomb at Keri, the stomion (Dontas 1966, pl.344e) Eleusis a) Sector B, plan (E/eusis T', pl.B) b) Sector r, plan (E/eusis T', pl.f) c) Sector a, plan (Eieusis r', pl.li) Eleusis a) Sector E, plan (Eieusis T', pl.E) b) Sector Z, plan (E/eusis T', pl.Z) c) Sector 9, plan (E/eusis T', pl.9 Eleusis a) Sector H, plan (Eieusis T', pl.H) b) Sector A, plan (Eieusis T', pl.A) c) Sector M, plan (Eieusis r', pl.M)

FIG.29:

FIG.30:

FIG.31:

Eleusis a) Tomb B1t1, plan and sections (Eieusis A ', 16 fig. 1) b) Tomb B1t1, the interior, view from theW (Eieusis r', pl.4y) c) Tomb B1tl, the stomion and the entrance (Eieusis T', pl.4a) d) Tomb B1t1, the dromos and the stone ' bench' (Eieusis r', pl.4~) e) Tomb B1t16/20, plan and section (Eieusis A ', 22 fig.3) f) Tomb Z1t3, plan (Eieusis A', 223 fig.59) Eleusis a) Tomb B1t18, plan and section (Eieusis A', 27 fig.4) b) Tomb Z1t4, plan (Eieusis A ',232 fig.60) c) Tomb Z1t4, the dromos and the entrance (Eieusis r', pl.44~) d) Tomb H1t5, plan and section (Eieusis A ', 308 fig.76) e) Tomb Z1t6, plan and section (Eieusis A ', 234 fig.62) f) Tomb Z1t6, the dromos and the entrance (Eieusis r', p1.46a) g) Tomb H1tl5, plan and section (Eieusis A ', 322 fig.85) Eleusis a) Tomb H1t1 , plan and section (Eieusis A ', 286 fig.70) b) Tomb H1t3, plan and section (Eieusis A ', 246 fig.72) c) Tomb H1t3, the stomion (Eieusis T', pl.58) d) Tomb H1t20, plan (Eieusis A ', 329 fig.88) e) Tomb H1t20, view from above (Eieusis pl.82a) f) Tomb 91t4, plan (Eieusis B ', ll fig.95) g) Tomb 91t4, sections (Eieusis B', 12 fig.95a) Eleusis a) Tomb 91t14, plan (Eieusis B ', 46 fig. l08) b) Tomb 91tl4, sections (Eieusis B', 47 fig.l08a) c) Tomb 91t14, view from the NW (Eieusis T', pl.128a) d) Sector 9, view from the SE (E/eusis r', pl.121a) e) Tomb 91t5, plan (Eieusis B', 20 fig.98) f) Tomb 91t5, the dromos and the entrance (Eieusis T', pl.l04) Eleusis a) Tomb 91t6, plan (Eieusis B', 25 fig.IOI) b) Tomb 91t6, sections (Eieusis B ', 26 fig.IOla} c) Tomb 11tl, plan and section (E/eusis B ', 103 fig.114) d) Tomb l1tl, the dromos and the entrance (Eieusis r', pl.l43a) e) Tomb A1tl, plan and sections (Eieusis B', 135 fig.ll8) f) Tomb A1tl , the tomb and the enclosure (Eieusis T', pl.l46~) Eleusis a) Sector A, view from the E (Eieusis T', pl.l45a)

r,

FIG.32:

FIG.33:

FIG.34:

vi

FIG.35:

FIG.36:

FIG.37:

FIG.38:

FIG.39:

FIG.40:

b) Sector A, view from the SE (Eieusis T', pl.l45P) c) Tomb An4, plan and section (Eieusis B ', 140 fig.J20) d) Tomb An4, view from the W (Eieusis T', pl.t52P) e) Tomb An3, plan and section (Eieusis B ', 138 fig.ll9) f) Tomb Mn3, plan and section (Eieusis B ', 184 fig. l30) Eleusis a) Tombs T.l- T.4, plan (Travlos 1950, tab.A) b) Tomb Mn6, plan and section (Eieusis B ', 191 fig. l32) c) Tomb Mn7, plan and section (Eieusis B ', 195 fig.133) d) The 'Philonian grave', plan (Philios 1889, 188) e) Tomb M7t4, plan and section (Eieusis B ', 186 fig. l31) f) Tomb Mn8, plan and section (Eieusis B ', 197 fig.134) Eleusis a) Tomb An6, plan and sections (E/eusis B ', 146 fig.l21) b) Tomb rn17, plan (Eieusis A ', 97 fig. l8) c) Tomb E>n13, plan and section (Eieusis B ', 41 fig. l07) d) Tomb E>n13, view from the NW (Eieusis T', pl.l24) e) Tomb d7tl6, plan (Eieusis A ', 162 fig.40) f) Tomb Enl, plan and section (Eieusis A ', 194 fig. 52) g) Tomb d7tl7, view from the N/NW (Eleusis T', pl.32) Eleusis a) Structural remains on the S slope of the acropolis (Mylonas 1932a, fig.2) b) Structural remains under the Telesterion (Mylonas 1932b, pl.XXXIV) c) 'Megaron B', plan (Mylonas & Kourouniotis 1933, 277 fig.6) Thorikos a) General plan of the site (H.F.Mussche's & P. Spitaels' preface to Thorikos VIII, p.11) b) Tombs IV and V, aerial view (Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 14 fig.!) Thorikos a) Tomb V (the tumu1us), plan (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997, 90 fig.50) b) Tomb V, the back side of the tomb, the peribolos of the tumulus and the attached 'altar', view from the NW (Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 63 fig.32) c) Tomb V, the shaft and the rear wall, view from the S (Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 65 fig.33) Thorikos a) Tomb IV, plan (Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 22 fig.8) b) Tomb IV, sections (Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 23 fig.9)

FIG.41 :

FIG.42:

FIG.43:

FIG.44:

FIG.45:

FJG.46:

FIG.47:

vii

Thorikos a) Tomb IV, the interior and the roof, view from the SE (Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 39 fig.22) b) Tomb IV, the stomion, view from the interior (Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 21 fig. 7) c) Tomb IV, the entrance, view from the dromos (Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 29 fig.15) d) Tomb IV, the stomion and the lintel, view from the dromos (Mussche 1974, 20 fig.6) · e) Tomb IV, the western 'anta' and part of the blocking wall of the dromos, view from the SE (Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 28 fig.14) Thorikos a) Tombs I and 11, plan (Pelon 1987, pl.XXVIII) b) Tomb I, view from the SW (Servais 1968, 30 fig.8) c) Tomb 11, view from the N (Servais 1968, 42 fig.18) Attica a) Thorikos, plan of the prehistoric settlement remains (Stais 1893, pl.B.3) b) Marathon, general plan of the area (after Marinatos) (Marinatos 1970a, 6 fig. I) Marathon- Vrana, tumulus I, phases of construction according to Kilian-Dirlmeier a) Phase I (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997, 93 fig.53) b) Phase 11 (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997, 94 fig.54) c) Phase Ill (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997, 95 fig.55) Marathon a) Tumuli I and 11 and the circular 'altar', view from the S (Marinatos l970a, pl.8) b) Tomb 1.2, the stomion and the chamber, view from the SW (Marinatos 1973, pl.l5) c) Tomb 1.3, the horse burial (Marinatos 1970a, pl.15P) d) The 'altar' on the periphery of the inner circle oftumulus I (Marinatos l970a, pl.12P) e) Tomb 1.3, the entrance and the blocking wall (Marinatos l970a, pl.l5a) Marathon a) Tumuli 11 and Ill, plan (Marinatos l970a, 15 fig.4) b) Tumulus 11, view from the SW (Marinatos t970a, pl.I9P) c) Tumulus 11, bones, arrowheads and ashes on the floor of the inner compartment of the central BCT (Marinatos l970a, pl.21 a) d) Tumulus 11, the entrance to the inner compartment ofthe BCT (Marinatos 1970a, pl.20J3) e) Tumulus JI, the entrance and the outer compartments ofthe BCT (Marinatos 1973, pl.16) Marathon a) Tumulus IV, plan (Marinatos 1970a, 17 fig.5) b) Tumulus Ill, view from the NW (Marinatos 1970a, pl.22a) c) Tumulus IV, burials in the two inner compartments of the central BCT (Marinatos 1970d, 357 fig. l3) d) Tumu1us IV, the central BCT, view from the

FIG.48:

FIG.56:

NW (Marinatos 1970a, pl.23a) Attica- Boeotia a) Marathon, the apsidal BCT (Marinatos 1970a, pl.7~)

FIG.49:

FIG.50:

FIG.51 :

FIG.52:

FIG.53:

FIG.54:

FIG.55:

FIG.57:

b) Marathon- Plasi, the MH ' megaron' (Marinatos 1970a, pl.1 a) c) Dramesi, the BCT, view ofthe entrance (Blegen 1949, pl.6.4) d) Dramesi, broken pillar (anta for the BCT?) with representations of ships (Blegen 1949, pl.7.6) Xeropolis a) The location of the BCT on the mound (Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1995, 42 fig. l) b) The BCT, plan (Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1995, 43 fig.2) c) The BCT, sections (Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1995, 45 fig.4) d) The BCT, the outside of the dromos, view from theN (Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1995, pl.5c) Medeon a) Plan of the site indicating the location of the BCTs and other tombs (after MUller) (MUller 1999, 224 fig.2 ) b) Tombs S2 and 99, plans and sections (Pelon 1987, pl.XXVII) Medeon a) Tomb S2, view from the SW (Vatin 1969, 14 fig.12) b) Tomb 99, view from theW (Vatin 1969, 16 fig.15) Medeon a) Tombs 29 and 29bis, sketch plan (after MUller) (MUller 1999, 226 fig.8) b) Tomb 264, sketch plan (after MUller) (MUller 1999, 227 fig.11) c) Tombs 29bis and 29, view from the NW (Vatin 1969, 24 fig.21) Thessaly a) Map ofThessaly (11: Pefkakia; 88: Pharsala; 87: Ay.Antonios) (Feuer 1983,23 fig.l) b) Pefkakia, general plan ofthe site (Maran l992a, plan I) Thessaly a) Pefkakia, the settlement, phase 6 (Maran 1992a, plan VIllA) b) Pefkakia, the settlement, phase 7 (Maran 1992a, plan VIIIB) c) The southwestern plain (Pharsala region) (Decourt 1990, pl.XI fig.24) Pharsala a) Tomb I, plan and sections (Verdelis 1953, tab.II) b) Tomb I, view from the SE (Verdelis 1953, 130 fig.9) c) Tomb 11, the burial chamber and the stomion (Courtesy of the Archaeological Society of Athens) d) Tomb 11, detail of construction (Verdelis 1952, 197 fig.13)

FIG.58:

FIG.59:

FIG.60:

FIG.61 :

FIG.62: FIG.63:

Ay. Antonios a) Tomb I, plan (Courtesy of Dr. A. Efstathiou) b) Tomb 11, the inward inclination ofthe walls (Theocharis 1966, pl.245a) Thessaly a) Ceramic networks in LBA Thessaly (Feuer 1983, 176 fig.93) b) Distribution ofLHI-11 Mycenaean pottery (Feuer 1983, 50 fig.IO) c) Distribution ofLHIII pottery (Feuer 1983, 52 fig.11) Keos, Ay. Irini a) Tomb 29, plan and sections (Caskey 1971,382 fig.12) b) Tomb 29, view from theW (Caskey 1971 , pl.77a) c) Tomb 29, tomb 30 and the peribolos, view from the NE (Caskey 1971 , pl.77d) Keos, Ay. Irini a) Tomb 8 (Overbeck, J.C. 1989, pl.9ld) b) Tomb 24 (Overbeck J.C. 1989, pl.l03b) c) The 'tumulus' (tomb 28), plan (Caskey 1971, 379 fig.11) d) The area of the main gate and the location of tombs 28,29 and 30 (after Caskey) (Caskey 1971 , 374 fig.9) Keos, Ay. Irini a) The settlement, period IV (Overbeck J.C. 1989, pl.3) b) Location of graves (Overbevk J.C. 1989, pl.l) c) The settlement, periods V-VIII (Davis 1986, pl.3) Delos (Temenos) a) The 'Theke', plan and section (Courby 1912, 64 fig.82) b) The 'Sema', plan (Gallet de Santerre 1958, pl.II.4) c) The 'Theke', view from theW (Courby 1912, 66 fig.85) d) The 'Theke', view from theE (Courby 1912, 66, fig.86) Delos (Temenos), the prehistoric settlement (Gallet de Santerre 1958, plan D) Paros, Koukounaries a) Tombs I, 2 and 3, plan (Schilardi 1987, 227 fig.S) b) The valley with the BCTs (1 , 2 and 3), view from the W (Schilardi 1986, pl.85a) c) Tomb I with the peribolos, view from theN (Schilardi 1987, pl.166~) d) Tomb I, view from the SW (Schilardi 1986, pl.85~)

FIG.64:

viii

Cyclades a) Paros, Koukounaries, plan of the settlement (Schilardi 1984, 185 fig.1) b) Naxos, Lygaridia, the BCT (Zapheiropoulos 1965, pl.640)

FIG.65:

FIG.66:

FIG.67:

Aegean islands a) Samos - Heraion, the BCT, plan (Milojcic 1961, plan 2, detail) b) Samos - Heraion, the BCT, view from the E (Milojcic 1961, pl.25.10) c) Lesbos - Makara, sketch plan of the best preserved BCT (Axiotis 1992, pl.62a) Psara, Archontiki a) The cemetery, view from the S (Tsaravopou1os et al. 1983, 8) b) Part of the cemetery with tombs X, XI and XII and the stone platform, plan (Papadopoulou et al. 1986, 4 fig.3) c) The dromos and the entrance of a BCT (tomb X?)(Tsaravopoulos et al. 1983, 10 top left) d) Tomb X, the entrance, view from the S (Zapheiriou et al. 1984, 2 top right) e) Tomb X, view from the NE (Papadopoulou et al. 1986, 5 fig.8) t) Tomb X, view from the S (Papadopoulou et al. 1986, 5 fig. 7) Psara, Archontiki a) Tomb XI, view from the NE (Zapheiriou et al. 1984, 3 top right) b) Tomb XI, the covering slabs, view from the NE (Zapheiriou et al. 1984,2 bottom right) c) Tomb XI, the interior, view from the NE (Zapheiriou et al. 1984, 3 bottom right) d) Tomb XI, the primary burial (Zapheiriou et al. 1984, 3 top left) e) Plan of a house (Papadopoulou et al. 1986, 2 plan I)

FIG.68:

FIG.69:

FIG.70:

FIG.71 :

FIG.72:

Distribution of the various types ofBCTs a) Apsidallhorse-shoe b) L-type c) Rectangular with entrance in one short side Distribution of the various types ofBCTs a) Complex b) Oblon~elliptical Rate of construction ofBCTs per type a) Apsidallhorse-shoe b) Oblon~elliptical c) Rectangular Rate of construction ofBCTs a) All sites b) All sites except for Eleusis Appendix I: the construction ofEleusinian BCTs a) Rate of construction of tombs of group 1 (Table/) b) Rate of use of various buildings materials (Table Ill) c) Rate of use of various type of entrance (Table //)

d) Size of chamber (Table//)

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Various Built Chamber Tomb Dark Age East Early Bronze Age Early Cycladic Early Helladic Early Minoan Geometric Late Geometric Late Bronze Age Late Cycladic Late Helladic Late Minoan Middle Bronze Age Middle Cycladic Middle Helladic Middle Minoan North Protogeometric South West

BCT DA

E EBA EC EH EM G LG LBA LC LH LM MBA MC MH MM N PG

s w

Books Death Eleusis A, B, GAC Laconia I/

MDP MP Nichoria I/ Origins

RMDP ITCF Tvpp01

r

Cavanagh, W. & Mee, C., 1998: A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece (SIMA 125) (Goteborg) Mylonas, G.E., 1975-76: To L1rYWCOV NeKpOTfMpeiov Vfr; Ekvuivor; (Athens), Vols. A, B, r Hope-Simpson, R. & Dickinson, O.T.P.K., 1979: A Gazetteer ofAegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age I: The Mainland and the Islands (SIMA 52) (Goteborg) Waterhouse, H. & Bope-Simpson, R., 1961: "Prehistoric Laconia: part ll", BSA 56, 114-75. Mountjoy, P.A., 1986: Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification (SIMA 73) (Goteborg) Furumark, A., 1941: Mycenaean Pottery. Analysis and Classification (Stockholm) McDonald, W.A. & Wilkie, N.C. 1992: Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece I/: The Bronze Age Occupation (Minneapolis) Dickiosoo, O.T.P.K., 1977: The Origins ofMycenaean Civilisation (SIMA 49) (Goteborg) Mountjoy, P.A., 1999 : Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery (Rahden!Westf.) Pelon, 0., 1976: Tholoi, Tumuli, et Cercles Funeraires (Paris) Protoootariou-Deilaki, E., 1980a: Oz Tvppoz Tov Jl.pyovr; (Ph.D. thesis, Athens)

Periodicals and series AAA AA AL1 AE AJA AM AR BARintS

APX,a.wA.oyuro AvciA£lcta. el; A9T}vrov Arch!ologischer Anzeiger

APX,a.toA.oyuc6v dcl:rlov APX,a.toA.oyud) EcpTtf.1£pil; American Journal of Archaeology Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung Archaeological Reports British Archaeological Reports, International Series

X

BCH BICS BSA

CMS 'Epyov JRGZM OJA OpAth llAE PBF SIMA SMEA TUAS

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Annual of the British School at Athens Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siege! To 'Epyov TT)ot' mentioned in the publication of the Mycenaean vases from Palaiochori69, for no chamber tombs have ever been found here. If this is true, then, all the vases come from that cemetery which, consequently, was in use from LID!llA until LHIIIB (but see above for other possibilities).

Settlement evidence The settlement of the site lies on Kotroni, a rocky hill with flat tog and terraced slopes at the NE outskirts of the village . The extensive erosion of the hill has not allowed for the identification of structural remains but 62

In the fonn of an elongated arch rather than on the fonn of an inverted V, as in the oblong tomb IV in Thorikos (see section 7.2.1). 63 Although its walls were apparently corbelled up to a certain height. 64 Faklaris 1990, 146. 65 Laconia 11. 134. 66 Laconia 11, 134. 67 Laconia IJ, 132; Faklaris 1990, 145 n.464 and 465, where he mentions the dimensions of what appears to be another elliptical tomb: L: 2.70m.; W: 1.20m. 68 Laconia /I, 134. 69 Kastriotis 1924-25. 70 Laconia 11, 135; Faklaris 1990, 153.

71

Laconia 11, 135. Faklaris 1990, 147, 148 fig. 83, 153. 73 See above, n.72. 74 See above, n.41. 75 See section 7.2.1. 72

76

Laconia /I, 135. n 1TCF, 413; for a discussion ofthat problem, see section 13.4.

34

Chapter4 MESSENIA 4.1. Ay.Ioannis Papoulion (D 52)

4.1.1. The BCT A MH tumulus was discovered in 1954 at the site of Ay .loannis, to the W of the modem village of Papoulia (FIG. 1). It had a diameter ofc.12-13m. and a surviving height of 1.50m. It contained a central BCT and various burial pithoi and cist-graves radially arranged on the periphery of the mound (FIG. 15c). (1 0) Papoullll - The central tomb (FIGs. 15c, d, 16a, c) Bibliography: Marina/os I954, 3II-6; I955, 254-5; Korres 1978, 326-32; I980, 129-50; Boyd I999, 380-8. Sllllation: In the centre of the tumulus of Ay.Ioannis Papou/ion (FIGs. I5c, I6a, c). Orientation: WINW-EISE; entrance facing ElSE. Architeelllre: Horse-shoe structure with entrance at one short side (FIG. 15d). The entrance is formed between the eastern ends ofthe long walls. It was found blocIced partly with earth, partly with a stone-wall. A low, curving wall, just in front ofthe entrance, connected the ends ofthe two long walls, thus forming an enclosed space (FIGs. 15c, d, /6a). The walls of the tomb were surrounded by a conical mound of earth and flat slabs which formed kind of an individual tumulus (FIGs. 15d, I6a). The chamber was covered with flat slabs (the westernmost of which is still in place, FIG. I6a). No traces of dromos or any other kind of access have been discovered but it has to be stressed that the ElSE part of the tumulus (the area in front of the entrance of the BCT) had been extensively disturbed by later activities (FIGs. 15c, 16c). A kind of 'altar' is reported 'at a small distance ' from the eastern end ofthe northern long side; its form is not specified Dimensions: Chamber: L: 2.20m.; W(max) : 1.25m.; H: 0.80m.; Entrance: W: l .IOm. 'Vestibule': L: c.2.00m.; W: c.0.5m. Conslnlction: The continuous wall of the tomb has been entirely built of flat slabs set in more or less regular courses. The walls seem to rise vertically without any sign of inward inclination. A narrow ledge has been left on top of the walls, apparently for the reception of the covering slabs (FIG. 15d). The floor was earthen; an earthen ledge had been left all around the floor and by the side walls (in fact, the floor was dug slightly below ground level, thus making the interior height almost one metre, FIG. 15d). The entrance was blocked with a wall ofearth and stones. The curving wall which connected the ends of the two long sides consisted of rough stones of varied size (FIG. 16a). There is no information about the construction of the 'altar'. Interior: The tomb was found entirely empty. The defined space in front ofthe entrance ('vestibule', FIGs. 15c, 16a) yielded abundant remains of fire (ash), small animal bones and a large one, possibly belonging to a boar.

Similar remains were found on the 'altar '. They have been interpreted as the remains ofsacrificial ceremonies. The only direct chronological indication comes from a C14 dating of a sample from the ashes found in the 1 'vestibule': it is dated to I850-1 7+/-70B.C • Comment: Marinatos has suggested that the horse-shoe structure was a 'cenotaph' because of the total absence of finds from its interior. Korres, however, believes that the structure was built to serve as a proper tomb, as suggested by its small height and the covering slab/. Cenotaphs have not been positively attested in Mainland Greece, although some scholars support their existencl. In Papou/ia, the funerary character of the tumulus suggests a burial use for the central structure, as well; besides, horse-shoe and apsidal tombs are very common in the western Peloponnese during the late MH period (Routsi, Nichoria, Kato Samikon, Pharai, see FIG. 68a). It is difficult to explain the function of the enclosed space, which seems to obstruct the entrance of the tomb. The surrounding wall 'interlocks ' with the southern long side and must, thus, be contemporaneous with the construction of the tomb (FIGs. I5d, 16a). Whether this means that the tomb was used only once (a single burial?) and this wall was constructed directly after the burial (or that the tomb was a collective one and the wall was rebuilt after each burial) is impossible to know. What is clear from its contents, though, is that this enclosed space has been used for some lcind of ceremonial activities involving fire and animal offerings (but curiously not pottery). The alleged 'altar' has never been illustrated or described in detail. The construction date of the tomb is a controversial issue. The available absolute date is not of great help because there are no safe and precise synchronisms with absolute dates for the MH period Marinatos had suggested that the horse-shoe tomb and the whole of the tumulus belonged to the EHIMH transition. Korres, though, showed that the pottery from the tumulus dates to the MHJ/ and Ill periods. He, also, proved that the tumulus had three mantles which corresponded to two different stages of construction. The inner mantle contained the horse-shoes structure and the outer ones the burial pithoi and cist-graves. The MHJ/-Ill pottery comes from those pithoi and cists. Korres initially suggested that the horseshoe structure (and the inner mantle) was earlier than the outer mantles and the pithoi4• Later, though, and apparently under the influence of the discovery of a preexisting MH tumulus around the tholos tomb of Voidokoilicl (FIG. 16b), he changed his view and supported that the horse-shoe structure was built in the 1

Korres 1978, 331 ; see, also, Boyd 1999, 387. Korres I978, 332. 3 For a discussion of the problem, see section 14.1. 4 Korres I 978, 327, 33 I -2; I 980, 136-7. 5 Korres 1977a, 242-95.

2

4. Messenia second phase of construction of the tumulus6• At present, there is no way to prove either theory (at least until a new investigation is undertaken, in the foundation levels of the tomb). An early date is favoured by the facts that a) the inner mantle has been apparently covered by the later ones (FIGs. J6a, c) and, b) a pithos (no. 15) has been placed just in front of the enclosed space (FIGs. 15c, 16a), which would not be possible had the tomb been built later than the pithoi (for, its erection would have destroyed pithos no. 15). That pithos contained stone arrowheads of the late MH type of Kephalovryson and Shaft Grave IV7 (MHIII?) which may provide a terminus ante quem for the construction of the tomb (although I am inclined to believe that the BCT actually predates all pithos burials found on the periphery of the tumu/us and is, therefore, MHII or earlier in date/.

two yielded only pottery and conuli. None of the vases are published but the excavator has dated one of them to Ullll 14 • According to the GAC, at least one of the tholoi contained early (Lllll) pottery15 . Settlement evidence According to the GAC, traces of a LH settlement have been spotted in the village 16 , but no excavation has been ever undertaken. 4.1.3. Discussion

The tumulus of Papoulia is clearly MH in date. Apparently, it is one of many such burial mounds in the area 17 • The poor contents of the pithoi and the cists and the large number of tumuli suggest that such mounds were used by the majority of the population in that part of Messenia. The construction of a large BCT, however (a very uncommon and very large kind of tomb for that period) at the centre of the tumulus (regardless if it belongs to the first or the second phase of its use) represents an impressive innovation for that early period. It suggests, also, a special preoccupation of the owners with funerary aspects, and, possibly, a desire to differentiate from their neighbours in the funerary field. On present evidence, it is impossible to say whether the BCT belonged to the first or the second period of use of the tumulus, although the former option seems much more probable 18• In either case, however, it was evidently both the largest funerary construction and the first tomb in the site to be provided with a lateral entrance (and, very probably, to be used for multiple burial).

The rest ofthe tumu/us All pithoi of the tumulus were embedded within the outer mantles of the mound with their mouths facing out (FIGs. 15c, 16c). Some of them had small slabs around their mouths, in a fashion reminiscent of proper tombs' stomia (FIG. 16d). The few cists found in the eastern part were also radially placed. All graves contained single or double inhumations and a few offerings, mostly pottery, a few conuli and obsidian arrowheads; several burials, however, were unfurnished. The pottery dates to the Mllli and Mlllii periods9 • The filling of the tumulus yielded EH sherds, apparently originating from the earlier non-funerary use of the surrounding area 10 • 4.1.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence Other tombs Various cists have been found around the tumulus but only one contained a contracted skeleton and may have been MH 11 • Both Marinatos and Korres have reported the existence of several burial mounds close to the excavated tumulus 12, but none of them has ever been investigated. Marinatos excavated three small (3.64.4m. in diameter) tholoi in the village of Papoulia 13 • One of them contained bronze jewellery but the other

14

Marinatos 1954, 316. GAC, 145. 16 GAC, 145. 17 Marinatos mentions at least 12 similar mounds, Marinatos 1954, 315. 18 There are more indirect pieces of evidence to support an early rather than a later date. Moreover, the similarity with the tumulus of Voidokoilia need not indicate contemporaneity. The tumulus of Voidokoilia contains a tholos tomb (FIG. 16b) and the tumulus of Papoulia an apsidal BCT (FIG. 16a). It is very reasonable to assume that the inclusion of a tholos (a technically superior tomb-type) in a tumulus postdates the inclusion of a simple BCT in the tumulus of Papoulia. In that sense, the arrangement at Papoulia may represent the initiation of an experimental stage in Messenian funerary architecture (but see below, section 4.2.1, for a possibly even earlier apsidal BCT at Routsi) that culminated in MHIIIILHI Voidokoilia. In such a case, a pre-MHIIJ date for the BCT of Papoulia (that is contemporary with the first period of use of the tumulus) would seem fairly reasonable; see, also, above n.8. IS

6

Korres 1980, 149; 1992, 195 n.1 0, 196 n.l3. Korres 1980, 143. 8 Boyd mentions a discussion he had with Korres in 1995, where the excavator 'confirmed' that 'the horse-shoe construction is primary in the construction sequence and not the result of a later intervention', Boyd 1999, 382. Kilian-Dirlmeier believes also that the BCT predates the rest of the tumulus and should, thus, de dated to MHI-II, Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997, 96. 9 Although MHI finds are also reported, Korres 1978, 330. For a detailed summary of the finds from the pithoi and cists, see Boyd 1999, 383-7. 1 Korres 1978, 328-32; 1980, 132, 143-5. 11 Marinatos 1954, 314-5. 12 Marinatos 1954, 315; Korres 1980, 132. 13 Marinatos 1954, 315-6; 1955, 255. 7

°

36

4. Messenia

single skeleton. As in Papoulia, the mouth of the pithos was closed with an upright slab and surrounded by 23 horizontal flat slabs in a stomion-Iike fashion • He, also, discovered a built cist containing four skulls and small bones; the lack of larger bones led Korres to interpret that structure as an ossuary. It seems that no other tomb, apart from the BCT, contained any offerings. It is, thus, possible that the horse-shoe tomb held the most important burial(s) of the tumulus.

4.2. Routsi (D 54) 4.2.1. The BCT

Two tumuli were excavated in the 1950's by Marinatos at the locality Routsi, near the village of Myrsinochorion (FIG. 1). The recent reinvestigation of the second tumulus ('Kalogeropoulos') by Korres resulted to the definition of the size of the mound (diameter: 20.40-25.80) 19 and to the discovery of a BCT. There is only a brief preliminary report for that tomb.

4.2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence Other tombs Tumulus I ('Georgiopoulos'), a smaller mound (diameter: 13m.), was situated at a separate location, closer to the village of Myrsinochorion. It contained pithos burials, which have not been described in detaif4 • It is apparently MH but, since no fmds have been published yet, it is impossible to assess its construction date with more precision. Boyd mentions a third MH burial mound, apparently unexcavated25•

(11) Routsi-tlle llorse-slloe tomb Blbliograplly: Korres 1989, 26-28; Boyd 1999, 535, 538, 540. Situation: At the NW quarter of the Kalogeropoulos tumulus (not centrally placed but near the centre). Orientation: ? Architecture: The tomb is described by Korres as 'horseshoe ' with a side entrance. Boyd describes it as 'a roughly horseshoe-shaped pit with a stone outline surround on top '. He, also, provides two illustrationi0. No more information is available. Dimensions/1 L: c.2.00m.; W: c.J.50m.; H: >J.OOm. Construction: ? Interior: Korres reports a matt-painted and two Minyan vases (Boyd mentions a double cup, a cup and a strainer) found close to the entrance of the tomb, but makes no mention of any skeletons. The vases have not been illustrated but the excavator states that they date the tomb to a period earlier than that of the horse-shoe tomb of Papoulia; this may imply the earlier part of the MH period (prior to MH/11). Boyd quotes Howell, who 'affirms that MH/1 pottery is present in the tumuli of Routsi ', without specifying the context. Comment: The tomb is very insufficiently known. The fact however, that another example of a horse-shoe tomb included within a MH tumulus is found at an area neighbouring to Papoulia suggests the existence of a quite strong tradition of apsidal BCTs in the region. The reported early date of the vases may indicate that such tombs had started to be built prior to the later part of the MH period ('MHIII'). The fact that the walls ofthe Routsi tomb were built only in their upper parts may suggest that it is one of the earliest examples of apsidal/horse-shoe BCTs in Messenia.

Apart from the tumuli, two small (c.Sm. in diameter) tholoi have been found in Routsi26 • They are located very close to each other but far away from the MH tumuJe 7• Both contained very rich offerings, the first, gold and silver jewellery, a silver vessel, a bronze ' killed' sword and possibly part of a bronze helmet, the second, several weapons (among which two inlaid daggers), sealstones and amber jewellery. Both tombs are dated by the discovered pottery to LHI28 and are, thus, later than the tumuli. Settlement evidence The settlement with which those tombs were associated has not been located yet. The finds from the tholoi suggest that the site was quite important at the beginning of the LBA. The presence of the MH tumuli, though, suggests a continuous occupation from the MBA. On present evidence, the horse-shoe structure in tumulus 2 seems to have been the largest and the only furnished MH tomb of the site.

4.3. Nichoria (D 100)

The rest ofthe tumulus Tumulus 2 (' Kalogeropoulos' ) of Routsi was a simple earthen mound without stone mantle and peribolos. The early excavations by Marinatos revealed a number of cists and pithoi, which remain very inadequately known22 • Korres discovered another pithos containing a

A number of distinct burial grounds have been discovered close to the important settlement site of Nichoria (FIG. 1), including various types of tombs, 23

Korres 1989, 26; 1993,236 and pl.28a Marinatos 1953, 250; 1TCF, 75-6. 25 Boyd 1999, 534. 26 7TCF, 198-200; Boyd 535-7. 27 According to Boyd they lie c.500m. E of the tumuli and they are not intervisible with the Kalogeropoulos mound, Boyd 1999, 534. 28 7TCF, 200; GAC, 145-6; Death, 58. 24

19

Korres 1989, with references to earlier work on the site. Boyd 1999, 542 fig.A1 ,27.2, 543 fig.Al.27.3. 21 As estimated by Boyd, Boyd 1999, 535. 22 Marinatos 1953, 249-50. 20

37

4. Messenia Interior: The remains of at least four burials had been swept against the walls of the tomb (FIG. I8a). Two of them (A and I) were deprived ofofferings. Skeleton B was accompanied by an LHJJIA2 piriform jar. Skeleton L1 was accompanied with a bronze knife, bronze tweezers and an LHIIIB kylix. Another LHJJIA2 vase, a bronze disc, one steatite and one clay conuli were found in other parts of the floor. Comment: It is not clear whether the tomb was a BCT. The excavator has suggested a rectangular plan but no rectangular BCTs are known from SW Peloponnese (see FIGs. 68b, c). Parlama has suggested an apsidal plan19 but the other known apsidal BCTs from Messenia (Papoulia, Akones) have much more curved rear sides and much stronger walls30. It is not improbable, thus, that Nikitopoulou 2 was a 'built grave ' similar to the MHILHI tomb at Peristeri~ 1 (FIG. 18d); both its small height and its slightly rounded corners find good parallels in that early tomb (compare FIGs. I8b and /Be). In any case, this uncertain BCT dates, according to the ponery, to LHIIJA2.

among which BCTs. Before examining the BCTs, let us present a brief summary of the topographical situation of the various groups of tombs. The following tombclusters have been found in Nichoria (FIG. 17a): a) the Minnesota Messenia Expedition (MME) tholos and the adjacent 'Little Circle' , on the NW slope of the ridge where the settlement was situated and very close to it (FIG. 21a); b) a cluster of four small tholoi, a possible BCT and a later apsidal grave on the Tourkokivoura mound (Nikitopoulou field), a low hill directly to the W/NW ofthe Nichoria ridge (FIG. 17b); c) two (or three) apsidal BCTs and a cist grave, possibly included within a tumulus, at the locality Akones, c.30m to the SW of the Tourkokivoura mound (FIG. 19a); d) the Veves tholos, c.20m to the SE of the Tourkokivoura mound and very close to the Akones tombs; e) three isolated chamber tombs discovered at various localities around Nichoria (one, at Rizomylo, c.800m E/SE of Tourkokivoura, another c.200m to the N and another c.500m to the SE of the village), and f) several tombs (a tholos and several apsidal tombs) of post-Mycenaean date found in the Labropoulos and the Tsagdhi plots, c. 700m to the NE and c.300m to the N of Tourkokivoura, respectively (FIGs. 20a, c).

Tomb Nikitopoulou 2 is an uncertain case of BCT. Its construction bears more resemblance to such tombs as the MHILID tomb at Peristeria32 (FIGs. l8c, d) than to other Messenian BCTs. Its poor state of preservation, however, does not allow for safe conclusions. The Akones cluster (FIG. 19a) (13) Akones I (FIGs. I9a, b) Bibliography: Parlama I972, 62-4. Silllatlon: On the northern part of a small hill (or artificial mound) at the locality Akones, directly to the SW of the ridge ofNichoria (FIGs. 17a, 19a). Orientation: EINE-WISW; entrance facing WISW Architecture: Apsidal tomb with entrance at the centre of the front side. In fact, the two long walls seem to curve at their western ends towards the entrance, thus, giving the tomb a 'bell-shaped' ground plan (FIG. I9b). The walls of the tomb present an apparent inward inclination which reduces the width of the tomb from bonom to top. The entrance is formed at the middle of the front short wall, the sides ofwhich function as antae. It was found bloc/ced with a stone wall (FIG. I9b). The tomb was apparently roofed with flat slabs, although it is not clear if any of them was found during excavation. No traces of a dromos are mentioned Dimensions: Chamber: L: 3.80m. ; W(est.): c. I .60m.; H: 1.45m.; Entrance: W(est.) : c.0.80m. Construction: The continuous wall of the tomb has been built of a double row of flat slabs set in more or less

4.3.1. The BCTs The Tourkokivoura cluster (FIG. 17b) (12) Tourkoklvoura-Nikltopoulou 2 (FIGs. 18a, b) Bibliography: Choremis I973, 28-30. Sillladon: At the eastern part ofthe hill, directly to the E of tholos tomb 3 (FIG. I7b). Orlnttatlon: W-E. Architecture: Rectangular built grave with rounded corners. The excavator has suggested that it was provided with a lateral entrance, but, since only the N and W sides have been preserved (FIG. I8a), it is not possible to say where the alleged entrance lay (it is possible that, ifa side entrance had ever existed, it lay at the eastern short side which faced the slope of the hill). The tomb must have been covered with flat slabs, although none of them was found. No traces of a dromos have been discovered. The floor was earthen. Dimensions: Chamber: L(pres.): 2.80m. ; W(pres.) : I .90m.; H(pres.): 0.60m. Construction: The surviving parts of the continuous wall were built offlat slabs set in more or less regular courses (FIG. I8b). They consisted of a single row of material but the NW corner was reinforced with a second row ofslabs (FIG. I8a). No special a"angements were observed on the earthen floor.

29

Parlama 1976, 253. See section 4.1 .1 and below in this section, respectively. 31 Korres 1976b; 1977b. 32 Korres 1976b; 1977b. 30

38

4. Messenia fragments of an iron knife (apparently placed there during the later disturbance of the tomb) were found 35 embedded in the rear walt • Comment: Tomb Ill is smaller and less elaborate than tomb /, despite being most probably later (for the western wall ofthe former seems to overlie the eastern wall ofthe latter, FIG. 19a) . Tomb Ill was definitely in use in LHI and possibly earlier (for, apparently, the LHI vases accompanied the extended burial which must have been the last burial made in the tomb).

regular courses33• The 'corbelling' of the walls is achieved through the slight projection of each layer of slabs over the one underneath. Elongated cylindrical stones have been inserted transversely in several parts of the wall, in all probability in an effort to increase its stability (FIG. 19a/ The facade of the tomb has an even surface. The blocking wall is made of the same material (flat slabs). Interior: The tomb had been disturbed during the Geometric or early Archaic times, for sherds of those periods were found scattered on the floor. The remains of four burials had been swept against the rear side of the chamber. Close to them, 'Mycenaean' and 'later' sherds were found An extended skeleton was discovered 'on the floor ' (no more details) with the head pointing N; between that skeleton and the swept bones, the excavator found a bronze dagger ofvery early appearance, a bronze knife and seven beads ofsard. Comment: The construction date of the tomb is unclear. The dagger suggests an early Mycenaean or late MH date. Moreover, the published plan implies that the western wall of tomb Ill partly overlies the eastern long side of tomb I. If this is correct (there is no comment by the excavator on the succession of walls), then tomb I is earlier than tomb Ill, which, according to its pottery dates to LHI (see below).

The two BCTs of Akones belong to the apsidal/horseshoe type, characteristic of MH/early LH Messenia. Tomb m is dated to LHI but the succession of walls (as presented in the published plan) suggests that tomb I was even earlier. Parlama has suggested that the tombs were included within an artificial mound. Although she has not presented evidence for that, the radial arrangement of the tombs seems to support her suggestion (having their entrances facing the periphery of the mound).

4.3.2.

Other tombs in the area

The Tourkokivoura mound The hill of Tourkokivoura held the remains of four small tholoi (c.3.50-5.00m. in diameter), covered with individual mounds (FIG. 17b). The earliest of them, 36 (no.4) dates to the MH/Llll period and at least one more (no.5) was in use during LHI. At least two of 38 37 them were in use in LHIIIA2 (no.3 and no.5 ) whereas tomb 6 was most probably constructed in LHIIIB39. Tomb 5 was the richest, with much gold and silver jewellery and beads of semi-precious stones and 40 may have been the property of an 'early ruler' , but the rest of the tholoi were also equipped with such objects as bronze jewellery, obsidian arrowheads, faience beads and much pottery41 • The sixth tomb ofthe cluster 42 (no.l) was an apsidal grave of PG date (FIG. 20b).

(14) Akones Ill (FIGs. 19a, c) Bibliography: Parlama 1972, 264. Situation: On the southern part of a small hill (or artificial mound) at the locality Akones, just to the SW of the Nichoria ridge (FIGs. 1 7a, 19a). Orientation: NE-SW; entrance facing SW. Architecture: Horse-shoe tomb with an entrance in the front short side. The walls present an apparent inward inclination that reduces the width of the tomb from bottom to top (FIG. 19c). The entrance most probably occupied the whole of the front short side (although the poor preservation of that part does not allow for definite conclusions). The tomb must have been covered with flat slabs, although it is not clear if any of them was found The floor was earthen. No traces of a dromos are reported. Dimensions: Chamber: L: 3.10m.; W: 1.50m.; H: ? Construction: The continuous wall has been built of a double row of flat slabs set in more or less regular courses. The 'corbelling' of the wall is achieved through the slight projection of each layer ofmaterial over the one underneath. Interior: The tomb had been apparently disturbed in antiquity, for fragments of an archaic amphora were found close to the only surviving burial. This was an extended burial placed close to the rear side of the tomb (FIG. 19a). It was accomeanied by an LHI plain cup and a pot of coarse ware 4• Two bronze tweezers and

The Akones cluster A third apsidal structure was revealed next to the two BCTs (FIG. 19a). It was poorly preserved and contained only MH sherds. The excavator has interpreted it as a house and suggested that the area had

35

Note that a bronze dagger was found embedded in the rear wall of T.164 in Argos, see section 2.1.1 ; a bronze knife had been, also, embedded in the rear wall of the MHILHI tomb in Peristeria, Korres 1976b, 492-3. 36 Choremis 1973, 44-5. 37 Choremis 1973, 38-9. 38 Choremis 1973, 45. 39 Choremis 1973, 48-9. 40 Choremis 1973, 30-2. 41 Choremis 1973, 32-49. 42 Choremis 1973, 70-1.

33 The disruption in the masonry of the southern part of the arch was probably caused by later (Geometric) activities, remains of which were found in the interior of the tomb. 34 Parlama 1976, 253, has dated the vases to LHII but Lolos has shown that both belong to LHI, Lolos 1987, 573.

39

4. Messenia 43

and animal remains. The scanty pottery from the tomb dates to late Llll or LHDA49 •

been used as a settlement in the MH period • However, its identical plan to that of the BCTs and the radial placement of all three apsidal structures within the suggested tumulus (with their apses practically touching each other) strongly suggest a funerary function. Moreover, its small size ar~es against the possibility of a residential building . The lack of skeletal material can be plausibly attributed to decay, especially since the MH structure has been heavily eroded; besides, there is nothing indicting domestic occupation. If this structure has really been a tomb, as seems very probable, then apsidal BCTs in Nichoria date back well into the MH period, exactly as in Papoulia and Routsi.

The Veves tholos, situated c .70m. to the SW of Tourkokivoura (FIG. 17a) was another important tomb. Small in size ( 5.I Om. in diameter), yet it contained a considerable amount of gold and bronze jewellery, three sealstones and abundant pottery of all periods 50 between LHI and LHIIIB • The aforementioned three chamber-tombs found around Nichoria are not known in detail. Only pottery has been reported to come from those tombs, dating to LHIDB-C in the case of the Rizomylo tomb51 and LHIDA2(-B?) in the case of the other two tombs52 •

Apart from the apsidal tombs, a small cist-grave (no. D) was found between tombs I and m (FIG. 19a). It contained a few bones but no offerings45 •

Finally, no less than nine apsidal tombs of postMycenaean date have been found at Nichoria, one in Tourkokivoura (Nikitopoulou I i 3 (FIGs. 17b, 20b), two in the Tsagdhis field 54 (FIG. 20c) and another six in the Labropoulos field 55 (FIG. 20a), together with a tholos of LHDIC-PG date56• Although they are much smaller and of quite different construction than the BCTs of Akones, yet they imply a revival of the tradition of apsidal tombs after the collapse of the Mycenaean civilisation57•

Other tombs Apart from the aforementioned tombs, another two tholoi, a built-grave and three chamber-tombs of Mycenaean date have been found in Nichoria. The MME tholos46 was apparently the largest (6.60m. in diameter) and richest of all. It contained a wide range of precious objects, including more than SO pieces of gold jewellery, silver, lead and ivory objects, many bronzes - among which an intact hoard and fragments of a body armour - and beads of semi-precious stones, amber and glass. According to the discovered pottery, the MME tholos was in use from LHDIA2 until LHIIIB2, although it may have been constructed slightly earlier47 • Not only its size and contents but also its close proximity to the settlement speak for the uncommon status of its owners, not improbably the Mycenaean rulers ofNichoria.

4.3.3. Settlement evidence The ridge of Nichoria (FIGs. 17a, 2la) was continuously occupied from the very beginning of the MH period until the end of the Mycenaean period (LHIIIB2i8• The systematic excavation of the settlement, in combination with the extensive survey of the surrounding area by the MME, have provided us with a very detailed account of the history of the site. According to the excavators, Nichoria was initially

The construction of the MME tholos evidently destroyed part of a pre-existing circular (well-like) built-grave. The so-called 'Little Circle' 48 had accommodated at least 33 interments, 8 of which belonged to a mass-burial, made after the collapse of the roof of the tomb. The interior of the tomb yielded very few finds, including bronze fragments, chert flakes

49

The accidental destruction of part of ' Little Circle' by the MME tholos suggests that the fonner must have ceased to be used long before the construction of the latter in LHIIIA2, see Nichoria If. 228-9. so Choremis 1973, 49-59. 51 Choremis 1973, 60-2. 52 McDonald, & Rapp Jr. 1972 , 280, #100. 53 Choremis 1973, 70-1. 54 Choremis 1973, 71-4. ss McDonald et al. 1983, 268-70. 56 Choremis 1973, 62-70. 57 Parlama 1976. 58 LH IIlC is very poorly documented both in the settlement and in the surrounding area. It seems that for more than a century, after LH llffi2, Nichoria has been "either very sparsely used or (more probably) completely abandoned", Nichoria 1/, 767; McDonald et al. 1983, xxiv. By the very end of LH IIIC the settlement revived and continued to be in use throughout the Dark Age as well as in later periods, although to a lesser extent than in the Late Bronze Age, McDonald et al. 1983 xxvi.

43

Parlama 1972, 262. No dimensions are given but it is apparent from the plan (FIG. 19a) that the structure was equal in size to tomb I, that is c.3.50m long and c.1.50m wide. These are certainly not the dimensions of a house. 45 Parlama 1972, 264. 46 Nichoria 11. 231 -44. 47 Nichoria 11, 246-7. 48 Nichoria 11, 205-30. 44

40

4. Messenia founded in Mm as a bronze-working establishment59 and until Ml-llD it was nothing more than a small village. By that time, however, it started to expand and gradually became the leading settlement of the so-called Five Rivers region (FIG. 17a), the nucleus around which villages and hamlets of the area were organised. From that time on, it never lost this importance until the general abandonment of the area at the end of LllliiB2. In addition, archaeological and literary evidence suggests that by LHIIIA2 or LllliiBl Nichoria was incorporated into the Pylian state60• Unfortunately, the structural remains of MH date are limited to two stretches of walls, probably belonging to an apsidal house and, thus, our knowledge for that period derives mostly from the pottery and small fmds. By contrast, the LH, and especially the LHIII, architecture is adequately known through the remains of numerous houses. Among them, the most substantial is a large complex in Area IV (FIG. 21 b) which displays all the characteristics of a Mycenaean "megaron" and has probably accommodated the administrative authorities ofNichoria61 • It dates to the LHIIIAl period but it has been clearly preceded by an even larger complex of LHII date, the remains of which, however, have been heavily disturbed by the later construction62 (FIG. 21b). This "megaron" was abandoned at the end of this period, when, for undetected reasons, the administrative centre moved to another, still eluding, area63 • The rest of the buildings seem to have had a domestic character. They must have been simple houses, although concentrations of particular artefacts in some of them may suggest a degree of specialisation in production64• Of particular interest is an apsidal building with "megaron" arrangement (vestibule and main chamber) erected at LHIIIB at Area IV and re-occupied in DA f 5• In general, however, the house construction and the layout of the Nichoria settlement do not offer any evidence of hierarchical organisation, such as implied by the tombs66 • Rough estimations made by the excavators suggest that the number of population rose steadily throughout LHI and 11, reaching at a peak of c.600 inhabitants in LHIIIA 1. After that period, the population must have 59

Evidence for metal working, including slag, burnt clay, vitrified pottery, crucibles with copper encrustation and hearth-like structures is mainly found in MHI levels, and sporadically in later MH levels, Stos-Gale et al. 1999, 99. 60 Nichoria 11, 757-69. 61 Nichoria 1/, 433-39. 62 Nichoria ll, 439-43. 63 Nichoria ll, 460. 64 Nichoria ll, 461-2. 65 Nichoria Jl, 765. 66 Nichoria Jl, 460, 762.

41

remained stable or even decreased. Similar estimations for the MH rriod, provide a maximum number of 200300 settlers6 • 4.3.4. Discussion

Settlement evidence suggests a centralised organisation of Nichoria from LHII onwards. Not only the earlier megaron, but also a number of 'terraces' built on the slopes of the ridge, as well as a well-built main street both suggestive of the existence of a central authority capable of mobilising collective labour - date from that period68 • In LHIIIA2, the integration of the site into the Pylian state69 may have caused a change in rulership and, possibly, a change in the location of the administrative complex70 • The rich MME tholos, built next to the settlement, apparently belonged to the 71 delegates of the Pylian palaces • A lot of new tombs appear in that period - Nikitopoulou 2 and 3 and the three chamber-tombs (a type which was never popular in Nichoria and in Messenia, generally72) - possibly reflecting the suggested population increase. Funerary evidence, however, suggests the existence of social differentiation already from LHI73 • Nikitopoulou 4 and the V eve tholos are both built at that time and are both very rich. Choremis has suggested that thel belonged to successive early rulers of Nichoria7 • Although this is impossible to prove, it is clear that they were by far the richest Early Mycenaean tombs on the site and certainly belonged to powerful families. It is very probable that the emergence of social differentiation in LHI (at least as manifested in the funerary record) was associated with the considerable expansion of the settlement in MHIII. The reasons for that growth are not clear. It has been shown that Minoan contacts (the factor which is usually put forward to explain the changes in the Mainland in MHIII) are much less than usually thought in that period75 • Bronze-working could provide an alternative but, unfortunately, evidence for such an activity is by 67

Nichoria IJ, 459, 757-8. Nichoria IJ, 460-1. 69 Nichoria ll, 460-1. 70 As suggested by the discontinuity of the LHIIIAI megaron. Bennet has raised the possibility that no administrative structure exiS!ed in Nichoria after the integration of the site in the Pylian state in LHIIIA2, Bennet 1995, 599, 601. 71 See, also, Bennet 1995, 599; Davis et al. 1997, 421 n.84. 72 Death, 66 and figs. 5.3, 6.3. 73 Bennet 1995, 600. 7 • Choremis 1973, 32. Bennet believes, also, that the Veves tholos was the property of the Nichoria rulers prior to the integration of the site in the Pylian state in LHIIIA2, Bennet 1995, 599, 600. 75 Voutsaki 1998, 43. 68

4. Messenia

against which the former felt the need to express their distinct identity.

and large confined to Mill levels; however, a mould for 76 making jewellery has been found in an Llll stratum • Whatever the reasons, however, there can be little doubt that from that time onwards, Nichoria became a much more hierarchical society than before.

It is, thus, possible that the BCTs of Akones were not simply the tombs of commoners but the properties of a significant MH group which, however, entirely lost its importance after the emergence of the wealthy 'elite• that is represented by the rich early tholoi of Tourkokivoura79• The fact that apsidal tombs revived in post-Mycenaean times80 suggests that the type was very popular among local people81 , a popularity that may have derived from the importance of such graves at an early stage of the history of the site.

The apsidal BCTs of Akones do not seem to have played a particularly important part in those developments. They are certainly much poorer and less impressive than the contemporary tholoi at Tourkokivoura (nos. 4 and 5, FIG. 17b)77 • There are, however, two remarks that deserve mention: a) None ofthe apsidal BCTs has produced evidence of use after Llll. Tomb ID dates to that period and tomb I must have been even earlier. The third apsidal structure, in all probability another BCT, is reported to have contained MH material and may have been the earliest tomb of the cluster. It seems, thus, that the 'cemetery' of BCTs at Akones was in use from some point at the MH period and ceased to be used shortly after the establishment of the new burial ground at Tourkokivoura (although both cemeteries were evidently in use during Llll). In that sense, it is possible that the BCTs of Akones were associated with the proper MH settlement and belonged to a long Messenian tradition of apsidal tombs, represented, also, by the MHID or earlier examples of Papoulia and Routsi. Unfortunately, no comparative funerary material of MH date is available from Nichoria and, so, it is not possible to say whether the BCTs of Akones differed from other MH tombs in the site. However, it is rather improbable that there were many other graves of such dimensions where multiple burial was practised in that early period. b) The cluster of BCTs (possibly an artificial burial mound) is clearly differentiated in spatial terms from the contemporary (in Llll) tholos tomb cemetery at Tourkokivoura (FIG. 17a). Of course, this differentiation may have been due to practical reasons but it is equally probable to reflect a deliberate choice by the prosperous users of tholoi to distinguish themselves from the owners of BCTs78 • If this is true, it is possible that the latter represented a (pre-existing) important social group

Finally, it is very improbable that Nikito~ulou 2 was a BCT. Both its late date and its shape8 argue against such a possibility. If it has actually been a BCT, though, it may represent a late survival or a conservative element at Nichoria.

76

Stos-Gale et al. 1999, 99. It is interesting to note that chemical analysis of metal objects from the site directly points to Laurion as the main source for copper and lead in Nichoria throughout the MBA and the LBA, Stos-Gale et al. 1999, esp. 106 table 2 and 115 table 3. 77 We should bear in mind, though, that they have been extensively disturbed. 78 This desire for differentiation is assigned to the users of tholoi and not to the owners of BCTs for the approach adopted here is that the Akones cluster was established earlier than the cemetery of Tourkokivoura.

79

For similar remarks, see the summary in Nichoria 11, 151-69. See above, section 4.3.2. and Parlama's comments on the issue, Parlama 1976. 81 If, of course, we accept continuity of occupation in Nichoria which, at present, cannot be incontestably proven, see above, n. 58. 82 As well as its location in the tholos tomb cemetery, when all other apsidal BCTs of Nichoria were clustered in a separate mound at Akones.

80

42

Cbapter5 ELlS- ACHAEA

A. ELlS

5.1. Kato Samikon (B 92) 5.1.1 The BCTs A tumulus cemetery of late MH/early LH date has been excavated in Kato Samikon, at the locality Kleidi 1• It lies 200m. to the W of the classical acropolis of Samikon, 180m. S of the 'Samikon tumulus' 2 and to the E-SE of the prehistoric acropolis. In fact, the five tumuli are situated on the E slope of the acropolis, on slightly sloping ground. Unfortunately, the reports are extremely brief and the information they provide about the form of both the tumuli and the tombs is not very instructive. It is, however, clear that at least three of the tombs, namely tombs IV and XI in tumulus 2 and tomb VD in tumulus ill, are BCTs. (15) TllltUIIIIS 1- Tomb W Bibliography: Papalwnstantinou /982, 133. Situation: On the periphery oftumulus 2. Orientation: ? Archltectllre: The tomb is described as similar to the cenotaph of Ay.Ioannis Papoulion, that is, of apsidal or horse-shoe form, with an entrance in a short side. However, the single published photo3 shows a more or less rectangular grave with an opening at one end of a long side (L-type?). Since, however, the quality of the photo is rather poor, no definite conclusions can be drawn. A circular 'altar', 'similar to those found in tomb XI ' (see below), is reported to have been found in front of the SW corner of the tomb. Given, however, that the 'altars ' of tomb XI were built 'at the ends of the long sides .4' it is possible that they were simple anta-lilce construction!. The tomb was covered with two huge slabs. There is no information about any special arrangements in the entrance or about the bloc/cage. Nothing is mentioned about the possible existence of a dromos. Dimensions: ? (Fhe published photo suggests a tomb of small size. Its width cannot be much more than l.001.20m. Its length was sufficient only to accommodate 1

Papakonstantinou 1981, 148-9;1982, 133-4; 1983, 109-10. Yialouris 1965, 6-40. 3 Papakonstantinou 1982, pi. 83. 4 See, below, tomb XI. s The interpretation of those features as 'altars' apparently derives from the original publication of Ay.loan.nis, where Marinatos interpreted a similar construction at the end of the right long side of the apsidal tomb as an altar, Marinatos 1955, 254. The feature, however, has never been properly illustrated. Therefore, we should consider its interpretation as an 'altar' as tentative (see Ay.loannis Papoulion, section 4.1.1 ). 2

contracted burials with bent knees, that is, no longer than 1.50m.) Construction: Judging from the published photo, we can say that the tomb was built of irregular stones of varied size, as well as flat slabs. No more information is available. Interior: The tomb contained two primary interments in contracted position, as well as a number of removed burials, the bones of which had been piled up at one corner of the burial chamber6. The two contracted skeletons were accompanied with two MHIII vases (kantharos and small amphora), a denticulated flint blade and a clay conulus Comment: It is difficult to define the type of the tomb with any precision. The report suggests an apsidal or horseshoe grave with entrance at one short side but the published photo gives the impression of an L-type grave. Since, though, L-type graves are not otherwise attested in western Greece (FIG. 68b), no safe conclusions can be drawn until the tomb is fu/Jy published The MH I// vases apparently belong to the last two burials but the presence of numerous swept skeletons suggests that the tomb may have been built earlier. (16) Tllnullus 1- Tomb XI Bibliography: Papalwnstantinou 1981, 149. Situation: On the periphery oftumulus 2, radia/Jy placed in relation to its centre. Orientation: ? Architecture: The tomb is described as similar to the cenotaph of Ay.loannis Papoulion, that is, of apsidal or horse-shoe form. The published photo7 seems to confirm that description. The tomb is said to have seen two phases of construction, for the long sides seem to have been elongated and supplied with two 'altars' at their ends, at some point of the tomb's history. The alleged 'altars ' have not been described or illustrated Their position allows for the assumption that they were simple architectural elements (antae) rather than ceremonial devices. The photo shows clearly that the tomb was covered with huge slabs. There is no mention ofa dromos or a blocking wall. Dimensions: ? (/'he aforementioned photo suggests that the tomb had a width of c.l .00-/.20m. and slightly larger length. Its height seems, also, smaJJ.) Construction: The published photo shows that tomb XI was mainly built of flat slabs of medium and smaJJ size although a huge stone block apparently occupied the rear side (arch) of the chamber. The walls seem to be particularly thick and it is very probable that the tomb had a rounded-conical external appearance, identical to that ofthe tomb in Ay.Ioannis Papoulion.

6 7

Papakonstantinou 1982, pl.83 bottom right. Papakonstantinou 1981, pl.86a.

5. Elis - Achaea

All three BCTs were built in MHill or slightly earlier and at least one (tomb XI) may have remained in use until LHIIB. Like the Messenian BCTs, they were included within collective tumuli.

Interior: The tomb contained the remains of two primary contracted and an unspecified number of swept burials. Three MHIII vases, a whetstone and an arrowhead were found in the tomb. Two LHII vases (a Vapheio cup and a dipper) were, also, found 'close to the altars '. The excavator has interpreted them as the remains of cult activity. Comment: The tomb seems to be very similar to the 'cenotaph' of Ay.Ioannis Papoulion, indeed. It was constructed in MHIII or slightly earlier (for the MHIII pots must have been associated with the more recent interments). The interpretation of the built features at the end of the long sides as 'altars ' certainly needs better documentation. The discovery of two LHII vases in association with them can by no means constitute evidence for their 'cultic' function. Instead, it is possible that the vases come from a proper burial. If this is true, then the tomb must have remained in use until LHII.

5.1.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence Other tombs Apart from the BCTs, tumulus 2 (an earthen mound without a peribolos) included another two built cists8• Grave m contained a single contracted . skeleton, probably unfurnished. Grave X contained the remains of a number of swept burials together with a bronze knife, an obsidian arrowhead, a clay conulus and three MHIII vases. The remains of another five removed burials and another three vases were found out of the grave, close to the covering slabs.

(17) Tumulus 3 - Tomb VII Bibliography: Papakonstantinou 1981, 148-9. Situation: Found at the centre oftumulus 3. Orientation: ? Architecture: There is no description or photo of the tomb. We are only said that the tomb was a 'built cist', very similar to the 'cenotaph' ofAy.Ioannis. Later in the same report, the tomb is described as similar to tomb Xl. We can assume then that tomb VII was a BCT of apsidal or horse-shoe form, without, though, excluding altogether the possibility of a rectangular shape (for it is described as 'built cist'). There is no information about any particular feature of that tomb, nor do we know if there were any traces of dromos. It was covered with three huge slabs. Dimensions: ? Construction: There is no information about the construction of tomb VII. Its description as 'built cist' suggests a construction similar to that oftombs Xl and IV, that is with flat slabs of medium size and irregular stones ofvaried size. Interior: The tomb accommodated the remains of two contracted burials (lying on their right sides) accompanied by two vases with MHIII decoration (most probably matt-painted). Comment: The tomb is emphatically compared to the tomb of Ay.Ioannis Papoulion. This suggests an apsidal or horse-shoe form. It is apparently contemporary to the BCTs XI and IV (MHIII).

Tumulus 3 had a built peribolos. The BCT Vll (described as the largest 'built cist' of the cemetery) was the only built grave of the mound occupying its centre9 • Scanty remains of a pithos burial 10 were found on the periphery of the tumulus together with a sherd of ' adriatic' warett. Tumulus 1 (5.40m. in diameter) was surrounded by a low peribolos wall and contained two graves, vm and IX, which are described as circular and well-like respectively 12• The former contained two and the latter one contracted burials, all of them unfurnished. The skeleton of a child was found at the N part of the peribolos. Two UlliB pots were found lying adjacent to the peribolos 13• Only the superficial levels of tumulus 4 have been investigated and no graves have been found yet14 • Tumulus 5 is, in fact, the earthen mound of a tholos tomb 15• The tholos is 5.60m. in diameter and has been preserved up to a height of 2.40m. It contained the remains of at least ten burials, a few bronze items, sealstones, sard beads, obsidian arrowheads and blades and several boar tusks, possibly belonging to a helmet. According to the excavator, the abundant pottery (c. 70 vases) dates to Ull-mA2.

The fonn of the BCTs of Kato Samikon is not well established. According to the reports, all of them have apsidal or horse-shoe shape but tomb N in tumulus 2 may have had the entrance in one long side. The suggestion of the excavator that the constructions found in front of the long sides of tombs N and XI in tumulus 2 were ' altars' certainly needs to be substantiated with associated finds.

8

Papakonstantinou 1981, 149; 1982, 133. Papakonstantinou 1981, 148-9. 10 The pierced base of the pithos and the jaw of an adult. 11 The excavator believes that the tumulus had originally been used for pithos burials and that the BCT was a later addition, exactly as in Ay.loannis Papoulion, Papakonstantinou 1981, 148-9. 12 Papakonstantinou 1981, 148; 1982, 133. 13 The excavator interprets those vases as evidence of later cult activity, Papakonstantinou 1982, 133. 14 Papakonstantinou 1981, 149; 1982, 133. 15 Papakonstantinou 1981, 149; 1982, 133-4; 1983, 109-10. 9

44

5. Elis - Achaea The well-known tumulus of Samikon 16 undoubtedly belongs to the same cemetery. It is very similar to the 17 and recently excavated tumuli both in size construction 18• The tombs it contained, however, were much humbler, that is, simple pit-graves 19 • The tumulus was constructed at the closing stages of the MH or in the transitional MH/Llll period and remained in use until the end of LIDIIB. Consequently, it was used simultaneously with the tholos tomb oftumulus 5.

their modest contents, they were the first tombs to exhibit multiple burial in the site (together with the built cist X in tumulus 2). This suggests that they were tombs of some importance for the MHill community of Kato Samikon. Undoubtedly, the erection of the large and rich tholos tomb in LID outshone the BCTs and the tumulus cemetery as a whole. Its early date (together with the early appearance of Mycenaean pottery on the site) indicates that Kato Samikon was integrated into the Mycenaean cultural sphere from the very beginning of the LBA. This comes as no surprise given that the site lay on the fringe of Messenia, one of the leading regions in the development of Mycenaean culture. There is no evidence that BCTs continued to have any importance in the Mycenaean period, although some of them (especially tomb XI) may have remained in use until Llffi. It is interesting, however, that tumuli remained in use until the very end of the Mycenaean 22 period, albeit on a much restricted scale • This may reflect the persistence of local traditions against the new ('Mycenaean' ) customs, a persistence that may also account for the reluctance of the people of Kato 23 Samikon to adopt chamber-tombs •

Senlement evidence The prehistoric settlement of Samikon must have lain on the hill of Kleidi, where walls of cyclopean construction (fortifications?) and sherds of all prehistoric periods (but mainly MH-LH) have been discovered20 • On a visit to the site, Papakonstantinou found more traces of the possible fortification wall but no other structural remains. She, also, discovered a stretch ( c.60m.) of what appears to be another late MHearly LH cyclopean wall descending from the hill of Kleidi and passing c.70m. N of the tumulus cemetery. The Samikon tumulus lies to theN and, thus, ' out' of the fortification. A second stretch of wall discovered 70m. E of the Samikon tumulus may reflect an attempt to include that burial mound within a sort of peribolos. Close to that wall, were found sherds 'identical to those of the tumulus', (that is late MH and Mycenaean). Papakonstantinou has, also, identified another possible habitation site to the NE of the cemetery where from a black Minyan 'cup' of high quality was recovered21 •

The case of Kato Samikon suggests that El is formed a homogeneous cultural unit with Messenia. Not only the apsidal form of Elian BCTs, but also the generalised use of tumuli in the MH period, the appearance of BCTs within such mounds and the early introduction of tholoi in LID (which may have caused the gradual decline of. BCTs) are features in common with Messenia, which suggest that similar processes took place in both areas at the end of the MBA (although Messenia was probably the dominant region that influenced the provincial Elis).

5.1.3. Discussion Kleidi is another site of continuous MH-LH occupation where BCTs were in use in late MH and (possibly) early LH times. They were apparently associated with the MH tumuli and predated the tholos tomb. Despite

B. ACHAEA

16

Most of our knowledge about prehistoric Achaea derives from chamber-tomb cemeteries. Most of them, however, date exclusively to LIDII. Earlier finds are both rare and inadequately published. In fact, the early LH and the MH periods are represented only in few sites (FIGs. 22a, b24). On present evidence, most of them were concentrated in the Pharai region, a fertile plain in the centre of Achaea, which is watered by the Peiros river (FIG. 22c). Prehistoric sites are scattered

Yialouris 1965. The diameter of the 'Samikon tumulus' was 5.50m.. Tumulus I (the only one of the recently excavated tumuli for which dimensions are provided) had a diameter of 5.40m. 18 That is, with a low peribolos built of medium and large sized stones and a cover of pure sand. 19 Of course, the Samikon tumulus had been heavily disturbed and this may have radically changed its original appearance. The remark of the excavator that many of the stones that were found in association with the tumulus may have come from tombs (Yialouris 1965, 7), implies that some kind of built cists have originally existed there. Korres and Boyd, however, believe that the ' Samikon mound' was, in fact, a tholos-tomb, Korres 1976a, 363; Boyd 1999, 683-4. Their suggestion has not been widely accepted, though, see MOIIer 1989, 37; Death, 38 (in both cases the Samikon mound is listed with tumuli). 20 McDonald & Hope-Simpson 1961, 230. Koumouzelis has dated some of the sherd material to MI-III, although most pottery belongs to MHIII and subsequent periods, Koumouzelis 1979, 200-1 , 204-5, 207-8. 21 Papakonstantinou 1982, 134. 17

22

The ' Samikon tumulus' remained in use until LHIIffi. The two LHlffi pots from tomb XI suggest that tumulus I was still in use in that period. 23 Which, however, were never particularly common in Messenia, especially the NE part of it (which lies closer to Elis), although they were in the Alpheios region, Death, 66 and figs. 5.3 and 6.3. 24 To the depicted sites we should add Aigion, which has produced evidence of occupation already from LHIIA, if not from LHI onwards, RMDP, 399-400.

45

5. Elis - Achaea inward inclination which reduces the width of the chamber from bottom to top. The same inward inclination can be observed in the antae, a feature which gives the entrance a trapezoidal outline. The tomb was covered with flat slabs. Nothing is mentioned about the floor ofthe tomb or the possible existence of a dromos. Dimensions: Chamber: L: 2.25m.; W(bottom) : 0. 70m., (top) : 0.63m.; H: 0.87-0.90m. Construction: The continuous wall of the tomb (FIG. 23b) is described as 'built of stones'. In fact, these must have been more or less flat slabs, for such slabs are reported to have been found into the chamber. Zapheiropoulos gives no more details about the construction technique employed The two antae were apparently detached from the chamber's wall. The drawings suggest that they were monolithic blocks, carefully cut in trapezoidal shape so that they could reproduce the same inclining effect of the chamber 's walls (FIG. 23b). The covering slabs are said to have been oflimestone. Interior: Only a few bones were found in the tomb, in total disorder. They apparently came from more than one burial19. Alongside them, a single clay conulus was recovered It was not possible to locate this find in the Ephorate ofPatra. Comment: The tomb is definitely an apsidal BCT similar to those found in Messenia (Papoulia, Routsi, Akones) and Elis (Kato Samikon/0. All those tombs date to late MH or early LH and it is very probable that the Pharai BCT is of the same date, as well. The tomb has, in the past, been confused with some Geometric cist-graves (possibly provided with a simple lateral entrance) found in the area (see below/1 but both its shape and its inclusion within a MH tumulus (see below) leaves no doubt about its date.

all along the plain, on either side of the river. The plain constitutes the main Mainland route from Patra to Kalavryta and communication between Achaea and the Argolid may have been initially provided through that route25 • It is exactly in that area that two BCTs have been found in the sites of Katarraktis and Chalandritsa. More BCTs have been recently discovered in the site of Portes, at the Elis-Achaea borders.

5.2. Pharai-Katarraktis (B 52) 5.2.1. The BCT Many tumuli have been located at the valley of Pharai, on the E bank of the Peiros river. Zapheiropoulos excavated one of them in the 1950's (FIG. 23a) and discovered 2 cist-graves, 2 pithoi and a BCT. The tumulus has not been published apart from a brief report in llAff6• The Greek Archaeological Service kindly provided me with the notebook (three pages) of the excavation and Mrs. Zapheiropoulou kindly allowed me to go through the personal archives of the late Ephor for further details. I managed to spot one more notebook with some sketch-drawings of the tumulus. Consequently, the 6th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities (Patra) granted me permission to enter their storerooms in search for relevant finds. I only managed to find what appears to be one of the burial pithoi - although the labels were entirely worn out - but nothing more than that. Let me present in some detail the information about that tumulus.

The BCT of Katarraktis - Pharai has an apsidal form and is included within a MH tumulus (see below). Although no pottery has been found in it, its context and its similarity to the late MH-early LH apsidal tombs of Messenia and El is suggest an early (late MH or early LH) construction date.

(18) Kqtam1kt/s- Pharai- the BCT (FIG. 23b) Bibliography: Zapheiropoulos 1957, 117. Situation: The apsidal BCT was found in trench E of Zapheiropoulos excavations (FIG. 23a). According to the notebooks, it lay on the SE part of the tumu/us17• The entrance, which apparently faced the outer part of the mound, was at the S short sidi8. Orientation: N-S; entrance facing S. Architecture: The tomb has an apsidal ground plan with an entrance in the middle of the S short side The entrance is flanked on either side by large stone blocks which function as antae (FIG. 23b). It was found blocked with a large upright slab. The walls of the tomb present an

The rest of the tumulus

Apart from the BCT, two pithoi and two cist-graves have been found in the tumulus of Pharai32 . The cistgraves were discovered in trenches A and /l. of Zapheiropoulos excavations (FIG. 23a), radially placed close to the periphery of the tumulus. The grave of trench A was built of rough stones of varied size and had the following dimensions: L(pres.): 1.95m; W:

25

Papadopoulos 1979, 174. Zapheiropoulos 1957, 117. 27 See, also, Zapheiropoulos 1957, 117. 28 We can, thus, conjecture that the tomb had a roughly N-S (or NW-SE) orientation. Since trench E was dug on the SE part of the tumulus, we can judge from the sketch plan (FIG. 23a) that the other four trenches coincided roughly with the four cardinal points, trench A facing N, trench B facing E, trench r facing W and trench ~ facing W. Consequently, the two cists (found in trenches A and ~)must have had a N-S orientation, the pithos in trench B a NW-SE orientation and the pithos in trench r a N-S one. 26

29

Zapheiropoulos 1957, 117. Zapheiropoulos 1957, 117. 31 Papadopoulos 1979, 30; most probably Papadopoulos has been misled by Desborough's and Snodgrass's reference to these Geometric cist-graves (although none of them has referred to the Pharai BCT as a possible Geometric tomb), Snodgrass 1971, 171 ; Desborough 1964, 97, 101. Recently Moschos listed the Katarraktis tumulus with Geometric graves, too, Moschos 2000, 20 n.135. 32 Zapheiropoulos 1957, 117. The details about the cist-graves and the pithoi are derived from Zapheiropoulos' notebooks. 30

46

5. Elis - Achaea

5.2.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence

0.80m; H: 0.70m. The grave of trench ll was made of upright slabs and had the following dimensions: L(pres.): 1.70m; W: LOOm; H: 0.50m. A clay conulus was found in the latter grave. Otherwise, there is no mention of skeletal material from either grave.

Other tombs Apart from the aforementioned tombs, several other graves have been investigated or simply located in the 6 area of Pharae • Two MH tumuli have been excavated at the locality Mirali, near the 26th km. mark of the 37 Patra-Kalavryta road • Each contained a central built grave, now completely destroyed, with a single burial. Only late MH pottery (grey Minyan and other MH wares) accompanied the skeletons. Two Mycenaean tholoi have been found at the locality Bouga, to the S of Katarraktis and very close to the settlement site of 38 Ay.Athanasios (see below) . Both had been robbed but tholos B preserved several bronze and silver items, 39 among which, a fme dagger with inlaid decoration • 40 The pottery recovered from tholos B dates to UDIIB but an LHIIIA construction date would fit better with the non-ceramic finds41 • The excavator believes that, in respect of its construction, tholos A must have been 43 earlier than tholos B42 , a view shared by Pelon and 44 Papadopoulos • Papadopoulos, though, believes that tholos A may have been built in LHII. A chamber tomb cemetery has been located but not excavated at the locality Karela, to the W of Katarraktis and just below 45 the 28th km. mark • Papadopoulos has tentatively dated 46 the tombs to LHIIIB-C • Finally, a number of postMycenaean (Geometric and Classical) cist-graves have been excavated at exactly the same area as the tumulus ofPharai (close to the 28th km. markt'. All of them had three walls built of flat stones and one short side 48 dressed with an upright slab • It is because of those tombs that Katarraktis is often listed with Geometric sites (see above).

The horizontally placed burial pithoi were found in trenches B and r but closer to the centre of the tumulus. Only the lower part of the pithos in trench B was found, measuring 0.90m in height and 1.15m in diameter; no bones or finds are reported. The pithos in trench r was found, also, broken (reported dimensions 1.35xl.OOm). I believe I have managed to locate it in the storerooms of the 6th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical 33 Antiquities at Patra . It is a huge (c.l.SOm in height) MH pithos with plastic decoration in the neck34• Together with it, there were stored a sherd with MattPainted decoration and three plain fme ware sherds (LH?). No bones or finds are reported from it. Judging from Zapheiropoulos' notes and drawings, the diameter of the tumulus can be roughly estimated at c.l2-14m. No peribolos is reported. The mound had an original height of c. l .30m. The upper 65-70cm of the central part were occupied by a layer of ashes and burnt earth extending towards the periphery but apparently 35 not covering the whole of the surface of the tumulus •

33

The label of the plastic bag that contained the sherds had worn out but the name 'Katarraktis' and the chronology '195[?]' were still visible on it. Moreover, the dimensions of the pithos fit roughly with the dimensions recorded in Zapheiropoulos' notebook. However, the identification is by no means safe and the pithos may come from elsewhere (e.g. one of the settlement sites of Drakotrypa, Ay. Athanasios or Pyrgaki, see below). 34 Approximately I 00 sherds of the coarse handmade pithos were found. C.20 of them were large (15-20xl5-20cm.), c.40 of medium size (8-15x8-15cm.) and the rest were very small. The clay was dark yellow to grey and had many inclusions (black, purple and white in colour) of large size. The interior of the pithos was very rough. The exterior surface was smoother. Two of the large fragments belonged to the upper part of the pithos and, when joined, formed almost 113 of the neck and the rim (FIG. 23c). The neck was concave with simple splaying rim. The diameter of the rim is estimated at c.30cm. The thickness of the neck walls was 1.5-2.00cm. Another five fragments came from the shoulder of the pithos (FIG. 23d). Not all of them joined. They bore a horizontal plastic (semicylindrical) band decorated with two parallel rows of incised dots. The rows were wavy rather than straight, probably due to careless execution. The thickness of those fragments is c. l .S-1 .7cm. (the part with the plastic band is c.2cm thick). The diameter in that part of the vase is estimated at c.55-60cm. No parts of the base or any handles were found. The dimensions of the preserved fragments suggest that the pithos must have been at least l .Sm. high. 35 Zapheiropoulos 1957, 117.

Senlement evidence Three habitation sites have been located and partially investigated in the area of Katarraktis. The first was spotted on the hill of Ay.Athanasios, c.Skm. to the SW 36

The location of all sites mentioned in that section is indicated in FIG. 22c. 37 Zapheiropoulos 1952, 398-400; Astrom 1964, 106-7 (where he specifies that the site lies l.Skm. to the SW ofMirali, on theN side of the modem road). 38 Zapheiropoulos, 1956, 193; Papadopoulos 1979, 31. 39 Zapheiropoulos 1956, pi. 88a. 40 Zapheiropoulos 1956, 195: ITCF, 223. 41 GAC, 90; Astrom 1965, 103; Papadopoulos 1979, 31 #34. 42 Zapheiropoulos 1957, I 14. 43 1TCF, 223. 44 Papadopoulos 1979, 59. 45 Astrom 1965, 103. 46 Papadopoulos 1979, 31 #35, 57. 47 Zapheiropoulos 1952, 400-8; 1957, 116-7. 48 One of them seems to have been covered with an individual mound made of stones surrounded by a retaining wall, Zapheiropoulos 1956, 197-8.

47

5. Elis - Achaea Ay.Athanasios and Drakotrypa57, it seems that Pyrgaki was the main MH settlement in the area. The rarity of Mycenaean material in Pyrgaki suggests that another site, in all probability Drako~a, overtook in importance, in the Mycenaean period 8•

of Katarraktis (FIG. 22c). A building with two phases of construction was excavated. It is usually described as being of the megaron type49 but it seems that its plan is more complex (FIG. 24b). It, also, seems that the rooms of the second phase have different layout than those of the first phase. The first phase dates to the 'MH' and the second to the 'LH' period. However, MH material in much more abundant than LH, possibly because the latter has been more worn out50 • Unfortunately, very little of the pottery has been published, including urn and m sherds51 • The second site is Drakotrypa, on a hill close to Katarraktis, overlooking (from theN) the Patra-Kalavryta road (FIG. 22c). A much larger architectural complex, with many rooms and storage areas has been discovered here52 (FIG. 24a). It has seen two phases of construction, the earlier going back to the MH period, the later lasting until the end of LIDD (IIIB2-C). The discovery of some probable hearths, possible storage rooms and a room of possible religious character supest a public building or a house of some importance5 • Occupation, here, may have started as early as in the EH period54 • The third settlement site is located on the hill of Pyrgaki, l .Skm. to NW of Drakotrypa (FIG. 22c). The hill has yielded traces of an extended MH settlement. Only trial trenches were opened here, which gave ample MH pottery and a few late Mycenaean (mainly me but also illA and B) sherds. Walls of houses were found all over the hill but no plan has been published. According to the excavator, the site may have fostered the most important MH settlement of the area55•

We have to be very cautious, however, when we speak about the 'Mycenaean period' in NW Peloponnese. As we have seen, Early Mycenaean pottery is very rare in Achaea and is mainly concentrated in the Pharai region and a few coastal sites59 • It is well attested that MHstyle pottery was made and extensively used until the beginning of the late Mycenaean period60 and that Mycenaean pottery was not generally adopted in Achaea until LllliB/IllA61 • This can be also observed in the settlement sites of Katarraktis. In Pyrgaki, the little Mycenaean pottery recovered includes exclusively LIDD material. In Drakotrypa, levels with LHm pottery directly overlie strata with MH wares62• It is only in Ay.Athanasios that Mycenaean material as early as LHII has been found. On the other hand, Mycenaean tomb-types are not introduced in Achaea until the end of the early LBA. The tholos at Kallithea is of LHII date63 and Papadopoulos suggests an LHII date for tholos A in Katarraktis (although nothing was found in it)64 • It is possible that some Achaean chamber-tombs date to LHIIB65 , but the vast ma~ority were built in the LHIII (mainly TIIB and C) period .

In the area of Katarraktis, the earliest indications of Mycenaean cultural traits date to LHII (the pottery from Ay.Athanasios and, possibly, tholos A). It is very probable, then, that the aforementioned shift in the settlement pattern (the decline of Pyrgaki and the expansion of Drakotrypa) did not take place until the end of the Early Mycenaean period. The tumuli of Katarraktis are apparently of an earlier date, although it is not necessary that the 'MH' pottery indicates a MH construction date; it is equally possible that the

5.2.3. Discussion It is not easy to associate specific tombs with each settlement site. It is obvious, however, that the area of Katarraktis - as, in fact, the whole of the plain of Pharai - was a very lively region already from the MH period56 • Despite the complex form of the buildings in

s7 Drakotrypa must have been a settlement of considerable size in the LH period, covering the whole of the corresponding hill, Zapheiropoulos 1958, 170. MH remains, though, are much more restricted, Zapheiropoulos 1958, 169. ss According to Kolonas, the site of Drakotrypa was of strategic importance for the control of communication between western Achaea and Corinthia/Arcadia, Kolonas 1996-1997, 483. s9 Papadopoulos 1979, 174; RMDP, 402-3 . 60 Zapbeiropoulos 1957, 117; 1958, 174-6. 61 Papadopoulos 1979, 132-5; Kolonas 1996-1997, 488-9. Although such sites as Aigion and Teichos Dymaion had sufficient amounts of Mycenaean pottery already from LHIIA, RMDP, 403. 62 Zapheiropoulos 1958, 169; GAC, 89. 63 Papadopoulos 1991, 36. 64 Although tholoi are generally rare in Achaea, see Papadopoulos 1979,57-9. 6 s Papadopoulos 1991, 35; Death, 66. 66 Papadopoulos 1979, 60-1 .

49

GAC, 90; Papadopoulos 1979, 30-1, #34. so Zapheiropoulos 1958, 170-2; Papadopoulos 1979,44-5. sJ Zapheiropoulos 1956, 195 and pl.89a; no.2 is apparently an LHIII kylix and no.3 the base of an LHII Vapheio cup; the rest of the sherds are not easily identifiable. s2 Zapheiropoulos 1957, 115-6; 1958, 167-70. sJ Papadopoulos 1979, 45-46, believes that the building was a dwelling house. s4 Papadopoulos 1979, 30 #33 . ss Zapheiropoluos 1958, 172-6; Papadopoulos 1979, 31, #37. Traces of a possible fourth settlement site have been reported by Yialouris from the hill of Bouga but no excavation has been conducted, Papadopoulos 1979, 31 #35. s6 In fact, MH and Early Mycenaean occupation in Achaea is restricted to the Pharai plain and a couple of other isolated sites, Papadopoulos 1979, 174.

48

5. Elis - Achaea published plan (FIG. 24d) shows the remains ofwhat may 9 have originally been a roughly rectangular or D-shapecf tomb with entrance placed off the main longitudinal axis, at one end of a short side, and a stone-lined dromos. The right wall of the dressed dromos is, in fact, the extension of the right wall of the chamber. The entrance seems to have been blocked by a blocking wall ofsmall stones. The plan suggests that a small corridor-like stomion (of the same width as the dressed dromos) was formed just in front ofthe entrance. The dromos was dressed with stones and its earthen floor apparently inclined from its outer end to the entrance. Stretches of two small parallel partition walls were found on the floor of the burial chamber, but their function is not entirely clear. The tomb is called a 'tholos ·but its rectangular (or D-shaped) plan and the off-the-axis placement of the entrance would not allow for a vaulted roof The published photo shows a thin flat slab covering the inner part of the dromos (FIG. 24c) and it is very probable that similar slabs covered the burial chamber, too. The tomb was apparently built underground. Kyparissis statement that all three tombs 70 had small tumulus protrusions above them is a strong indication about the existence of an individual mound over the tomb. Dimensions: ? Construction: According to the excavator, all the tombs were built of flat slabs. We have no more information about them. Interior: On the floor of the chamber Kyparissis found a bronze spearhead, two bronze long pins, two bronze rings and a bronze biconical pierced bead or button. They were found together with Geometric vases and an animal figurine which, however, is apparently Mycenaean in date71• Kyparissis mentions that he found broken Mycenaean vases in the house of a tomb-robber who had plundered one ofthose tomb/2, but has not published any of them. No skeletons are mentioned nor any bones are marked in the plan. Comment: The tomb is definitely a BCT. Its plan and the off-the-axis position of the entrance is characteristic of BCT architectur/3 and could not allow for a vaulted roof Since the three tombs were closely situated, we can plausibly assume that all of them were of the same, more or less, type. The tombs are almost certainly Mycenaean as indicated both by the animal figurine and by the reported vases. A closer dating is impossible. The figurine

stylistically 'MH' vases (or sherds) found in those tumuli were made in the Early Mycenaean period. Consequently, the BCT may have been constructed either in the late MH or in the early LH period. Despite the total lack of finds, the Pharai BCT was a much larger and better-constructed tomb than any of the contemporary cist-graves (and pithoi) and the first tomb in the area that was designed to receive multiple burial. This suggests that it was the property of an important family that introduced innovative burial habits in the area, habits that clearly anticipate the Mycenaean customs. Its association with a tumulus, however, strongly suggests that it belonged to a clearly pre-Mycenaean cultural tradition. Moreover, the apsidal form of the tomb and its inclusion within a pre-existing tumulus suggest close links with Messenia and Elis67 • As has been long suggested by pottery evidence, western Achaea and the region of Pharai belonged to the same cultural sphere as the rest of the regions of western Peloponnese68• Finally, we should stress that the excavated tumulus is only one of many that, according to Zapheiropoulos, are to be found in the plain of Pharai. It seems necessary that more of those mounds are investigated in order to obtain more information both about the significance of BCTs for that area and about the preMycenaean burial habits of the people who lived there. 5.3. Cbalandritsa (B 50) 5.3.1. The BCT

A few km. to the W of Katarraktis, S of the road to Patra and just before the village of Chalandritsa (FIG. 22c ), there is a row of small hillocks called Troubes. Here, Kyparissis found three small built tombs with low entrances which he called 'tholos tombs'. The investigation of one of them proved that it was a rectangular BCT. Unfortunately, the excavation report is very brief and incomplete.

69

The left wall of the chamber is very poorly preserved. The surviving stretch suggests that it may have run parallel to the right wall but it is equally possible that it was curving as one of the walls in tomb Ay.Antonios I in Thessaly, see section 9.3.1 and FIG. 56a Since, however, such tombs are not known from the Peloponnese, I favour the option of a more traditional rectangular plan. 70 It is very probable that this is the reason why Kyparissis had the impression that these tombs were tholoi. Kyparissis stresses that the name Troubes is a distorted version of the Greek word for tumulus, that is, ropprx;, Kyparissis 1929, 91. 71 Astrom 1965, 101, says it may be early Mycenaean; French 1971, 186, has classified it with her ' wavy 1' type which dates to LHIIIA1-2. 72 Kyparissis 1929, 89, probably not the one excavated by him. 73 See section 11.4.

(19) Chalandritsa- Troubes (FIGs. 24c, d) Bibliography: Kyparissis 1929, 88-90; 1930, 83-5. Situation: In the middle ofthe three hillocks ofTroubes Orientation: ? Architecture: The tomb had almost completely collapsed when excavated and only parts of its walls survived. The 67

Where apsidal BCTs within tumuli were common in late MH and LHIIIIA, see Papoulia, Routsi, Akones (Chapter 4), Kato Samikon (section 5. l.l). 68 Papadopoulos 1979, 131-2 (where he speaks about a western Peloponnesian 'koine' in LHIII), 175; 1991, 31; 1995.

49

5. E/is - Achaea dates to LHIIIA. The robbed vases have been neither published nor dated precisely. The Geometric vases and finds may come from a later visit to the tomb. It is, also, very probable that the small partition walls date from that period, as well, for the plan indicates that they have been found c.20-30cm. higher than the actual floor of the chamber (FIG. 24d).

Settlement evidence The remains of a relatively large settlement have been discovered at the locality Stavros, on a small hill, close to the modern village of Chalandritsa82• The houses are arranged in successive concentric circles, built on . I terraces83. Most of the houses had only one or artt'fitcta two rooms. The largest of them, however, situated at the SE sector of the settlement, may have had two storeys, the lower ones being used for storage and heating. In some cases, two building phases could be identified. Finds are collectively unimpressive, including coarse cooking-pots, storage vessels, kylikes, conuli, some stone tools and fragments of bronze knifes. The settlement dates to UlliiB-C and the Submycenaean period.

The tomb ofChalandritsa- Troubes is a rectangular (or D-shaped) BCT with off-the-axis placed entrance and dromos. According to the available evidence, it dates to LHIIIA. The tomb is very similar to Thessalian BCTs74 but this is rather fortuitous for the two areas lie quite far apart to have allowed for such contacts (in any case, no relations between the two areas can be traced in pottery75 ). It is possible that the rest of the tombs at Troubes (not excavated) were also BCTs.

Apparently, the pre-LHillB settlement site is located elsewhere. Hope-Simpson believes that another habitation site exists at the locality Ay.Antonios, a little to the N of the modern village of Chalandritsa84 but no excavation has been undertaken to confirm that suggestion.

5.3.2. Other tombs in the area and settlement evidence Other tombs Several tombs have been found in the vicinity of Chalandritsa. A completely destroyed built grave has been found at another hill called Troubes, c.2 km. before the village of Chalandritsa76 • It contained only 77 obsid~an blade • Some cist graves, possibly mcluded m a tumulus, have been discovered at the locality Agriapidies, just after Chalandritsa, on the left (N) side of the Patra-Kalavryta road. According to the excavator's description, they had a 'conical' shape with diminishing width from bottom to top (which implies the em~loyment of the corbelling technique used in the BCTs) 8 • In one of those tombs, there were bones, clay whorls and four crude MH or early LH handmade vases79 •

5.3.3. Discussion

:m

The LHIIIB-C settlement at Stavros was, in all probability, directly associated with the contemporary chamber-tomb cemetery of Ay. Vasileios85 • Their date suggests the establishment of a new Mycenaean settlement here at the beginning of UlliiB. The UlliiA BCT(s) of Troubes and the poor cist-graves of the late MH or early LH 'tumulus' in Agriapidies86 were apparently related to another settlement site which is still eluding us. The BCT of Troubes' however, is the first tomb in the area to exhibit multipl~ burial and to contain such offerings as bronze weapons and bronze jewellery. It is, thus, possible that this BCT and the other tombs in Troubes were significant graves be~onging to wealthy families of the site, at a period pnor to the establishment of the chamber-tomb cemetery of Ay.Vasileios (and the new settlement at Stavros) in LHIIIB87• It is probable that the rectanrllar form of the tomb has derived from the Argolid8 an area with which Achaea had attested contacts in ~hat

The most important cemetery of the site, however, lay at the locality Ay.Vasileios, 5 minutes walk to theN of Troubes (FIG. 22c). Here, a series of small hills accommodated a number of chamber-tombs80 none of which is earlier than LHIIIB (and most date to 'mq81 •

74

See sections 9.2.1 and 9.3.1. Pap~opoulos 1979? 70 n.44 (where he refers to a single Thessahan vase - IIIC m date - which bears some resemblance to Achaean examples). 76 77 For the location of the mentioned sites, see FIG• 22c • Kyparissis 1930, 85; Papadopoulos 1979, 29, #24. 78 Kyparissis 1930, 85. 79 Kyparissis 1930, 87 fig.lO; strangely enough Desborough has dated these v~ to the ~A. Desborough 1964, 92; Papadopoulos, however, has rejected th1s unacceptable dating and dated the vases to LHl-11, Papadopoulos 1979, 59. 80 Astrom 1965, 100-1; GAC• 89 • 81 Papadopoulos 1979, 29, #23, 57; Touchais 1996b, 1172. Another po~ible ch~ber tomb cemetery has been located at the locality Pon, c.l5 mmutes from Chalandritsa, at the foot of a hill called 75

Korakofolia, but has not been excavated, Kyparissis 1930, 87; AstrOm 1965, 101 ; Papadopoulos 1979,29, #26. 82 Kolonas 1985; Kolonas & Gazis 1995. 83 Kolonas 1985, 137 fig. 23. 84 Hope-Simpson 1965, 85; Papadopoulos 1979, 29, #22. 85 Kolonas 1996-1997, 483. 86 The destroyed grave on the other hill called Troubes cannot be dated. 87 We do not know if the BCT continued to be in use in the LHllffi ~od. See section 2.1.1.

50

5. Elis - Achaea

period (LllliiA)89, or from nearby Portes where such tombs were in use already from the beginning of the

Architectllre: Rectangular built grave with entrance in one short side. It is not clear if the entrance occupied the whole of the short side or only its central part (although the excavator speaks about a 'stomion '). The long sides of the tomb presented a slight inward inclination. The tomb was roofed with three large flat slabs found in situ. No traces of dromoi are mentioned in the reports. The published photo shows several slabs around the tomb95; they may have belonged to the peribolos of a small individual earthen mound, although nothing relevant in mentioned in the reports. Dimensions: ? Construction: The walls of the tomb were entirely built of small flat slabs in consecutive layers. The roof was made of three huge slab/6. The suggested peribolos on top of the walls was made ofexactly the same flat slabs. Interior: The tomb had been plundered, but a bronze ring was recovered from its fill. A seated female figurine of LHIIIA I date is said to have come from this tomb, but its 97 provenance zs uncertam . Comment: Tomb AI is apparently a rectangular BCT with the entrance in one short side (although it is not clear if a proper stomion existed). No pottery was found in the tomb. The discovery ofLHI-IIA sherds from the fill of the tumulus, however, has made the excavators to suggest an MHIIIILHf8 or rather LHf9 date for this and the other BCTs of tumulus A.

LBA (see below). Alternatively, it may have been an independent local creation. 5.4. Portes - Kephalovryso Three tumuli (A, B and C) have been recently excavated at the locality Kephalovryso in the site of Portes, on the S foot of Mt Skollis, to the N of Peneios and very close to the Elis- Achaea borders (FIG. 1). They are situated on the summit terrace of a low hill, c.1.5km E/SE of Portes90 • Tumuli A and B contained three BCTs each (Al-3, Cl-3). The tombs are only known through preliminary reports. 5.4.1. The BCTs

0

Tumulus A

Tumulus A was situated on the central part of the hill. According to the excavator, 'it was formed by the accumulation of brown - dark brown earth ... mixed with fine gravel and held in place by a stone ring (peribolos) that was partly uncovered in the east. This ring was made of medium sized stones ... and is preserved in places up to a height of three rows' 91 • Unfortunately, no dimensions are given. The mound contained three BCTs (AI-3) and two cist-graves (A4, AS). The fill of the tumulus produced LID and IIA sherds.

0

(21) Pones AT110 Bibliography: Kolonas & Moschos 1994; Kolonas 19961997, 473-4; Moschos 2000, 12-4. Situation: On theN part oftumulus A, next to tomb A3 and a few metres away from tombAI 101• Orientation: ? (Judging from the published photo102, tomb AI must have had anE- W orientation with the entrance facing W). Architectllre: Rectangular built grave with entrance in one short side. Accordinf to the excavator, the entrance was flanked by 'pilars '10 and blocked by a dry-stone wall104• The published photo shows indeed two small built antae projecting from the long walls and flanking the entrance, which is closed with a blocking-wall made ofthe same flat slabs used for the construction of the walls'05. The tomb was apparently roofed with flat slabs, although none was found in place. No traces of a dromos are mentioned in the reports. A row offlat slabs seen in the published photo

(20) Pones A/92 Bibliography: Kolonas & Moschos 1994; Kolonas 19961997, 473-4; Moschos 2000, 12-493. Situation: On the N part of tumulus A. Found architecturally intact (but plundered). OrlentaJion: ? (Judging from the published photo94, the tomb must have had a roughly SE-NW orientation). 89

Papadopoulos 1979, 131-2 (especially for the NE part of Achaea). Moschos 2000, 11 . 91 Moschos 2000, 12-3 and fig.4. 92 The reader may be confused with the numbering of the tombs. In the earlier report, tomb A2 was described as the only intact tomb of tumulus A, Kolonas & Moschos 1994, 230. In a more recent article, it is tomb A I, which is described as intact, while tombs A2 and A3 ' were partly destroyed', Moschos 2000, 13. Apparently, Moschos has renumbered the tombs, so that the best-preserved one is the first in the series (AI). Consequently, tomb AI in Kolonas & Moschos 1994 is tomb A2 in Moschos 2000 and vice versa. Here, I am following the more recent numbering (Moschos 2000). The reader has, thus, to be careful, for, according to the above, the tomb depicted in Kolonas & Moschos 1994, pl.72a is most probably A2 and not AI (as stated in the relevant caption). 93 The tombs have been, also, presented by Moschos in the First Archaeological Conference (A' APXatoA.oyuai l:uvOoc;) in Patra in 1996 ("ME -raqxn 0.90m. Construction: According to the excavator, the walls are made of large upright schist slabs with smaller stones filling the interstices. The published photo168, though. shows that at least the rear- NE- side is made of medium sized, relatively flat, stone boulders and smaller slabs set in rough courses. On the other hand, huge blocks have been employed in the lower part of the SE long side and medium sized stones in the upper one. It is interesting to note that special care has been taken to reinforce the stability of the structure through the employment of 163

Charitonidis 1961/62, 266; Tsaravopoulos et al. 1983; Zapheiriou et al. 1984; Achilara 1985; 1986; Papadopoulou et. al. 1986. 164 Achilara 1986, 10, reports that, by the summer of I 985, most of the graves had been covered by sand and sea pebbles that made any investigation practically impossible. 165 The tomb was renumbered as XIII in a later publication, Papadopoulou et al. 5 n.2. 166 'aro Tlll'llla n]c; ll£'YUATJc; &1rixCOOTJc;', Achilara I 986, 10. 167 Achilara 1986, 11. For an illustration of this tomb, see Achilara 1986 I 0, top left. 168 Achilara 1986 10, top left.

10. The Aegean islands corner of the tomb (FIGs. 66b, e) may suggest the presence ofa small individual covering mound. Dimensions: Chamber: L: 2.90m.; W: 1.12m.; H: 1.23m. Constnlction: The walls of the tomb were built of successive layers offlat slabs and rounded stones (FIGs. 66e, f). Quartz stones and tile-lilce ceramic fragments were used to level the top of the walls for the reception of the covering slabs. The SW anta was, also, made ofquartz stones. The floor ofthe tomb was laid with sea-pebbles. Interior: Tomb X contained a minimum of6 slceletons. Only two ofthem belonged to primary burials. They were found close to the W wall of the tomb. Both were extended but the excavators have raised the possibility that one ofthem lay prone(?). Although no safe association with finds was possible, it was clear that those two burials cannot date to the same period for they lay in different layers. The remains of at least another four (earlier) burials were found in the grave but their exact findspot is not recorded. Apart from bones, the tomb yielded a bronze axe (?) broken in three pieces, many beads made offaience, glass and other materials, obsidian andflintflakes, 22 clay and one stone conuli, numerous sea-shells and at least 17 pots. Only four of them have been illustrated, a straightsided alabastron, a fruit-stand, a two-handled deep bowl and a plain stirrup jar174• Several ky/ikes and stirrup jars are, also, reportecf 7s. The excavators dates vaguely the tomb to the LHIII period. Comment: Tomb X is another rectangular BCT with an interesting arrangement in the entrance. It is not clear if there was any kind of dromos. The four published vases and the mention of kylikes and stirrup-jars suggest an LH//1 date; the published examples cannot be earlier than IIIA2 apart, perhaps from the fruit stand which may go back to LH//.

diagonally set stones at the corners. Two upright slabs lean on the end ofthe two long sides functioning as antae. Interior: The covering slabs were found broken and the tomb filled with earth. Bone fragments, in a very poor state of preservation, were found at a depth of -0.35m. The floor of the tomb was encountered at -0.90m. It accommodated the remains of three burials, apparently disturbed by building material and earth that entered the tomb when the roof collapsed. However, the position of the bones visible in the published photo169 suggests at least one primary burial (on the right side with bent knees) Among the bones, there have been found a carnelian bead, a bronze hook and six pots. The excavator dates the tomb to LH/1/A-B but at least two vases may be as early as LHIIB170• More pottery of LH/1/A-B date has been found discarded NE of cist-tomb Am.

Comment: Tomb B (XIII) is definitely a BCT. The employment of upright slabs on either side ofthe entrance is a very interesting feature that is, also, found in other tombs of Archontiki (see tomb XI below). The tomb certainly contains stylistically LHIIB finds and, therefore, may date to an earlier period than that postulated by the excavator for the Archontiki cemetery as a whole. (104) Tomb X (FIGs. 66b-j) Bibliography: Zapheiriou et al. 1984, 2-3; Papadopoulou et al. 1986, 5-7. Situation: On the shore ofthe Archontiki bay, very close to the sea; next to grave XII (FIG. 66b) 171• Orientlllion: N-S; entrance facing S. Architecture: Rectangular built grave with entrance at one short side. The entrance did not occupy the whole of the southern short side: a built anta occupied the SW corner of the tomb, thus restricting the access to the burial chamber (FIG. 66e). A large upright slab set on the other side of the entrance (SE) functioned as a second anta. The entrance was bloclced with a large upright slab; small rounded stones have been accumulated behind that blocking slab, possibly to keep it in place (FIGs. 66b, d). The tomb was covered with large slabs, some of which were found in place while other had fallen into the tomb (FIGs. 66d, f). No traces of a dromos are reported173• Finally, a curving row of stones seen just outside the SW 169

Achilara 1986, 10, top left A handmade feeding bottle, an undecorated squat jug, three alabastra and a handless cup. Two of the alabastra and the squat jug have been illustrated in Achilara 1996. The squat jug seems LHII in shape. The alabastra have spoked wheels on their bases and body decoration ofLHII(B) date. 171 Some ofthose pots have been illustrated in Achilara 1996, pi.II. They are plain but their shapes may indicate an earlier date (LHII). The mention, however, of stirrup jars among the finds of that area suggests a Llffil date for that assemblage, indeed. 172 According to the description of the excavator, tomb X lay close to a large deposition of earth, probably the same ' &1rixlength) 19 • The third column includes the few examples with long stomion (length>widthi0 • Each column has been further divided in two subgroups according to the proportions of the burial chamber. Sub-group A includes those tombs that have a rather long chamber (L>2.5W) and sub-group B those with a broader one (L~.5Wi 1 • Once more, no significant conclusions can be drawn. The only important remark is that all tombs with short stomion and long chamber (column 2, sub-group A) seem to have been built in the MH period or - the latest - in LHI22 • However, this is not the only type of BCTs built in that period for M1t9, B7ti6/20, 97ti4 and A7t3, all without a proper stomion (column I), have been evidently constructed at the same time. On the other end of the spectrum, two of the three tombs with long stomion (B1t I and B1t 18) seem to have been built in

LHlli23. The tombs of group 4 are in all probability later transformations of earlier cist-graves, but the lack of datable finds does not allow for any conclusion (the evidence from f1ti is scanty).

12

See, for example, FIGs. 36e, f. For an explanation of this and all other charts, see Appendix II. 14 Tombs Bn1 and Hn15, although the former was most probably built much earlier, see section 7.1.1. 15 See section 7.1.3. 16 Mountjoy 1981 ; Cavanagh 1977, 90-1; Immerwahr 1971, 149-51. 17 See, sections 7. 1.1 n.15 and 7.1.3 n.223 . For similar remarks, see Dickinson 1983, 61 n.32; Moschos 2000,20 n.l31 13

214

18

See, for example, FIGs. 32a, e, 34e. See, for example, FIGs. 31 b, d. 20 See, for example, FIGs. 29a, 30a. 21 The construction date of each tomb (as indicated by the material) can be seen next to the tomb's number. In cases of tombs that have suffered a reconstruction, the whole range of dates represented by the finds is listed. 22 ht 1 has been apparently reconstructed but that reconstruction cannot date later than LHI. Zn6, another tomb with MH material, may, also, be included in that group for, its stomion has almost equal length and width. 23 However, B7t1 had been extensively robbed, while B1tl8 contained a few vases that may date back to LHII, see section 7. 1.1. The third tomb, Z1t6, dates safely to late MH. 19

Appendix/ LHITI was, also, the period when broader chambers were in fashion (Zn3, Zn4, EmS, Mn6, in columns 1-B and 2-B), although, earlier examples are not lacking (i\1t3, Em14 and possibly i\nl and i\1t2). BCTs without stomion (column 1) have been in use throughout the MH and LH periods in Eleusis. Of particular interest is the tomb-type represented by tombs i\n4, T.4 and the 'Philonian' grave (column lA). All three tombs have an inner chamber, a vestibule with no funerary material and a simple entrance at the end of a long side24 • Their significance lies not only on their more elaborate design but, also, on the fact that one of them (the "Philonian" grave) was found very close to the settlement area (together with a MH "warrior's grave"25 ) and may have been of special importance. That particular grave was built in late MH times but the earliest material from i\n4 and T .4 dates to LIID and LHill respectively6 • Concluding, we can summarise the following: a) The commonest type of BCT was that without stomion (column I); such tombs were built at all periods of use of the Eleusinian cemetery (FIG. 72c). b) BCTs with short stomion and long chamber (column 2-A) were exclusively built in MH and LHI, although they may have remained in use for much longer (FIGs. 72c, d). c) BCTs with long stomion (column 3) were rare and date mainly to LHill (FIG. 72c). d) Broad chambers (sub-groups B) became common in LHill, although the elongated type (subgroups A) was always prevalenr 7 (FIG. 72d). Table m (FIG. 72b)

In that table, all tombs are listed according to their construction materiae8• I have differentiated between 'vertical slabs' and 'boulders', for the reason that the

latter have usually only one flat side (that facing the interior of the tomb), are thicker, narrower and varied in shape (FIG. 34d), whereas the former are the more or less standard rectangular thin monoliths used in the construction of cists (FIGs. 30c, 3le, 36g). Each tomb is followed by its construction date; in cases of reconstructed tombs, the whole range of dates represented by the fmds is listed. Tombs of groups 2-S (see above, Table I) are marked with an asterisk. The table is quite helpful but not decisive in establishing a correspondence between chronology and technical developments. We can summarise, here, the main conclusions drawn from that table (see, also, FIG. 72b): a) Vertical slabs alone (col.l) or in combination with horizontal layers of oblong stones (slabs or thicker stones, col.3) have been invariably used in all periods of use of the West Cemetery. b) Vertical boulders alone (col.2) or in combination with horizontal layers of oblong stones (slabs or thicker stones, col.4) have been used mainly in the early periods of the cemetery, that is in MH and LHI-llA; among the securely dated examples, only two tombs of such construction may have been built later than LHI, namely i\n4 and Bnl8. Another three examples that cannot be dated with certainty (Ani , i\n2 and Mn3) were very probably built in the MH period (for reasoning see section 7.l.li9 • c) Tomb Bnl is the only one that has been built exclusively of horizontal layers of oblong stones (in fact, flat slabs, coLS). This particular tomb is unique in many senses (corbelling technique, employment of clay layers between the rows of slabs, very large dimensions, very long stomion, a possible bench in the dromos) and, although it must be earlier than suggested by the few LHIIIB sherds found on its floor, its construction must lie within the limits ofLHill30 • Table IV

24

All three tombs belong to the complex variant of rectangular BCTs, see section 11 .4. 25 See section 7.1.2. 26 Although it is possible that both A1t4 and T.4 were built earlier than indicated by their contents, see section 7.1.1. On the other hand, the MH material from the ' Philonian' grave has not been published. Its existence, though, has been confinncd by Cavanagh, Cavanagh 1977, catalogue (vol. 11), p. 50. 27 This may have to do with the roofing problem. A broader chamber would require longer covering slabs which would be more liable to cracking. This problem has been solved in the case ofB1t1 (LHIIIB?) through the corbelling of the long sides, a technique which, although common in Mainland Greece - and in Attica - from the MH period, has not been used in Eleusis to any extent (B1t 1 and ®ltl3 are the only Eleusinian tombs that present that feature). 28 The 'Philonian' grave is not included in this table for there is no illustration of the tomb.

21S

In that table, a number of secondary features are examined: IVa lists the attested (and probable) examples of dromoi, either earth-cut or partly built; IVb, the attested cases of tombs surrounded by some kind of enclosure31; IVc, the cases where a threshold 29 It is very interesting, here, to stress the remarkable resemblance of the isodomic construction of the west part of tomb l1t 1 with that of built cists Em2 (MH/Ufl) and M1t2 (LHTI-IllA), see Eleusis T', ~Is. 89b, 141 b, 180a. 0 The "Philonian" grave is, also, reported to have been built of "stones of schist", Philios 1889, 189. It is not clear, however, if this description refers to flat schist-slabs or to cruder material (there is no illustration). 31 See, for example, FIGs. 32e, 33f.

Appendix! d) Bordering the top of the tomb' s walls with a row of rounded stones is rare. Two of the examples date to MH (H1t20, A1t16; the ' Philonian' grave may have been another MH example). Tomb H7t15 dates to LHDIB 1 but the stone border may be earlier for it surrounds the original cist. e) Pits have been found at several BCTs. They are small and varied in shape and, usually, are to be found in front of the entrance or the stomion. E>1t 13 is a unique case of a cist-grave embedded in the centre of a built grave. In all probability, the cist-grave antedates the built tomb. All tombs with pits have been built in MH or LHI and the pits contain material from the earlier burials (although in A1t16 the pit contained LHllA-IDAl pottery). f) At least three very early BCTs have carefully arranged corners between the chamber and the stomion. They date to MH or LID.

has been preserved; N d, the tombs which have a border of rounded stones all around the upper edge of their walls32 ; Ne, the tombs with pits under their floors; Nf, the tombs which have some kind of arrangement - resembling an anta - at the corner formed by the main chamber and the stomion33 • The construction dates of the tombs are given as above. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study of those tables: a) The attested dromoi, either earth-cut or partly buile4, date either to MH or to LHIIIA2. This is hardly surprising for not many Eleusinian tombs can be dated to LID-IT (for reasons discussed earlier in this section35 ) . Besides, not all the tombs have been excavated thoroughly in front of their entrances. For example, there are strong indications that tombs Z1t3, Ent14, A1t1 and A1t2 were provided with dromoi (for details, see section 7 .1.1 ), but Mylonas has made no comments on them. It is reasonable, thus, to assume that most BCTs had some kind of deliberately designed access - dromos - which may have passed unnoticed. It is interesting to note, however, that, judging from the available evidence, dromoi accompanied almost all the different types of tombs of Group 6 (see table ll) but not the rest of the tombs (groups 2-5). Unfortunately, Mylonas has not published any finds from those dromoi, so it has been assumed that they were dug simultaneously with the construction of the tomb. b) No specific pattern can be observed in the use of enclosures around tombs, as only three of them are sufficiently preserved (those in tombs Ent5, A1t1 and A1t3). They appear in tombs of groups 1 and 3 (see Table I) but, in all probability, they could apply to any kind of BCT. Although no details are available, they must have supported some kind of low earthen mounds. c) Stone thresholds (only one earthen example has been discovered) were only employed in L-shaped BCTs (group 1, see Table I) but not necessarily in all of them. It seems that they were more common in the MH and the early Mycenaean period37, although there is at least one LHlll example (B1t 1). The elaborate tomb A1t4 had two thresholds, one in the lateral entrance and a second in the 'doorway' between the vestibule and the burial chamber.

e

32

See, for example, FIG. 3le and Eleusis r', pis. 77a, 174 See, for example, FIG. 31c. 34 Bxl has been included in the group of tombs with 'partly built' dromoi because of the built bench found before its entrance; the actual dromos, however, is earthen. 3 s See above, n.l7. 36 No dromoi have been found in tombs with long chamber and without stomion (see Table 11). 37 It is interesting that Zx3 and Zx4, two of the best preserved tombs of the LHIII period, evidently had no thresholds. 33

Conclusions In conclusion, there are only a few technical details that may bear chronological implications for the construction date of Eleusinian BCTs. We can summarise them here: a) In terms of ground plan, tombs of group 1 with long chamber and short stomion (Table 1/, col. 2, sub-group A) are very common in MH and LID. There is no attested example of that type dating later than LID. Long stomia may have been an LlDII feature but, in any case, they are extremely rare. The rest of the tomb types have been invariably used in all periods from MH to LlDIIB. Besides, broad chambers are more common in LlDII than earlier but the long type is prevalent in all periods (FIGs. 72c, d). b) In terms of construction (Table Ill), ' vertical boulders ' (either alone [col.2] or combined with horizontal layers of flat slabs [co1.4]) are used almost exclusively in the earlier part of the cemetery' s life (MH-LlDIIIA) (FIG. 72b). There is only one LIDll example of that technique (B1t18). On the other hand, the use of 'vertical slabs' (either alone [col.l] or combined with horizontal layers of flat slabs [col.3]) is common in all periods and cannot constitute a chronological indicator. There is only one tomb which is built exclusively of flat slabs in horizontal layers (B1t1) and dates to LlDII (it is, also, the only example where layers of clay have been employed between the rows of slabs). The ' Philonian' grave may have been an earlier example of the same technique. c) In respect of secondary technical details (Table IV), it seems that thresholds, burial pits, and stone borders, all are early features (MH-LID) and are not found in tombs built in LlDII.

2 16

Appendix/ The analysis of the data makes clear that the evolutionary scheme suggested by Mylonas is, by and large, invalid. It is true that the earliest BCTs are extremely simple, as is proved by 01t 14, but it is very quickly - and not in Llllll - that they achieve a remarkable technical quality, as the MH or MHILID tombs Z1t6, H7t3, l1tl and M7t4 testify. In fact, some of the largest tombs of the cemetery have been built in that period (B1t16/20, H1tl, H1t3, the 'Philonian' grave and others). Mylonas is right, however, in stating that most of these early tombs are characterised by the employment of large boulders in their construction, although this feature dates to MHILID and not to Uffi, as he suggests38• The stomion has fully developed already in late MH (H1tl, H1t3, H1t20, etc.) although the most impressive examples date to LHIII, indeed (B1t 1, B1t 18). Despite that development though, tombs with simple entrance (without stomion) and plain cists with some sort of lateral entrance continue to be built until the very end of the Mycenaean period (Z1t4, H1tlS, H1tl6, M1t8). No changes can be observed in LHIII apart from the fact that the burial chambers are generally broader (Z1t3, Z1t4). Mylonas' view that this period is the peak of the BCTs architecture39 has been obviously affected by the impressive tomb B1tl, admittedly the largest and betterconstructed Eleusinian tomb, which, however, remains unique in many respects40 • The rest of the Llllll tombs, though, have nothing impressive and cannot be compared with the well-built tombs of the MH and early Mycenaean periods (e.g. l1t I).

32a, c). Well before the end of the MH period, they achieve their fully developed form with large chambers, short - but well defined - stomia and dromoi (FIGs. 30e, f). In fact, some of the most impressive BCTs are built in that period (e.g. btl with a partly built dromos, FIGs. 33c, d). By that time, huge boulders of varied size is the most common building material (FIG. 34e). After that point, BCTs are erected in more or less the same plan (either with or without a stomion) but the more practical flat slabs gradually replace ·the boulders (although very few tombs are entirely built of such slabs) (FIGs. 31 b, 32c, 33c). In LIDII, chambers become broader (FIG. 35b) and no stone thresholds are used any more. Long stomia appear, also, at this late stage (one of them belongs to B1tl , the most impressive Eleusinian tomb, FIG. 29a). Meanwhile, pits have been dug under the earthen floors of older (MH and LID) tombs which are still in use, to hold the material from earlier burials (FIG. 30e). More modest tombs, that is cists with some kind of lateral entrance (FIGs. 35c, 36a) are built in the cemetery throughout the MH and LH periods. Although the datable examples belong to LHIII, such tombs as A1t6 and A7t7 are almost certainly MH in construction. Moreover, some of the 'reconstructed' tombs had, in all probability, pre-existed as cists with some kind of lateral entrance.

Finally, not many LHIIIB tombs have been discovered to substantiate the suggested ' technical backdrop' in that period. Tomb B1t I may date to that period (although it may have been built earlier) but its construction is not inferior to that of the LlffiiA tombs M7t7, M1t8, T.l, T.3, not to mention the extremely modest trapezoidal f7tl7, ~1tl7, Z1t2.

We have to stress that, although the cemetery abounds of MH cists, very few tombs of type other than BCT are in use in the LH period. In fact, only nine proper cists (B7t2-13, B7tl9, f7tl9, E7t3, 01t23, 01t24, M7t2, M1tll) and the four chamber-tombs (A1tll, 13, 14, 15) can be safely dated to that period42, admittedly a very small proportion of the whole number.

Mylonas' theory has been largely based on the assumption that many tombs have seen two stages of construction (simple cist~BCT). Having rejected this view in most cases for lack of relevant evidence41 , we are left with a much more complicated picture. BCTs appear in Eleusis in MH times in the form of a small built tombs with a plain lateral entrance (FIGs. 38 39

Eleusis B ', 227. Eleusis B ', 228.

40

It is possibly due to its impressive construction that it has been so extensively robbed. 41 Which, though is present in the cases of tombs H:rt5, H:rtl5, l:rtl, A:rt4, T.4, etc.

42

217

Eleusis B ', tabs. I and 11.

APPENDIX IT Addendum to the statistical charts

The statistical charts in FIGs. 70-72 have been compiled on the basis of the construction dates of the various BCTs, as suggested by their contents (mainly pottery). The establishment of such dates, however, is not as firm as it may appear in the charts. Several tombs were entirely deprived of finds, while in others only the offerings of the most recent burials survived. Therefore, these charts should be used with caution and only with the condition that the reader is fully aware of the principles on which the author has been based in order to work them out. Here is a brief summary of the method followed, when compiling these charts:

a) FIGs. 70a-c, 71 a, b, 72a - 'Certain' (black part of the bar) includes all the cases which have produced safely dated pottery. Each tomb is allocated to the earliest period represented by the pottery, even if it is very probable that the tomb was constructed earlier than that (e.g. tomb B1t1[30]) - 'Uncertain' (grey part of the bar) includes cases where either no pottery at all has been recovered or the pottery has been only vaguely described but not illustrated. In the former case, the tomb is allocated to the period which seems most probable to have seen its construction, as suggested by indirect evidence (for details, the reader is referred to the relevant sections of Part I and to section 12.1 ). In the latter case, the tomb is allocated to the period suggested by the excavator or by the description of the pottery. - Cases, which are impossible to be dated, are listed under '? '. b) FIGs. 72b-d - For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid confusion, no division is made between 'certain' and 'uncertain' cases in the charts concerning the construction of Eleusinian BCT. Consequently, each chronological bar (e.g. 'MH-MHILHI') includes both the cases that are safely dated to that period (that is 'certain' examples) and those that are only tentatively assigned to the same phase (that is 'uncertain' examples). - In case the reader wishes to distinguish between 'certain' and 'uncertain' examples, he/she is referred to the table presented at the end of Appendix II: Eleusinian examples have been contained within square brackets; tombs of 'group 1' (Table I and FIG. 72a, c, d) correspond to nos. 30-55.

c) All charts (FIGs. 70-72) - Chronological groups - The charts are divided in the following chronological divisions: MH-MHILHI, LHI-DA, LHIIB-IIB/IDAI , LlffiiA, LHIIIB, LHIIIC, "LHIII" and ? (unknown). - Each tomb appears only once in each chart, even if its construction date is ' uncertain' (in that case, it is allocated to the most probable period or to '?', see above). Thus, in FIG. 70a, there are 15 entries, that is the number of known apsidal BCTs, in FIG. 71a, 106 entries, that is the total number of known BCTs, etc. - Tombs that have produced MHILHI pottery appear in the 'MH-MHILHI' bar, not in the 'LHI-DA' one. -Tombs that have produced LHIDAl pottery appear in the 'LHIDA' bar, not in the 'LHIIB-IIBIIDAI' one. - When the pottery from a BCT is vaguely described as 'LHII', the tomb appears in the 'LHllB-IIB/IDAl' and not the 'LHI-DA' bar. This is so because I think that LllliA is much more easily recognizable - even by early scholars - than LHIIB and that, if the vases in question were LllliA, this would have been noticed by the excavators1• Nevertheless, these cases are indicated with* in the table below. - "LHIII" includes tombs which have produced pottery vaguely dated to 'LHill' (but not illustrated), without any further specification. When unnecessary, this bar is omitted (e.g. FIGs. 70a, b) - The assignation of a BCT to a particular period is consistent throughout the charts. In other words, a tomb that is dated to 'LHI-DA' in a given chart (even if 'uncertain'), wiJJ appear in the corresponding 'LHIIIA' bar in all other (relevant) charts. The following table provides a concordance between the charts and the tombs. For the sake of brevity, BCTs are presented by their serial numbers. To identify serial numbers with particular tombs, the reader is referred to the Tomb Inventory at the very end of the study. Columns correspond to the chronological groupings appearing in the charts. Rows correspond to the three major typological groups (apsidal, oblong and rectangular), further divided in 'certain' and 'uncertain' cases, as in FIGs. 70a-c, 7la, b, 72a. Eleusinian BCTs are contained within square brackets. 'LHII' examples are indicated with •.

1

See section 12.2.4 n.42.

Appendix II

1

~m

Apsidal I Horse-shoe 11, 15, Certain 16, 17 10, 18,26 Uncertain Oblon2 I Elliptical Certain I Uncertain I Rectangular Certain [35, 36, 38, 40, 41 , 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 55, 68, 71], 72, 77, 79, 82, 83 Uncertain [46, 47, 57, 59], 78, 96

1

Lm-llA

13

1

~~~

1

LHniA

1

LHIIIB

1

12

27

LHDic

1

"LHDI"

1

98, 99, 100

?

81

14

I 7, 29, 73 I I s• I 1' 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, 24, 25, [31,37, 44, 70], 84, 85, 95, 97

[49*, 63*, 64*], 74, 86, 87, 90, 103

20, 21 , 22, 89

105

I I

16, 9

I 19, 28, [32, 33, 34, 42, 52, 56, 58, 69], 80, 88, 92, 93, 94, 102, 104

I l [30, 39], 75

I I 101

I I [54, 61], 91

106

220

[60, 62, 65, 66, 67], 76

BffiLIOGRAPHY

Acheson, P.E., 1999: "The role of force in the development of Early Mycenaean polities", in Laffineur, R. (ed.) Polemos. Le Contexte Guerrier en Egee a!'Age du Bronze (Aegaeum 19) (Liege), 97-104. Achilara, L., 1985: "Y1t6A.outll X~", Xuvca Xpov1Ka 17, 73-75 and 77-80. Achilara, L., 1986: "AvamcacptldJ OpaoA.rot6-'S. - ~ - & ;':,: ----------lt :;._ . . \,,; _.. ., .it\.. ·.. ...

·•

•

t•

..

,_., -----·~_~·c

( 'iil' I

·;:,• . ·.:

·,

)

---·-·---, 1 ,::;: .... ,)

... : ,··.::--.

C-

~\

1

I

.

:Al· "

'

•

. ._: .-.. .·;

.'

•'

.'

.'.-:o-,;.;

- -·

,'\ •

.. .

L..

.:

•.

!f't.,;(EJ_,,]CiJ.:;'• "•, " ; I

(lt:) ! / i

~--(::)le c:::::.J · " ;JJ'• - 1 -·• • ::•: : h . ..., 0 ._ , ,;..' ..........;I")-__ .--, ....»-' Q·,~6 - --....."'..·.·. · ·...-.:' '

r--~

\ .?:PJ

: :----~·'' . r-. J-.--. ·.i

);

.·

.. , .. .

· ·\..

0

I

-.

~~~

·.,,. -'

\~_) . :~. :~. _ P ·:_·'·-~-·,·-.-:-.-.~.- :: : :·''

_il);

\~ Q!v'~ ~•\'\';·,:.·J.\

. ______:c_L:::__ ~__. '"-~- ---\·-·,-:f' ·~;:~: /:.-:~ ~-~~,·:T I \ ) :;

...:a,jb,-t,

I'

8_ _.. J \

a

b

FIG.3: Argos , a) The area of 'tumulus r b) T.l64, plan

·~ -~

,. -::(.i'}. -~~..:-·

~-- .R~.}·--- ---

\......... ~- - ---- - ...... --

___ .••:i(f

a

c

d

FIG.4: Argos a) T.l64, the stomion, view from theN b) T.l64, the paved floor and pit A, view from theW c) T.l64, pit A (left), pit B (right) and the rear wall, view from the S d) T.29, the interior and the rear side, view from theE e) T.29, view from theW

M UIUJIIO.i\1.~ t~o~ 'Apyov~

M \llol Tl vcanc.Ot "tliq>o~ "A.pyout -

......

- .. &'

a

c

d

FIG.S: Argos a) Tomb E2, plan of the tomb and section of theW wall b) Tomb E2, section ofthe rear side c) Tomb E2, view from the S d) Tomb E2, the interior, view from theN

AIArPAHMA TllN OAllN

TOY APrOYI

TTH8ot A OIMOHOHOT

I

• l[(A("OATiatOJ

f A ( 11 I

• I(OAAPOOO TI•OT KAn • IAAXOT • kAlA • HOlOKOHtiOT • hiXAA OnDTAOT

H

•

! [ NAKH

I

•

.UHOOTrOT AAO ATA

IAAN f'lllOT

nP041HTHl: HI\IAl:

Arn1r H

AEIPAI

a

All'-lHA')M OIHOnltQN

oucowo... ov . ac .-.rur"'"oy. nu••t.(,;.

.

;)(:l• .J-c:

, . ..'"" ··j ~

._.. ·. .

· ,,:::-:____ ~\ . ~~

•-M_

~ [_ _ _ _ , :_ :_·>··-··-- - - --- ~ ~~f ··-·- ·-

n .,. . ._· :,--,_-..,_

\;.). .... ------~· . -- --------------u ----- --- ------- -~,~,-----i ~~ ~-----------l ,-------------,---.;--

~

.

.\

. . . · . '-; l

.'

,...../

... .

--

.. ' -~:. .. .. ,. ·. >- ... : .· ,,. ··. • 'P',. ,... ' ' • :·· ' :"· • F '•· ·'!,'· < . . . ' ..

~;.

,V

l"

-

t

.

'.

. . ~''; ·• ,, . .··J>ti.

..

•... " . ~.,· . • . •

c.'

.1tl3, view from the NW e) Tomb .6.1tl6, plan f) Tomb E1tl , plan and section g) Tomb .6.1tl7, view from the N/NW

f

'"-"'+

9

rtPOTI:TOPIKH

E/\EYI:II:

··~. ··~····:::::·":''':·

..·-:······:····-··""''''':''"':'":

.. ;

,

.~·

11 1\"'"..... '~­ I"'Mf'~"' --

N

,.••

--

"""o4- .... lll~llil~

,.,,,...,.,.. !

-

a

u_,t:,.J, T t:&,IO N

4I ~ Ou•rte.~

«fiJI·JI

/N J

~

c

0,

1:5

c

c

u

Q_,

~:

......

8

C'

.. .. _ ,,,11, ....... . .

~f't.,.,,

_ ,....'""'"''" '

c;::J l A, lftu,.foC /ll &c

1-11

'} ,., .., ,

~ 4ctll• oc

•

rc, , J''"'o"'

ActiiAIC ttr•••••• "'~''

c=.l

,,,,,,.c., , ,,l¥ TntJr,toON

~

!rt vlrurti AN '~"'"'tllf Cll'

~·

a IQ

~

b

FIG.43 : Attica a) Thorikos, plan of the prehistoric settlement remains b) Marathon, general plan of the area (after Marinatos)

\

0

1000

2000m

D

"

•

A

'

2

3

4

hi

I

c

1

t

l

4

f

S•

0

'

2

3

•

5•

c

f

A·B

--~-:·B8,-D· E

......... -·

.....-····· __...__

··-·----

.... K• I

K• I

D• C

a

b

FIG.44: Marathon- Vraoa, tumulus I, phases of construction according to Kilian-Dirlmeier a) Phase I b) Phase 11 c) Phase ID

c

c

a b

d FIG.45: Marathon a) Tumuli I and 11 and the circular 'altar', view from the S b) Tomb 1.2, the stomion and the chamber, view from the SW c) Tomb 1.3, the horse burial d) The 'altar' on the periphery of the inner circle oftumulu s I e) Tomb 1.3, the entrance and the blocking wall

e

BPAN,l>

i Y I"' B Oj

n,m

+ b

,) •o~

-

·--- -··- - ---·----·-· ,_,.~

T ;) ,..oJ.

M -0

a

d FIG.46: Marathon a) Tumuli ll and ill, plan b) Tumulus ll, view from the SW c) Tumulus Il, bones, arrowheads and ashes on the floor of the inner compartment of the central BCT d) Tumulus 11, the entrance to the inner compartment of the BCT e) Tumulus ll, the entrance and the outer compartments of the central BCT

e

B PANA TYf"'BOj N

-\


.·('

/

\ ·vo""

..... , ,...... . o ....

--- ------

--

c 0

2

3

4

5

To ,.., H ll-..B

a

d FIG.47: Marathon a) Tumulus N , plan b) Tumulus Ill, view from the NW c) Tumulus N , burials in the two inner compartments of the central BCT d) Tumulus N , the central BCT, view from the NW

c

a

b

FIG.48: Attica- Boeotia a) Marathon, the apsidal BCT b) Marathon- Plasi, the MH 'megaron' c) Dramesi, the BCT, view of the entrance d) Dramesi, broken pillar (anta for the BCT?) with representations of ships

d

31 ""'

a

"·

u.

A '>~---------'

j

··..

b

c ·:r: ::P \c·

·i'

~~

··-:

-

~: : .·:

. i f (.•" •••

-

:

~~:=5··:·- ~/-. ___... ___ _

•,

... , V

·-- _J>_imr

•J floor bl brick

c) ••nd dl E. H.

c FIG.49: Xeropolis a) The location of the BCT on the mound b) The BCT, plan c) The BCT, sections d) The BCT, the outside of the dromos, view from theN

d

.

a

b FIG.50: Medeon a) Sketch plan of the site indicating the location of the BCTs and other tombs (after Muller) b) Tombs S2 and 99, plans and sections

a

b

FIG.51 : Medeon a) Tomb S2, view from the SW b) Tomb 99, view from theW

0

29

29bis

b

2m

0

a

c

FIG.52: Medeon a) Tombs 29 and 29bis, sketch plan (after MUller) b) Tomb 264, sketch plan (after Miiller) c) Tombs 29bis and 29, view from the NW

4m

.. .

0

0.

0. •

Q. ; Q. ;

·.

:!. .)\

L ·- Io··----·-

-.

tf

•

o.-

I

~

/

·m~--.

1

.

.'j• .. 0..

b FIG.53: Thessaly a) Map ofThessaly (11 : Pefkakia; 88: Pharsala; 87: Ay.Antonios) b) Pefkakia, general plan of the site

EVIl

20

11

FVIH

,,

n

15

17

I&

28

i

.I I

)I

)I

I, ;_, .

41

.1 I

I ·I

+

+

t 51

- ·- 57"

56

..

"

I, -l I

SI

-_t

+

n

68

69

12

70

••

I)

65

0

I

2m

..... _ ...... -

- ~

a EVIl I&

17

17

.~-,

I&

I

I I I I ·I I

21

i

)I

..

~I I I

II

881 I

...,.

)I

I

I I

..1

.

~ ott ns

"

50

"

42

"

! ""'---- · l

0

44

·-

b

•

0

FIG.54: Thessaly a) Pefkakia, the settlement, phase 6 b) Pefkakia, the settlement, phase 7 c) The southwestern plain (Pharsala region)

Hlbha1 1 H.bitll MJtC ou .....

1

2m

u

------- --

- - -- --- ----

-------

Jl. ....

~~.J..ii\'Ul'l"'

l:bli..:.N ..,.,.,.,

~·o~- ~~M-&o If~~~

·11-..ou..w lu"-.\'UI•"'-

--.=~:.-.:=::.~-----:-===.: ~~~~

:_-_-_-__~-- --- -t

... a

b

c FIG.55 : Pharsala a) Tomb I, plan and sections b) Tomb I, view from the SE c) Tomb II, the burial chamber and the stomion d) Tomb ll, detail of construction

--~·_j I

, I

ll·I.

I I

0

$

10

20km t

'!

---

•

+

ru ,.;~:~ J hle

Ce ru•ll· N'-!Lvurk

Prob3llle ruttc r ¥ "''rk s hOJI r uNH lhtc

b

PC'ILll· r v WnrkHIMJJ)

a

c FIG.57: Thessaly a) Ceramic networks in LBA Thessaly b) Distribution ofLHl-1£ Mycenaean pottery c) Distribution ofLHilJ pottery

Aj

-~

la I

..

COVE R

0

03

10

i-JJ...J .• J · - - L....:....;_.,

2 .0

SLABS

I .Om.

_J

b ~

0

0

-I m.

... ~-- · · ·.-·· SECTION

SECTIO N

·I

B- B

A-A

-la

a

c FIG.58: Keos, Ay. Irini a) Tomb 29, plan and sections b) Tomb 29, view from theW c) Tomb 29, tomb 30 and the peribolos, view from the NE

~

N

N•"'

I I

I I

0

a I I I ~

PLAN • TOM!!> NO. 40

.- .

-

~BZ

c

b

d FIG.59: Keos, Ay. lrini a) Tomb 8 b) Tomb 24 c) The 'tumu lus' (tomb 28), plan d) The area of the main gate and the location of tombs 28, 29 and 30 (after Caskey)

~

10m

r

0-- .. [

z 3

•

0

-..-

0

CDOeniUC'IID -

..

I

~

I

7

~

L r IJT"'ce~

J_

I

c:a.ETB!Y. SOUTH

7

L,.ii .

CBE'I1!RY

~-

8

11'··:::.' !11 ..

-~...',~

9

()

\

. I

I/ [

r

~, ' '

/ r/2. ~-

>/ ///

. ,~~L-. ;-:'

.. ~ F""··""

K'- :r

v.·

~ ------ (/

1--~

H

5

•

i

/ 1