Death in Late Bronze Age Greece: Variations on a Theme 9780190926069, 0190926066

Citation preview

Title Pages

Death in Late Bronze Age Greece: Variations on a Theme Joanne M. A. Murphy

Print publication date: 2020 Print ISBN-13: 9780190926069 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190926069.001.0001

Title Pages Joanne M. A. Murphy

(p.i) Death in Late Bronze Age Greece (p.ii) (p.iii) Death in Late Bronze Age Greece (p.iv) Copyright Page (p.xix) Death in Late Bronze Age Greece (p.xx)

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2020 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in Page 1 of 2

 

Title Pages a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Murphy, Joanne M. A., 1971– editor. Title: Death in late Bronze Age Greece : variations on a theme / edited by Joanne M.A. Murphy. Description: New York : Oxford University Press, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019036477 (print) | LCCN 2019036478 (ebook) | ISBN 9780190926069 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190926076 (updf) | ISBN 9780190926083 (epub) | ISBN 9780190926090 (online) Subjects: LCSH: Funeral rites and ceremonies, Ancient—Greece. | Bronze age—Greece. | Tombs—Greece. | Sepulchral monuments—Greece. Classification: LCC GT3170 .D426 2020 (print) | LCC GT3170 (ebook) | DDC 393/.930938—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019036477 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019036478 135798642 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

Page 2 of 2

 

Dedication

Death in Late Bronze Age Greece: Variations on a Theme Joanne M. A. Murphy

Print publication date: 2020 Print ISBN-13: 9780190926069 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190926069.001.0001

(p.v) Dedication Joanne M. A. Murphy

To Mary O’Toole Thompson, Paddy Thompson, and Paddy O’Toole, with deepest gratitude for a lifetime of kindness and love “ . . . But here is a list of generous men and women, whose good works have not been forgotten. In their descendants there remains a rich inheritance born of them.” Ecclesiasticus, 44, 6, 10 (p.vi)

Page 1 of 1

 

List of Figures

Death in Late Bronze Age Greece: Variations on a Theme Joanne M. A. Murphy

Print publication date: 2020 Print ISBN-13: 9780190926069 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190926069.001.0001

(p.ix) List of Figures Joanne M. A. Murphy

1.1. Map of Greece showing regions and sites discussed in the volume. 2 2.1. Tombs around Pylos. 28 2.2. Dates of tombs based on minimum number of vessel counts. 29 2.3. LH II Minoan style pots from Vayenas and E-8. 35 2.4 Imported Objects in the Tombs 35 3.1. Tombs around Mycenae. 47 4.1. The Mycenaean cemetery of Argos at the ravine of at Deiras (edited version by N. Michaelides based on the original drawing, published in Deshayes 1966, pl. I). 62 4.2. Schematic plan showing the arrangement of smaller tombs in front of larger ones and their possible construction dates. 66 4.3. Selected finds from Tomb VI. 67 4.4. Selected finds from Tomb VII. 68 4.5. Selected finds from tomb Larissa 2. 69 4.6. The radical change in the spatial relation between habitation and burial ground in Argos from MH III/LH I to LH IIIA2-B. 73 5.1. Map of Nemea Valley showing location of Ayia Sotira and nearby sites. 90 5.2. Plan of Ayia Sotira showing tombs and test trenches. 91 5.3. View from Ayia Sotira cemetery looking southeast toward Tsoungiza. 91 5.4. Tomb 4 at Ayia Sotira, showing dromos cut and collapsed chamber, looking north. Also shows scarring in bedrock around tomb, the result of use of a deep plow in modern agriculture. 92 5.5. Tomb 5 section of east baulk of dromos. 93 5.6. Blocking wall in stomion of Tomb 5, demonstrating different construction phases. 94 Page 1 of 4

 

List of Figures (p.x) 5.7. Tomb 6, Burial 3 pottery group. 96 5.8. Conical stone bead from Tomb 5. 96 5.9. Feeding bottle, psi-type figurine, and bowl from Tomb 5. 97 5.10. Miniature stone beads from side niche in dromos of Tomb 5. 101 5.11. LH IIIB1 small amphora from chamber of Tomb 3. 103 6.1. Tomb Δ: Whetstone and knife, once belonged to a young craftsman. 109 6.2 a–b. “Fenestrated razor” of the Scoglio del Tonno type, which once belonged to a young man (an Italian?) 111 6.3 a–b. Tomb Λ: A feeding bottle, which once belonged to a veteran hunter, possibly used as his invalid cup, and an actual invalid cup of the late 19th c. AD. 112 6.4. Tomb A: The bronze dagger of cruciform type (Sandars’s type Dii) once belonged to a veteran warrior. 113 6.5. Tomb Θ: The simultaneous burial of a warrior and his female partner and a detail from his bronze weapons and tools as found in situ. 114 6.6. Tomb Mα: Bronze spear of Italian type, which once belonged to a 35year-old man. 116 6.7 a–b. Tomb N: Pit containing inhumation and cremation of two men. 118 6.8. Tomb E: Burial of a teenage mother with a 40-week fetus. 119 7.1. Map of Early Mycenaean Achaea 126 7.2. Silver goblet, decorated with figure of eight shields, found in a hoard outside tholos tomb B at Katarraktis (Rodia). 133 7.3. Bronze omphalos bowl with running spirals, from the same hoard. 133 7.4. Bronze omphalos bowl, from the same hoard. 134 7.5. Bronze bowl with carinated body, from the same hoard. 134 7.6. Bronze sword of type A, from the same hoard. 134 7.7. Bronze dagger with dolphins, from the same hoard. 135 7.8. Bronze dagger and bronze razor from the same hoard. 136 7.9. Bronze spearhead and bronze knife from the same hoard. 136 7.10. Bronze dagger, razor, and pin, chamber tomb 2, Vrysari. 138 8.1. The Mycenaean cemetery. 147 8.2. Map of Achaea with sites mentioned in the text. 148 8.3. Tomb 1: Plan, front section of the entrance and section through the dromos. 152 8.4. Piriform jars from Tomb 1, SU 320 (1, 4: LH IIIA 1; 2, 3: LH IIIA 2). 153 8.5. Artifacts from the LH IIIC occupation layers of Tomb 1. 154 (p.xi) 8.6. 1: Bone platform with burial in Tomb 1; 2–3: Broken vessels used for libation rituals. 156 8.7. 1: LH IIIC Late/SM belly-handled-jar with elaborate decoration, from Tomb 1 (SU 340); 2: Large IIIC/SM stirrup jar from Tomb 1 (SU 340); 3: Page 2 of 4

 

List of Figures Small amphora from Tomb 1, Burial 1; 4–5: Tomb 2, Burial Δ and E, LH IIIA 1 and IIIA 2 funerary sets; 6: Fragment of a LH IIIA 1 piriform jar from under the blocking wall of Tomb 2. 157 8.8. Tomb 2: Plan, front section of the blocking wall and section through the dromos. 158 9.1. Map of Macedonia with the funerary sites mentioned in the text. 173 9.2. Valtos-Leptokarya (Valtos 2), Tumulus 1 with tightly organized cist graves. 176 9.3. Pigi Artemidos, part of the cemetery showing the organized planning of the mortuary space with the tumulus (on the right) dated to early LBA (LH I/IIA) and two rectangular platforms in the middle dated to the domestic use of space in LH IIIA2-IIIC. 177 9.4. Spathes cemetery. Cist grave with one single and several “secondary” burials. 180 9.5. Faia Petra. On the top: the Burial Enclosure 5 with evidence of burning episodes associated probably with some type of postburial ritual activities; on the bottom: a young adult male skeleton from the Burial Enclosure 5. 183 9.6. Thessaloniki Toumba. On the top: adult burial in extended position; on the bottom: a 7-year-old child laid in prone position. 187 9.7. Pydna. Pit burial elaborated with clothing accessories and associated grave goods. 188 9.8. Spathes. Cist grave with male burial accompanied with Mycenaeantype pottery and bronze weapons. 189 11.1. The Northeast Koan region: a. Aerial photograph showing the location of the “Serraglio,” Eleona, and Langada; b. Map including SELAP’s main study area during the LBA. 215 11.2. Eleona and Langada: a. Map showing the location of the tombs discovered in the Langada cemetery; b. Current landscape at the Langada cemetery, with flat topography resulting from mechanical terracing; c: Relic of the gradual slope from Morricone’s time preserved at the southern boundary of the Langada cemetery. 217 11.3. Stratigraphy, chamber tombs, and pit graves at Langada: a. Reconstructed section from Tomb 59; b–f: Images of Tombs 59, 58, 38, 46, 43. 220 (p.xii) 11.4. Map showing the location of the tombs discovered at the Langada cemetery and indicating the approximate position of the burials not originally plotted by Morricone. 221 11.5. Histograms showing the relationship between size and cultural periods for the Langada chamber tombs. 235 11.6. Spatial distribution of the tombs used at Langada during LH IIIA2, LH IIIB, LH IIIC Early, and LH IIIC Middle. 236 12.1. Map of the western Mesara with the main sites discussed in the text. 249 Page 3 of 4

 

List of Figures 13.1. Looking west toward the view of Mochlos island (background center) from the hill at Myrsini Aspropilia, with the church of Ayios Dimitrios on the left. 286 13.2. Chest-shaped larnax probably from Tomb Epsilon at Myrsini Aspropilia. 291 13.3. Pithos from Tomb Gamma at Myrsini Aspropilia. 292 13.4. Spearhead probably from Tomb Alpha at Myrsini Aspropilia. 293 14.1. Clay pyxis and lid from Mochlos (IIB.791–792), 1:3, after Smith 2010, 68. 307 14.2. Clay pyxis from Kommos, reconstruction. 309 14.3. Clay pyxis from Kalami Chanion. 310

Page 4 of 4

 

List of Tables

Death in Late Bronze Age Greece: Variations on a Theme Joanne M. A. Murphy

Print publication date: 2020 Print ISBN-13: 9780190926069 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190926069.001.0001

(p.xiii) List of Tables Joanne M. A. Murphy

2.1 Basic Demography of Tombs 37 4.1 The Construction Dates of the Deiras Tombs and Graves 64 4.2 Number of Tombs with Objects Made of Various Precious Materials and Palace Style Jars at the Cemeteries of Deiras (Argos) and Prosymna 71 4.3a Chart of Chamber Tombs with the Greatest Diversity of Materials and Offering Types in the Argolid 78 4.3b The Occurrence of Weapons in the Tombs of Table 3a 80 4.4 The Chronology of the Tombs Listed in Table 4.3a 81 5.1 Ayia Sotira Cemetery Tombs and Burials 98 11.1 Tomb Construction at Langada by Chronological Phase and Cultural Period 223 11.2 Tomb Categorization at Langada by Chronological Phase and Cultural Period 224 11.3 Chamber Tomb Construction at Langada by Cultural Period 225 11.4 Chamber Tombs and Pits Used at Langada by Chronological Phase and Cultural Period 226 11.5 Initial Phase of Chamber Tomb Reuse at Langada by Chronological Phase and Cultural Period 227 11.6a Total Number of Chamber Tombs Used and Reused at Langada by Chronological Phase and Cultural Period 228 11.6b Total Number of Tombs Used and Reused at Langada by Chronological Phase and Cultural Period 229 11.7 Architectural Features Identified in Langada’s Chamber Tombs by Chronological Phase and Cultural Period 231 11.8a Chamber Tomb Shapes at Langada by Chronological Phase and Cultural Period 232 Page 1 of 2

 

List of Tables (p.xiv) 11.8b Pit Shapes at Langada by Chronological Phase and Cultural Period 233 11.9 Correlation between Tomb Area, Chronological Phase, and Cultural Period 235 11.10 Tombs with Human Bones and Minimum Numbers of Individuals at Eleona and Langada 237 11.11 Tombs Including Secure (*) and Possible (?) Burnt Human Remains in SELAP’s Sample 239 12.1 MM III Funerary Contexts from South-Central Crete 252 12.2 LM I Funerary Contexts from South-Central Crete 253 12.3 Artifact Types in South-Central Cretan MM III and LM I Tombs 255 12.4 LM IIIA1-A2 Early Cemeteries and Relative Grave Offering Materials Discussed in the Text 259 12.5 The Kalyvia Cemetery and the Associated Material as Reconstructed after Savignoni 1904 and Privitera 2011 261 12.6 Ceramic Shapes Represented in LM IIIA1-IIIA2 Early Funerary Contexts 265 12.7 LM IIIA2-IIIB Cemeteries and Relative Grave Offering Materials Discussed in the Text 268 13.1 The Associations between Burial Containers at the Mochlos and Myrsini Cemeteries and Numbers of Burials and Grave Goods 289

Page 2 of 2

 

Acknowledgments

Death in Late Bronze Age Greece: Variations on a Theme Joanne M. A. Murphy

Print publication date: 2020 Print ISBN-13: 9780190926069 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190926069.001.0001

(p.xv) Acknowledgments Joanne M. A. Murphy

This volume arose out of a session held at the American Institute of American meeting in 2014, which was intended to integrate ritual and mortuary data into mainstream discussions of the Bronze Age political economy. As is common with such endeavors, some of the session presenters were unable to include their paper in the volume and others who did not present have published here. I am grateful to them all for contributing to our understanding of the complexity of Bronze Age mortuary practices and their connection with and impact on their society. I am extremely grateful to Kim Shelton who agreed to co-organize the session at the AIA with me and helped with the travel expenses of some of our colleagues to attend the session. I am also thankful for Kim’s support in the early days of the volume. I thank Oxford University Press for their support in publishing this volume and the external reviewers who made insightful comments on the papers. I especially thank the contributors for their patience and perseverance during the process of bringing the volume to completion. (p.xvi)

Page 1 of 1

 

List of Contributors

Death in Late Bronze Age Greece: Variations on a Theme Joanne M. A. Murphy

Print publication date: 2020 Print ISBN-13: 9780190926069 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190926069.001.0001

(p.xvii) List of Contributors Joanne M. A. Murphy

Stelios Andreou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Elisabetta Borgna, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici e dei Beni Culturali, Università di Udine Anna Lucia D’Agata, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Roma. Mary K. Dabney, Bryn Mawr College Jack L. Davis, University of Cincinnati Gaspare De Angeli, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici e dei Beni Culturali, Università di Udine Mercourios Georgiadis, Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology (ICAC), Tarragona, Spain Luca Girella, Università Telematica Internazionale Uninettuno, Roma Calla McNamee, Wiener Laboratory for Archaeological Science, ASCSA Joanne M. A. Murphy, University of North Carolina Greensboro Nikolas Papadimitriou, University of Heidelberg Lena Papazoglou-Manioudaki, National Archaeological Museum, Athens (Curator Emerita) Constantinos Paschalidis, National Archaeological Museum, Athens Anna Philippa-Touchais, French School at Athens Lynne A. Schepartz, University of the Witwatersrand and the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania Kim Shelton, University of California, Berkeley R. Angus K. Smith, Department of Classics, Brock University Sharon R. Stocker, University of Cincinnati (p.xviii) Gilles Touchais, University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Page 1 of 2

 

List of Contributors Sevi Triantaphyllou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Salvatore Vitale, University of Pisa James C. Wright, Bryn Mawr College

Page 2 of 2

 

 

1

Variety Is the Spice of Life Introduction and Discussion Joanne M. A. Murphy

The goal of this volume is to generate discussion on the variability

in burial practices in Greece during the Late Bronze Age (LBA) and to create a more nuanced understanding of the society by bringing together a group of scholars who are either excavating newly discovered tombs or reexamining older excavations of LBA tombs (Fig. 1.1). The data from these recent excavations and renewed studies suggest that the patterns of burial may contain more variety than has been recognized in earlier scholarship, and indicate the need for a detailed comparison of these burial practices combined with a synthetic comparative study of the tombs. Attention to variations in the mortuary practices can enrich our understanding of the range of connections between tombs and their respective communities, adding nuance to accepted interpretations of the LBA mortuary customs and their related societies. With variability in local burial practices as their initial commonality, broader themes and topics were revealed in the papers assembled in this volume, including the rich connection between tombs and the political economy; their role in power and identity creation; the differences between palaces and second order sites; the changing focus and identity of the various communities throughout the LBA; the combination of older more traditional practices with new ones in the tombs; social differences between genders; and varied emphasis on family lines.1 The abundance and monumentality of LBA tombs, especially tholoi, in Greece have assured them a prominent position in archaeological scholarship. The significance of this role has grown exponentially with the increasing global interest in mortuary studies, which stress the sociopolitical value of tombs and mortuary customs (for recent examples, see Tarlow and Nilsson Stutz 2013; Renfrew et al. 2016; Hill and Hageman 2016; Murphy and Le Roy 2017). Interpretations of the LBA tombs have suggested that they indicated class divisions in the society; 1.  I am grateful to Carol Hershenson for discussing this chapter with me and reading and commenting on an earlier draft.

Joanne M. A. Murphy, Variety is the Spice of Life In: Death in Late Bronze Age Greece. Edited by: Joanne M. A. Murphy, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190619305.003.0001

 

2  Joanne M. A. Murphy

Fig. 1.1  Map of Greece showing regions and sites discussed in the volume (drawn by John Wallrodt).

functioned as competitive arenas where social groups vied for access to resources, wealth, and status and/​or affirmed/​created their identities; and were used by people in palaces and settlements as symbols of elite power to dominate the landscape and to control the people in the surrounding areas (see Hägg and Nordquist 1990; Branigan 1998; Lewartowski 2000; Papadimitriou 2001; Gallou 2005; Gallou et al. 2008; Alram Stern et al. 2016). The tombs have also been analyzed and interpreted through a variety of recently trending theoretical frameworks in archaeology including performance, ritual, ancestor, afterlife, and political and economic studies. (For studies that explore a range of these themes, see Cavanagh et al. 2009; Dakouri-​Hild and Boyd 2016; Mina et al. 2016.) Each of these frameworks has enhanced our interpretations of the function of these tombs in society, has highlighted a different aspect of the tombs, and has shifted and enriched the debates about Bronze Age Greek society. Diversity in mortuary practices has been noted but not fully explored in several recent edited volumes (Schallin and Tournavitou 2015; Mina et  al. 2016; Dakouri-​Hild and Boyd 2016). Indeed, in the introductory chapter to Mina et al.

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   3 (2016), Robb (2016, ix) comments on the “highly differentiated practices which may underlie the importance of burial as a means of constituting highly local identities” in reference to the different practices explored in the volume from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (BA). The variety of practices throughout the Eastern Mediterranean in the creation and embodiment of identities is richly illustrated in the chapters in that volume, although the theme of diversity is not explicitly examined. Similarly, diversity is evident in, but not the focus of, the chapters in the volume edited by Dakouri-​Hild and Boyd; drawing on postmodern studies, the funerary realm is examined through the lenses of performance, death, and the phenomenology of place with a focus on the situation of “human action” and therefore a strong emphasis on the context of the ritual activity. The volume edited by Schallin and Tournavitou offers a broader assessment of the current state of the Mycenaean studies than the previous two volumes, including seven chapters dedicated to mortuary data that give examples of current knowledge and approaches in that area. With the rich data sets explored in those volumes and the emphasis on the importance of context, these studies lay the groundwork for the current volume, which expands on the theme of diversity in practices, takes a different approach than traditional studies, and builds on the recent works. The Sociopolitical Background of Greece during the LBA The LBA (c. 1680 bc–​1060 bc) in Greece is a period of great turmoil and change on the one hand and of stability and continuity on the other. At the end of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), palaces had already existed on Crete for several centuries (Younger and Rehak 2008a, 2008b). These well-​built, opulent palaces, which presented evidence of foreign trade connections, control of production, writing, and centralization, had developed connections with some of the Cycladic islands, where large sites imitated the palatial wealth and practices seen in the Cretan palaces: e.g., Akrotiri on Thera, Ayia Irini on Kea, and Phylakopi on Melos (Davis 2008). These well-​developed societies contrast starkly with the small settlements in the rest of Greece, with the exception of the settlement at the site of the later palace at Pylos. The transition between the end of the MBA and the beginning of the LBA heralded a period of great change on the mainland with the construction of the Shaft Graves at Mycenae and the deposition of large amounts of foreign wealth in these family graves (Wright 2008). Pylos also showed signs of growth and development with an increase in settlement size and the construction of the Grave Circle and Tholos IV (Blegen et al. 1973; Murphy 2014, 2016; Stocker and Davis 2017). An attempt to summarize the sociopolitical status and developments of these societies almost inevitably produces a generalized view; this, however, has the advantage of providing frameworks within which changes in patterns can be

 

4  Joanne M. A. Murphy observed and site-​specific behaviors can be analyzed. Communities in MBA mainland Greece and most of the islands were probably kin-​based societies (Voutsaki 2005, 2010). This type of grouping tends to limit the shifting of allegiances as movements of people are dependent on kin relations (Sahlins 1961, 1968; Service 1962; Fowles 2002, 14). This lack of movement between groups with the exception of alliances created through marriage and foster/​adoptions of children results in a tendency toward sociopolitical stability among tribal societies (Abrams and Freter 2005, 192). The influx of foreign contacts and the new focus on wealthy burials evidenced at the start of the LBA (Cline 1994; Burns 2010), however, would appear to indicate a shift in the sociopolitical organization, which can be better discussed using the language associated with chiefdoms. The mortuary sphere often plays prominent roles in the power strategies of chiefdoms because it can help to create, establish, maintain, and communicate the wealth and status of the chief, which is frequently under threat (Brunton 1989; Earle 1991a, 4; 1991b, 77; 2011). By LH IIIB on the mainland, however, archaeological and Linear B evidence both demonstrate that the palaces in Greece were states with a centralized political body, a clearly delineated political hierarchy, a hierarchy of settlements, and varying degrees of centralized economies with control over labor and production. (For definitions of Archaic states, see Marcus and Feinman 1998, 4–​5 and Possehl 1998, 264. For a discussion of Mycenaean states, see Parkinson and Galaty 2007.) The types of instability in chiefdoms that frequently motivate attention to the mortuary sphere had been replaced by LH IIIB by the relatively stable hierarchies of Archaic states, in which emphasis on burials and tombs is less advantageous and therefore less common. This brief summary of sociopolitical conditions in Greece at various stages of the LBA generalizes for all regions within the Mycenaean world—​precisely the type of homogenizing simplification that this volume seeks to replace with particularized examinations of individual sites; it nevertheless provides a broad background in which the detailed local data may be set and to which they may be compared. Context in Literature This volume about variability in LBA mortuary practices in the Aegean builds on recent trends in both studies of the BA Aegean and of mortuary archaeology more broadly. The traditional view of LBA society is that different palaces and settlements functioned in the same ways, using the same sociopolitical strategies and mechanisms, having the same level of control and interest in production and consumption, and moving along the same evolutionary projection. This narrative arose from studies that combined data from multiple sites and generated a general, rather than a site-​specific, picture. Shifting this debate slightly from

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   5 a single interpretation and applying it to each site, Eder and Jung (2015) have argued for a single ruling Mycenaean entity in the southern and central Aegean during LH IIIA and B.  They contend that BA Greece was similar to 18th and 19th Dynasty Egypt where there was a single ruler with multiple palaces (Eder and Jung 2015, 118). Views that question monolithic interpretations have, however, been more frequently espoused. In the mid-​1980s Olivier (1984) and Killen (1985) drew attention to the differences indicated by the Linear B evidence among the various palatial economies. Several decades later, this idea of variation has been applied more widely; focused mainly around the palaces and their interests, recent studies on feasting (Wright 2004a) and craft specialization and distribution (Parkinson et al. 2013) have revealed significant differences at the settlements and palaces in Greece during this time. Different registers of economic and political control have been distinguished, and palatial control of certain aspects of the economy has been demonstrated; other economic transactions, however, remained outside the palatial sphere (see chapters in Galaty and Parkinson 2007). Investigations into political centralization and control of production, people, and resources also illustrate that the degrees of centralization and control varied at the different palaces (Voutsaki and Killen 2001, 3; see also Sjöberg 2004, 4–​5). Differences among the palaces are also evidenced in the types of crafts that each palace controlled and produced and in their levels of control and exclusivity. For example, at Pylos there is evidence for the finishing of chariots, which is not paralleled at Mycenae or Thebes; conversely, glass working is documented at Mycenae and Thebes, but has not yet been found at Pylos (see Polikreti et al. 2011). Recent excavations have yielded evidence of glass working at the nonpalatial site of Eleona in Boeotia, suggesting that even those crafts that were produced at palaces were not exclusive to them. (For discussion of production in the palaces, see Shelmerdine and Palaima 1984; Shelmerdine 1985, 2007; Killen 1999, 89; 2001; Palmer 1998–​1999; Nosch 2000; Shear 2004, 22–​ 23; Schon 2007. For discussion of objects over which the palaces seemed to exercise at most limited control, see Gillis 1997; Nordquist 1997; Galaty 1999; Parkinson 1999; Whitelaw 2001; Knappett 2001; and Killen 2001.) Degrees of difference among the palaces are also evidenced in levels of political control. At Pylos, Shelmerdine (2007, 45) has argued that although the palace was extremely strong and its influence far-​reaching to the hither and the further provinces, it shared its power with the religious sector and the damos (the people). The Linear B texts clearly refer to the palace paying the religious sector and renting lands from the damos, indicating that they did not control all the land. Indeed, the Pylian Linear B records indicate that most of the palatial wheat was grown on damos rather than palatial land (Killen 1998a, 1998b).

 

6  Joanne M. A. Murphy In the northeastern Peloponnese between the Argolid and the Corinthia great variation is discernable in the relationship between the palatial sites and the network of smaller settlements. Wright (2004b) argues that the settlements in the southern Argolid were more economically dependent on Mycenae than those in the Corinthia. Furthermore, in broad strokes the strategies for control and for consolidating power seem to have differed significantly between the states on the mainland and those on Crete. Parkinson and Galaty (2007) have argued that the state at Knossos was much more corporate in focus than the palaces on the mainland, which were more network focused. Most societies show components of both types of power strategies, but even on the mainland the palaces differed in their positions on the corporate/​network spectrum; Murphy’s (2016) recent work on ritual at Mycenae and Pylos demonstrated that Pylos leaned more toward corporate and Mycenae to network strategies. Along with variations in how each palatial center and nonpalatial settlement functioned, there was also great variation in their responses to the collapse of the Mycenaean states. Mountjoy (1997) has pointed to a series of destructions throughout Greece in LH IIIB–​LH IIIC. There was substantial rebuilding and LH IIIC occupation in the sites in the Argolid (Sjöberg 2004), most notably at Tiryns (French 1998, 4; Maran 2001; Sherratt 2001, 234–​235), but in contrast Pylos was abandoned and hardly reused (Davis et al. 1999, 181; Sherratt 2001, 234; Lafayette-​Hogue 2016). Outside of the palatial sites, settlements in the Corinthia, the Ionian islands, northeastern Peloponnese, and along the Euboean gulf flourished during LH IIIC (Sherratt 2001, 235). This brief overview of the some of the variations in LBA society thus emphasizes the growing understanding that LBA Greece was not a monolithic society. Mortuary systems, however, have not been substantially included in these debates. (For recent discussions on the complexity of the ritual and mortuary practices in the LBA, see Dakouri-​Hild and Boyd 2016 and Mina et  al. 2016.) Decades of scholarship on ritual and mortuary practices show that these practices are connected to the political economy; help create social narratives; manipulate space, time, and memory; and provide a venue to communicate desired ideologies. (For a summary of the ways in which mortuary studies can refine an understanding of the past, see Tarlow and Stutz 2013). Anthropological studies of mortuary systems combined with studies of political economies show that there are correlations between the prominence and wealth invested in a mortuary system and the key components of a society. These studies of mortuary practices and rituals also demonstrate that societies invest in cemeteries, tombs, and the associated rituals to varying degrees depending on the societies’ sociopolitical needs (Hodder 1990; Parker Pearson 1982, 2000). For example, in state level or chiefly societies whose stability and continuation are dependent on direct lines of succession, the dead are frequently buried in lavish tombs with elaborate

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   7 rituals drawing attention to their wealth and family connections (Bloch 1971; Damon and Wagoner 1989; Kirch 1990; Kolb 1994). Other societies that rely more on access to and control of land emphasize the ancestors as a way to legitimate that control (Saxe 1970; Goldstein 1980; Morris 1991; Carr 1995). Where exotic networks are important for the maintenance of the political elite, objects from these far-​off lands are included in the funeral and displayed to remind others of their contacts. As these studies show, societies incorporate mortuary practices more actively into their sociopolitical strategies at different points depending on the state of stability in the society. At other points in time, depending on the sociopolitical situations, societies decrease their investment in the dead and instead invest more visibly in the settlement, feasts, or other nonmortuary rituals. The combination of these two insights—​that tombs, cemeteries, and mortuary rituals are intricately tied to the social, economic, and political circumstances of their societies, and that there was significant variation in these realms among the individual LBA palaces and nonpalatial settlements—​is the focus of this volume. Each chapter in the volume approaches funerary evidence from a limited number of recently excavated or restudied sites, not as a case study contributing to a homogenized view of LBA funerary customs, but as an expression of those sites’ individual society, economy, and political structure. This Volume The chapters in this volume span the LBA, with some focused on the Early Mycenaean periods during the rise of the palatial states, some on the LH III state period, some covering all of the LBA, and others solely on the Postpalatial period of LH IIIC. This chronological span affords the opportunity to explore the mortuary practices at different stages during the development and collapse of the Mycenaean states. Because of the sociopolitical differences in LBA society during these periods, the tombs were incorporated into different social narratives and strategies. The chapters are also diverse in their geographical foci: two concentrate on palaces, Mycenae and Pylos, while others address second tier sites and still others take a regional approach. The variety of sites provides access to the narrative enacted not only at the palaces but also at different scales on the settlement hierarchy. The goal of the volume is not to provide comprehensive coverage of the whole of the Aegean, but to give a sample of the data available and new analyses of those data. (For recent presentations and discussions of other areas and/​or examples from specific sites see Batziou-​Efstathiou 1999 for Thessaly; Cavanagh et  al. 2011 for the Peloponnese; Konsolaki-​Yannopoulou 2015 and Kassimi 2015 for examples in the Corinthia; Hatzaki 2016 for Knossos; Van de Moortel 2016 for Mitrou; Lagia et al. 2016 for Phocis; Polynchronaki-​Sgouritsa et al. 2016 for Marathon; and Wright et al. forthcoming for Attica.)

 

8  Joanne M. A. Murphy Murphy, Stocker, Davis, and Schepartz explore a selection of tombs, consisting of chamber tombs, two tholos tombs, and a cist grave, around the palace of Nestor at Pylos that Blegen excavated in the mid-​20th century. The chapter gives an overview of their recent work on the tombs’ architecture, artifacts, and skeletal remains; shows the varying dates of the use of the tombs; and demonstrates both that the role of the rituals at the tombs and the sociopolitical role of the mortuary sphere changed over time and that there was differential access to food sources. They discuss the evidence for Minoan influence and contact in the graves in architecture, artifacts, and burial practices, and they show that the picture is quite complex. Modern sexing techniques used in this research correct Angel’s early estimates and reveal a more even proportion of males to females the graves. Shelton presents the mortuary evidence available from Mycenae and Prosymna and contextualizes the evidence in a diachronic framework. At Mycenae there are 200 chamber tombs spread over 27 cemeteries; the earliest date to LH I and LH II and are elaborately built and decorated. At the second tier settlement of Prosymna the chamber tombs were located in one part of an area of earlier burials, and Shelton argues that this indicates that they point to an ancestral burial place with a focus on tribal lines. At both sites, there was a significant increase in burials in LH IIIA but some went out of use in LH IIIB. She suggests that sumptuary laws may have been in place during LH IIIB. She contrasts the evidence from Prosymna and Mycenae with the practices at Aidonia, which she has recently begun excavating, and shows that the burials at Aidonia continued through the end of the Palatial period. Papadimitriou, Philippa-​Touchais, and Touchais integrate the cemetery evidence from Deiras, Argos, into a holistic discussion of settlement and cemetery and relate it to the earlier funerary practices. The cemetery with 40 chamber tombs and 30 pit graves, which is almost as large as Prosymna and is one of the largest in the Argolid, contains burials dating from LH IIA to LH IIIC Late, with a possible break in use during LH IIIC Early and Middle. Despite its large size, this cemetery has only a few wealthy tombs. The authors observe that the largest amount of wealth and exotica were placed in the tombs when the Aegean had the least amount of contact with other cultures. They point to the diversity of objects that are found at Argive sites outside Mycenae and suggest that this is evidence that these smaller sites had access to other foreign groups and that Mycenae subsequently began to take control of acquisition of these exotic goods. Smith, Dabney, and Wright explore the LH IIIA2–​LH IIIB2 cemetery at Ayia Sotira in the Nemea valley and examine the openings of the tombs. They investigate how many times the tombs were opened, how long the tombs were left open, and what rituals were carried out. Using highly specialized techniques, they show that tombs were opened five to six times, but the dromoi were not left open for long afterward. They illustrate that the earliest burials at Ayia Sotira in LH IIIA2

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   9 are contemporaneous with a dramatic increase in the quantity of fine painted ceramics at Tsoungiza, suggesting that this was a time when Ayia Sotira was becoming more integrated in the Mycenaean sphere. Paschalidis’s diachronic examination of the cemetery at Clauss, Achaea, which was on the periphery of the Mycenaean palatial society, maps the rise and fall of that society and illustrates how a warrior elite filled the power vacuum created by the collapse of the Mycenaean states. He outlines the chronological changes in burials in the cemetery and provides examples from each of the subperiods of the Postpalatial period. He draws attention to the possible connections of the community with Italy and Crete during the early transition phase (LH IIIB–​LH IIIC) and highlights the presence of secondary burials in the LH IIIA–​B period but their absence in the LH IIIC period. Based on the fragments of metal objects found in the earlier secondary burial deposits and the absence of disarray that would indicate illegal looting, he suggests that the metal had been removed from the grave by the deceased’s family: legal, contemporary looting. By analyzing two sites in Achaea—​one in Eastern Achaea, Aigion, and one in Western Achaea, Mygdalia—​and by emphasizing their different levels of investment of wealth in the settlements and tombs, Papazoglou-​Manioudaki outlines the differences in sociopolitical development in the two areas. She draws attention to the variety in the types of tombs used around Mygdalia: a tholos tomb, intramural cist graves, and stone built tombs covered with a tumulus. She argues that during the early Mycenaean period Western Achaea developed along similar sociopolitical lines to other parts of Greece, with the rise of small elites and settlements and the use of tholos tombs and chamber tombs in LH IIB. In contrast to the wealthy tombs in Western Achaea, at Aigion the tombs were poor and significant wealth was invested in the settlement. She relates the differences between the two sites to their sociopolitical development and argues that Aigion, in contrast to Mygdalia and Western Achaea, was strongly connected to and depended on the palatial sites in the Argolid. Borgna and De Angeli point out that although our reconstruction of Mycenaean Achaea relies heavily on chamber tombs, few have been systematically excavated in the area. Therefore, in their excavation of the Trapeza cemetery in Eastern Achaea they used detailed recording methods to investigate the life cycle of two tombs and ways in which the remains and objects were deposited in the tomb. They contextualize the evidence from the cemetery with the other archaeological evidence from the wider region. The two tombs described in this volume provide good examples of the burial practices from the Mycenaean period to the Submycenaean (SM) period. One tomb was used only in LH IIIA and contained seven primary burials, while the other is used in LH IIIA, IIIC, and SM. They draw attention to the use of these tombs as a focus for ritual connected to ancestors in LH IIIC through Hellenistic times.

 

10  Joanne M. A. Murphy Triantaphyllou and Andreou present a regional analysis of LBA mortuary evidence in Macedonia that is greatly enriched by the inclusion of the large number of new sites discovered in the area in the past 25 years. They draw attention to the variety in the locations of the tombs, the types of tomb used, and the treatment of the dead. Their discussion of the locations of the tombs provides evidence to map out the population shifts in the area and the growing connections between Mycenaeanization and trade. They demonstrate that the new burial types drew on earlier Early Bronze Age (EBA) and MBA practices and incorporated them into the new style of burials, and argue that the central Macedonian communities used tells to negotiate sociopolitical identities and ideological statements that were related to burials in other areas. Their investigation into the objects placed with the dead also challenges assumptions of the exclusive correlation between males and warrior/​hunting ideology. Georgiadis’s assessment of burial practice on Rhodes in the LBA shows that although the tombs are generally Mycenaean in style there is abundant evidence for regional idiosyncrasies. He also draws attention to the types of artifacts placed with the dead, which differ from those placed in mainland tombs; he contends that this difference is indicative of the local belief in the afterlife and of the rituals carried out at the tombs that transitioned the dead from individual status to part of the group status of anonymous ancestors. He argues that in the early period of their adoption the Mycenaean practices were more similar to those on the mainland because they were only used by the local elites. In LH IIIA, however, there is an increase in the use of chamber tombs and greater divergence from the mainland practices, which Georgiadis connects to a greater proportion of the communities using the funerary arena to contend for and display their status. McNamee and Vitale present the results from a recent exploration of the cemetery of Langada, Kos, that was originally excavated in the early-​mid 20th century. Their analysis of the cemetery, which consisted of chamber tombs and pit graves, greatly enhances our understanding of the relationship of the cemetery to the sociopolitical development of its society. Chamber tombs were the most common type of graves in all periods, although more pit graves were constructed during the Postpalatial period. They stress that although the tombs shared common practices of multiple burials and secondary treatment of the bones, there were idiosyncratic practices that hearkened back to earlier local practices. They argue that the most impressive tombs were built in the LH IIIB period and the mortuary practices can be tied to an increase in economic robustness in the area at that time. They further maintain that the mortuary evidence combined with the settlement evidence indicates that Kos surpassed Rhodes in its Mycenaean connections during LH IIIB.

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   11 Girella uses the evidence from the tombs in western south-​central Crete to reconstruct sociopolitical changes occurring during MM III–​LM IIIB. He contrasts the rarity of formal burials during the Neopalatial period (MM IIA–​LM IB) with the growing investment in burials in the subsequent period. The adoption and adaptation of new burial practices imported from around Knossos, which were strongly influenced by mainland practices, provided a new venue for different local social groups to identify themselves. In the Monopalatial period the western Mesara had several distinct types of mortuary patterns, which Girella connects to the relationship between each cemetery and Knossos. He notes that the situation changes again after the final fall of Knossos in LM IIIB, when there was a decline in funerary display. After this period, there seems to have been a shared funerary vocabulary in the western Mesara and a predominant use of chamber tombs with the dead interred in chest larnakes. Smith explores three cemeteries in East Crete, two at Mochlos and one three kilometers away at Myrsini, during LM III; despite preservation differences he successfully demonstrates their diversity in dates of use, architecture, location, grave-​goods, and burial style. He argues that although symbolic power can be created through manipulation of funerals and cemeteries, not all cemeteries or dead individuals are incorporated to the same degree into social power strategies. He contends that there was a significant social difference in the three cemeteries in the area of ritual and memory. In contrast to the other two cemeteries, there was little elaboration at the Artisans’ Quarter cemetery at Mochlos and little evidence for ritual. It would appear that not all cemeteries are equal in their social power. Smith also underscores some striking differences between Myrsini and Limenaria pertaining to the presence and absence of kylikes that indicate that Mochlos was more connected to the Mycenaean world while Myrsini was more locally focused. By examining the large number of tombs for which osteological analysis is available and exploring the expression and creation of female identity in the funerary practices during LM III on Crete, D’Agata fills a lacuna in the archaeological scholarship on Cretan practices. She argues that pyxides and jewelry were key components in high-​status female burials in the new funerary customs that were initiated on Crete after the reoccupation of Knossos during the 14th century, and she suggests that the status of the deceased was more important than gender. By drawing attention to the iconographic evidence for feasting and the number of bronze vessels associated with female burials, she contends that these objects point to the ability of the family of the deceased to host a feast and thereby display their wealth and desired status. She further argues that during the LBA and especially the Neopalatial period, society on Crete became overtly gendered and that burial was one of several ways in which gender divisions were communicated.

 

12  Joanne M. A. Murphy Discussion The chapters in this volume show clearly that there were significant differences in the mortuary practices during the LBA throughout Greece and that the adoption of the practice of burying in tombs types that are most prominently connected with the mainland (cist graves, chamber tombs, and tholos tombs) was neither a dramatic change nor an absolute one; on the contrary, the spread of mainland tomb types was gradual and most frequently combined with earlier local practices. The date of the adoption outside palatial areas on the mainland was preceded by connection with a palatial center and on the islands by contact with the mainland indicated by imported pottery. The level of wealth invested in the tombs was dictated by the size of the community, access to exotica, and the ability to manage labor sources. The use of the tombs was tied to the creation of new local narratives about identity, success, control, and power. In the following discussion, I address some prevalent themes from the chapters—​dates of use of the tombs, investment in the tombs, the treatment of the dead, and rituals in/​around the tombs—​and highlight some components of the cultural narratives pertaining to social competition, legitimization of status, and creation of identity. Date of the Tombs The introduction of new mortuary practices illuminates the changing focus and identity of the related communities at the start of the LBA. In the Early Mycenaean period, new practices were limited to wealthy and advanced settlements; in the later periods, they spread more widely to a greater proportion of the population both at new sites and at those of the early practitioners. At many sites the incorporation of older local practices into the new ones may have decreased the foreignness of the new practices and increased their authority and efficacy to impact social narratives. Tholos tombs were the earliest type of the distinctive LBA tombs and probably spread from around Pylos. Although few in number, the first chamber tombs were built and used in various places throughout Greece in LH I: Pylos, Mycenae, Prosymna, and Deiras. At these sites the number of tombs increased in LH II and LH IIIA. During LH I and LH II contact with the mainland spread to a wider geographic area and was followed by a wider adoption of the mainland mortuary practices. The introduction of this new way of burying their dead afforded a community the opportunity to create and express new ideologies, new ways to construct their identity, and new arenas to communicate how they relate to each other. During LH II several new areas constructed their first mainland tomb type:  Rhodes, Eleona (Kos), the coast of southern Peiria, Crete, and Achaea. More communities first started building chamber tombs in LH IIIA: Langada, Trapeza, Aigion, multiple groups in Eastern Achaea, several on Crete, and several

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   13 in Macedonia in coastal and mountainous areas along routes that connected the Aegean to the Balkans and Danube regions. During LH IIIB, although burials continue to be made at most sites, probably as part of an exclusionary power strategy, there is a marked decrease in tomb construction and use. In contrast to most other sites, the number of tombs in Langada increased during LH IIIB. Many of the tombs had a hiatus in LH IIIB but were reused in LH IIIC. This reuse during the Postpalatial period may be indicative of another significant change in the sociopolitical organization of these communities and a shift from connections to main centers and a return to reliance on more locally based power strategies. In Macedonia, Achaea, and Langada, there was an increase in the use and construction of tombs; some of which, e.g., Trapeza, continued in use until the Submycenaean period. Architecture The chapters in this volume also demonstrate clearly that chamber tombs were the most widely constructed type of LBA tombs, but that at several of the sites components of earlier practices continued. At most of the sites multiple tomb types were used throughout the BA, including a combination of the following: chamber tombs, tholos tombs, cist graves, pit graves, tumuli, and intramural burials. Tumuli were found in Deiras and Macedonia while intramural burials have been found only in Macedonia and Achaea. Despite the general standardization of chamber tombs in size and construction style as well as the uniformity of the objects placed with the dead, there were marked differences both among sites and between individual tombs in a cemetery. At several of the sites, e.g., Mycenae, Deiras, Prosymna, Ialysos, Ayia Sotira, and Trapeza, the chamber tombs, mainly the earlier ones, were elaborately constructed and sometimes included side chambers, painted facades, and plaster floors. Georgiadis contends that the side chambers at Ialysos were used for veneration of the dead. In contrast to the elaborate early tombs elsewhere, however, at Langada the largest tombs were built in LH IIIB, and Tomb I at Trapeza received a monumentalized facade and the addition of a cobble floor still later, during the period of reuse in LH IIIC. At several sites, older practices are either contemporaneous with the new practices or incorporated into them. The customs in the tholos tombs around Pylos may have been a product of combining earlier local practices with Minoan ones. Intramural burials continue until LH II in Eastern Achaea and throughout the BA at the tell sites in central Macedonia. At some sites, e.g., Prosymna and Deiras, as the authors point out, the location of the burial grounds seems to connect the newer burials with the older ones and therefore make a strong argument for intentionally associating the newly dead with the ancestors. In western south-​ central Crete, chamber tombs dominated new constructions during LH III but

 

14  Joanne M. A. Murphy older tombs of traditional Minoan types were also used. At Hagia Triada a novel type of house tomb was built and the painted sarcophagus placed in it. Treatment of the Dead Treatment of the dead was not uniform throughout Greece. These local, idiosyncratic selections of the placement of the dead, secondary burials, and who was included in the tombs elucidate varied emphases on family lines and different desires among the communities to stress their relationship to the dead and the longevity of that relationship. Inhumation was by far the most common disposal method, but cremation was also practiced at several sites alongside inhumation, especially in the peripheries of the Mycenaean world: e.g., several sites in Macedonia, Clauss in Achaea, and Langada on Kos. In contrast to the predominant placement of the dead in an extended position, at Langada they were consistently buried in a contracted position. Most bodies were placed on the floor of the grave, but some were interred in pits or on benches; burial containers were another variation in disposal of the corpse at some sites. Burials in pithoi were rare on the mainland, with the exception of the tholoi in Messenia and a child burial in a pithos placed in a dromos at Langada. In East Crete, however, earlier burials were put in pithoi before being placed in a chamber tomb or cist grave. Later burials in East Crete and in western south-​central Crete were deposited in larnakes before being put in an older tholos (e.g., Kamiliari) or a chamber tomb (e.g., Goudies, Limenaria, and Myrsini). Treatment of the dead was not consistent in these Minoan chamber tombs, and along with disposal in larnakes the dead were placed on the floor or on benches. At Pylos, there is a distinct difference in the treatment of the dead between the tholos tombs, where the dead seem to have been placed in pithoi or large jars, and the chamber tombs, where the dead were laid on the floor of the tomb either in a contracted or supine position or in pits. The dead placed in pithoi or larnakes may be connected to a desire to display wealth due to the costly nature of the container; in East Crete, Smith discerned a correlation between larnakes and wealth. Although many LBA communities practiced multiple burials in a single tomb, there are exceptions; in Macedonia, it was common for individuals to be buried in an individual grave within a tumulus that held multiple burials. Paschalidis draws attention to the intimate relationships expressed in the burials at Clauss, where six women and one man were each buried with an infant; he notes a similar discovery in an LM III larnax in Siteia. Post-​decompositional treatment of the dead and secondary burials were common but not ubiquitous. In the sealed burials at Clauss secondary treatment of the earlier LH IIIA and IIIB burials is clear, but the LH IIIC burials were all still

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   15 in their primary state. At most tombs the secondary burials were connected to reuse of the tombs, as Shelton pointed out for Mycenae and Prosymna, Georgiadis on Rhodes, and Murphy et al. at Pylos. Much of this secondary burial and post-​ decompositional manipulation of the dead seems to have a utilitarian function. In Pylos the earlier dead were placed in pits or in disturbed piles; during LM IIIA 2 Late, the post-​Knossian period, on Crete multiple sets of bones were placed in larnakes. At other sites, a more discerning collection of bones was made:  e.g., at Faia Petra in Macedonia, Trapeza in Eastern Achaea, and Kalyvia in western south-​central Crete. In East Crete only one of the two cemeteries associated with Mochlos yielded evidence of post-​decompositional handling of the dead; Smith argues that this lack of secondary treatment of the dead in the Artisans’ Quarter cemetery is related to its lack of sociopolitical importance. The proportion of women to men in the tombs seems to be quite even. Children are few in number but also present in some tombs. Infants are notably lacking in most tombs. The main exceptions to this are at Mygdalia and the Artisans’ Quarter cemetery Mochlos, where there were several children; Mygdalia also included fetuses. Two possible neonates are also reported from Ayia Sotira; the recent date and meticulous methodology of its excavation may indicate that other neonates had been overlooked in earlier excavations. Georgiadis suggests that the lack of children in the tombs on Rhodes was due to restrictions in the tombs, and that these restrictions were lifted in the LH IIIC period, when there are more child burials on Rhodes. A similar pattern is reported from Achaea and Macedonia. At several cemeteries there were empty tombs, which may have been cleared out in antiquity. It is unknown where the contents of these tombs were later placed. Objects Placed with the Dead The objects placed with the dead shed light on the varying levels of access that sites and individuals had to exotica or luxury goods, social differentiation among members of a community, shifts in power strategies and cultural values, and social differences between genders. They also highlight the sociopolitical growth of different communities and their chosen portrayal of themselves within their own community and to others. Significant amounts of wealth in the form of bronzes, jewelry, imports, and probably liquids in pottery were found in many of the tombs dating to LH I–​LH III A. The level of wealth was not uniform and was commensurate with the wealth of the related community. During LH I–​II warrior assemblages and large bronze vessels were found at several sites. In Macedonia, however, despite the rarity of bronze weapons, there were correlations of males with metals and women with jewelry. In Crete women were similarly deposited with jewelry more often than men, although the pattern of grave goods differed

 

16  Joanne M. A. Murphy in other ways; D’Agata points out that Cretan women were also associated with large vessels, which suggest that they were able to host a feast. She contends that it was only during LM IIIA2 that the status of women became visible in the tombs, which may evince an expression of a new gender division in the society on Crete. At most of the sites with evidence from LH I–​II, there was a relatively large number of imports; this is striking since the mainland’s network of exterior contacts was not yet extensive in these early periods. Most of these imports were nonceramics, such as jewelry and sealstones, and seem to celebrate the individual person. At Deiras during LH II–​IIIA and at Clauss during LH IIIA and B the authors suggest that there was a standardization in the pottery placed with the dead. There are, however, several examples where they were also provided with sealstones, jewelry, and toilet implements. During LH IIIA at Mycenae there was an increase in the number of wealthy burials, mainly in chamber tombs, that indicated Mycenae’s expansion and access to a large network for the import of exotic and luxury goods. In LH IIIB the wealth placed with the dead and the number of burials decreased at Mycenae, Pylos, Prosymna, and Trapeza. They continued to increase in Macedonia, however, and in East Crete. Although the level of wealth decreased, there was greater variety in the types of objects placed with the dead. In both Limenaria and Kalyvia, the authors connect the presence of kylikes to a connection between those communities and Mycenaean Knossos. Even more strikingly, Kalyvia was the only cemetery in western south-​central Crete where the graves contained significant amounts of wealth. The practice of burying wealth, mainly in the form of imports and therefore indicative of nonlocal networks and access to exotica, may therefore correlate with a community’s connection to the mainland. After the fall of Knossos (LM IIIA1), few objects of wealth were placed in the tombs in the western Mesara, with the single exception of one warrior burial. Although there was a return to older tombs during LH IIIC, few objects of value were usually placed with the dead at most sites. In contrast to this practice, at this time warrior assemblages became common in Achaea, while at Langada and Trapeza significant wealth was buried in the tombs. Rituals in the Tombs The rituals evidenced at the tombs also display variation. Three main classes of ritual carried out at the tombs are discussed: rituals inside the tombs, rituals in the dromoi, and commemoration rituals. Based on the drinking and pouring vessels placed with most corpses during LH I–​LH IIIA, it is possible that a small group of people participated in drinking rituals in connection with the burial of the deceased. It is equally plausible that these objects were not used by the living but were buried with the dead for their use in the afterlife.

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   17 Remains of kylikes and kraters in the dromoi provide evidence of elaborate rituals dating to LH II–​IIIA and IIIB at several sites. At Deiras the authors argue that rituals in the dromoi were private and underscored the shift from the MBA practice of individual burials in cists and pit graves to family burials in the chamber tombs. As more families adopted the chamber tomb, this once exclusive ritual became more standard. Girella, as mentioned previously, interprets the pottery types used in the drinking ritual at Kalyvia as a way to connect the community with those in the north of the island. Georgiadis emphasizes the difference between the dromos rituals in the tombs on Rhodes and those common on the mainland, which he relates to the incorporation of an older ritual or belief. At some tombs the rituals were more elaborate and included the consumption of meat, documented on Rhodes in addition to other divergent local customs as well as in in Macedonia (Faia Petra), or cooking, e.g., at Ayia Sotira. These practices are not evidenced at all sites, however. At Pylos, although fragments of LH IIIA and B kylikes were found in the dromoi, there were no complete kylikes or even full profiles of kylikes; it is most likely that the sherds were from the carpet of kylikes at the surface around the palace, as seen in the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP) collections. In LH IIIC, however, the dromos of one tomb at Pylos produced evidence of large kraters, which may indicate a later ritual pertaining to a renewed focus on the ancestors. At several tombs, there is evidence of commemoration; their manner and timing differs from site to site, however. The LM IB clay model from Kamilari points to a shift in the type of activities at the tomb and a new emphasis on open space and offering food to the ancestors, suggesting a continuing desire for commemoration. In Macedonia, commemoration at the tombs was frequently practiced. In several instances, earthen tumuli or built structures were constructed over earlier tombs. At the LH IIIC cemetery at Kryovrisi-​Kranidia, human-​ shaped stelae that were probably connected to a Final Neolithic (FN) site nearby were placed along the longer sides of cist graves. In at least one example at Clauss there was strong evidence for later ritual associated with a burial; a slaughtered young cow and some pottery was placed on soil deposited on top of the burials, which Paschalidis suggests may be associated with ancestor commemoration inside the tomb. Borgna and De Angeli have identified elaborate LH IIIC rituals in the earlier tombs at Trapeza, where the bones were not just cleared to make room for new burials but also put in mounds resembling tables on which offerings were made. In East Crete, Smith contrasts the apparent lack of commemoration and low level of rituals at the Artisans’ Quarter cemetery with the more overt instances at Limenaria and Myrsini. At the latter two cemeteries, he contrasts the limited distribution of cultic vessels at Limenaria, where they are found only in elite tombs,

 

18  Joanne M. A. Murphy to their abundance at Myrsini, suggesting that a once elite practice became more widespread. Conclusions This contextualization in previous scholarship of the themes in this volume and the discussion of the chapters is far from exhaustive. The goal, however, was to demonstrate the vitality of mortuary practices in the creation and expression of cultural narratives and the light that variation in this realm can shed on divergent entrenched components and attitudes in a culture. The papers in the volume demonstrate that the adoption of new mortuary practices was gradual and was usually preceded by increases in contact and in the importation of pottery from the mainland palatial centers, mainly the Argolid. They also show that new observances were not adopted completely and that earlier local customs were incorporated into the new ones. The implementation of new cultural practices in such a powerful arena as the mortuary sphere affords people the opportunity to create and express a new cultural narrative to bolster changing sociopolitical divisions supported by access to new trade networks and exotic imports. The widespread expansion of chamber tombs in LH IIIA indicates that a behavior that was once restricted to the elites became more accessible and inclusive of a greater percentage of the population. At several sites the continued use of old modes of burial probably created and expressed tensions in the society between traditionalists and enterprising new would-​be elites. This, as Papadimitriou et al. suggested probably fueled the competition in the funerals expressed through the increased wealth in the cemeteries. The decrease in wealth and/​or number of burials in LH IIIB at many sites contrasts with their increase in LH IIIA and their resurgence in LH IIIC. The LH IIIB changes may relate to a shift in local power strategies: at some sites, burial may have become an exclusionary power strategy with restrictions imposed by the rulers; at others, it may evince a shift in focus from the cemeteries to the settlements and to production and activities in the latter. The continued widespread investment in death at Langada indicates a continuation of the practices adopted in LH IIIA. The resurgence at several sites in LH IIIC and the (mostly) new emphasis on the ancestors points to a renewed prominence of the tombs in power strategies and local expressions of cultural narratives—​one that was more reliant on the past and family lines. By bringing together a diverse group of scholars working in microgeographical areas and placing their detailed work in a broader yet more focused context, this volume offers a more nuanced understanding of the roles of tombs and burial practices in LBA Greece. The chapters in the volume underscore the value of mortuary rituals both to ancient societies and to modern scholars trying to

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   19 understand those societies. Through this unique lens of funerary rituals they highlight how in LBA Greece different communities manipulated their dead and mortuary practices in a variety of ways to communicate their unique needs and how these needs changed over time. The also show how the tombs did not have a single role but were used simultaneously in any given community to express a range of claims and power strategies. Thus, this examination of the tombs sheds light on the diversity in Greece during the LBA and underscores the various preoccupations of the communities, the ways in which they chose to create their identities, and their different ideologies and microcultural narratives. References Abrams, E. and Freter, A. C. (2005) Tribal Societies in the Hocking River Valley. In E. Abrams and A. Freter (eds.) The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: The Archaeology of Tribal Societies in Southeastern Ohio, 174–​196. Athens, Ohio University Press. Alram-​Stern, E., Blakolmer, F., Deger-​Jalkotzy, S., Laffineur, R., and Weilhartner, J., eds. (2016) Metaphysis: Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22–​25 April 2014. Aegaeum 39. Leuven, Peeters. Batziou-​Efstathiou, A. (1999) To νεκροταφείο της Νέας Ιωνίας Βόλου κατά τη μετάβαση από την ΥΕ ΙΙΙ Γ στην ΠΓ Εποχή. Η Περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού κόσμου. Πρακτικά Α’ Διεθνούς Διεπιστημονικού Συμποσίου. Λαμία 1994. ΥΠ.ΠΟ.-​ΙΔ’ Ε.Π.Κ.Α. Lamia, 117–​130. Blegen, C. W., Rawson, M., Taylour, W. D., and Donovan, W. P. (1973) The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. Vol. III. Acropolis and Lower Town, Tholoi, Grave Circles and Chamber Tombs, Discoveries Outside the Citadel. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Bloch, M. (1971) Placing the Dead: Tombs, Ancestral Villages and Kinship Organisation in Madagascar. London, Seminar Press. Branigan, K., ed. (1998) Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press. Brunton, R. (1989) The Cultural Instability of Egalitarian Societies. Man, New Series, 24 (4), 673–​681. Burns, B. (2010) Mycenaean Greece, Mediterranean Commerce, and the Formation of Identity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Carr, C. (1995) Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-​Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical Determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2 (2), 105–​200. Cavanagh, H., Cavanagh, W., and Roy, J., eds. (2011) Honouring the Dead in the Peloponnese of the Conference Held in Sparta 23–​35 April 2009. CSPS Online Publication 2. Nottingham, Centre for Spartan and Peloponnesian Studies.

 

20  Joanne M. A. Murphy Cavanagh, W., Gallou, C., and Georgiadis, M., eds. (2009) Sparta and Laconia:  From Prehistory to Pre-​Modern. Proceedings of the Conference Held in Sparta, Organised by the British School at Athens, the University of Nottingham, the 5th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities 17–​20 March 2005. London, British School at Athens. Cline, E. (1994) Sailing the Wine-​Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford, Hadrian Books Ltd. Dakouri-​ Hild, A. and Boyd, M., eds. (2016) Staging Death:  Funerary Performance, Architecture and Landscape in the Aegean. Berlin, De Gruyter. Damon, F. H. and Wagner, R., eds. (1989) Death Rituals and Life in the Societies of the Kula Ring. DeKalb, Northern Illinois University Press. Davis, J. (2008) Minoan Crete and the Aegean Islands. In C. Shelmerdine (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, 186–​208. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Davis, J. L., Bennet, J., and Shelmerdine, C. W. (1999) The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project:  The Prehistoric Investigations. In P. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-​D. Niemeier (eds.) Meletemata:  Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year. Vol. I., 177–​184. Université de Liège, Histoire de l’art et archéologie de la Grèce antique; University of Texas at Austin, Programs in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory. Earle, T. (1991a) Evolution of Chiefdoms. In T. Earle (ed.) Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology, 1–​15. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Earle, T. (1991b) Property Right and the Evolution of Chiefdoms, In T. Earle (ed.) Chiefdoms:  Power, Economy and Ideology, 71–​ 99. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Earle, T. (2011) Chiefs, Chieftaincies, Chiefdoms, and Chiefly Confederacies: Power in the Evolution of Political Systems. Social Evolution and History 10 (1), 27–​54. Eder, B. and Jung, R. (2015) Unus Pro Omnibus, Omnes Pro Uno: The Mycenaean Palace System. In J. Weilhartner and F. Ruppenstein (eds.) Tradition and Innovation in the Mycenaean Palatial Polities, 113–​140. Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology. Fowles, S. (2002) From Social Type to Social Process:  Placing “Tribe” in a Historical Framework. In W. Parkinson (ed.) The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, 13–​33. Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory. French, E. B. (1998) The Ups and Downs of Mycenae:  1250–​1150 BCE. In S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern (eds.) Mediterranean Peoples in Transition:  Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Gallou, C. (2005) The Mycenaean Cult of the Dead. Oxford, Archaeopress. Gallou, C., Georgiadis, M., and Muskett, G. M., eds. (2008) Dioskouroi: Studies Presented to W. G. Cavanagh and C. B. Mee on the Anniversary of Their 30-​Year Joint Contribution to Aegean Archaeology. Oxford, Archaeopress. Galaty, M. L. (1999) Wealth Ceramics, Staple Ceramics: Pots and the Mycenaean Palaces. In M. L. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson (eds.) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces:  New

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   21 Interpretations of an Old Idea, 49–​ 59. Los Angeles, The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Galaty, M. L. and Parkinson, W. A., eds. (2007) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Los Angeles, The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Gillis, C. (1997) The Smith in the Late Bronze Age—​State Employee, Independent Artisan, or Both? In R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt (eds.) TEXNI: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–​21 April 1996, 505–​513. Aegaeum 16. Liège, Université de Liège. Goldstein, L. (1980) Mississippian Mortuary Practices: A Case Study of Two Cemeteries in the Lower Illinois Valley. Evanston, Northwestern University Archeological Program. Hägg, R. and Nordquist, G. C., eds. (1990) Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 11–​13 June, 1988. Stockholm, P. Åström. Hatzaki, E. (2016) Spatial and Temporal Variability in Identity and Representation within the Bronze Age Cemeteries of Knossos, Crete. In M. Mina, S. Triantaphyllou, and Y. Papadatos (eds.) An Archaeology of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean, 197–​203. Oxford and Philadelphia, Oxbow Books. Hill, E. and Hageman, J. B., eds. (2016) The Archaeology of Ancestors: Death, Memory, and Veneration. Gainesville, University Press of Florida. Hodder, I. (1990) The Domestication of Europe. Oxford, Wiley-​Blackwell. Kassimi, P. (2015) The Mycenaean Cemeteries of North-​Eastern Corinthia and the Early Tholos Tomb at Ancient Corinth. In A.-​L. Schallin and I. Tournavitou (eds.) Mycenaeans up to Date: The Archaeology of the North-​Eastern Peloponnese—​Current Concepts and New Directions, 503–​514. Stockholm, Swedish Institute at Athens. Killen, J. T. (1985) The Linear B Tablets and the Mycenaean Economy. In A. Morpurgo Davies and Y. Duhoux (eds.) Linear B: A 1984 Survey. Mycenaean Colloquium of the VIII Congress of the International Federation of the Societies of Classical Studies, 241–​305. Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 26. Leuven, Peeters. Killen, J. T. (1998a) The Pylos Ta Tablets Revisited. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 122 (2), 421–​422. Killen, J. T. (1998b) The Role of the State in Wheat and Olive Production in Mycenaean Crete. Aevum 72, 19–​23. Killen, J. T. (1999) Critique: A View from the Tablets. In M. L. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson (eds.) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea, 87–​90. Los Angeles, The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Killen, J. T. (2001) Some Thoughts on ta-​ra-​si-​ja. In S. Voutsaki and J. Killen (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceedings of a Conference held on 1–​3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge, 161–​180. Cambridge, Cambridge Philological Society. Kirch, P. V. (1990) Monumental Architecture and Power in Polynesian Chiefdoms: Comparison of Tonga and Hawaii. World Archaeology 22 (2), 206–​222. Knappett, C. (2001) Overseen or Overlooked? Ceramic Production in a Mycenaean Palatial System. In S. Voutsaki and J. Killen (eds.) Economy and Politics in the

 

22  Joanne M. A. Murphy Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference held on 1–​3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge, 80–​95. Cambridge, Cambridge Philological Society. Kolb, M. (1994) Monumentality and the Rise of Religious Authority in Precontact Hawai’i. Current Anthropology 35 (5), 521–​547. Konsolaki-​Yannopoulou, E. (2015) Structural Analysis of the Tholos Tombs at Megali Magoula, Galatas (Troezenia). In A.-​L. Schallin and I. Tournavitou (eds.) Mycenaeans up to Date: The Archaeology of the North-​Eastern Peloponnese—​Current Concepts and New Directions, 483–​502. Stockholm, Swedish Institute at Athens. Lafayette-​Hogue, S. (2016) New Evidence of Post-​Destruction Reuse in the Main Building of the Palace of Nestor. American Journal of Archaeology 120 (1), 151–​157. Lagia, A., Moutafi, I., Orgeolot, R., Skorda, D., and Zurabach, J. (2016) Revisiting the Tomb: Mortuary Practices in Habitation Areas in the Transition to the Late Bronze Age at Kirrha, Phocis. In A. Dakouri-​Hild and M. J. Boyd (eds.) Staging Death: Funerary Performance, Architecture, and Landscape in the Aegean, 181–​206. Berlin and Boston, De Gruyter. Lewartowski, K. (2000) Late Helladic Simple Graves: A Study of Mycenaean Burial Customs. Oxford, Archaeopress. Marcus, J. and Feinman, G. M. (1998) Introduction. In G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus (eds.) Archaic States, 4–​5. Santa Fe, NM, School of American Research. Maran, J. (2001) Political and Religious Aspects of Architectural Change on the Upper Citadel of Tiryns. The Case of Building T. In R. Laffineur and R. Hägg (eds.) Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference/​8e Rencontre égéenne internationale. Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–​15 April 2000, 113–​122. Aegaeum 22. Liège, Université de Liège. Mina, M., Triantaphyllou, S., and Papadatos, Y., eds. (2016) An Archaeology of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean. Morris, I. (1991) The Archaeology of Ancestors: The Saxe/​Goldstein Hypothesis Revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1, 147–​169. Mountjoy, P. A. (1997) The Destruction of the Palace at Pylos Reconsidered. Annual of the British School at Athens 92, 109–​137. Murphy, E. and Le Roy, M., eds. (2017) Children, Death and Burial:  Archaeological Discourses. Oxford and Philadelphia, Oxbow Books. Murphy, J. M. A. 2014. The Varying Place of the Dead in Pylos. In D. Nakassis, J. Gulizio, and S. A. James (eds.) KE-​RA-​ME-​JA:  Studies Presented to Cynthia W.  Shelmerdine, 1–​29. Prehistory Monographs 46. Philadelphia, INSTAP Academic Press. Murphy, J. M. A. (2016) Same, Same, but Different: Ritual in the Archaic States of Pylos and Mycenae. In J. Murphy (ed.) Ritual and Archaic States, 50–​75. Florida, University Press of Florida. Nordquist, G. (1997) Male Craft and Female Industry: Two Types of Production in the Aegean Bronze Age. In R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt (eds.) TEXNI:  Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–​21 April 1996, 533–​537. Aegaeum 16. Liège, Université de Liège. Nosch, M.-​L. B. (2000) Acquisition and Distribution:  Ta-​ra-​si-​ja in the Mycenaean Textile Industry. In C. Gillis, C. Risberg, and B. Sjöberg (eds.) Trade and Production

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   23 in Premonetary Greece:  Acquisition and Distribution of Raw Materials and Finished Products. Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop, Athens 1996, 43–​61. Jonsered, P. Åströms. Olivier, J.-​P. (1984) Administrations at Knossos and Pylos:  What Differences? In C. W. Shelmerdine and T. G. Palaima (eds.) Pylos Comes Alive: Industry and Administration in a Mycenaean Palace, 11–​18. New York, Archaeological Institute of America. Palmer, R. (1998–​1999) Models in Linear B Landholding: An Analysis of Methodology. In J. Bennet and J. Driessen (eds.) A-​na-​qo-​ta: Studies Presented to J. T. Killen. Minos, 33–​34, 223–​250. Salamanca, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Colegio Trilingüe de la Universidad. Papadimitriou, N. (2001) Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Islands. Oxford, Archaeopress. Parker Pearson, M. (1982) Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology:  An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In I. Hodder (ed.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, 99–​113. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Parker Pearson, M. (2000) The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Station, Texas A&M University Press. Parkinson, W. A. and Galaty, M. L. (2007) Secondary States in Perspective: An Integrated Approach to State Formation in the Prehistoric Aegean. American Anthropologist 109, 113–​129. Parkinson, W. A. (1999) Chipping Away at the Mycenaean Economy: Obsidian Exchange, Linear B, and Palatial Control in Late Bronze Age Messenia. In M. L. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson (eds.) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces: New Interpretations of an Old Idea, 73–​85. Los Angeles, The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Parkinson, W, Nakassis, D., and Galaty, M. (2103) Crafts, Specialists, and Markets in Mycenaean Greece. Introduction, American Journal of Archaeology 117 (3), 413–​422. Polikreti, K., Murphy, J. M. A., Kantarelou, V., and Karydas, A. G. (2011) XRF Analysis of Glass Beads from the Mycenaean Palace of Nestor at Pylos, Peloponnesus, Greece:  New Insight into the LBA Glass Trade. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 38 (11). 2889–​2896. Polychronakou-​Sgouritsa, N., Papadatos, Y., Balitsari, A., and Prevedorou, E. (2016) Marathon in the Middle and Late Bronze Age: New Evidence from an Old Excavation. Preliminary Results from the Excavation of the University of Athens at Plasi. In J. Driessen (ed.) Ra-​pi-​ne-​u: Studies on the Mycenaean World Offered to Robert Laffineur for his 70th Birthday, 305–​315. Louvain-​la-​Neuve, Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Possehl, G. L. (1998) Sociocultural Complexity without the State: The Indus Civilization. In G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus (eds.) Archaic States, 261–​291. Santa Fe, NM, School of American Research. Renfrew, C., Boyd, M. J., and Morley, I., eds. (2016) Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient World:  “Death Shall Have No Dominion.” Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Robb, J. (2016) Introduction. The Archaeology of Bodies and the Eastern Mediterranean. In M. Mina, S. Triantaphyllou, and I. Papadatos (eds.) An Archaeology of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean, vii–​ xii. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

 

24  Joanne M. A. Murphy Sahlins, M. (1961) The Segmentary Lineage:  An Organization of Predatory Expansion. American Anthropologist 63, 322–​345. Sahlins, M. (1968) Tribesmen. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-​Hall. Saxe, A. (1970) Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan. Schallin, A.-​L. and Tournavitou, I., eds. (2015) Mycenaeans up to Date: The Archaeology of the North-​Eastern Peloponnese—​Current Concepts and New Directions. Stockholm, Svenska Institutet i Athen. Schon, R. (2007) Chariots, Industry, and Elite Power at Pylos. In M. L. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson (eds.) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II:  Revised and Expanded Second Edition, 133–​145. Los Angeles, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at Press. Service, E. (1962) Primitive Social Organization; An Evolutionary Perspective. New York, Random House. Shear, I. M. (2004) Kingship in the Mycenaean World and Its Reflections in the Oral Tradition. Prehistory Monographs 13. Philadelphia, INSTAP Academic Press. Shelmerdine, C. W. (1985) The Perfume Industry in Mycenaean Pylos. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocketbook 34. Göteborg, P. Åströms. Shelmerdine, C. W. (2007) Administration in the Mycenaean Palaces: Where’s the Chief? In M. L. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson (eds.) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II, 40–​46. Los Angeles, The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Shelmerdine, C. W. and Palaima, T. G. (eds.) (1984) Pylos Comes Alive:  Industry and Administration in a Mycenaean Palace. New York, Archaeological Institute of America. Sherratt, S. (2001) Potemkin Palaces and Route-​Based Economies. In S. Voutsaki and J. Killen (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States:  Proceedings of a Conference held on 1–​3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge, 214–​238. Cambridge, Cambridge Philological Society. Sjöberg, B. L. (2004) Asine and the Argolid in the Late Helladic III Period: A Socio-​Economic Study. Oxford, Archaeopress. Stocker, S. R. and Davis, J. L. (2017) The Combat Agate from the Grave of the Griffin Warrior at Pylos, Hesperia 86, 583–​605. Tarlow, S. and Nilsson Stutz, L. (eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Van de Moortel, A. (2016) Politics of Death at Mitrou: Two Prepalatial Elite Tombs in a Landscape of Power. In A. Dakouri-​Hild and M. J. Boyd (eds.) Staging Death: Funerary Performance, Architecture, and Landscape in the Aegean, 89–​116. Berlin and Boston, De Gruyter. Voutsaki, S. (2005) Social and Cultural Change in the Middle Helladic Period: Presentation of a New Project. In A. Dakouri-​Hild and S. Sherratt (eds.) Autochthon:  Papers Presented to O. T. P. K. Dickinson on the Occasion of His Retirement, Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 9 November 2005, 134–​143. Oxford, Archaeopress. Voutsaki, S. (2010) From the Kinship Economy to the Palatial Economy: The Argolid in the Second Millennium BC. In D. Pullen (ed.) Political Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age: Papers from the Langford Conference, Florida State University, Tallahassee, 22–​24 February 2007, 86–​111. Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow Books.

 

Variety Is the Spice of Life   25 Voutsaki, S. and Killen, J. (2001) Introduction. In S. Voutsaki and J. Killen (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceedings of a Conference held on 1–​3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge, 1–​14. Cambridge, Cambridge Philological Society. Whitelaw, T. (2001) Reading between the Tablets:  Assessing Mycenaean Palatial Involvement in Ceramic Production and Consumption. In S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, (eds.) Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: Proceedings of a Conference held on 1–​3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge, 51–​79. Cambridge, Cambridge Philological Society. Wright, J. C. (2004a) A Survey of Evidence for Feasting in Mycenaean Society. In J. C. Wright (ed.) The Mycenaean Feast, 133–​178. Hesperia 73, special issue. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Wright, J. C. (2004b) Comparative Settlement Patterns during the Bronze Age in the Northeastern Peloponnesos. In S. E. Alcock and J. F. Cherry (eds.) Side-​by-​Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, 114–​131. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Wright, J. C. (2008) Early Mycenaean Greece. In C. Shelmerdine (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, 230–​257. Cambridge, Cambridge University  Press. Wright, J., Polychronakou-​Sgouritsa, N., Papadimitriou, N. and Fachard. S. (forthcoming) Athens and Attica in Prehistory: Proceedings of a Conference Held in Athens, 27 to 29 May 2015. Younger, J. G. and Rehak, P. (2008a) The Material Culture of Neopalatial Crete. In C. Shelmerdine (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, 140–​164. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Younger, J. G. and Rehak, P. (2008b) Minoan Culture:  Religion, Burial Customs, and Administration. In C. Shelmerdine (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, 165–​185. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

 

2

Late Bronze Age Tombs at the Palace of Nestor, Pylos Joanne M. A. Murphy, Sharon R. Stocker, Jack L. Davis, and Lynne A. Schepartz

Previous Work on the Pylos Tombs In 1972 Jack Caskey, Blegen’s colleague at the University of Cincinnati, could write in the Preface to the third volume of the Palace of Nestor at Pylos: “Carl Blegen died in Athens on the twenty-​fourth of August, 1971 . . . [This] volume comes directly from his hand: another task finished, like many before.” Among other things, Volume III was intended to represent the final publication of Mycenaean graves and cemeteries explored by the Cincinnati team: Tholos III, excavated in 1939 by Elizabeth Blegen; Tholos IV (also known as Kanakaris), and the so-​called Grave Circle (also known as Vayenas), both excavated by Lord William Taylour in the 1950s; and the Tsakalis and other chamber tombs excavated by William Donovan and Taylour in the 1960s (Blegen et al. 1973). One may be excused for imagining that the task of publishing the Cincinnati excavations at Pylos was “finished” when The Palace of Nestor at Pylos III circulated in 1973. But even then it was possible, reading between the lines, to understand that there remained work to be done. Possibilities for analysis of data were hardly exhausted and documentation in the three Pylos volumes was not extensive, with few high-​quality drawings or photographs and no comprehensive skeletal biology report.1 Renewed Studies at Pylos Our research is based on examination of the excavation notebooks, J. Lawrence Angel’s field notes on the human remains, and new analyses of the excavated materials. The primary records of the tomb excavations were divided between the 1.  The chronology of the burials has been refined: the results we report bear Jerry Rutter’s seal of approval, and we thank him for examining pottery firsthand, with the exception of that from Tholos IV. In addition, we thank Jennifer Moody for studying the ceramic fabrics. We are also grateful to Lena Papazoglou, former Director of the Prehistoric Collection of the National Museum; Xeni Arapogianni, Director Emeritus of the Directorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities for Messenia; Anna-​Vasiliki Karapanayiotou, former Acting Director; Evangelia Militsi, Director; and Litsa Malapani, Curator of Antiquities for the Pylos area. The Department of Classics of the University of Cincinnati and the Institute for Aegean Prehistory funded all aspects of our research. Joanne M. A. Murphy, Sharon R. Stocker, Jack L. Davis, and Lynne A. Schepartz, Late Bronze Age Tombs at the Palace of Nestor, Pylos In: Death in Late Bronze Age Greece. Edited by: Joanne M. A. Murphy, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190619305.003.0002

 

Palace of Nestor, Pylos  27 University of Cincinnati and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. The finds from the tombs were also dispersed. While most of the discoveries were placed in the specially built Chora Museum that opened in 1960, many finds from 1939 and the 1950s were transferred to Athens for study and safekeeping. Ultimately some of those materials were misplaced and not located for decades, but, by great good luck, some human remains, pottery, and small finds from the Pylos burials and the Palace of Nestor were located in 2007 and 2010. They had been stored in the National Museum with material from Blegen’s excavations at Prosymna.2 Thus some of what we present here was never studied by the Blegen team. In this chapter we present our studies of eleven tombs, including Tholos III, Tholos IV, the so-​called Grave Circle, seven chamber tombs (E-​4, E-​6, E-​8, E-​9, E-​10, K-​1, and K-​2), and one cist grave (E-​3) (Figure 2.1).3 Our focus is on new insights and perspectives on the construction dates of tombs, Minoan influences in the mortuary sphere, the duration of use for each tomb, variation in the wealth invested in the tombs (with special attention to imports), evidence for changes in mortuary rituals, and gender and diet differences among the people buried in the tombs. Our investigations demonstrate the significance of returning to finds from old excavations. Not only have we exhaustively documented individual finds, but we have also reached conclusions, based on subsequent discoveries and analytical advances, that could not have been drawn by the Blegen team. These tombs tell us about both the Palatial and Prepalatial economy and society:  in particular, how the nature of graves and the role of funeral ritual vacillated through time. We conclude that burial customs in Tholos IV may have involved some previously unrecognized Minoan elements; that chamber tombs and tholos tombs were most heavily used at different times; that funeral rituals varied over time; and that there was differential access to food sources. Some Assumptions about Data from Mycenaean Tombs In this chapter, we have used wealth and value to refer to objects that required a certain level of limited resources to acquire:  e.g., imports and objects made of substances that were in relatively short supply such as metal or semiprecious stones, or that demanded considerable skill and time to produce. Where possible, 2.  We thank Kostas Paschalides, Sofia Voutsaki, and Sevi Triantaphyllou for bringing these to our attention. 3.  Assignments relevant to the reexamination of Pylian burials were divided among the authors of this chapter. Schepartz, with Sari Miller-​Antonio, studied the human skeletal remains and organized the stable isotope analyses in conjunction with Anastasia Papathanasiou and Michael Richards. Murphy took the lead in documenting small finds and pottery from most graves. Davis and Stocker examined the Tholos IV tomb architecture and ceramic finds. This reexamination of the tombs that the Blegen team excavated is part of the Hora Apotheke Reorganization Project, directed by Stocker since 1997 (Stocker and Davis 2014).

 

Fig. 2.1  Tombs around Pylos (courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati).

 

Palace of Nestor, Pylos  29 E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-6 E-8 E-9 E-10 K-1 K-2 Vayenas Tholos III Tholos IV

0

50

100

150

200

Number of sherds MH

LH I-II LH IIIC Phase 1

LH IIIA

LH IIIB

LH IIIC

Fig. 2.2  Dates of tombs based on minimum number of vessel counts.

we have determined the associations of grave goods with individual burials. We have assumed that objects that were discovered on or near a skeleton had been originally interred with that individual. In many instances, however, the tombs had been disturbed by reuse when earlier burials and associated objects were gathered into piles, or when roofs collapsed. The extreme breakage patterns in the bones in Tholos III and IV and the pottery in Tholos III (at least) indicate that these tombs were further disturbed by looting (Schepartz and Murphy 2008). Owing to these disturbances we were frequently not able to associate objects with specific skeletal remains or to determine the original location of skeletal remains in the tombs. We have assessed the periods of most intense use in a tomb on the basis of the quantity of pottery from any given period that was represented in the burials in the tomb (Fig. 2.2). The Earliest Tombs The two earliest Pylian tombs, Tholos IV and the Grave Circle, are near the acropolis where the later Palace of Nestor stood. The Grave Circle, southwest of the Palace, has until recently been considered to be the older of the two. In light of research recently published by Davis and Stocker (2015), Tholos IV now seems be at least as early in construction and use.

 

30  Murphy, Stocker, Davis, and Schepartz Tholos IV may, in fact, be the earliest known tholos tomb on the Greek mainland, although such a claim is in contravention to the evolutionary model of architectural development long assumed (Pelon 1976, 192–​194, and, more recently, Papadimitriou 2015). The evidence for its date consists of three substantially complete pots that must have been the first ceramic vessels deposited in the tomb—​including a small pithos (or large jar) that is likely to have served as a burial container. Two are Minoan in manufacture and should be dated to MM IIIA (Davis and Stocker 2015). Both were found smashed and had in part been dragged into the dromos of the tomb when it was reopened to receive later burials. They were poorly illustrated in the third volume of The Palace of Nestor, and their significance overlooked (Blegen et al. 1973). We do not see any reason to assume, as is commonly done, that tholos tomb architecture in Messenia necessarily progressed from less to more sophisticated. Such an argument was once also made for the development of chamber tombs at Mycenae, but has been now rejected: the most developed chamber tombs are among the earliest (French et al. 2003, 38). Since the earliest burials in Tholos IV now seem to be MH III in date, it appears that one of the earliest tholos tombs in Messenia was also one of the most developed. This new interpretation of Tholos IV has consequences for how we imagine the history of the Mycenaean tholos tomb more generally. The Osmanaga tomb (also known as the Haratsari or Koryphasion tholos), poorly built of small stones, had been generally considered to be the oldest on the Greek mainland (Lolos 1989; Cavanagh and Mee 1998). Stemming from Wace’s (Wace et al. 1921–​1923, 1932) typology for the tholos tombs at Mycenae, an organic model for the development of tholos construction has been dominant. Tholoi are thought to have become more sophisticated through time, but it now seems more likely, or just as likely, that simpler tombs such as the Osmanaga tholos or the small POTA Romanou tholos recently discovered on the grounds of the Costanavarino resort (Rambach 2011) were built in imitation of the more substantial Tholos IV. Dating the final use of Tholos IV is more problematic. Sherds found in the fill of the tomb span MH III–​LH II, and we cannot confidently discern which, if any, of the vessels represented by these was associated with mortuary activity in the grave. The similarity between the gold jewelry in Tholos IV and that from Grave Circle B at Mycenae (Karo 1930–​1933, pl.xx80, XXXI:59; Mylonas 1972–​1973), Peristeria (see Marinatos 2014, fig.  88, 90–​91, 93–​94), and Kakovatos (Müller 1909, pl. XIII) points to an early date for the first burials in the tomb: MH III–​LH IIA. The LH IIIA sherds in the blocking wall, however, indicate that LH IIIA might be the final use of the tomb. Such a chronology for the use of Tholos IV inevitably means that the recently discovered, fabulously rich grave of the Griffin Warrior was constructed at a time when the tholos was being used for other burials. It is clear that the warrior was

 

Palace of Nestor, Pylos  31 buried in LH II, surrounded by hundreds of precious objects of bronze, silver, gold, ivory, and semiprecious stone (Davis and Stocker 2016). Included in the burial too were more than fifty sealstones, among which was the now famous Combat Agate (Stocker and Davis 2017). We do not as yet have a clear idea why the Griffin Warrior was not buried in Tholos IV—​or, for that matter, in the Grave Circle. We have no clear idea of the original appearance of the so-​called Grave Circle, where only a single course of stones arranged in a circle was found. Taylour was convinced that it represented the remains of a dismantled tholos tomb, as indicated in his earlier drafts of the chapter on Vayenas (ASCSA Pylos Archive, Box 9, folder 5). Donovan agreed with Taylour, while Blegen believed it to be a Grave Circle, something like the grave circles at Mycenae or the tumulus/​grave circle at Kato Samikon in Elis. Blegen finally imposed his will on his colleagues. Like Tholos IV, the Grave Circle was first used in the later Middle Helladic period; most of the pottery in the tombs that can be associated with burials, however, dates to LH II; and there is no ceramic evidence for interments after LH IIIA1. Some burials were deposited in small pithoi, similar to the small pithos found in the dromos of Tholos IV. The construction date and first use of Tholos III is unclear. Many fragments of LH I and LH I-​II vessels were found, but no pots were near complete and it is not clear that sherds were from broken grave goods. One restorable vase was LH II in date and probably had accompanied a burial. Numerous pithos and jar fragments suggest that the dead were here also buried in pithoi or Palace Style jars, as in the Grave Circle and perhaps also in Tholos IV. The existence of three monumental tombs near the site of the later palace points to a significant investment in wealth in the mortuary arena at a point in time when the first monumental buildings were being built on the Englianos ridge (for a discussion of the early architecture at the site, see Nelson 2001, 2007, and Rutter 2005; for the relationship between monumental architecture and graves, see Murphy 2014). Minoan Elements in Early Burials Several aspects of Early Mycenaean burials point to connections between Pylos and Crete: viz., the architectural form of the tombs, the burial practices employed in them, and Minoan pottery in the tombs. But interpretation of the evidence is in no case unambiguous. Here we discuss the form of the tombs and the use of pithos burials in Messenia and Crete. We later turn to other finds within a broader discussion of imports. The tholos tomb first became common on Crete in EM I  and was popular there until MM II (Branigan 1970; Murphy 1998; Legarra Herrero 2014). Despite

 

32  Murphy, Stocker, Davis, and Schepartz decreased popularity after that, at least one was built on Crete at Kamilari in MM III (Branigan 1970, 155–​156; Girella 2011, 2013). Although there thus was perhaps a chronological overlap between the use of tholoi on Crete and on the mainland, elements of the mainland tholoi, such as the circular shape and a collective burial area, suggest an alternative—​that they evolved from MH practices (Dickinson 1983, 64; 2011). Pithoi were found in all three early Mycenaean monumental graves on the Englianos ridge. But the idea of placing the dead in pithoi within a circular structure was not new to Messenians. Pithos burials had been set into tumuli throughout the Middle Helladic period (Korres 1974, 141–​144; 1975, 431–​512; 1980; Dickinson 1983, 59). The pithoi from Tholos III and IV were very fragmentary; skeletal remains were only found inside those in the Grave Circle. At least some of these jars were imported from Crete and are of types there used for burial, but study of the human remains suggests that the jars found in the Grave Circle may have contained secondary burials, not primary as on Crete. If the idea of pithos burials in tholos tombs was borrowed from Crete, the concept was not borrowed wholesale nor did construction methods of the mainland tholoi follow those of Crete (Cavanagh and Laxton 1981, 131–​133; 1988; Murphy 2003, 263–​266). Pithos burials on Crete were more common outside than inside the tomb, though found in both locations (Marinatos 1930–​1931; Schörgendorfer 1951, 13–​22; Petit 1990; Vavouranakis 2014, 201). Cretan tholos tombs were used for burials of large groups of people and sometimes even for entire communities (Branigan 1970); in contrast, tholos tombs on the mainland were used by smaller groups. The evidence for direct Minoan influence at Pylos is less ambiguous in the case of ashlar masonry used for prepalatial buildings on the acropolis and elsewhere in Messenia. According to Michael Nelson (2001), the initial use of ashlar masonry at Pylos included an ill-​defined system of walls constructed in MH III. Pseudo-​ashlar walls with reused ashlar blocks followed in LH I; orthostate construction in LH II; and lastly ashlar-​style walls built just before the end of LH IIIA (Nelson 2001, 181–​185. Early ashlar walls can now be better dated as a result of excavations in preparation for the building of a new shelter over the Palace of Nestor; see Karapanagiotou et al., in press). Nelson argued, furthermore, that the first monumental building in LH II was Minoan in style with orthostates and ashlar and ashlar-​shell masonry. He also has demonstrated (Nelson 2001, 190; 2007, 159) that Crete and Pylos employed similar styles of building at roughly the same points in time (for discussions on the significance of Minoan architectural elements at Pylos, see Englehardt and Nagle 2011; Rutter 2005). In addition to the local adoption of Minoan architectural styles, a Minoan mason’s mark was cut into an ashlar block in a wall beneath Room 7 of the Palace of Nestor (Blegen and Rawson 1966, 44, 95, fig. 16), part of the first monumental building on the site (Nelson 2001, 118–​119, 190)  and on a parastade

 

Palace of Nestor, Pylos  33 of the stomion of Tholos 1 at Peristeria that also dates to LH II (Korres 1983, 143). Limestone horns of consecration were also found at the palace. These were broken and incorporated into the pavement of a later ramp (Blegen and Rawson 1966, 328, fig. 238). Based on their context these horns of consecration probably date to LH IIIA or earlier. Changing Locations and Use of the Tombs The only excavated burials of MM III-​LH II date here examined were in Tholos IV and the Grave Circle, both of which are near the palace. During LH II a shift in the mortuary arena occurred when the first chamber tombs were built. All of these tombs were farther from the acropolis than Tholos IV and the Grave Circle (Murphy 2014, 2016). Chamber tombs E-​8 and E-​9 and the Grave Circle had extensive evidence of use during LH II. Based on ceramic densities, Tholos III may have been used in LH II, but for fewer burials than Tholos IV and the Grave Circle. The distribution of burials changed again in LH IIIA. Tholos IV and the Grave Circle were abandoned, while three new chamber tombs were opened in the Tsakalis cemetery (Murphy 2014). However, in contrast to the abundance of graves dating to MH III–​LH IIIA, there are hardly any from Blegen’s excavations that can be dated to the LH IIIB period or to the first phase of LH IIIC (Fig. 2.2). Only the Kondou and Kokkevis chamber tombs, both of which are far removed from the palace, and Tholos III received burials in LH IIIB and LH IIIC, suggesting that the burial focus moved away from the immediate palace area. The social significance of Tholos IV is signaled by its proximity to the palace and by the road that apparently led to it through the Northeast Gateway on the acropolis. This may well also have been the case in the matter of the grave of the Griffin Warrior, which is not far away (Davis and Stocker 2016, Stocker and Davis 2017). The gateway went out of use at the start of LH IIIA (Blegen et  al. 1973, 7, 23)  and direct access to the tomb from the palace was blocked later in LH IIIB, when Courts 42 and 47 were added to the palace (Wright 1984; Shelmerdine 1987, 559; Nelson 2001, 212). A  break between the palatial elite and the ancestors buried in Tholos IV must have occurred long before these architectural developments (Blegen et al. 1973; Murphy 2014). If so, then such a rupture may point to the ascendancy of a new ruling family after LH II. Instead of funerary processions to Tholos IV, if the dead in Tholos III were members of the palace elite, it is possible to imagine processions to that location of the magnificent sort that Bennet (2007, 35) postulates (following Sacconi’s [1987, 1999] reading of Tn 316, which records elite ritual ceremonies). Such spectacles would have communicated the elevated social position and wealth of surviving relatives. Based on current evidence, the scarcity of later Mycenaean graves around Englianos poses an obvious conundrum. We know from Linear B documents and

 

34  Murphy, Stocker, Davis, and Schepartz from surface survey that there was a large community around the Palace of Nestor, one that at its height numbered in the thousands and included many slaves and attached laborers (see Shelmerdine [2007, 43] for a discussion of palace workers and Whitelaw [2001, 63–​64] for the size of the population). Yet only several dozen dead are represented in graves of the 13th century and as yet the Palace of Nestor lacks a surrounding ring of chamber tomb cemeteries with LH IIIB burials, such as has been found at Mycenae (French 2002). The nearest large chamber tomb cemetery is that of Volimidia on the outskirts of the town of Chora, eight kilometers away. There are also a few chamber tombs at nearby Kato Rouga (Morgan et al. 2009, 35). Neither cemetery has been extensively explored, nor have the tombs been fully published. But, judging from the published finds from the tombs at Volimidia (Marinatos 1960, see also the compilation of publications in Marinatos 2014), these graves also were not much used in the final stages of the Mycenaean period. Despite the absence of a large sample of LH IIIB graves, the data we do have allow one to suppose that significantly less social capital in the form of burials, grave goods, and tomb construction was invested in the mortuary arena than in earlier times. Wealth and Imports A lower level of elite investment in burials, as evidenced by the shift in focus from tholoi to less architecturally “expensive” chamber tombs, is echoed by the trend between MH III and LH IIIB to deposit fewer “expensive” objects with the dead (see Figure 2.4 for the distribution of imported small finds). The distribution of imported luxury goods in Figure 2.4 clearly illustrates that most of the valuable items were put in the earlier tombs (see Fig. 2.1). All of the tombs, except the cist grave (E-​3), were disturbed, mostly because of the deposition of later burials and, in some tombs, roof collapse (Schepartz and Murphy 2008). The extreme breakage of the bones and pottery in Tholos III, moreover, indicates that it, at least, was cleared out in antiquity, either through cleaning to make room for other burials or through looting. The small number of precious grave goods in Tholos IV suggests that it, too, was looted (Schepartz and Murphy 2008). Despite the disturbances and removal of objects from the tombs, enough evidence remains for us to discern clear patterns in the practices. In all periods, by far the most common artifact placed in graves consisted of pottery of Galaty’s (1999) local fabric group; there were few imports from outside Messenia. Minoan (