The Funerary Landscape at Knossos: A diachronic study of Minoan burial customs with special reference to the warrior graves 9781407307572, 9781407337524

Citation preview

BAR S2201 2011 MILLER THE FUNERARY LANDSCAPE AT KNOSSOS

B A R Miller 2201 cover.indd 1

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos A diachronic study of Minoan burial customs with special reference to the warrior graves

Madelaine Miller

BAR International Series 2201 2011 11/02/2011 11:22:57

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos A diachronic study of Minoan burial customs with special reference to the warrior graves

Madelaine Miller

BAR International Series 2201 2011

ISBN 9781407307572 paperback ISBN 9781407337524 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407307572 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

In memory of my father Charles J. Miller

Acknowledgements This volume, based on my PhD thesis as submitted to the University of Göteborg in November 2007, could not have been completed without the support and help of a number of people. Firstly, I would especially like to thank Dr Davison and all others at BAR for agreeing to publish my thesis and Danko Josic for formatting the text. Secondly, to all those whom I dealt with in seeking to acquire copyright permission for the figures, Dr Yannis Galanakis, Katherine Wodehouse and Francesca Jones at the Ashmolean Museum, Dr Madeleine Donachie at the American Journal of Archaeology, Amalia Kakissis at the British School of Archaeology at Athens and Dr Hector Catling. I also like to thank my two supervisors, Professor Emeritus Robin Hägg, Göteborg University, and AnnLouise. Schallin, former Director of the Swedish Institute in Athens, for all their encouragement, support and help in a number of ways throughout this long process. I would like to thank all the colleagues at the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History at Göteborg University for their support, particularly in the last months of stress. Special thanks to Dr. Agneta Strömberg who during this hectic period has helped me with various matters concerning my text for which I am very grateful. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Pettersson and Maja Kramer for help with practical matters, and Dr. Jon van Leuven for improving my English and for valuable comments. I am thankful for last-minute comments on parts on my text by Dr. Nenad Petrovic, and to Dr. Katarina Streiffert-Eikeland for her encouragement and support throughout this journey that we started together a long time ago. I would also like to thank Kristina Älveby with whom I have had stimulating discussions concerning the Bronze Age and on a daily basis, been a supporter and helper in many ways. I would like to thank all those partaking in the seminars at the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History led by Professor Hägg, for stimulating discussions and comments on my work. I have also held seminars at the Swedish Institute in Athens, led by former Director Schallin, which have given me an opportunity to discuss the Aegean Bronze Age with archaeologists working on similar matters. I wish to express my gratitude to my family and friends for their patience and encouragement. Special mention should be made of my parents, my sister and my parents-in-law for helping me with various matters. I would like to thank my grandmother who, through her fascinating stories, awoke my interest in the past as a child. Finally, my deepest gratitude and love to Christian, Benjamin and Daniel for their patienece and belief in me during all these years. Madelaine Miller

ii

Table of Contents Abstract

i

Acknowledgements

ii

List of figures

vi

Chapter 1 Introduction

1

History of research Reading mortuary remains Presenting the problem Methods and materials The tombs and their locations The comparative material

1 5 6 7 7 10

Chapter 2 The Tombs

11

The chamber tombs MM II-LM IB Catalogue LM II Catalogue LM III A1 Catalogue Typological changes of the chamber tombs MM II-LM I The comparative material LM II The comparative material LM III A1 The comparative material The development of the chamber tombs The shaft graves LM II Catalogue LM IIIA1 Catalogue Typological aspects of the shaft graves The comparative material The pit-caves Catalogue Typological aspects of the pit-caves The comparative material The development of the tombs in the Knossos area Conclusion: A new burial tradition from the mainland?

iii

12 13 14 19 20 23 25 33 33 37 40 44 45 47 48 49 50 50 50 51 54 55 56 57 60 61 61 64

Chapter 3 Wooden Biers and Coffins

66

Biers and coffins at Knossos MM III-LM I LM II LM IIIA The comparative material

67 67 68 68 69

Chapter 4 Weapons and Armour

71

Swords Daggers Spears Arrowheads Armour Combinations of weapons and armour LM IA-B LM II LM IIIA The comparative material

71 74 75 77 78 78 78 79 80 81

Chapter 5 Pottery

84

The Ephyraean goblet and the kylix LM II LM III The comparative material The squat alabastron LM II LM III The comparative material The Palace Style vessels LM II LM IIIA1 The comparative material Combinations of vases LM II LM III

85 86 86 87 88 88 90 90 92 92 94 94 95 95 95

Chapter 6 Bronze Vessels

97

Tripod cauldrons Stew-pans Lekanai Lavers Plain pans One-handled basins Hydriae Beaked oinochoai

98 98 99 100 100 101 101 102 iv

Piriform oinochoai Squat oinochoai Shallow cups with one handle Kylix Plain handle-less cups Hemispherical bowls Lamps with skillet handles Lamps with vertical handles Ladles Scale pans Combinations of bronze vessels The comparative material

102 102 103 103 103 103 104 104 105 105 105 106

Chapter 7 Conclusions

110

Incipient changes – reflections of political instability Transformation of power relations Power stabilisation

Bibliography

110 111 111 113

v

List of Figures Fig. 1. LM I and II tombs in the Knossos area. (Preston 2004, fig. 2.  Courtesy Archaeological Institute of America/American Journal of Archaeology). Fig. 2. LM III tombs in the Knossos area. (Preston 2004, fig. 3. Courtesy Archaeological Institute of America/American Journal of Archaeology.) Fig. 3. Chamber tomb V (5) at Mavro Spelio. After Forsdyke, BSA 28, 1926-27, fig. 8. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 4. Chamber tomb IX (8) at Mavro Spelio. After Forsdyke, BSA 28, 192627, fig. 19. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 5. LM II chamber tomb (29). After Hood & Coldstream, BSA 63, 1968, fig.1. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 6. Chamber tomb 92 (89) at Zapher Papoura. After Evans 1905, fig.1. Courtesy of the Ashmolean museum, Oxford. Fig. 7. Irregularly shaped chamber tomb (6). After Forsdyke, BSA 28, 1926-27, fig.14. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 8. Kidney shaped chamber tomb (7). After Forsdyke, BSA 28, 1926-27, fig. 15. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 9. Horseshoe-shaped chamber tomb (10). After Forsdyke, BSA 28, 1926-27, fig. 27. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 10. Square chamber tomb (17). After Forsdyke, BSA 28, 1926-27, fig. 36. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 11. Tomb F at Kythera. After Coldstream & Huxley 1972, fig. 76. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig.  12. Tomb G at Kythera. After Coldstream & Huxley 1972, fig. 77. .Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 13. Tomb 2 (34) at Isopata. After Evans 1914, fig.53. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 14. Projecting buttress in tomb 2 (34) at Isopata. After Evans 1914, fig. 52. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 15. Section of shaft grave. After Evans 1905, fig. 8a. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 16. Plan of shaft grave. After Evans 1905, fig. 8b. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 17. Section of pit-cave . After Evans 1905, fig. 11c. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 18. Type Ci from tomb 44 (117) at Zapher Papoura. After Evans 1905, fig. 66. Courtesy of the Ashmolean museum, Oxford. Fig. 19. Type Di sword from tomb 36 (115) at Zapher Papoura. After Evans 1905, fig. 59. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 20. Type Gi sword from tomb 14 (58) at Zapher Papoura After Evans 1905, fig. 39a. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 21. Spear-head from tomb 1952 (100) at Ayios Ioannis. After Hood & de Jong, BSA 47, 1952, fig.8. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 22. Spear-blade from tomb 1952 (100) at Ayios Ioannis. After Hood & de Jong, BSA 47, 1952, fig.8. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 23. Spearheads from tombs II (101), III (31) and V (32) After Hood & de Jong, BSA 47, 1952, fig.12. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 24. Bronze helmet from tomb V (32) at the New Hospital. After Hood & de Jong, BSA 47, 1952, pl. 50. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig.  25. Minoan goblet. After Hood & de Jong, BSA 47, 1952, fig. 9;I.1. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens.

vi

8 9 12 13 19 24 35 35 36 36 38 38 42 43 49 49 57 72 73 74 76 76 77 78 85

Fig. 26. Minoan goblets. After Hood & de Jong, BSA 47, 1952, fig. 9;I.2. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 27. Ephyraean goblet decorated with Argonaut. After Mountjoy, BSA 78, 1983, fig.1a. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 28. Squat alabastron from tomb II (101) at the New Hospital. After Hood & de Jong, BSA 47, 1952, fig. 10. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 29. Squat alabastron from tomb 2 (34) at Isopata. After Evans 1914, fig. 67a-c. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 30. Squat alabastron from tomb 3 (35) at Isopata. After Evans 1914, fig.23. Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 31. Palace Style jar decorated with birds from tomb I (30) at the New Hospital. After Hood & de Jong, BSA 47, 1952, fig. 10: I. 6. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens. Fig. 32. Tripod cauldrons. Permission from Catling 1964, fig.18;7,8. Fig. 33. Stew-pans. Permission from Catling 1964, fig. 19; 1, 2. Fig. 34. Lekanai. Permission from Catling 1964, fig.19;3,4,5. Fig. 35. Laver. Permission from Catling 1964, fig.19;6. Fig. 36. Plain pan. Permission from Catling 1964, fig.19;7. Fig. 37. One-handled basin. Permission from Catling 1964, fig.19;9. Fig. 38. Hydriae. Permission from Catling 1964, fig. 20;2. Fig. 39. Beaked oinochoe.Permission from Catling 1964, fig.20;4. Fig. 40. Piriform oinochoe. Permission from Catling 1964, fig. 20;6. Fig. 41. Squat oinochoe. Permission from Catling 1964, fig. 20;8. Fig. 42. Shallow cup with one handle. Permission from Catling 1964, fig. 21;3. Fig. 43. Kylikes. Permission Catling 1964, fig. 21;4. Fig. 44. Plain handle-less cup. Permission from Catling 1964, 21;6. Fig. 45. Lamp with skillet handle. Permission from Catling 1964, fig. 21;9. Fig. 46 .Lamp with vertical handle. Permission from Catling 1964, fig. 21;10. Fig. 47. Ladle. Permission from Catling 1964, fig. 21;14. Fig. 48. Scale pan. Permission from Catling 1964, fig. 21;15. Fig. 49. Bronze vessels in tomb 14 at Zapher Papoura. After Evans 1905, fig.33. Courtesy of the Ashmolean museum, Oxford.

vii

85 87

88 90 90

93 98 99 99 100 100 100 101 101 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 105 105 106

Chapter 1 Introduction

During the last century’s archaeological investigations of the advanced Bronze Age culture maintained by the socalled Minoans on the island of Crete, a number of tombs dated to the Late Minoan period and containing weapons have been discovered in the surroundings of the site of Knossos. The tombs are not confined to a certain area or cemetery, but are rather dispersed around the Palace and town. Although they are characterised by their weapons, other artefacts – such as bronze vessels and certain pottery types – also distinguish these tombs. The tombs are of three types: chamber tombs with long dromoi, shaft graves and pit-caves. Various labels have been designated for them: tombs with weapons, warrior tombs, warrior graves and weapon-tombs. The term ‘warrior grave’ will be used throughout this study.

Palace in the aftermath of the LM IB destructions, i.e., in the beginning of the LM II period.2 Others have argued that the Mycenaeans did not arrive until later, in LM III.3 What appear as changes in the mortuary customs have been explained as a reflection of a possible new political power at Knossos.4 Previous scholarship raises a number of questions that I shall deal with in this work: to what degree do the burial customs in fact change in LM II, and what about the mainland influences? If the archaeological material points in that direction, how are we to understand such a transformation of the mortuary practices? Would this indicate an ethnic change? If, on the other hand, the material points towards a gradual process beginning already in LM I or earlier, with elements of mainland traits, what would that indicate?

Most often it is presumed that the custom of depositing weapons and bronze utensils in tombs was typical of the contemporary Late Helladic, or Mycenaean, culture as distinct from the Minoan. Thus, when weapons and bronze utensils are found in Minoan tombs, references are made chiefly to the Shaft Graves on the mainland which are attributed to Mycenaeans. This has led many scholars to argue for a Mycenaean connection with the people who were buried in the warrior graves. Even though the amount of pottery is relatively meagre, three distinguishing types of vases are found in many of the warrior graves: the alabastron, the Ephyraean goblet and the Palace Style jar. These vase types are also considered by many scholars to have a Mycenaean heritage. Accordingly they increase, in the view of certain researchers, the probabilities that those buried were Mycenaeans. The warrior graves are generally dated to LM II-IIIA, the period following the well-known destructions of sites in Crete during LM IB and before the great destruction of the Palace at Knossos in LM IIIA.1

History of research The following overview will be a chronological account of earlier research, and in addition my intent is to show that certain standpoints established already in the beginning of last century regarding the Minoans have been long-lived.

Under the sway of Evans In the beginning of the 20th century, Sir Arthur Evan’s ideas about prehistoric Crete made a great impact on Aegean Bronze Age archaeology. When he started to excavate, as the winner of contention among other archaeologists from Europe,5 he realised “his preconceived dream”. He sought to reconstruct an ideal world in which the Minoans were elegant and athletic people with a great love for art and nature. Evans, who admired flowers himself, was delighted to see that flowers and fauna had a significant role in the Minoan world. This fact, together with the apparent lack of fortifications around their sites, led him to conclude that the Minoan people lived in harmony with each other. He reconstructed the Cretan past as an ideal version of the fading British Empire where the focus of his research lay on the remains from the highest level of society. The Minoans emerged as an elegant and highly cultivated people. The presumably numerous inhabitants at other levels – poor

The warrior graves are often discussed in relation to the question of when the Mycenaeans arrived in Crete. Most scholars agree that a Mycenaean presence or power in Crete existed in the Late Bronze Age, but when their arrival would have taken place has not yet enjoyed consensus. Some believe that the Mycenaeans gained access to the For the destructions in LM IB see Driessen & Macdonald 1997. On the destruction of the Palace see Palmer & Boardman 1963; Hallager 1978, 17-33; Popham 1970; 1988, 217-27; 1994, 90-102; Niemeier 1984, 218-236. 1

2 3 4 5

1

For example Popham 1974, 256. Niemeier 1984, 218. Popham 1994, 89-94. Panagiotaki 2004, 513-530.

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

folk, farmers, slaves, labourers and so on – were seldom his concern.6

accepted without grounds and they could not find anything in the burial customs, the art or the architecture to confirm a Minoan domination; instead Wace and Blegen could see signs of mainland influences in Crete. Furthermore, the Palace Style amphorae and the Ephyraean goblets, which were found all over the mainland but only at Knossos in Crete, were of origin.12

Further on, Evans believed that a “new and aggressive dynasty” must have taken over control of Knossos after the great catastrophe in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.7 The succession of power was indicated, he thought, by the introduction of the Linear B script. He also noticed a break in continuity at some of the smaller sites along the northern coast, and a cessation of power at Phaistos and Hagia Triada in the south. In 1904, Evans finally found the tombs he had been looking for that could be connected with the new dynasty. On the eastern slope of the Zapher Papoura hill about 600 metres north of the Palace a necropolis was found. The large cemetery comprised a hundred tombs – chamber tombs, shaft graves and pit-burials.8 Since some of these tombs contained weapons, the natural conclusion for Evans was that they belonged to the new rulers.9 In addition, Evans discovered the so-called Acropolis tomb containing weapons on the ridge west of the Palace. Due to the variety of tomb types Evans had found, he discussed the possibility of more than one ethnic group in the Knossos area.

Despite the discussions, the Minoans and Mycenaeans were still depicted as before: peaceful versus warlike. Persson, for example, described the Cretans as art-loving and pacific whereas the princes in the Argive plan were bellicose. Likewise, Pendlebury some years later referred to the Minoans as a peaceful folk and argued that in Crete scenes of combat were rare in contrast to the mainland, which was a more warlike region.13 When Linear B was deciphered in 1952 and recognised as having been written in Greek, a Mycenaean conquest of Crete became for many scholars the established view.14

Minoans or Mycenaeans in the warrior graves? During the 1950s and 1960s, a number of warrior graves were discovered in the Knossos area. In the subsequent work, the focus was largely put on the question of whether those buried had been warriors and to which ethnic group they had most likely belonged to, Minoans or Mycenaeans. This issue sometimes became hotly debated due to the decipherment of the Linear B tablets.15 In addition to the weapons, other recurrent items were found in a number of the tombs: bronzes and pottery of certain types (Ephyraean goblets, Palace Style jars and alabastra) which sustained the picture of a group of tombs at Knossos sharing the same traits.

A shift in scholarly opinion In the 1920s, several Bronze Age sites and tombs were discovered on the mainland, especially in the Peloponnese where great excavation activity took place.10 The bias towards Minoan archaeology that had hitherto been prevailing was now more balanced with the new knowledge of the mainland Bronze Age.11 As regards the warrior graves that Evans had discovered earlier, A.W. Persson in his book Royal Tombs at Dendra from 1931 opposed the theory that these tombs belonged to Minoan rulers. Instead he proposed that mainland Greeks controlled Crete during this phase of the Late Bronze Age. The warrior graves found by Evans would thus have belonged to the Mycenaeans. Elements at Knossos in the style of the Throne Room, the frescoes and pottery paintings, and finally the shape and contents of the graves indicated this. Persson gained support from A.J.B. Wace and C.W. Blegen who had also rejected, in an article, Evans’ notion of a Minoan domination over the mainland. They maintained that Evans’ idea had been

In the 1950s, six warrior graves were excavated by M.S.F. Hood and P. de Jong at the New Hospital site and at Ayios Ioannis, near Knossos. The tombs consisted of five chamber tombs and one shaft grave. They contained weapons comparable to the ones in the Zapher Papoura tombs: large spearheads and cruciform swords. Hood, who was also the first to use the term ‘warrior grave’, proposed that these tombs belonged to a militaristic aristocracy, which inhabited Knossos by this time. This aristocracy would have been

McDonald, 1967, 113-169; Starr 1982, 9; Tsipopoulou 1999, 179; Hamilakis 2002a, 2-3; McEnroe 2002, 68-70; Papadopoulos 2005, 87149. See also Siapkas 2003, 1-2 on nationalistic movements in the end of the 19th century. He discusses how they affected the humanities and consequently archaeology as a discipline. As a result, people and nations were regarded as “coherent entities”. Nationality was the primary and determining identity, each nation having its own culture and language and living in certain areas. Nations and cultures were seen as permanent. Moreover, particular traits were ascribed to people within different nations and cultures. 7 Evans 1935, 786. 8 Evans 1905, 391-393. 9 Evans 1935, 847-853. 10 In 1914, Blegen discovered the settlement and tombs at Korakou. He proceeded to work at Zygouries, and at Prosymna near the historic Argive Heraeum. In the 1920s, Karo conducted excavations at Tiryns and Wace worked at Mycenae. Åkerström 1978, 40-41. 11 In the first article from 1916-1918, 175-189, Wace and Blegen defined the Pre-Mycenaean pottery and minted the term ‘Helladic’.

Wace & Blegen 1939, 138-139. Persson 1931, 61; Pendlebury 1939, 271, 287. 14 Niemeier 1984, 217-236. Until quite recently it was assumed that the Linear B tablets at Knossos belonged to a single administrative period and were baked in a single fire that also destroyed the Palace. Yet a final deposit with archives has not been found. Driessen (1993-94, 244-246; 2000, 104, 165-166) maintains that there are several indications that the tablets which have been found in the Palace did not belong to a single group. Instead there seem to have been different workshops all over the Palace, which differed chronologically from each other. In his opinion it is not possible to know whether Mycenaean Greek was spoken or written in other parts of Crete than at Knossos, or whether it was restricted only to the scribal class. Mycenaean Greek was perhaps confined to a socially or occupationally limited group, an ethnic minority. Those writing the Linear B tablets could have been Mycenaean Greeks or could have been Minoans using Mycenaean Greek only as an administrative language. Another possibility is that they were people who knew different languages, as was common in the Near Eastern cultures. 15 Driessen 1998-1999, 83.

6

12 13

2

Madelaine Miller

the caretakers of the chariots that were stored in the arms depot of the Palace. They most likely also managed the body of light troops and auxiliaries from abroad.16 Later, Hood argued that there was a marked change in the way that cemeteries, tombs and burials (in LM II-III) were spread over a wider area than previously. The old tradition of using communal tombs had been replaced by a new custom using family tombs or single graves with an only a small number of burials in each. Changes in land ownership could be the explanation, as the result of a Mycenaean conquest.17

in tombs could probably have derived from the mainland, the swords alone could not prove the nationality of the warriors. The influences of the mainland in the artefacts and armament do not necessarily imply a displacement of an ethnic group.21 A scholar who believes in Minoan continuity is W.D. Niemeier. He has maintained that invaders need not explain changes in burial practices.22 In his view, Knossos was under Minoan control until the LM IIIA destruction. After a restoration of the Palace, the Mycenaeans took over control. He bases his opinion on several facts: the seals, the Linear B tablets, the pottery and finally the tombs. As an example he compares the sudden appearance of the Shaft Graves at Mycenae (also containing weapons), without predecessors in the Late Middle Helladic period. Niemeier upholds a Minoan heritage for the chamber tomb with dromos and argues that, even if there in fact were Mycenaeans buried in the warrior graves, this would not indicate a Mycenaean conquest. Niemeier has also studied the three vessel types that are commonly found in the warrior graves: the alabastron, the Ephyraean goblet and the Palace Style jars for which mainland influence has often been pointed out.23 Regarding the Ephyraean goblet, he argues against Popham who believed it to be traceable to the mainland. He points out that the Ephyraean style developed in late LM IB under the influence of the Alternating Style and as a reaction to the horror vacui of the Palace Style. Although he agrees that the shape can be derived from the mainland, the adoption of a single vessel type (decorated in a Minoan style) cannot suffice to establish Mycenaean control. As for the supposed Mycenaean influence on the palatial style jars, he holds that there were resemblances in LM IB/LH IIA between the mainland and Crete, but divergences in LM II/LH IIB. Niemeier maintains that there are both chronological and stylistic differences between the Palace Style jars on the mainland and those in Crete. This will be discussed more thoroughly below in Chapter 5.

Two more warrior graves were excavated in 1968 at Sellopoulo, by M. Popham.18 The roof of Tomb 3 had unfortunately collapsed and the tomb had been completely ransacked; only a few scattered bones were found, which made it difficult to tell the number of burials. According to the excavator, the burial or burials had once probably been provided with weapons since fragmentary bronzes and a substantial number of gold rosettes were found. In Tomb 4, containing three burials, the finds were better preserved: pottery, weapons, bronze utensils and jewellery. Popham argued that this type of chamber tomb with a long entrance passage, or dromos, was typically Mycenaean and made its first appearance on Crete in LM II. Moreover, the burial offerings, consisting of jewellery and a predilection for weapons and bronzes, indicated that they had most likely belonged to the militant Mycenaeans. The latter probably assumed control over Crete around the end of LM IB and were buried later. These graves were perhaps the resting-place of the Knossian nobles.19 Catling, who studied the bronzes from the Sellopoulo tombs, pointed out the similarities between the material in the warrior graves at Knossos and some of the graves in the Argolid, namely at Dendra, Asine and Mycenae.20 The overall resemblance between the latter tombs and corresponding tombs in the Argolid could be explained by a deeper contact than just trade. He further acknowledged the differences between the ‘new’ burial grounds at Knossos and older ones, and asked whether this could in fact have been due to families moving from different parts in the Argolid, thus explaining the distinct character of the burial grounds.

In addition to the pottery, studies have also been done on the weapons from the warrior graves. Matthäus investigated how the weapons were combined in the Minoan warrior graves and in contemporary tombs with weapons on the mainland. Two main groups became apparent.24 Group A consists of tombs with warrior paraphernalia and other relatively modest equipment of bronze. Group B comprises tombs with weapons combined with different kinds of metal vessels and large sets of household vessels made of bronze. Although there is a wide variety within each group, there are

A few years earlier, J.T. Hooker had expressed his concern regarding some theories about Aegean prehistory. He maintained that theories which before the Second World War had been in opposition to Evans’ ideas about the Minoans and Mycenaeans had now become prevalent. Although he acknowledged that the custom of weapons

Hooker 1968, 81-85, is questioning Schachermeyr’s idea that it was in the LM II period that the Mycenaean type of chamber tomb came into use. Those earlier chamber tombs (at Mavro Spelio) were in fact not really chamber tombs since they did not have a stomion and the chambers were only cavities irregularly hewn in the rock. According to Hooker, it is risky to use only the ground plan without looking at details when trying to trace influence on a type of tomb. See also Hooker 1976. 22 Niemeier; 1982, 253; 1983, 217. Niemeier believes that the Linear B tablets should be dated to the LM IIIB period since no tablets have been found in LM II or LM IIIA contexts. But see Driessen, supra n. 15. 23 Niemeier 1984, 217-227. However, later in 1985, 217, Niemeier states that it is possible that the warrior graves were influenced by the Mycenaean burial custom, although it does not necessarily mean that the Mycenaeans held actual power in Crete during LM II/ IIIA1. 24 Matthäus 1983, 203-213. 21

Hood & de Jong 1952, 244-277, 1956, 82-99. A single tomb with weapons discovered south of the Temple Tomb was excavated already in 1940, by Hutchinson. The tomb was nevertheless not published until 1956. See Hutchinson 1956, 68-73. 17 Hood 1981, 12. 18 Popham 1974, 195-196. These were not the first tombs at the site. Already in 1900, Hogarth had excavated a tholos tomb on the south-west edge of the village Sellopoulo. Nothing of the tomb is left today. Huxley & Platon (see Hood 1958, 21) excavated two chamber tombs in 1957, c. 150 m south of the Sellopoulo village. The tombs are cut in the rock in the shape of large square chambers and approached by long and steep dromoi. They have been dated to LM III. 19 Popham 1974, 256. 20 Popham, Catling & Catling 1974, 252-253; 1987, 14-15. 16

3

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

nevertheless typical combinations. Of the tombs at Knossos, fourteen are similar to eleven tombs on the mainland in the combination of weapon types, but also the types of razors, knives, arrowheads and jewellery. Striking is also the ample combination of swords of types C and Di with the short sword of types Ei and Eii. Matthäus concludes that these tombs, with a few exceptions, belonged to a delimited social group. The similarities between the tombs show that the Minoan and the Mycenaean nobles had close contact. There is accordance in combination of weapon types between the Minoan and the Mycenaean tombs, but also concerning the other items of metal, like razors and knives. This is also noticeable among the pottery in these tombs.

an equation of mortuary customs and ethnic affiliation.27 It implies too many uncertainties, particularly since there is no knowledge about how people perceived ethnic identity during these times. In her work the warrior graves are not treated as a single group of tombs but rather seen as a part of the mortuary practices, i.e. high-status burials that she takes to appear in LM II. Although the mainland influences are acknowledged, she opposes the idea that these were accountable for the changes in the burial customs at Knossos in LM II. Instead it is argued that indigenous practices from non-burial contexts were blended with mainland ones. From the evidence of finds and structures, it is clear that the interments combined different types of symbolism of different cultural and geographical origins. People choose to manipulate the mortuary sphere in order to assert their status.28 The tombs should be seen in the light of the political and cultural climate that existed on the island. This was a period of active experimentation in burials, both in Crete and on the mainland. That notions of mortuary practices have been perceived as rather constant and conservative have, according to Preston, made scholars reluctant to consider the possibility that the Cretans could in fact have adopted burial customs voluntarily.

Social dynamics and mortuary display C. Macdonald, in his work on weapons from the warrior graves, proposes that the warrior graves belonged to officials of different ranks in the military organisation of the Palace.25 The diversity among the grave goods could imply that the men came from different levels in society, which were not only military in their character. In return for services in the Palace administration, people may have been given land and the opportunity to be buried near the Palace. Macdonald thus agrees with Hood, who suggested a probable reallocation of land after 1450 BC indicated by the scattered tombs. In his point of view, it is likely that those buried along with dirks and ‘horned’ swords (type C or swords of type G) and/or cruciform swords (type D) could have been warriors since the swords are the only weapons that were surely made for combat. Swords have a more restricted function in contrast to daggers and spearheads, which could be used for many purposes. The latter may nevertheless have belonged to soldiers. The tombs equipped with swords should be treated as a special group separate from those equipped only with spears. The appearance of new tomb types and different assemblages (in the cemeteries at Zapher Papoura, the New Hospital, Ayios Ioannis and Sellopoulo) could indicate that these were the burial grounds of the Mycenaeans whereas Mavro Spelio and Upper Gypsades had more likely belonged to the Minoans. Kilian-Dirlmeier focuses on social divisions in her work from 1985.26 Through the study of mortuary evidence of the elite at Knossos, she seeks to reconstruct social division. How the items were combined indicates that there might have been a relation between arms and accumulation of gifts, which could be linked to a certain military rank and thus defining social identity.

A study of burial assemblages with focus on the pottery from the warrior graves has been done by L. Alberti.29 She compares the latter with contemporary or slightly earlier tombs on the mainland. By studying the combinations of pottery, she tries to identify the ‘intrinsic’ Minoan features. In her opinion there is a strong resemblance between the most common vessel types in combination with precious objects, in the warrior graves at Knossos, and the contents of corresponding tombs on the mainland, event though there are objects of purely Minoan character, for example the braziers. There are further correspondences between the architecture and the funeral assemblages. Whether this was due to an inflow of Mycenaeans at Knossos is impossible to tell, but there must have been serious turbulence in both culture and religion during this period. In addition, Alberti has studied the tombs in the Mavro Spelio cemetery (MM II-LM IIIC) with focus on the architectural features that Preston 1999, 134-43; 2000, 231-232; 2001,178-179; 2004a, 137-146. In her work from 2004b, 321-348, the political dynamics in Crete in the Final and Post palatial periods is the focal point, which is an augmented version of her earlier work but also with an enlarged chronological timespan, from LM II-IIIB. 28 Tracing origins of specific ethnic groups has been a general endeavour in archaeology. See Demakopoulou 1997, 102; Preston 2004b, 322; Jones 1997,15-16; Siapkas 2003, 46. By the identification of certain traits in the material culture, one could link the material to different groups. The data used in determining ethnic identity, have been burial practices and artefactual assemblages. To a certain degree, scholars in modern time, working with Aegean Bronze Age archaeology, conduct their work in much the same tradition. This is especially apparent in the discussions concerning a possible Mycenaean presence in LM II-III Crete. The study of ethnicity has gained ground in classical studies in the last decade. However, these studies are mostly concerned with the written text and the archaeological remains do not have a high priority. See Hall 1997; Jones 1997; Malkin 2001. An example of a study where correlation between material and ethnic identity is made has been done by D’Agata 1999. She suggests that it is possible that ethnic belonging, in this case Minoan and Mycenaean, was reflected in drinking vessel types in LM IIIA1-2 (early). The Mycenean identity was identified by metal or tincovered kylikes while, clay or metal cups identified the Minoan identity. 29 Alberti 2001, 163-184, 2004, 127-136. 27

In previous studies, attempts have been made to identify the ethnic connections of those buried in the warrior graves. However, more recent works have instead tended to diminish such efforts. For example, L. Preston questions the sentiment of what she considers to be too straightforward

Driessen & Macdonald 1984, 56-74. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 196-214. On jewellery and weapons in male burials in the Shaft Graves see Kilian-Dirlmeier in 1988, 161-165. 25

26

4

Madelaine Miller

distinguish the tombs of the Middle Minoan period from those of the Late Minoan.

due to either natural causes or human actions like pillage. Methods of excavation, reporting standards and deficiency in sampling can further limit our understanding. Besides, whatever remains are visible today are only part of a ceremony that is hidden for us. The funerary act probably involved aspects that left no traces in the archaeological material such as processions, a display of the corpse, ritual meals, the placement of flowers and perhaps food or liquids. The burial could comprise different acts like wakes, mourning, singing and speech.36 Another obstacle is disentanglement, at least partly, from our own categorisation the remains of mortuary practices. It is likely that there might have been subtle differences that we cannot see or interpret today. What may in our eyes seem to be alike, as regards grave types or burial gifts, perhaps differed from one group of users to another and was thus imbued with different connotations. The value of an item could also have changed over time. To be able to interpret archaeological material without our own prejudices and ideas is naturally impossible since all people are coloured by their own time and their own experiences in life. The means and theories helping us in our search also change from time to time. What we now believe is the best way is likely to change in the future. This notwithstanding, it does not mean that there is no point in proceeding, but merely that an awareness of complexity is needed.

The present study has taken inspiration in a number of ways from both earlier and more recent scholarship. In addition to the works of pertinence for the warrior graves, there are others dealing with different aspects of Crete, from which this work has benefited. I will confine myself to mentioning a few of these: (1) Driessen’s paper on ‘Kretes and Iawone’s, some observations on the identity of Late Bronze Age Knossians’ where he discusses the identity of the Minoans and the arrival of the Mycenaeans, but also addresses the important question of how we should consider changes in the material culture.30 (2) The book The Troubled Island, by Driesssen and Macdonald, where the complexity of events in LM I Crete is dealt with. (3) The book Labyrinth Revisited, Rethinking ‘Minoan’ Archaeology, by Hamilakis and several other writers, in which new ways of dealing with prehistoric material are discussed, has been a source of inspiration on a more general level.31 (4) Moreover, Hamilakis’ work on Neopalatial Crete and factional competition should be emphasised, as should Adams’ on power relations and social strategies in Neopalatial Crete.32 (5) In order to understand the complexity and different approaches in dealing with the study of mortuary remains, Parker-Pearson can be mentioned as well as Voutsaki’s work on reconstructing social and political processes in the Argolid through the study of burial customs.33

Studies of Aegean mortuary remains in recent years have recognised the funerary ritual as a forum for social negotiation with possible flexibility. The socio-political context of the Late Bronze Age on the Greek mainland has been understood largely through the social role of mortuary practices.37 However, corresponding ideas about Knossos have until quite recently reached little attention.38 Earlier, scholars often tried to understand not only the social organisation, but also the status of the deceased, through changes in the funerary data. Patterns in death were seen as a passive reflection of social life, where high expenditure automatically reflected high status in life, while low expenditure implied low status.39 One of the critiques that later were raised was of the tendency to overlook the significance of rites as a medium for display and negotiating power, and moreover of the strong emphasis “on the representations of the social personae of the deceased”.40

Reading mortuary remains The archaeologist has to be aware that grave goods are carefully selected and yet may have many different meanings. They may be ordinary items or they may be specially made for the occasion. They may be consumed or destroyed during the funeral or put in the grave. Equally, items destined for the dead may be left above ground or hung in the branches of a nearby tree, thereby condemned to almost certain invisibility to the archaeologist’s eye. The study of variation in grave good provision is thus a difficult jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing.34 Inevitably, all people face death sometime during life. The preparation and search for the final resting-place are in general a well-thought-out process. Death may be considered a central moment also in prehistoric human life where the funeral probably held a deeply significant function, pervaded with meanings. From the burial record we can get a variety of information about the mortuary practices and the social context.35 However, the study of funerary data implies difficulties of several kinds. The grave and its contents are quite often found in a fragmentary state,

See Preston 2007b, 296, for a discussion regarding tomb artefacts and how they may represent different phases of the funerary ritual. 37 Dabney & Wright 1990, 45-53; Parker Pearsson 1993, 203-29; 2000; Voutsaki 1995, 55-66. 38 For burials at Knossos see Preston 1999, 131-143; 2004a, 137-145; 2004b, 321-348. 39 Carr 1995, 105-109. Many of the archaeologists working in the New Archaeology tradition aimed to identify the level of complexity of early societies. Binford was one of the American New Archaeologists that studied variability within burial practices in order to reconstruct social organisation. He studied social status variation or socio-complexity from forty ethnographically documented societies. He then proposed that there was a direct correlation between social rank of the dead person and the social personae of the deceased. Moreover, the social persona as expressed in funerary rituals was in correspondence with the relative rank that the deceased had had in life. He found that the more complex a society the more complex were the funerary practices. Hooder 1982, 197; Parker Pearson 2000, 27, 72. 40 Keswani 2004, 8; 2005, 341-402. 36

Driessen 1998-99, 83-105. Hamilakis, 1998, 115-132; 2002a; 2002b, 179-200. 32 Adams 2004a, 191-222; 2006, 1-36. 33 Parker-Pearsson 1993, 203-229; 2000; Voutsaki 1995, 55-66; 1997, 34-52, 1998, 41-58. 34 Parker Pearson 2000, 5. 35 Parker Pearson 2000, 5. 30 31

5

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

That mortuary rituals are anything but straightforward can be illuminated by some examples pointed out by Voutsaki. In Imperial Rome, wealthy freedmen sometimes erected conspicuous burial structures, whereas in classical Athens the funerary inscriptions emphasised citizenship and denied social division within the polis.41 Another example comes from Victorian England where the burials were used as a way of expressing extravagance by the elite. However, along with the adoption of this practice by other groups, the upper classes, in order to mark out their difference from the latter, now conduct modest funerals. The dead are now disposed of rapidly, through cremation, without the ostentatious setting which now is considered outmoded and in bad taste.42 In this study I will work from the premise that through mortuary rituals it was possible to modify the social order; consequently there need not have been an automatic correlation between a person’s status in death and actual status in life. Burials should not be seen as a passive reflection of the whole society or for the status of the individual.43 Moreover, what people do at times of death is not necessarily a reflection of their daily life. Before, during and after the burial, social relations can be reinforced or negotiated, perhaps challenged or maintained.44 Changes in the socio-political, religious and economic world are highly likely to have had effects on people’s conception about death and a possible afterlife, and the mortuary record may be seen as part of the transformations. It is important to remember that it is the living who perform the rituals for the dead and it is the living who in the end decide what will follow the dead in the afterlife.45 I find Voutsaki’s approach to mortuary practices useful here. She sees the “ritual [as] creating rather than mirroring social reality”. Through the funerary ritual, people’s perception of the world and their position in it are formed.46 The socio-political, economic context and the religious-philosophical outlook determine the outcome of the funerary rituals. These factors can be filtered through beliefs and symbolic codes and thus the outcome does not always reveal a realistic representation.47

end of this period in LM IB, Crete was more or less afflicted concurrently. There are signs of ‘selective’ devastation at a number of sites in Crete, where several of the main centres and villages were burnt to the ground. The targets of the destructions seem to have been administrative centres with Linear A records. Several buildings in the Knossos area were destroyed, but surprisingly the Palace was spared.50 A common opinion has earlier been that there are no signs in the material culture from LM IA that would indicate destructions, and what occurred in LM IB must therefore have been a rather sudden and single event. The explanations put forward to account for the LM IB destructions have been internal warfare, or invasion with a take-over by the mainlanders, or natural causes like earthquakes. Driessen and Macdonald on the other hand suggest that the LM IB destruction was preceded by a period of stress and unease caused by an earthquake on Crete in LM IA followed by the eruption on Thera.51 As a consequence, a series of changes appeared on the island. The number of sites gradually declined in combination with depopulation. Alterations in art as well as in the economic, political and social system of Crete were also visible. In LM II, Knossos is the only place on the island where there was large-scale activity. The rest of the island still suffered from the previous destruction.52 Many sites were still depopulated and other had less widespread occupation than previously.53 Scholars maintain that it is in this period that a new burial practice was introduced at Knossos. The material culture in general shows strong mainland influences, but it is the Linear B tablets, the tomb types and the burial assemblages, in particular, that have led scholars to consider the possibility of an actual physical presence of mainlanders. They argue that these tombs, i.e. chamber tombs with long dromos with inclining wall, shaft graves and pit-caves, never had been used on the island before but were of mainland types.54 Just as the devastation in LM IB Destructions have been noted at Zominthos, Tylissos, Knossos, Amnisos, Nirou Chani, Mallia, Archanes Tourogeitonia and Sklavokambos in central Crete, at Chania and Nerokourou in the west, Phaistos and Ayia Triada, Gournia, Pseira, Pyrgos, Makyriyialos, Petras, Palaikastro, Zakros in the east and on the island Mochlos. Examples on selective destruction are the villa at Pyrgos which was burned while the surrounding town was spared and Building B2 at Mochlos which was destroyed but not the artisan quarter. Rehak and Younger 1998, 148. 51 Humans most likely caused the fire destructions. Some houses or rooms had been emptied before the destruction, thus indicating that people had an awareness of a forthcoming danger and time to pack and leave. Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 88, 105-108; Rehak and Younger 1998, 100-101. 52 Rehak and Younger 1998, 149-150; Merousis 2002, 163-169. Although Popham 1980, 163-166, maintains that almost all the sites that had been destroyed in LM IB indicate evidence of re-occupation. There is also indications, he means, of new sites being established or sites that previously had not been known to have been occupied earlier. Although there are signs of recovery on the island in LM IIIA, most of the settlements never reached their former size as during the Neopalatial period. 53 Hood 1981,11.According to Haskell 1997,188, site identification has traditionally been based on pottery with affinities to Knossian pottery which has until quite lately been found mostly in the central and western part of Crete. In recent excavations in the eastern part of the island, LM II pottery of central Cretan type has been found. Since the understanding of the localised pottery has become better it has made the identification of more sites from this period possible. 54 Hood 1981, 11; Popham 1994, 89; Rehak and Younger 1998, 148. For a thorough discussion on the different opinions on the LM IB destruction’s in Crete see Driessen and Macdonald 1997, 105-115. 50

Presenting the problem The Neopalatial period is often thought to have been the golden age in Crete when arts and crafts reached their highest level. The material culture is characterised by a high degree of homogeneity, leading many scholars to conclude that the island was unified socio-politically under Knossos.48 However, recent studies have questioned this opinion and instead it is proposed that there was a high degree of competition among the elite groups at Knossos, which resulted in strong ideological centralisation.49 At the Voutsaki 1995, 57. Parker Pearson 2000, 43. 43 Parker Pearson 2000, 32; Voutsaki 1995, 56; 1998, 44. 44 Preston 1999, 134. 45 Parker Pearson 2000, 3. 46 Voutsaki 1998, 44. 47 Carr 1995, 111, 188-189 48 Adams 2006, 1. 49 Hamilakis 2002b, 179-200, explains the power relations in the Neopalatial period at Knossos by factional competition. But see Adams 2004a, 191-222, for another view. 41 42

6

Madelaine Miller

is most often seen as a single and sudden event, so is the appearance of the burial customs in LM II. To a certain degree this can be explained by the funerary gap that has long puzzled scholars: not only have few graves been found dating to the Neopalatial period, but there are no royal tombs found from this period that could be connected with the Palace.55 On the mainland, the contemporary picture is opposite – no palaces can be found but there are tombs with a royal character, chiefly the Shaft Graves at Mycenae.56 The cemeteries and tombs, both in LM II and LM III A1, display a number of differences, which have been rather neglected in the past in favour of straightforward equations between correspondences in the material culture and ethnic affiliations. The tombs/cemeteries that display the highest level of correspondence with mainland traits are also likely to have contained persons from the mainland or to have originated from there.

Tomb of Isopata is included although it qualifies more as a built chamber tomb than as an ‘ordinary’ chamber tomb. Each category of finds will be treated separately and comparisons will be conducted on an intra-local level, i.e. between the cemeteries, as well as diachronically covering the periods MM II-LM IIIA1. This will be followed by comparisons with similar material groups from the comparative tombs. A comparative approach can reveal not only correlations between assemblages, but also variations among them. In this study all tombs that at some point have been referred to as warrior graves will be included. The warrior graves constitute only a small part of the total number of graves in the area and do not belong to a single cemetery, but are dispersed in several cemeteries around the Palace at Knossos, together with other tombs without weapons. Some of the warrior graves do not even belong to a cemetery but they lie isolated. Perhaps as a consequence of this, both previous and present scholars have tended to discuss the warrior graves in a rather fuzzy mode. The tombs are often referred to as the warrior graves or the weapon tombs and so forth, without specifying more in detail which tombs they refer to. Due to the allusion of a connection with the Argolid on the mainland, four burial grounds have been chosen: Prosymna, Dendra, and the Third Kilometre cemetery and Kalkani cemetery at Mycenae. These cemeteries are fairly well published, which naturally increases the possibility of gaining more information; moreover, they comprise a relatively large number of tombs, which is an advantage in a comparative study. In addition, comparisons with the chamber tombs in Kythera will be made. These tombs display parallels with some of the early chamber tombs at Knossos and can thus serve as an important link in the study.

Earlier studies of the warrior graves at Knossos have mostly centred on the periods LM II and LM IIIA1. However, by making a diachronic examination of the burials in the Knossos area and starting earlier than usual, in the MM II period, despite the scarcity of tombs, the possibility of discerning patterns and variations in the material will increase. To what degree does the mortuary customs change, and to what degree can they be traced to the mainland? Do mainland elements in the tombs indicate an ethnic change? If the burial data from the periods preceding the warrior graves were to display mainland traits, albeit on a smaller scale, what would this indicate?

Methods and materials This will primarily be a comparative study where variations in tomb architecture, tomb assemblages and tomb locations are of the greatest interest. To make the abundant material manageable, I have chosen to focus on the following categories: grave types, weapons, pottery and bronzes. The choice of categories is due to their key roles in earlier discussions about the warrior graves. The following types of graves will therefore be included in this work: chamber tombs, shaft graves and pit-caves. Pithos and cave burials, which had a long tradition in Crete, will not be included. These were few in numbers during the LM II and III A1 periods, but more importantly the focal point concerns whether new elements can be traced in the funerary customs. Inconsistent as it may sound, I have decided not to include the tholos tombs at Knossos even though they would suit the discussion about new elements in the mortuary sphere. First and foremost it is the grave types that have been debated in relation to the warrior graves that will be examined (chamber tombs, shaft graves and pit-caves). For the same reason the Temple Tomb will be excluded.57 Nevertheless, these tombs will be mentioned in the discussions that follow. On the other hand, the Royal

In the following section, the tombs which are included in this study will be presented in chronological order. Their locations will likewise be specified.

The tombs and their locations The area of investigation covers the Knossos valley from Poros in the north to Gypsades, south of the Palace. The physical environment around the Palace is that of a lowland with river valleys that run from south to north.58 The Palace, which is hidden from the sea by the low hills to its north, is situated in one of these valleys, close to the river Kairatos. After having met the tributary Vlikhia, this river runs to the east of the Palace, and reaches the sea 5 km to the north. In addition to the river valley, the area is characterised by ridges. On the north-west side of the Palace is the Ayios Ioannis ridge; parallel to it is the Kephala ridge. Immediately to the west of the Palace is the lower ridge, the Acropolis Hill (Monastiriako Kefali). To the east of the river Kairatos lies the massive limestone Geologically the Knossos area consists of the white soft Cretaceous limestone-kouskouras, which easily erodes and is therefore suitable for cutting tombs. On the low spur of Gypsades south of the Palace there is crystalline gypsum, which was used in the construction of the Palace. Roberts 1981, 5. 58

Driessen & Macdonald 1997, 168. 56 Dabney & Wright 1990, 48. 57 For a recent contribution on the Kephala tholos, see Preston 2005, 61-113. 55

7

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

Fig. 1. LM I and II tombs in the Knossos area. (Preston 2004, fig. 2.  Courtesy Archaeological Institute of America/ American Journal of Archaeology).

ridge of Ailias. On the west slopes of the Kephala ridge, a probable road connected Knossos with its harbour towns, Poros and Amnisos on the north coast of Crete.59

shaft graves. The tombs are placed 120 m up the slope of the terraced hill. According to the excavator, the terraces could have been constructed in ancient times. Most tombs are packed together towards the bottom of the site, but some are scattered on the upper terraces. From the cemetery there is an extensive view over the Knossos valley, including southward to Mount Juktas and northward to the sea. The cemetery dates from MM II-LM III. Further, 200 m south of Mavro Spelio and 300 m east of the Kairatos lies another cemetery on the Ailias ridge. The cemetery consists of five chamber tombs from MM II-III.63 About 1 km south of the Palace and 500 m east of the river Vlikhia, on the northeast slopes of the Upper Gypsades ridge, are two chamber tombs from the Middle Minoan period.64

MM II-LM I The Knossian harbour town Poros was situated less than 1 km from the north coast and c. 4 km north of the Palace.60 The associated Neopalatial cemetery was located on a low hill, south-west of the settlement and close to the west side of the river Kairatos.61 The tombs, which so far comprise seven, were placed close to each other. The cemetery was in use from MM II-LM IB. The contemporary cemetery Mavro Spelio lies about 600 m east of the Palace and about 350 m east of the Kairatos.62 At this cemetery 22 tombs have been excavated, including 19 chamber tombs and two

Some 500 m south of the Palace, a shaft grave and a MM tholos tomb of Mesara type are located. There is no information regarding the orientation of these tombs since

According to Hutchinson 1956b, 74, a number of tombs, dating from the Late Minoan to the Protogeometric periods have been discovered along this probable road thus suggesting that this perhaps was a Minoan Appian Way. See Hood 1981, 14-15, for other roads in the Knossos area. 60 Hood & Smyth 1981, fig. 1. 61 Dimopoulou 1999, 28. 62 Forsdyke 1926-27, 244-246. 59

Hood 1951, 252, 1952, 108; Hood & Smyth 1981, 54, no. 257. The tombs are still unpublished. 64 Hood 1958-59, 194-195; Hood & Smyth 1981, no. 331. 63

8

Madelaine Miller

Fig. 2. LM III tombs in the Knossos area. (Preston 2004, fig. 3. Courtesy Archaeological Institute of America/ American Journal of Archaeology.)

they have not yet have been published.65 Consequently they are also omitted from my catalogue.

ancient road that connected the port with the Palace and the town of Knossos. The tomb reached a height of 3 m above the rock surface, and must therefore have been a striking marker in the landscape. On the edge of the same plateau and west of the river Kairatos lies the main cemetery of Isopata.69 Another new area for burials was established in this period on the Ayios Ioannis ridge c. 1-2 km north-west of the Palace. At the base of this ridge another cemetery was located at the New Hospital site.70 The cemetery lies immediately north of a little stream, which according to Evans could have marked the boundary of the Minoan town. The tombs were placed in a rough line along the slope of the hill, about 0.75 m from each other. Further up on the Ayios Ioannis ridge two chamber tombs were spread out.71 On the Acropolis Hill c. 400 m west of the Palace and c. 200 m north of a Minoan aqueduct lies an isolated chamber tomb.72 Another single chamber tomb, the Silver and Gold Cup Tomb, was found c. 500 m south of the Palace.73

LM II The cemetery at Poros ceased to be in use in LM IB. A new cemetery was established only 2 km south-east of the old one, at Katsamba. It is located by the foot of a hill and on the western shore of the river Kairatos.66 About 2 km north-east from Katsamba, on the other side of the river, a chamber tomb is located at Nea Halikarnassos.67 It is uncertain whether this tomb belonged to the latter cemetery or not. Further down on the plateau of the Isopata ridge the Royal Tomb of Isopata is located.68 According to Evans, there was an extensive view of the surroundings from this place – to Mount Ida in the west, Juktas in the south, and Poros in the north. It was also possible to see as far as the island of Dia. Evans believed that the tomb lay close to the 65 66 67 68

69

Hood & Smyth 1981, 57, nos. 307-308. Alexiou 1967; Dimopoulou 1999, 36. Lembessi 1973, 564-67; Catling 1979, 36; Muhly 1992, 183. Evans 1905, 526-562.

70 71 72 73

9

Evans 1914, 1-59. Hood & de Jong 1952, 246. Hood 1956, 205; Hood & Coldstream 1968, 82-83. Evans 1928; see plan 546; 1935, 849. Hutchinson 1956a, 68-73.

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

LM IIIA1

close to each other. The floor in each tomb was higher than the other tombs, which the excavators believe is due to a gradual slope of the hill, from west to east that existed in ancient times. The tombs date from MM III-LM I. None of these tombs contained weapons.81 The cemetery at Dendra in the Argolid is located c. 1 km west of the Midea acropolis.82 The tombs are placed on slightly sloping ground. The rock is soft with concretions infused. The cemetery, which was in use during LH I-IIIB, consists of 13 chamber tombs, one possible pit-cave and a tholos tomb. Five of the chamber tombs and the tholos tomb contained weapons and warrior paraphernalia. Only the tombs which are contemporary with the Knossian tombs will be included.83

Two of the cemeteries that were established in the previous period continued to be in use during the LM IIIA1 period: Katsamba and Isopata.74 The area at Upper Gypsades where two MM chamber tombs were located came into use again.75 From this period there are only two cemeteries that are established, the one at Zapher Papoura and the other at Sellopoulo, close by. The Zapher Papoura cemetery lies 600 m north of the Palace and 200 m west of the river Kairatos. The tombs are located on the east slope of a flat-topped hill. The adjacent cemetery at Sellopoulo lies about 350 m north of the Zapher Papoura cemetery and 150 m east of the Kairatos.76 A single chamber tomb is located immediately south of the Knossos village and north of the Lower Gypsades hill, c. 100-200 m south-east of the river Vlikhia and c. 500 west of the Kairatos.77 North of the mentioned cemetery at Lower Gypsades, a possible chamber tomb from LM IIIA1 was discovered.78 The excavator doubts whether the tomb had been in use since the roof seemingly had collapsed during the construction. However, fragments of a fine LM IB Marine style vase together with a vase decorated with a double axe have been discovered. On the south side of the Lower Gypsades and c. 350 m west of the Kairatos, a small cemetery was located comprising both chamber tombs and shaft graves. The cemetery has not been published, but can probably be dated to LM III.79 This confirms that there were tombs in the area south of the Palace from both the MM and LM periods forming burial grounds.

At Prosymna, the cemetery lay toward the north and northwest of the Mycenaean settlement. The cemetery occupied three ridges and the neighbouring hill of Kephalari, covering a large area extending about 1 km from east to west. The necropolis consisted of 52 chamber tombs, which were dated to LH I-III. According to Blegen, the cemetery had been determined by the direction of what he believed to be an important highway that connected Prosymna and Mycenae. The tombs were constructed on either side of this road. Since all the tombs had, if desired, been able to fit on the east Yerogalaro ridge adjacent to the settlement, Blegen concluded that the tombs were spread out for some other reason. Both earlier and later tombs are found on all three ridges, so a chronological explanation can be ruled out. There is one exception, the Kephalari hill where tombs only from LH III have been found. The tombs in the cemetery were divided into twelve groups, and in five of these groups weapons were found.84

The comparative material On the island of Kythera, which is located just outside the south coast of the Peloponnese, the tombs in the cemetery adjacent to the major settlement at Kastri have been selected due to their affinity in design with some of the earliest chamber tombs in the Knossos area.80 Many chamber tombs have been discovered but only nine of them have so far been studied more closely; four of these had been severely damaged (A, C, D, J). The tombs were hewn in the slope of the hillside and four of them were placed

Two cemeteries at Mycenae have been selected, the Third Kilometre cemetery and the Kalkani cemetery. The latter consists of 20 chamber tombs, placed on two sides of a ravine. Three tombs contained weapons and armour.85 The small Third Kilometre cemetery comprised three chamber tombs, which all date from the LH III period. No weapons were discovered in these tombs, but remains of boar-tusks helmets were found inside three tombs.

Huxley, Trik & Coldstream 1972, 220-227; Coldstream & Huxley 1984, 107-113; Broodbank 2000, 355; Bewan, Kiriatzi, Knappett, Kappa, Papachristou 2003, 55, 89-94. During a short excavation in the summer of 2000, an area called the ‘Tholos’ proved to have another two tombs from the LM I period. For the peak sanctuary at Kastri see Sakellarakis 1996, 81-99. 82 Persson 1942, 17. Remains of house foundations from the Early Helladic period were found south-east of the tombs; Åström 1977. Chamber tombs 4 and 5 are still unpublished. 83 Persson 1931, 1943, 17-95; Åström 1977, 7-122; 1983, 7. 84 Blegen 1937. 85 Wace 1932. 81

74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Evans 1914, 1-59; Alexiou 1967. Hood, Huxley & Sandars 1958-59, Popham 1974, 195; Hood & Smyth 1981, 14. Popham 1980, 169. Catling 1977, 11. Catling 1977, 11. Huxley, Trik & Coldstream 1972, 220-227.

10

Chapter 2 The Tombs

The place of the dead in any society will have significant and powerful connotations within people’s perceived social geographies….

directions, from Crete to the mainland and vice versa, and much could have happened over this long period of time. Instead, my questions are whether the tombs at Knossos developed rather independently, with local preferences, or whether they show indications of the contact between Crete and the Mycenaean mainland.

Placing the dead is one of the most visible activities through which human societies map out and express their relationship to ancestors, land and living.1

My interest concerns at what point of time the tombs were made and for how long they were in use. Their orientation will also be considered, since I believe that it has bearings on our understanding of the mortuary customs. Did the directions of tombs change during these periods? In attempting to comprehend the mortuary remains, an essential aspect is the placing and treatment of the bodies. However, the generally deteriorated state of the skeletons (if there are any remains at all) makes a thorough investigation of the treatment and placing of the bodies impracticable. Furthermore, the skeletons have not been examined osteologically, which certainly is a drawback and particularly when dealing with tombs that are labelled warrior graves. Naturally, this deficiency places limitations on the conclusions that might be drawn from the mortuary data.

All the tombs in the Knossos area, dated from the Middle Minoan II to the Late Minoan IIIA1 period, will be treated here according to type: chamber tombs, shaft graves and pit-cave tombs. All known warrior graves are included in the investigation. In previous research, it has been argued that the chamber tomb and the shaft grave are mainlandderived tomb types, which appear rather suddenly in LM II. Consequently the occurrence of these tomb types has been used as an argument for a strong Mycenaean influence or an actual presence of the Mycenaeans. Here I will investigate whether or not such a sudden change in the mortuary customs did in fact take place at Knossos in LM II, or a little earlier, in LM IB. By making a diachronic study of all these tomb types with a start in the Neopalatial period, i.e. the period prior to when the warrior graves are supposed to have appeared, and by focusing on typology, two things will be accomplished. Firstly, it will become clear whether any of these tomb types had predecessors in the earlier period or not, and possible typological developments will be recognised. Only by studying all of the tombs at Knossos of relevant types will it be apparent whether the mortuary customs at Knossos changed. Secondly, the warrior graves will be set in a context which will make it possible to understand whether and, if so, how the warrior graves distinguished themselves from the rest of the tombs. Due to the often-remarked similarities/ connections with the Argolid, I will relate to this area as well. Important to point out, however, is that the objective will not primarily be to trace the place of origin of each tomb type. I am well aware that this statement may seem inconsistent with my intention of making a diachronic study of the tomb types. But it is my belief that even if such an investigation were feasible, there need not be an immediate correlation between the provenance of a tomb type and those buried in the warrior graves several hundred years later. This was a time of great exchange of ideas in both 1

The chamber tombs, the shaft graves and the pit-cave tombs will be investigated separately, although these types occur together in several of the cemeteries at Knossos. This will be done mainly because I believe that a separate analysis will throw more light on the investigation. How the cemeteries were composed (possible combination of tomb types) will be discussed in the final part of this chapter.

The tomb types The basic plan of a chamber tomb consists of an open passage, dromos, which is cut through the earth and into the bedrock, where the chamber is hollowed out. The dromos and the chamber are often connected by a narrow doorway, stomion. Since the chamber tombs are rock-cut, the ideal places for these tombs are on a side of a hill.2 The Shaft Graves at Mycenae are generally seen as the prototype for the shaft grave.3 According to Dickinson, there is a Dickinson 1977, 60. The rock-cut chamber tombs should not be confused with stone-built chamber tombs that are generally sunk in the rock or earth up to the stomion roof and with a roof built overhead. 3 Cavanagh & Mee 1998, 28; Lewartowski 2000, 11. 2

Parker-Pearson 2000, 141.

11

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

tendency to confuse shaft graves with pit and cist graves. Sometimes all pits cut into rock shafts with a more or less regular outline are called shaft graves. He defines the shaft grave as a rectangular shaft dug vertically in the rock, from half a metre to three or four metres deep. The size of the shaft varies. Along the sides of the grave, ledges are cut which hold one or more slabs of stone, thus closing the grave. In some large and deep shaft graves, the sides at the bottom of the grave may be lined with thin rubble or with small slabs. The floor is covered with pebbles. The lining could also support timber. In the upper part of the shaft, above the covering slabs, earth was filled in. The pit grave, on the other hand, is a simple shallow grave which is dug or cut in the earth or soft rock, with a roughly oval or rectangular outline. The pit grave has no lining and normally no roof. The cist grave is a ‘box-like’ tomb with an oblong outline. The walls are lined with slabs. The floor is sometimes covered with pebbles.4 The roof consists of one or several slabs. The third type that will be analysed is the pit-cave which Evans described as a pit with ledges.5 At the bottom there is a low-walled arch, closed by a double walling of blocks, entering the sepulchral cell, which often resembles a cave. The size of the cell is in general only large enough to hold an extended body. The depth of the pit can vary from 2.5 to 4.5 m. Much simplified, the pit-cave could be described as a hybrid between a shaft grave and a chamber tomb.

Fig. 3. Chamber tomb V (5) at Mavro Spelio. After Forsdyke, BSA 28, 1926-27, fig. 8. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens.

The chamber tombs

and Upper Gypsades are the only “main cemeteries” in the Knossos area that existed before the LM II period and there is no indication that the typical Mycenaean chamber tomb with dromos could have been built at these cemeteries before LM IIIA1. Moreover, Zapher Papoura comprises both chamber tombs with dromoi, shaft graves and pit burials, all types that may have originated from the mainland.9 On the other hand it has been claimed that the chamber tomb in Crete is older than the ones on the mainland. The earliest chamber tombs in Crete are said to have been built already in Middle Minoan II, and the counterparts on the mainland in the transition MH-LH I.10 Nevertheless, it has been difficult for scholars to link the single chamber tomb to the mainland or elsewhere. The fact is that distribution of rock-cut chamber tombs, single or multiple, was restricted in the Aegean during this period.11 Other scholars have suggested both Egypt and Cyprus as sources of inspiration.12

In this section typological differences will be investigated. The main focus will be on the dromos, the stomion and the chamber. I am looking for similarities as well as differences, not only between cemeteries but also inside them.

The chamber tomb and the question of origin Most often in previous studies, the graves containing weapons are discussed in relation to the question of the origin of the chamber tomb. It is generally assumed that the latter appeared at Knossos in LM II.6 Scholars maintain that the earlier chamber tombs at Knossos, i.e. before LM II, were mere cavities, irregularly hewn in the rock without either stomion or dromos.7 It is pointed out that the regularly hewn chamber tombs were in use already in LH I on the mainland. The Mycenaeans would then have arrived at Crete slightly before the appearance of the first weapon grave and thus brought with them the idea of the chamber tomb. The canonical chamber tomb has a rectilinear outline, a long dromos and walls that incline towards the top.8 Macdonald regards both the Mavro Spelio and Upper Gypsades cemeteries as traditional Minoan cemeteries as opposed to Zapher Papoura and Sellopoulo. The tombs in the latter cemeteries display typical Mycenaean features, which cannot be found in the former. The Mavro Spelio 4 5 6 7 8

Driessen & Macdonald 1984, 65. Niemeier 1985, 210-211. 11 Dickinson 1983, 64, refers to the early chamber tombs on Kythera and the Knossos region (MM III/LM I), where most of these tombs were multi-chambers, or large and irregular, perhaps divided by a built wall or rock pillars. Dickinson finds that the chamber tombs at Kythera were ‘more neat in their arrangement than most of those around Knossos and could therefore perhaps have been an inspiration for the chamber tombs on the Mainland.’ However, he concludes that it is difficult to find a single source to explain the adoption of the chamber tombs, in this case on the Mainland. But he suggests that the rock-cut chamber tomb is ‘one obvious possibility if a more elaborate form of burial is thought desirable’. Hiller 1989, 142. 12 Persson 1942, 164-175; Hood 1970, 58. 9

10

Dickinson 1983, 56. Evans 1905, 405-410. Popham, Catling & Catling 1974, 255. Wace 1932, 125; Alberti 2004, 128. Demakopoulou 1997, 101.

12

Madelaine Miller

Spelio). Forsdyke believed that it could have been used in connection with the tombs. The cemetery, which comprises both single and multiple chamber tombs, is unusual since it was in use during a long period of time, from the MM until the end of the LM period.15 Unfortunately some of the tombs had been damaged severely and many of the remaining tombs were described rather incompletely. Two shaft graves belong to this cemetery as well and they will be dealt with in the following chapter. Forsdyke divided the tombs at Mavro Spelio in two groups. The first group consists of the larger chamber tombs, where both single tombs and multiple tombs are represented. No warrior graves were found in this group. Forsdyke did not date the tombs from the first group. However, according to Alberti, the multi-chambered tombs from this group were probably constructed at some time in MM II-III.16 The second group consists of small and single chamber tombs with longer dromoi. Two of the tombs had collapsed: XII, XXII. There are no descriptions or drawings of tombs XIV, XVIII and XIX. The only tomb in the cemetery with weapons, Tomb XVIII, belongs to this group. Forsdyke dated the second group to the LM period since these tombs did not contain any Middle Minoan material.17 At Ailias, south of the Mavro Spelio cemetery, another cemetery consisting of six chamber tombs probably dates from this early period as well. The earliest of the tombs, from MM II, had a circular shape, measuring 6-7 m in diameter, with a wall that divided the tomb into two chambers. This tomb contained c. fifty burials in pithoi. Another tomb, dated to MM III, had three compartments divided by stone walls. The interior chamber was ‘packed’ with larnakes of Middle Minoan type. The entrance had been blocked with a large slab. The majority of tombs were approached by rock-cut stairways. In a low cliff above the tombs, a cave was found; it was c. five m deep and had a 2 m wide opening. However, Hood and Smyth point out that although it probably was a natural cave, it could have been another chamber tomb. Unfortunately, this cemetery has still not been published.18

Fig. 4. Chamber tomb IX (8) at Mavro Spelio. After Forsdyke, BSA 28, 1926-27, fig. 19. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens.

MM II-LM IB (Fig. 1)

The first chamber tombs at Knossos date from MM II and have been found in the rocks at Mavro Spelio, at Ailias and at Poros, although not numerous. Thereafter in MM III-LM I, the number of chamber tombs increases at these places.13 As far as is known, the cemetery at Poros consists of seven tombs, two caves and five chamber tombs. In some of these tombs weapons and bronze objects have been found.14

About 500 m south of the Palace, on the north-east slope of Upper Gypsades, two chamber tombs, VIII and XVIII, date from MM III-LM I early. The tombs lay at a distance of about 100 m from each other.19 The area north of Lower Gypsades, about 250 m south of the palace, was used as a burial area already in the Middle Minoan period, although it is uncertain if chamber tombs were ever built here. One tholos tomb and a shaft grave are reported from the area.20

At Mavro Spelio most of the tombs are packed together on the lower terraces; some tombs are scattered on the upper terraces. Above the tombs, on the mountain, there is an ancient cave called the Black Cave (Mavro In Crete caves in cliffs had been used as burial places since Neolithic times and the step towards adjusting and cutting the rock in the shape of a chamber was presumably a natural one. Dickinson 1977, 61. From the Neopalatial period there are strikingly few burials found. The most common grave type was pithos or coffin burials in shallow pits. Preston 2004b, 324. What Hood 1957, 22-23, believes to have been an important though small cemetery, consisting of a tholos tomb of Mesara type, a shaft grave of Mycenaean type and another MM tomb, was discovered on the high slopes of the Lower Gypsades. The first two graves were placed just outside the boundaries of the Minoan town. Regarding the shaft grave, see the next section on shaft graves. 14 Muhly 1992, 182; Löwe 1996, 192; Dimopoulou 1999, 27. 13

The Mavro Spelio cemetery continued to be in use in the LM IIIB period. The Black Cave had probably been artificially enlarged in Minoan times: Forsdyke 1926-27, 246; Alberti 2004, 128. 16 Alberti 2001, 168. 17 Forsdyke 1926-27, 246-247. 18 Cook 1951-1952, 108, 252; Cook & Boardman 1953, 166; Hood & Smyth 1981, 54, no. 257. 19 Hood, Huxley & Sandars 1958-59, 194-262; Hood & Smyth 1981, 59, no. 331. 20 Hood & Smyth 1981, 57, nos. 307-308. 15

13

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

Comments on the catalogue

Stomion: Collapsed.

Many of the tombs relevant to this study have been damaged, and hence the information about them is limited. Likewise the quality of the publications varies; several of the tombs were published about a hundred years ago when priorities were different from today’s. Lack of data regarding dromos, stomion and chambers is obvious and in some cases the drawings are incomplete or totally missing. The information in the catalogue can vary considerably between the tombs, wherefore the analysis cannot claim to be as thorough as wanted. However, I will try to consistently describe the following features:

Chamber: Square with one corner missing.

• The orientation of the tomb. • The dromos: Length, width, walls (inclining or not), the occurrence of steps, burial shaft, niches and pits. • The stomion: Width, height, whether it had an elaborated design. • The chamber: Size and shape. The occurrence of pillars, burial shafts, niches and cists. The number of burials and burial containers (biers, coffins, larnakes). • The date: The period when the tomb was cut according to the excavator. • References.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Burials: Biers/coffins/larnakes: Date: MM III or LM IA early. References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 250-251.

3. Tomb III

Dromos: Collapsed. Stomion: Chamber: Square with the side and back walls rounded. In the middle of the floor there was a small cavity, depth c. 0.3 m. Burials: -

Catalogue

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Mavro Spelio

Date: MM III or LM I. 22

1. Tomb I

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 252.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

4. Tomb IV

Dromos: Length c. 3 m.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Stomion: Width c. 1 m, depth c. 0.55 m.

Dromos: Collapsed.

Chamber: Square with one of the corners missing, c. 2 x 2.5 m.

Stomion: Collapsed. Chamber: Double or triple. Collapsed in front. In the lefthand chamber, a stone slab was found on the floor (3 feet long). According to Forsdyke, the slab might have fallen from the doorway, but the walling found elsewhere was different and made of small rough stones.23

Burials: Biers/coffins/larnakes: Date: MM III or LM IA.21

Burials: -

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 250-251.

2. Tomb II

Biers/coffins/larnakes: A LM III larnax together with fragments of another one.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Date: MM II.24

Dromos: Collapsed.

22

Driessen & Macdonald 1997, 169, believe that this tomb was in use during LM I, which means that it probably was constructed in the latest phase of MM III or early in LM IA.Indicated by two scale pans of bronze this tomb was also in use during the LM III period. See table 62, Scale pans. 23 Forsdyke 1926-27, 254-256. 24 Alberti 2001, 163-185, 168.

According to Driessen & Macdonald 1997, 169, this tomb was in use in LM I, which could mean that it was constructed in the late MM III or LM IA early.

21

14

Madelaine Miller

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 254-256.

Chamber: Kidney-shaped. Each chamber was almost circular. Collapsed front.

5. Tomb V

Burials: -

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: Fragments of larnakes.

Dromos: Length c. 3.0 m. Walled with small rough blocks.

Date: MM III.27

Stomion: Width c.1.0 m.

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 260-264.

Chamber: Triple tomb. The central chamber, D, almost rectangular in shape. Chamber A circular and almost 2 m in diameter. Chamber B semicircular with straight walls and a rounded back wall, length 2.5, width c. 3 m. Chamber C one straight wall and the remaining shaped in a circle, 2.5 m in diameter. A large niche was found in the wall.

8. Tomb IX

Burials: 11 or more.

Stomion: Width c. 1 m.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: Remains of at least eleven larnakes.

Chamber: Multiple tomb. One central hall (A) and four additional chambers (B, C, D, E). Long corridors approached chambers B and D. There were niches in the walls in the corridor of D and in chamber E. In the central hall, A, a small cavity was found in the middle of the floor. It contained ‘small knucklebone, charcoal and pieces of one or more coarse red pottery braziers’. Forsdyke interpreted this as the remains of a sacrificial rite and reference is made to the so-called cenotaph in Dendra.28 The knuckle-bones had originally belonged to a dog. Burials: 2 or more.

Orientation: North-north-east to south-south-west with the entrance from south-south-west. Dromos: Length c. 2 m. Two steps.

Date: MM IIIA.25 References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 256-259.

6. Tomb VI Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west. Dromos: -

Chamber: Double chamber. Irregular.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: In the entrance to chamber B, remains of both pithoi and larnakes of MM type were found. The pithoi were probably used as coffins in MM. In chamber D a larnax from MM was found, and in the niche in the corridor of D a similar larnax was found.

Burials: -

Date: MM II-III or LM I.29

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 264-269.

Date: MM III/LM I.26

9. Tomb XII

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 259.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Stomion: -

7. Tomb VII

Dromos: -

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Stomion: -

Dromos: Length c. 2 m. Two steps.

Chamber: Collapsed.

Stomion: Width c. 1 m, depth c. 0.7 m.

Burials: Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Alberti 2001, 168. A small and tall alabastron with scale pattern found in the tomb was, according to Driessen & Macdonald 1997, 169, mature LM IA at the earliest and LM IB at the latest. 26 According to the excavator the tomb did not contain material later than MM IIIA; Driessen & Macdonald 1997, 169, date the tomb to the transition MM III/LM IA, while Alberti 2001, 185, dates it to MM III. 25

Alberti 2001,185. Forsdyke 1926-27, 264-269; Persson 1931, 91-117. 29 This tomb was in use from LM IA mature onwards, according to Driessen & Macdonald 1997, 169; Alberti 2001, 185, dates the tomb to MM II-III. 27 28

15

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

Date: LM.30

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 247, 272.

Date: LM.

10. Tomb XIII

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 274.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

13. Tomb XVI Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Dromos: Length c. 4 m. The dromos narrows at the entrance. A burial shaft on the floor with an empty larnax.

Dromos: Length c. 6 m. Inclining walls.

Stomion: Width c. 1 m, depth 1 m.

The dromos had been cut through the chamber of another earlier tomb. On the floor was a small burial cavity. In the dromos wall was a niche.

Chamber: Horseshoe-shaped, c. 1.5 x 1.5 m. Burials: Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

Stomion: Width c. 0.6 m, depth c. 0.6 m. The doorway was walled up with small rough stones.

Date: LM.

Chamber: Almost square, c. 1.5 x 1.5 m.

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 247, 272-273.

Burials: 2 or more.

11. Tomb XIV

Biers/coffin/larnakes: 1 larnax.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from west.

Date: LM.

Dromos: -

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 247, 275-276.

Stomion: -

14. Tomb XVII

Chamber: Small like Tomb XIII. Asymmetrical.

Orientation: North-south with the entrance from west.

Burials: -

Dromos: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Stomion: -

Date: LM.

Chamber: Double chamber. Irregular. Collapsed in front. The chambers were separated by a pillar which may be fallen rock. Fragments of oval larnakes were found in the front filling. A niche was found in chamber A. In chamber B a pit was found 1 m deep.

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 247, 274.

12. Tomb XV Orientation: North-north-east to south-south-west with the entrance from south-south-west.

Burials: Uncertain numbers.

Dromos: Length c. 6 m. Walls inclining towards the top. The floor descending steeply at the entrance. On the floor a burial shaft was found with an empty larnax.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: In chamber A, one larnax was found. The floor was paved with large pieces of pithoi. Forsdyke believed that these originally had been used for burials. In chamber B three LM larnakes were found.

Stomion: Width c. 0.7 m, depth c. 0.8 m. Small rough stones were walled up in the doorway.

Date: MM II-III.31 References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 276-282.

Chamber: Almost square with one side rounded, c. 1.5 x 1.5 m.

15. Tomb XVIII (weapon grave)

Burials: 30

III.

Orientation: East-west to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Even though the chamber had collapsed, the shape was similar to Tomb

31

16

Alberti 2001, 185.

Madelaine Miller

Dromos: -

Stomion: -

Stomion: -

Chamber: Small and square like XXI. Collapsed.

Chamber: Small and irregular. Collapsed.

Burials: -

Burials: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Date: LM.

Date: LM.

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 284.

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 282.

Poros

16. Tomb XIX

19. Tomb Π 1940

Orientation: East-west to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east. Dromos:

Dromos: -

Stomion: Blocked by stones.

Stomion: -

Chamber: Cave-like.

Chamber: Small and irregular. Collapsed.

Burials:

Burials: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes:

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Date: MM III-LM IA.

Date: LM.

References: Platon 1940; Kanta 1980, 27; Löwe 1996, 192.

References: Forsdyke 1926-27, 282.

20. Tomb Π 1967 (weapon grave)

17. Tomb XXI

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with entrance from south-west.

Dromos: 3 steps. Inclining walls.

Dromos: Length 2.5 m, width 0.8 m.

Stomion: Blocked by stones.

Stomion: Width 0.5 m, depth 0.5 m. The end of the dromos has well-marked corners.

Chamber: One antechamber with niches. The main chamber (13.4 m long) was irregular with three pillars and niches. There was a large pit (2.5 x 1.65 x 0.85-1 m) in the front part of the tomb.

Chamber: Almost square, c. 2.3 x 2 m. There were small cavities on the floor on each side of the doorway.

Burials: 13.

Burials: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 2 biers.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Date: MM III-LM IB.32

Date: LM.

References: Lembessi 1967, 195-209.

References: Forsdyke 1926-28, 284.

21. Tomb Π 1979

18. Tomb XXII

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Dromos: Steps.

Dromos: Fallen away. 32

17

Hiller 1977, 174-175; Muhly 1992; 191-192; Löwe 1996, 192.

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

Stomion: Blocked by stones.

Stomion: Blocked by stones.

Chamber: -

Chamber: -

Burials: -

Burials: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: Remains of biers.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: Remains of biers or coffins.

Date: -

Date: -

References: Muhly 1992, 183, 192; Dimopoulou 1999, 28.

References: Dimopoulou 1994, 707-711, 1999, 28.

22. Tomb Π 1986/87

Upper Gypsades

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

25. Tomb VIII

Dromos: Steps.

Orientation: North-south with the entrance from north.

Stomion: A dry-stone wall blocked the entrance.

Dromos: Preserved length c. 1.5 m, width 1-1.5 m.

Chamber: One antechamber and two large chambers which were separated by built walls. The chamber was 70 m2. Two large piers supported the roofs. In one of the chambers there was a large pit in the floor.

Stomion: A large slab and small stones blocked the entrance. The top of the entrance had disappeared.

Burials: -

Burials: 1.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: Remains of biers.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Date: MM II-LM IB.33

Date: MM/LM early.34

References: Catling 1986-87, 53; DimopoulouRethemiotaki 1987, 528-529; Muhly 1992, 192; Löwe 1996, 193.

References: Hood, Huxley & Sandars 1958-59, 208-209.

23. Tomb 6 (weapon grave)

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Orientation:

Dromos: There is no dromos.

Dromos:

Stomion: Width 1.5 m. Blocked by a wall of two large boulders and packing of kouskouras clay, small stones at the sides and in the joints.

Chamber: Almost circular, 1.3 m in diameter. Collapsed.

26. Tomb XVIII

Stomion: Blocked by stones.

Chamber: Kidney-shaped. A pair of rough steps led upwards to an almost oval ante-chamber, length 2 m and width 2.8 m. The south and east sides of the ante-chamber were difficult to determine. According to the excavators there were some indications of an entrance with a step. A rock pillar divided the two compartments.

Chamber: Burials: Biers/coffins/larnakes: Remains of biers or coffins. Date: LM IA.

Burials: 9 or more.

References: Dimopoulou 1994, 707-711, 1999, 28-29.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

24. Tomb 7

Date: MM II or MM IIIA.

Orientation: Dromos: -

33

The outline of the tomb indicates, according to the excavators, a date somewhere between MM and LM early. The single slab blocking the small entrance and the sharp drop to the floor of the tomb are a continuation of the Middle Minoan tradition, while the small size of the chamber is more at home in LM tradition. Hood, Huxley & Sandars 1958-59, 208-209. 34

Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 1987, 528.

18

Madelaine Miller

Fig. 5. LM II chamber tomb (29). After Hood & Coldstream, BSA 63, 1968, fig.1. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens.

References: Hood, Huxley & Sandars 1958-59, 220-224.

of the Palace, a small cemetery was established in LM II. The cemetery was discovered through the disclosure of an ‘isolated deposit’ with stone vases and remains of weapons. The deposit is dated MM III-LM I and probably once belonged to an earlier burial. Four chamber tombs date to LM II. From this place one could see as far as the Minoan port in Poros. In one tomb remains of weapons were found.38 Further down the Isopata plateau, the Royal Tomb of Isopata was situated. Due to the size and the imposing position of the tomb, Evans regarded the tomb as royal. Evans found a crystal pommel in the tomb, which he thought originally could have been fastened on a dagger.39

LM II In the LM II period, new areas for sepulchral use were explored around the Palace. Burials with weapons are represented in all of these areas. At the same time the Mavro Spelio cemetery continued to be in use, although it is uncertain if new tombs were actually being cut.35 The cemetery at Poros had ceased to be in use in LM IB, but another cemetery close by at Katsamba now became established. Five chamber tombs date to LM II. In one of these tombs, remains of weapons have been found.36 Farther north-east and on the eastern side of the river, at Nea Halikarnassos, a large chamber tomb dates from the same period. It is uncertain whether or not this tomb belonged to the latter cemetery or not.37

At Ayios Ioannis about 2.2 km north-west of the Palace a single chamber tomb, the Gold Cup Tomb, is located.40 On the south edge of the Ayios Ioannis ridge, another single chamber tomb is located. Both of these tombs contained weapons.41

On the edge of the Isopata plateau about 2.5 km north In LM II, most tombs are found in the Knossos area. Over 800 tombs from LM II-III have so far been excavated across Crete. This number could rise to 1000 if ‘possible tombs’ are included. Except the far south-west, all regions are represented. Preston 2004, 324. 36 Alexiou 1967, 4; Muhly 1992,182. 37 Lembessi 1973, 564-567; Muhly 1992, 183. 35

Evans 1914, 1-59. Evans 1905, 526-562. 40 Hood 1956, 82-83. A shaft grave is located, 160 m north of the latter. This grave will be dealt with in the part that concerns shaft graves. 41 Hood & Coldstream 1968, 205. 38 39

19

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

At the New Hospital site, about 1.5 km north-west of the Palace, three chamber tombs, one shaft grave and one possible pit-cave were located. The tombs are placed on the south slope of the hill which forms the base of the Ayios Ioannis ridge.42

References: Hood 1956, 81-99.

29. Tomb 1968 (weapon grave) Orientation: East-north-east to west-south-west with the entrance from west-south-west.

An isolated chamber tomb, the Acropolis Tomb, was found on the ridge c. 400 m west of the Palace and some 200 m north of a Minoan aqueduct.43 Another single chamber tomb, the Silver and Gold Cup Tomb, was found south of the Temple Tomb, c. 500 m south of the Palace and about 150 m north of the Lower Gypsades hill.44 There is no information regarding the orientation of these tombs. Both of the tombs contained weapons.

Dromos: Length c. 8.5 m. Inclining walls. A deep rock-cut step at the beginning of the dromos, a couple of shallower steps close to the entrance. Stomion: Width 0.64 m, height 1.50 m. Top of door straight. A shallow groove on each side of the door. Below these, low platforms on each side.46

Catalogue

Chamber: Roughly square, 2.4 x 1.9-2.6 m.

27. The Acropolis Tomb (weapon grave)

Burials: A few bones.

Orientation: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Dromos: -

Date: LM II.

Stomion: -

References: Hood & Coldstream 1968, 205-218.

Chamber: -

The New Hospital site

Burials: -

30. Tomb I (weapon grave)

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Orientation: North-west to south-east with the entrance from south-east.

Date: LM II.45

Dromos: Preserved length 4 m. Slightly inclining walls. The floor slopes down steeply towards the entrance. Two rough steps near entrance and a shallow depression, 0.07-0.08 m deep.

References: Evans 1928, 547; 1935, 849.

Ayios Ioannis 28. Tomb 1956, The Gold Cup Tomb (weapon grave)

Stomion: Height c. 0.6 m. Blocking wall of large unworked stones. Sides of entrance slightly leaning inwards. Elaborately cut with sloping pilasters. The upper part of the facade rose vertically.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from west. Dromos: Stomion: Blocking wall of stones.

Chamber: Rectangular, 2.6 m x 2.2 m. There was a recess, 0.1 m above the floor, to the right of the entrance which was formed like a low bench.

Chamber: Rectangular, 1.8 m x 2 m.

Burials: 2.

Burials: A few bones.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 2 wooden coffins or biers.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: Remains of a wooden coffin.

Date: LM II.

Date: LM IB-LM II (early).

References: Hood & de Jong 1952, 244-277, 248.

Evans 1928, 547; Hood & de Jong 1952, 244-277; Hood 1956, 82-99; Hood & Coldstream 1968, 205-218. This stream is now filled in. 43 Evans 1928, see plan opposite 547; 1935, 849. 44 Hutchinson 1956a, 68-73. 45 Evans 1928, 547, 1935, 849 dated the tomb to LM IB; however, according to Sandars 1963, 122 the tomb dates to LM II. Sandars based the dating on the sword of type Cii, found in the tomb.

46

The excavators, Hood & Coldstream 1968, 205-218, believe that these platforms might have supported wooden posts or columns and see parallels with the Treasury of Atreus and the Tomb of Clytemnestra at Mycenae, but on a much smaller scale. The Tomb of the Tripod Hearth at Zapher Papoura has a similar doorway. Only parts of the blocking wall were left, consisting of large stones. In the Tombe de Nobili, at Phaistos, similar rock-cut bases at the entrance have been found.

42

20

Madelaine Miller

31. Tomb III (weapon grave)

Burials: -

Orientation: North-west to south-east with the entrance from west-south-east.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: Date: LM II.48

Dromos: Preserved length 2.6 m. Slightly inclining walls.

References: Evans 1914, 6-9.

Stomion: Width 0.7 m. Blocking wall of large unworked stones.

34. Tomb 2, Tomb of the Double Axes (weapon grave)

Chamber: Roughly semicircular, 1.8 x 2.1 m.

Orientation: North-south with entrance from north.

Burials: 2.

Dromos: Preserved length 14.8 m, width 0.5-1.55 m.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Stomion: The doorway was blocked with limestone blocks 1.5 m high. Some of these looked like ashlar masonry. The stomion had an arch with a recessed border round, inner arch 0.97 m, outer arch 2.6 m.

Date: LM II. References: Hood & de Jong 1952, 244-277, 249.

32. Tomb V (weapon grave)

Chamber: Trapezoidal, depth 5.48-6.83 m, width 5-6.3 m, height in central part 3.6 m. A projecting buttress of soft rock, opposite the doorway, was preserved to a height of 1.8 m. On the buttress, a half column was cut in low relief.49 The back part of the chamber was divided in two recesses. At the left side in the chamber was a stone bench, width 0.92-1.2 m, height 0.6 m. To the right of the entrance was a rock-cut platform rising about 0.75 m above the floor; in the centre a rock-cut cist had been sunk.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east. Dromos: Stomion: Two of the blocking stones were dressed blocks while the rest of the stones were unworked. Chamber: Almost circular, 2 x 2.3 m.

Burials: -

Burials: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: Remains of a wooden coffin or bier.

Date: LM II.

Date: LM II.

References: Evans 1914, 33-59.

References: Hood & de Jong 1952, 244-277, 252.

Isopata

35. Tomb 3, The Mace-bearer’s Tomb (weapon grave)

33. Tomb 1

Orientation: North-south with the entrance from north.

Orientation: North-south with the entrance from north.

Dromos: Almost entirely disappeared.

Dromos: Length 15 m.

Stomion: A wall of rubble masonry blocked the entrance, width 0.75 m.

Stomion: There was a forehall in the end of the dromos with masonry on each side, width 1.67 m, length 5.49 m.

Chamber: Almost square. A slight step up to the east wing in the chamber.

Chamber: Square, 3 x 3 m. The tomb is a built chamber tomb. The west wall had six courses, with small chips fitted in between. The intervals were filled with white stucco. A gap in the masonry that was found in the back of the chamber could have been a recess. A double cist, without partition, was sunk in the floor. A slab was still in place. Another upright block, 0.9 x 0.22 x 0.45 m, had a trident sign cut in it.47

Burials: Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Preston 2004b, 330, dates the tomb to LM II. According to Evans this tomb was unique in the Minoan as well as in the Mycenaean world. He believed that the intention with the pillar probably was to resemble the central supporting pillars that often were found in Minoan buildings. It could also have served as a support for a second floor above. 48

49

Evans 1914, 6, saw several resemblances between this tomb and the Royal Tomb of Isopata. Blocks found in the Royal Tomb at Isopata had similar as well as other signs. 47

21

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

Date: LM II.50

Date: LM II-III.52

References: Evans 1914, 14.

References: Evans 1905, 526-562.

36. Tomb 5, The Tomb of the Polychrome Vases

Katsamba

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from west.

38. Tomb A

Dromos: Length 19.75 m.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Stomion: Rectangular with a threshold slightly stepping up, width 1.2 m, height 2.9 m. The doorway was framed within a slight recess and bevelling. No regular blocking wall; instead the entrance was filled with debris.

Dromos: Length 1 m.

Chamber: Almost square, length 5.45-5 m, width 5-5.12 m. In the middle of the chamber, there was a stone bench cut out of the rock, preserved length 1.2 m, width c. 0.5 m, height 0.3 m.

Chamber: Almost square, 2.25 x 2.15 m.

Stomion: A slab at the doorway; behind it a blocking wall of large stones in two rows, width c. 0.7 m, depth 0.5 m.

Burials: 1. Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 wooden bier.

Burials: -

Date: LM II.53

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

References: Alexiou 1967, 3-6.

Date: LM II.

51

39. Tomb Γ

References: Evans 1914, 21-30.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

37. The Royal Tomb at Isopata

Dromos: Length 2 m.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Stomion: Width 1 m, depth c. 0.3 m.

Dromos: Length 24 m.

Chamber: Almost square, 3 x 2 m.

Stomion: Length 6.5 m, width 1.58 m. The stomion was constructed like an arched forehall with two niches on either side. Blocked by a thick walling.

Burials: 3. Biers/coffins/larnakes: Probably remains of a wooden coffin.

Chamber: Trapezoidal, length 8 m, width 6.5 m. In the back wall of the chamber was a square niche that probably had been used for mortuary purposes in LM III since a skull and two small vessels were found inside. Inside the chamber was a rectangular cist (2.2 x 0.7 m and 1.12 m deep). The cist was built on the same principle as the shaft graves at Zapher Papoura, with a pit (0.7 m deep) leading to a narrow cell with ledges round where the covering slab was placed. Forty skulls belonging to the LM III period were found inside the chamber. Bones and skulls were also found in the niches.

Date: LM II.54 References: Alexiou 1967, 12-13.

40. Tomb Δ Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east. Dromos: Length 5 m. There were a bench and a niche in the dromos.

Burials: 40 or more.

Stomion: Two rows of blocking walls, width 0.5 m, depth 0.3 m.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Evans 1905, 526-562; 1935, 774. Due to the mason’s marks found on the blocks of which the tomb was constructed, Evans first dated the tomb to MM III. He later changed his mind and dated the tomb to LM II based on the date of the burials found inside. Several valuable objects found inside the tomb could have been heirlooms from LM I. See also Driessen & Macdonald 1997, 170. 53 Preston 2004b, 330. 54 Muhly 1992, 192; Löwe 1996, 190; Preston 2004b; 330. 52

Evans 1914, 1, 14; Löwe 1996, 211; Preston 2004b, 330. Evans dated the tomb to LM I period; however, Driessen & Macdonald 1997, 170, date this tomb to LM II. 50 51

22

Madelaine Miller

Chamber: Square, c. 1.5 x 2 m.

Stomion: Blocking wall, width 0.5 m, depth 1 m.

Burials: 3.

Chamber: Trapezoidal, 3.5 x 3.2 m. Inside were a rock pier, niches and a rectangular cist.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 2 possible biers.

Burials: 3.

Date: LM II.55

Date: LM II/III A1.58

References: Alexiou 1967, 13-17.

References: Lembessi 1973, 564-565.

41. Tomb E

44. The Silver and Gold Cup Tomb (weapon grave)

Orientation: East-west with entrance from east. Dromos: Preserved length c. 1 m. There were benches on each side of the dromos.

Orientation: Dromos: Walls had been cut away.

Stomion: Two rows of blocking stones, width 0.5 m, depth c. 0.5 m.

Stomion: -

Chamber: Square, 2.4 x 2.4 m. There were two benches or platforms in the chamber.

Chamber: Very small. The walls had been cut away. Burials: 1 or 2.

Burials: 3.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 2 wooden coffins.

Date: LM IIB.

Date: LM II.56

References: Hutchinson 1956, 68-70.

References: Alexiou 1967, 17-18.

LM III A1

42. Tomb Z

The largest necropolis established in the LM IIIA1 period was at Zapher Papoura, c. 600 m north of the Palace.59 At this necropolis one hundred tombs were cut: 49 chamber tombs, 33 shaft graves and 18 pit-caves. Only 18 of the chamber tombs were intact, but 27 were described enough to be included in the study. Just a few hundred metres east and on the east bank of the river Kairatos at Sellopoulo, another but smaller cemetery was established in LM IIIA. Two chamber tombs and a shaft grave date from LM IIIA.60 Another two chamber tombs are dated to LM IIIA2-B. Due to the late date these will not be included. The cemetery at Isopata continued to be in use in LM III, when two more chamber tombs where constructed.61 In the area round the Lower Gypsades, south of the Palace, there are both single tombs and smaller cemeteries from the LM III period, of which some have not been properly excavated or published. Two single chamber tombs will be studied here. One of the tombs was found in the field north-west of the Lower Gypsades hill.62 The other tomb was found c. 100 m west of the Temple Tomb; on the north-east slope of the Lower

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east. Dromos: Walls inclining towards the top. Stomion: Remains of a probable door frame, width 0.8 m, depth c. 0.75 m. Chamber: Almost square, 2.8 x 2.65 m. Burials: 5. Biers/coffins/larnakes: 3 wooden coffins. Date: LM II.57 References: Alexiou 1967, 18-25.

Nea Halikarnassos 43. Tomb

Lembessi points out similarities between this tomb and the Royal Tomb at Isopata and the ‘Tomb of the Double Axes’ at Isopata. See also Touchais 1977, 756; Catling 1979, 36. 59 Evans 1905, 391-525. According to Macdonald 1984, 65, it is quite clear that no tombs, except Tomb 99, were cut later than LM III A1. However, Baboula 2000, 71, believes that the cemetery probably was in use until LM III B. 60 Popham, Catling & Catling 1974, 195-257. 61 Evans 1914, 30-59. 62 Popham 1980, 169-173 58

Orientation: North-south with the entrance from south. Dromos: Length 8.6 m. Stepped. The dromos was unusual since it had a central blocking wall. 55 56 57

Löwe 1997, 191; Preston 2004b, 330. Löwe 1996, 190; Preston 2004b, 330. Preston 2004b, 330.

23

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

Fig. 6. Chamber tomb 92 (89) at Zapher Papoura. After Evans 1905, fig.1. Courtesy of the Ashmolean museum, Oxford.

24

Madelaine Miller

Gypsades, a chamber tomb was found.63 The cemetery at Upper Gypsades, located 1 km south of the Palace, which had already been used as a burial ground in the MM III period, came into use again.64 The later use of the necropolis dates from LM IIIA1-B and consists of 17 chamber tombs, shaft graves and pit-caves. Only the two chamber tombs from LM IIIA1 will be included here.65

Katsamba

Catalogue

Stomion: Width c. 0.7 m, depth 0.3 m.

Isopata 45. Tomb 1A (weapon grave)

Chamber: One side of the chamber was square and one side was circular, 3 x 3 m. Inside the chamber were one bench and one pit.

Orientation: North-south with the entrance from north.

Burials: 4.

Dromos: Length 9.6 m.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 wooden coffin.

Stomion: Width 0.7 m, depth 0.8 m.

Date: LM III A.

Chamber: Almost square, 3.2 x 2.67-2.87 m.

References: Alexiou 1967, 6-11.

Burials: -

48. Tomb H

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Orientation: North-south with the entrance from south.

Date: LM IIIA.66

Dromos: Length 9.3 m.

References: Evans 1914, 5-6.

Stomion: Width c.1 m, depth 1.5 m. Filled with blocking stones. Chamber: Rectangular, 5.6 x 5.2 m. There was a pillar in the centre of the chamber. Plaster found on parts of the floor.

47. Tomb B Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east. Dromos: -

46. Tomb 6 (weapon grave) Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Burials: 7.

Dromos: Stomion: Width 0.9 m.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: Probably remains of a wooden coffin.

Chamber: Almost square. There was a rock-cut pier running out from the back wall c. 2 m deep. Much destroyed.

Date: LM III. References: Alexiou 1967, 26-40.

Burials: -

Lower Gypsades:

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

49. Tomb 1

Date: LM IIIA.67

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from north-east.

References: Evans 1914, 30-31.

Dromos: Length 2.8 m, width 1 m. Stomion: Blocking wall with fragments of larnakes.

Coldstream 1963, 30-34; Hood & Smyth 1981, 58-59, nos. 321, 322. Four LM chamber tombs have also been excavated to the south of the Temple Tomb, no. 323. On the southern slope of the Lower Gypsades there is a cemetery with one small chamber tomb and two or three shaft graves. The cemetery has not been published. Catling 1974-76, 11; Hood & Smyth 1981, no. 329. There are other tombs in the area that have not been properly excavated: Hood & Smyth 1981, no. 330. 64 Hood, Huxley & Sandars 1958-59, 195-262. 65 Hood, Huxley & Sandars 1958-59, 198-200, 217-218. 66 Evans 1914, 5-6. The dromos of this tomb had crossed the dromos of the earlier Tomb 1 at Isopata. 67 Evans 1914, 30-31. Tomb 2 (34) at Isopata, ‘Tomb of the Double Axes’, also had a similar rock-cut pier in the chamber. Löwe 1996, 211. 63

Chamber: Irregular-square. Burials: 5. Biers/coffins/larnakes: 5 larnakes. Date: LM III.

25

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

References: Coldstream 1963, 30-33.

Burials: 3.

50. Tomb 2

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 wooden bier painted blue. Traces of wood could indicate another bier.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from west.

Date: LM II-IIIA.

Dromos: Length 3.5 m. Four roughly hewn steps. Inclining walls.

References: Popham 1974, 195-257.

Zapher Papoura

Stomion: The blocking wall consisted of four to five courses of stones.

53. Tomb 8

Chamber: Trapezoidal, 1.96 x 1.48 m.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Burials: Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Dromos: Length 4.5 m. Five steps. Sloping downwards. Inclining walls. Remains of a larnax in the dromos.

Date: LM IIIA1.

Stomion: Width 0.5 m.

References: Popham 1980, 169-181.

Chamber: Almost square, c. 2 x 2 m.

Sellopoulo

Burials: 4.

51. Tomb 3 (weapon grave)

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 4 plain larnakes.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

Date: LM IIIA. References: Evans 1905, 417-418.

Dromos: Length 5.5 m. Sloping down rapidly. Inclining walls.

54. Tomb 9 Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Stomion: Width 0.6-0.7 m. The lower courses of the blocking wall still in place.

Dromos: Length c. 5 m. Four steps. Sloping downwards. Increasing in width, from 0.8 to 1 m. Inclining walls. Part of a larnax outside the entrance.

Chamber: Rectangular, 1.5 x 1.7 m. Burials: 1?

Stomion: Width 0.5 m, heigth 1.4 m.

Bier/coffins/larnakes: -

Chamber: Square, 2.1 x 2.1 m.

Date: LM IIIA.

Burials: 2.

References: Popham 1974, 195-257. 68

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 2 larnakes.69

52. Tomb 4 (weapon grave)

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from south-west.

References: Evans 1905, 418-419.

55. Tomb 11

Dromos: Preserved length 3.4 m, width 1.3 m. More or less vertical sides.

Orientation: East-west with entrance from east.

Stomion: Width 0.5 m. The blocking wall consisted of two to three courses in thickness. The lintel had disappeared.

Dromos: Short and descending. Inclining walls. The larnax that was found inside the chamber was peculiar, according to Evans 1905, 418-419, since it was divided into panels giving the illusion of a woodwork model. He saw parallels with the gypsum throne in the Palace. At each end of the larnax simple red lines were painted, whereas on either long side there were traces of more elaborate design in red paint, for example a wheel and part of a chariot, and a beardless man throwing a lasso round a Cretan goat.

Chamber: Irregular, 2.8 x 2.3 m.

69

68 Platon and Huxley excavated two chamber tombs in the same area already in 1957. These tombs were, according to Popham, ‘impressive large square chambers…and approached by long steep dromoi’. The tombs contained LM III burials.

26

Madelaine Miller

Stomion: Width 0.4 m.

blocking wall. On either side of entrance, grooves had been cut out, which originally could have had some insertion.70

Chamber: Square, 1.6 x 1.6 m.

Chamber: Rectangular, 2.8 x 3.7 m. There was a rectangular cavity containing decayed bones in the north-west corner, length 1 m, width 0.4 m, depth 0.45 m.

Burials: 1. Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

Burials: 1?

Date: LM IIIA.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

References: Evans 1905, 422.

Date: LM IIIA.71

56. Tomb 12

References: Evans 1905, 424-435.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

59. Tomb 15

Dromos: Length 4.5 m. Inclining walls.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Stomion: Width 0.52 m, height 1.33 m. Narrowing towards the top. The original double walling was intact.

Dromos: -

Chamber: Rectangular, 1.95 x 1.45 m.

Stomion: -

Burials: 2.

Chamber: Much ruined.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Burials: -

Date: LM IIIA.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

References: Evans 1905, 422-423.

Date: LM IIIA.

57. Tomb 13

References: Evans 1905, 435.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

60. Tomb 16

Dromos: Much destroyed.

Orientation: East-west with entrance from east.

Stomion: -

Dromos: -

Chamber: -

Stomion: Destroyed.

Burials: 2.

Chamber: -

Biers/coffin/larnakes: -

Burials: at least 1.

Date: LM IIIA.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

References: Evans 1905, 424.

Date: LM IIIA.

58. Tomb 14, Tomb of the Tripod Hearth (weapon grave)

References: Evans 1905, 435.

61. Tomb 17

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Orientation: East-west with entrance from east.

Dromos: Length 14.5 m, width 1.3-1.55 m, height 2 m. Dromos descended rapidly. Steps at intervals. Inclining walls. Major part formed as a tunnel, height 2 m.

Dromos: Stepped. Inclining walls. Stomion: Width 0.5 m.

Stomion: Width 0.51-0.72 m, height 1.9 m. No trace of a

The entrance was, according to Evans 1905, 424-435, more elaborate than the other door openings at the cemetery. 71 Baboula 2000, 72. 70

27

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

Chamber: Square, 1.8 x 1.8 m.

Date: LM IIIA.

Burials: 3.

References: Evans 1905, 436.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

65. Tomb 21

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

References: Evans 1905, 435.

Dromos: Length 5.8 m. Descending by a double flight of steps.

62. Tomb 18 Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Stomion: Width 0.55 m, height 1.37 m. Blocking wall intact.

Dromos: Length 3.4 m, width 1 m.

Chamber: Rectangular, 2.07 x 2 m.

Stomion: Width 0.6 m, height 0.85 m. Blocked by a stone walling.

Burials: 2. Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Chamber: Circular, 1.73 x 1. 81 m.

Date: LM IIIA.

Burials: 2.

References: Evans 1905, 436.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

66. Tomb 22

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

References: Evans 1905, 436.

Dromos: -

63. Tomb 19

Stomion: -

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Chamber: Much destroyed.

Dromos: -

Burials: -

Stomion: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

Chamber: Much destroyed.

Date: -

Burials: -

References: Evans 1905, 437.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

67. Tomb 32

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

References: Evans 1905, 436.

Dromos: -

64. Tomb 20

Stomion: Width 0.5 m.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Chamber: Rectangular, 3 x 3.3 m.

Dromos: -

Burials: 6.

Stomion: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 6 larnakes.

Chamber: Collapsed.

Date: LM IIIA.

Burials: -

References: Evans 1905, 439-440.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

28

Madelaine Miller

68. Tomb 35

Stomion: Width 0.75 m. Double walling.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Chamber: Rectangular, 1.45 x 1.60 m.

Dromos: Length c. 4.5 m, increasing width 0.85-1.05 m at entrance. Descending steeply. Two steps. Inclining walls.

Burials: 3. Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Stomion: Width 0.70 m at bottom, 0.65 at top; height 1.40 m. Blocked by a triple walling.

Date: LM IIIA.

Chamber: Almost square, 1.75 x 1.95 m.

References: Evans 1905, 453.

Burials: 3.

72. Tomb 50

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from the east.

Date: LM IIIA.

Dromos: Collapsed.

References: Evans 1905, 441.

Stomion: Collapsed.

69. Tomb 38

Chamber: Collapsed.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from the east.

Burials: 2.

Dromos: Short and steep.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 2 larnakes.

Stomion: -

Date: LM IIIA.

Chamber: Square with a rounded outline, c. 2 x 2 m.

References: Evans 1905, 454.

Burials: Decayed bones.

73. Tomb 52

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from the east.

Date: LM IIIA. References: Evans 1905, 449.

Dromos: “This tomb was entered from the pit of the preceding grave into which the upper part of the vault had been slightly cut”.

70. Tomb 39

Stomion: -

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from the east.

Chamber: -

Dromos: -

Burials: 1.

Stomion: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Chamber: Much destroyed.

Date: LM IIIA.

Burials: -

References: Evans 1905, 454.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax with flat cover.

74. Tomb 52

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from the east.

References: Evans 1905, 449.

Dromos: -

71. Tomb 49

Stomion: -

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from the east.

Chamber: -

Dromos: Short.

Burials: 1.

29

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

78. Tomb 69

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

References: Evans 1905, 455.

Dromos: Length 5.75 m, width c. 1.0 m.

75. Tomb 54

Stomion: Width 0.7 m. Collapsed.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from the east.

Chamber: Roughly square, 2.42 x 2.20 m.

Dromos: -

Burials: 1.

Stomion: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Chamber: Much destroyed.

Date: LM IIIA.

Burials: Remains of bones.

References: Evans 1905, 465.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 plain larnax.

79. Tomb 72

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: East-west with entrance from east.

References: Evans 1905, 455.

Dromos: -

76. Tomb 56

Stomion: Width 0.4 m, depth 0.4 m.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from the east.

Chamber: Almost square with rounded corners, 1.1 x 1.2 m.

Dromos: -

Burials: 2.

Stomion: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 2 larnakes.

Chamber: Much destroyed.

Date: LM IIIA.

Burials: 1.

References: Evans 1905, 465-466.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

80. Tomb 80

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

References: Evans 1905, 457.

Dromos: Width 1 m. Short with three steps.

77. Tomb 60

Stomion: Width 0.6 m, height 4 m.

Orientation: North-south with the entrance from the south.

Chamber: Square 1.2 x 1.05 m.

Dromos: Short with three steps.

Burials: 1.

Stomion: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

Chamber: Very small.

Date: LM IIIA.

Burials: 1.

References: Evans 1905, 469-470.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

81. Tomb 81

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

References: Evans 1905, 458.

Dromos: Width 1 m. Stomion: Width 0.7 m, height 1.30 m.

30

Madelaine Miller

Chamber: Almost square, 1.6 x 1.4 m.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 3 larnakes.

Burials: 3.

Date: LM IIIA.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 3 plain larnakes.

References: Evans 1905, 470-471.

Date: LM IIIA.

85. Tomb 85

References: Evans 1905, 470.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

82. Tomb 82

Dromos: -

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Stomion: -

Dromos: Length 1.7 m.

Chamber: -

Stomion: Collapsed.

Burials: -

Chamber: 0.6 x 0.4 m.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Burials: -

Date: LM IIIA.72

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

References: Evans 1905, 471.

Date: LM IIIA.

86. Tomb 86 (weapon grave)

References: Evans 1905, 470.

Orientation: -

83. Tomb 83, 84

Dromos: -

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Stomion: -

Dromos: Length 4 m, width 1 m.

Chamber: Much destroyed.

Stomion: -

Burials: 1?

Chamber: An arched recess, c. 1 x 1.5 m.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Burials: -

Date: LM IIIA.73

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

References: Evans 1905, 471.

Date: LM IIIA.

87. Tomb 89

References: Evans 1905, 470-471.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

84. Tomb 84

Dromos: Width 0.8 m.

Orientation: North-east to south-west with the entrance from east.

Stomion: Width 0.6 m, height 0.7 m. Chamber: 1.28 x 1.1 m.

Dromos: Length c. 3 m, width c. 1 m. The entrance of the dromos was shared with tomb no. 83 and consisted of a stepped pit.

Burials: 1. Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Stomion: Width c. 0.9 m, depth 0.3 m.

Date: LM IIIA.

Chamber: Almost square 2.2 x 2.0 m.

References: Evans 1905, 472.

Burials: 2.

72 73

31

Evans 1905, 471. Evans 1905,471.

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

88. Tomb 90

Dromos: -

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Stomion: Width 0.4-0.6 m, height 1.53 m. Well-cut.

Dromos: -

Chamber: Square, 2.5 x 2.5 m. Collapsed.

Stomion: -

Burials: 1 (decayed bones of a child).

Chamber: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Burials: 1.

Date: LM IIIA.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1.

References: Evans 1905, 473.

Date: LM IIIA.74

92. Tomb 95 (weapon grave)

References: Evans 1905, 473.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

89. Tomb 92

Dromos: Length c. 5 m.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Stomion: Width 0.62 m, height 1.3 m.

Dromos: Length 5.8 m, width 1.1-1.15 m.

Chamber: Almost square, 2.5 x 2.15 m.

Stomion: Width 0.55 m.75

Burials: 2.

Chamber: Square, 2.40 x 2.40 m.

Date: LM IIIA.

Burials: 1.

References: Evans 1905, 473-475.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

93. Tomb 96

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

References: Evans 1905, 473.

Dromos: -

90. Tomb 93

Stomion: -

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Chamber: -

Dromos: Width 1 m.

Burials: 2.

Stomion: Width 0.7 m.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Chamber: Rectangular, 1.6 x 2.1 m.

Date: LM IIIA.

Burials: 1.

References: Evans 1905, 475.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

94. Tomb 97

Date: LM IIIA.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

References: Evans 1905, 473.

Dromos: Length 3.5 m, width 1 m.

91. Tomb 94

Stomion: Width 0.6 m, height 1.1 m.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Chamber: Square, 1.84 x 1.84 m. Burials: 1.

Evans 1905, 473. 75 According to Evans 1905, 395, 473, the entrance was “exceptionally rounded at top”. 74

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

32

Madelaine Miller

Date: LM IIIA.

98. Tomb I

References: Evans 1905, 475.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

95. Tomb 98 (weapon grave) Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Dromos: Length 3 m, width 0.85-0.9 m. Unusually steep. Near the entrance there was a walled recess, length 1.78 m, width 0.75 m.

Dromos: Width 0.8 m.

Stomion: Collapsed.

Stomion: Width 0.55 m.

Chamber: Rectangular, 1.9 x 2.5 m.

Chamber: Rectangular, 2.3 x 2 m.

Burials: 2.

Burials: 2.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 wooden coffin with traces of blue paint.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 larnax.

Date: LM IIIA1-2 (early).

Date: LM IIIA.

References: Hood, Huxley & Sandars 1958-59, 198-200.

References: Evans 1905, 476.

99. Tomb XV

96. Tomb 99

Orientation: North-south with the entrance from north.

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

Dromos: Length 2 m, width 0.8 m. There is a high drop at the beginning of the dromos.

Dromos: Stomion: Width 0.8 m. Blocking wall intact.

Stomion: The top of the stomion was destroyed but the blocking wall of undressed stones was partly preserved.

Chamber: Square, 2.2 x 2.2 m.

Chamber: Rectangular, 1.55 m x 1.00 m.

Burials: 3.76

Burials: 1.

Biers/coffins/larnakes: -

Biers/coffins/larnakes: 1 wooden coffin.

Date LM IIIA.

Date: LM IIIA1-2.77

References: Evans 1905, 476.

References: Hood, Huxley & Sandars 1958-59, 217-218.

97. Tomb 100

Typological changes of the chamber tombs

Orientation: East-west with the entrance from east.

In the following section I will discuss how the chamber tombs changed during the periods MM II-LM III. The aim is to understand whether certain features characterised each chronological phase and what they consisted of. As a starting point the information provided by the catalogue will be used. The next step will be to make comparisons with selected tombs at Kastri in Kythera and in the Argolid.

Dromos: Stomion: Width 0.67 m. Much destroyed. Chamber: Rectangular, 2.45 x 1.60 m. Burials: 3.

MM II-LM I

Biers/coffins/larnakes/: 3 larnakes.

From the period MM II-LM I, 26 tombs have been studied in the following cemeteries: Mavro Spelio (18 tombs), Poros (six tombs) and Upper Gypsades (two tombs). As comparative material the tombs from the unpublished cemetery Ailias will be included in the discussion.

Date: LM IIIA. References: Evans 1905, 478-79. Upper Gypsades 76

Evans 1905, 477. One of the burials belonged to a child.

77

33

Preston 2004b, 330, dates the tomb to LM IIIA1.

The Funerary Landscape at Knossos

Table 1. Orientation (E=entrance). North-south Date

E. from north

MM II-III MM III-LM I LM 1

1 (25)

Date

East- west

East-west to south-west

E. from west

E. from east

1 (14)

2 (22,26) 3 (19,20,21)

E.from west

E. from south-west

1 (11)

2 (15,16)

E. from east-west

North-north-east to south-south-west

North-east to south-west

E. from north-north-east

E. from north-east

MM II-III MM III-LM I LM I

E. from south-south-west 1(8)

E. from south-west 1 (4) 6 (1,2,3,5,6,7) 5 (9,10,13,17,18)

1(12)

Table 2. Shapes and features. Date

Short (1-4 m)

Long (