Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Mortuary Customs in The Southern and Western Peloponnese A

Middle helladicand early
Mycenaean mortuary
in
customs the southern
and westernPeloponnese
Michael John Boyd
PhD
The Universityof Edinburgh
1999
Volume I
fpi
JNV.
Middle helladicand early Mycenaeanmortuary customsin the southernand
westernPeloponnese
Michael]ohn Boyd
PhD:Universityof Edinburgh1999
DECLARATIONBY AUTHOR
I declarethat
I havecomposedthis thesis,and
the work is my own
Z8.9--1eli
Signed:MichaelJohn Boyd Date:28 March 1999
2
For my motherandmy father
ABSTRACT
Middle helladicand earlyMycenaeanburialcustomsin the southernand

westernPeloponnese.
MichaelJohn Boyd
PhD:Universityof Edinburgh1999
The aim of this thesisIs to set out the evidencefor burial practicesIn the southernand western
Peloponneseof Greece during the middle helladic and early Mycenaeanperiods (circa
2050/2000ec to 1445/1415Bc), and to Interpretthe evidenceIn termsof humanaction.
The first half of the thesissets out the scope of the research. Chapter One Is a basic introduction
to the material, including the chronological boundaries, a basic description of the material,
problems of dating sites, the topography of the region, and a summary of survey results in the
area. In ChapterTwo some approachesto mortuary data are examined, in particular notions that
architecture can be classified in a meaningful way in relation to the past and that funerary
ceremonies in some way reflect the lifetime status of the recently dead, as well as Ideas about
the relationships between mortuary architecture, funerary practices and society. It is suggested
that burial practices are often seen to be bound up in the reproduction of pan-helladic social
structures in the form of the 'Mycenaean civilisation', and it is suggested that in the early
Mycenaean period burial practices are seen to constitute one of only two principal signifiers of
that civilisation (the other being Mycenaeanpottery).
ChapterThreesets forth an outline theory of human action with special referenceto the
Action
mortuaryarena. is examinedthroughits medium,the human body, and in its setting,the
locale. The idea of locale is developedin order to understandhow people perceive their
environmentand interpret spacethrough routine occupancyand movement,and through the
propagation of knowledge.Aspects of localeimpactingon humanaction includeits placein the
architecture,materialcultureand tradition. The humanbody asmediumof action is
landscape,
in
considered how it may interact its
with environment and with others. Four
Chapter includesa
reviewof the epistemological
approaches of pastexcavatorsto their material,and the effect of
this on the natureand content of publishedreports.The secondpart of this chapterexamines
4
the questionof how to investigatehumanaction In the mortuary locale on the basisof the
availableevidence.An analyticalmethodologyis presentedthat allowsfor examinationof the
evidencein termsof four main areasof humanactivity: gravelocation,graveconstruction,pre-
mortuaryrites, and rites in the tomb.
The secondhalf of the thesispresentsan analysisof the evidencein order to answerthe

following generic questions: where were tombs situated, how were they occupied and what was
their place In the encultured landscape;what was the meaning and effect of architecture; what
did people do In tombs and as part of mortuary rites; how were practices and structures
maintained and altered through time, and what brought about their widespread reproduction?
The evidence on which the analysis Is based Is presented In Appendix One, which contains
detailed descriptions and illustrations of 61 sites In the study area. The place of the grave In the
landscapeIs examined in Chapter Five; mortuary architecture Is analysedIn ChapterSix; evidence
for preparatory acts before funerals Is reviewed in Chapter Seven; and mortuary practices are
considered In Chapter Eight. Chapter Nine presents the general conclusions of the study,
Including both a summary of burial practices as evidenced, and a historical framework within
which those practices may be set. Areas of continuity and change In tradition are Identified and
explained. The chapter considers the Implications of these conclusions on the use of burial
practices in the study of 'Mycenaean civilisation', confirming that variations In time and space
suggestcloser study of local and regional archaeologiesshould be a priority In future research
aims.
5
HEPIAH`PH
MsaocX,Xa&tx scat irpwta MUKTIva

K(I iacptx ttta airy vtta Mt SvTt"
IIsXonwqao.
Michael John Boyd
LtBa1cTOpua8taiptf3i: Havciwrnjto tou Edinburgh 1999.
H 7rap6aa Statpt 3 atoxsi t va tapouatat tic u tPXOuaESapiupiEg 'yta Tayucl;

2tpal=d; aTq vtrta uat Suttxrj flth 7tvvnao, Kath TIJ Eaoc aSticf at ap(bt tT
Mui vaIidj aspioSo (7tspinou 2050/2000 o), 1445/1415 a.X. ), xat va apopei as cpgTIvcia
Tons as eiiatsSo av0pw7rtvrjSp r;.
to 7rpwTO9 PO; TIN cpyaaia; op4eTat To iESio SpalS vjS tpcuvag. To Ilpwio
Kc(pc.Zazo a7rote) ci pia aatxrj ctaaywy ato
into EXi uXuK6. Ectovrat to
xpovo),oyu ir?aiata 'mS xtXtmc, 7tapovatgcTat avToa io 1)70 E7 UtK6,
lEptyp(povtat apop),ijata aryl xpovoXbyrlarl Aacwv, axtaypacpcitat 71 Tonoypacpia trls
tcpto, t g, Kat, t. Xog, 7rapouatgovrat auvo lx is anotcXiaata Twv c vupavctaKwv
epeuvdv a'mv tepto t. Ito deftepo Kecod.aio el ctovtat K67rotsg tpoacyyiastg nov
acpopovv tx Xti ticwvTacptxwv SESoEvwv,Ito a vyi cipt 62twg auv
va amtyVsty, 71o1)
Okket qv Ta4tv6plaq'mS apxtTei rovuarjg va aroKT v61ga OTav yivEtat ae axial ge To
mtapeWv, ij TTIvavT1).i jii ott of TaptKdg tEXEtOUpyiSavravaKXov, FLcKG,
1COto
TpOmto,
TO
aTCISLpKctaTTjgwS TOD,67[w; e7C1amg
KpOSTODVEKp015 icat a7tO cv mrouwpopo v Tt;
axta811 aVGlgaa aTIJV Tagnic apxtisxtovt1 Tt; Ta(PtKagmtpaKrt)Chg
Kat Timt/KOwVwVia.
,
Ymtoactlpigctat Ott of Tacp1Kag
mrpaKTtidS cpaivovrat auxv va auvEkovtat ge fiv
avaaapaywy aav-cUuSlxwv KorvwvtKCiv Sowv e ti opgn Tou "Muxrlvaixo
ni MuKrlvai d mtepio8o,va auvtaTovv tva aa6 'va NO
toXtTtao", 'cat, Kai srly mtpcbt,
aatK& "aurata KatatcOavta" auto toy to? trtao. To Tpfro Kerne.aio MUM Ta Kpta
arlgia gm; Ocwpiag Tij; av6pwmvrlg 7rp6r1S, pz ct3u rj avacpop&atov Tota toy Oavtou.
H np64'q e cvr&ctat Sla TODiaou tS, toy avOp(imavoua61taiog, at toy alaivtxo T-qq,Tou
locale. Avamrraactat rl t&&a Tov locale yta va yivct KatavomTbc,o Tpmrogge toy onoio of
dvOpwaot awt a(3vovtat To nsptpdtUOv Tour Kat eprlvcu ovv To xwpo, uaa an TIJv
6
uaOrlpty Stapiwarl scat Ti1v xivr afi Touq t as a avt6v ai uat rrl t6,Soai vlS
yvwaTIS.Otaatatc Tou locale tou it3pov ati v avOpwitvi np64ij xti ovtat t Oa
Tou p as aTOTornio,tv apxtteictovtk , toy'Atx6 aoXtna6 at tv 7rap&Sornl.Avaititat

o Tp6mo; toy omoio To avOpwmtvoa6ita aav o 7tp671S
avtt8p6 to mpt(3) ov icat
iovS ? XouS itapyoviS. To Terapro Kcro. aio mpkapvt ua av(xaK67nlrnl row
.
cmta to).oytxwv mpoayyiwv mov xapaicr p4av avauacpci oTO mapX06v uat TtS
owbEetS autcwv yta to xapaicri pa scat To mptx6vo Twv 811oal6awv. to S'tpo
hpoS avtov toy ija Tov rp67cou Stpvvrlrnlc to
xcpakaiov 4iTat To mp63A,
avOp6)7nv1Smp i, 6aov acpop io locale Tou 6av6rou, (36011Ta StaOatp. a arotxia.
IIapouatTat ta ava? vtuci AoSoXoyia mov mttpEmtT11v ataai Tcov SSohvwv
avacpoptx t aaeptS ioiS avOpwmvrlc Spank: TomoOaiaTov Tcpov,icataxvij TOD
Tcpou,TXTtqmpty an6 rrly taq Kat TTES
atov Tt po.
,
ITO SEVTEpo
tpoq ii; StaTpii; 7tapoval6ETat
i avXvarj Twv SESo}ivav E aT6Xova
amavrr166v -ra ai6kovOa aalK Epcoti aTa: aov piaKOVTat of rthpOt; roc
"xprjato7totovtat" Kai 7toiC tvat 7j O aij touq aT0 "Eicro? 1TlaJ1hV0" Toto; 7COtd iiTaV ij
cnj. taala aXX Kat Ot 87rtXC6)act; nl; apxiTEKTOVLK ;; Ti a7[paTTaV 01 6VOpO)1[Ot aTOVS r pouS
Kat aTa 7t) alala TOW twpu CV TE%T(bV; }lc 7COt6 Tp67C0 avVTTjp 5 av Kal }LETataa%%OVTaV oT0
xp6vo 7rpaKTIKES Kat Soja Kal Ti of ynac only Evpcia avanapaywy Toi S; Ta SESopva
aTa o toia crn pgETat TI av#%vai aapovau oyrat aTgv IIpoaNKn 1, rov 1CEpthxct
?& rotcpci 7rEptypacpS icat anctxoviaciS Tcov 61 6tacwv au v vtb ImMm 7cEptox4.ETo
IIEwrro Kcco aio E4ET6ETat 11Atari TODT&cpovato Toiio, oTo EKro KcroAaio avaMcTat i
,
TacptKij apxiTEKTOVLKfl, ato EBouo Kcco aio yivcTat avaaK6 aTl Twv
,
rpo tapaaicVaatiiwv rzp6t4EwvrptV an TI; Krl6Eic;, Evdi of tacptKhSapaKTtKe; auiinovTat
ato Vyoo Kecp61aio. To Evaro KErp6Aaio itapovatdCet Ta yEVtx avacpaa.Ta TIN
gE4tT c, EEpi)apvovTas ta avoynl 'rwv Tacptiwv apaKTtKwv 67rw; Kataypcpovtat, a7i,Xb
Kai Ta loTOptx tXaiala jt oa ova o toia avrt Oa topovaav va ToRoOcT, Ieavv.
Avayvwpigovrat Kat Eptlvci5ovTat toci; auvaxctag aU Kai al
aycuv aviv tap&Soai. To
KE(PLXato
auto au(11T Try "aoia row 7rapa7vw avacpaaiwv yla Til xpioT tow
Tacpixwv 7tpaKTtx6)v arT gexkq Tov "Muir vaYKOV7Co), tctao", Kvovsaq aac$S irw;
Sla pop07Coif)acrcato xpbvo
Kat aTO xcwpo KaOtoTov anapa{TTIT11tpoTEpat6TljTa yta Try
LSUOvnKntpcvva Ttl aOtepq cXtt Tov apxato) oytxov va.tKOl T6ao aE E7itE8o Toini6
ao Kai aE enincSo acptoA;.
The text on this and the preceding page is a translation of the abstract on pages4 8t 5 Into
modern Greek. Translation: E. Kiriatzf.
7
Contents
Volume I
Declaration 2
Abstract 4
IIcptA,rlyrii 6
Contents 8
Acknowledgements 13
Note on transliteration 16
ChapterOne: 19
Introductionto the chronology,landscape
andmaterialunderstudy
THE SCOPE OF THE THESIS 19
CHRONOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION 19
POTTERY STYLE AND CHRONOLOGY 2I
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MATERIAL UNDER STUDY 29
CHRONOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE EVIDENCE 32
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN 35
PELOPONNESE
SITE DISTRIBUTION, SETTLEMENT HISTORY AND THE 38
CONTRIBUTION OF SURVEY
8
ChapterTwo: 44
Mortuarypractices- the viewfrom theAegean
INTRODUCTION 44
THE STATUS OF THE DEAD 45
MYCENAEAN CIVILISATION: THE ETHNICITY OF THE DEAD 49
ChapterThree: 53
actionandthe mortuarylocale
Theorisinglandscape,
INTRODUCTION 53
THE AIMS OF THE STUDY 54
BASIC THEORY OF HUMAN ACTION 55
THE ENCULTURED LANDSCAPE 6I
SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORTUARY LOCALE 63
PERFORMANCE 72
ChapterFour: 76
Theanalyticalframework
INTRODUCTION 76
READING EXCAVATION REPORTS 76
ANALYSING MORTUARY BEHAVIOUR 83
ChapterFive: 99
Themortuarylocalein the landscape
INTRODUCTION 99
SIMPLER GRAVES 99
THE MHI-II PERIOD 108
BURIAL MOUNDS OF LIKELY MH DATE lie
THE MHIII-LHI 119

PERIOD
THE LHI-IIA, LHIIA AND LHIIB PERIODS 133
9
ChapterSix: 140
Architecture,graveconstructionandmodification
SIMPLER GRAVES 140
BURIAL MOUNDS OF LIKELY MH DATE 15
THE MHIII-LHI PERIOD 153

182
THE LHI-IIA, LHIIA AND LHIIB PERIODS
ChapterSeven: 190
Preparation:
actsoutsidethe grave
SIMPLER GRAVES 1 90
THE MHI11-LHI PERIOD 205

THE LHI-IIA, LHIIA AND LHIIB PERIODS 214
ChapterEight: 220
Acts at andwithin the grave
SIMPLER GRAVES 220
THE MHHI PERIOD 228
THE MHIII-LHI PERIOD 234
THE LHI-IIA, 247

LHIIA AND LHIIB PERIODS
10
ChapterNine: 256
mortuarypracticein a historicalframework
Summaryandconclusions:
HUMAN ACTION IN THE MORTUARY SPHERE 256
THE CREATION, MAINTENANCE AND TRANSFORMATION 26 1
OF TRADITION
FUNERARY CUSTOMS AND THE INCEPTION OF 271
'MYCENAEAN CIVILISATION'
FUTURE RESEARCH: EXTENDING THE SCOPE 272
CHRONOLOGICALLY AND SPATIALLY
A CONCLUSION 274
Volume 11
Contentsof Volume 11 277
Appendix One 280

Sitecatalogue
FORMAT OF CATALOGUE ENTRIES 280
SITE CATALOGUE 282
Appendix Two 788

Unexcavated,
undatedandLHIII tombs
INTRODUCTION 788
UNDATED THOLOS 788

TOMB
UNEXCAVATED 789
THOLOS TOMBS
THOLOS TOMBS TO DATE TO LHIII OR LATER 79O

THOUGHT
MISCELLANEOUS OTHER POSSIBLE FUNERARY SITES 792
LATE MYCENAEAN CHAMBER TOMBS 794
11
Appendix Three 806
A generalconsideration
of the middlehelladic'tumulusphenomenon'
Appendix Four 810

GeneralIllustrations
Bibliography 833
List of plates in volume I
CENTRAL MESSINIA: VIEW SOUTH FROM /3: /(AM/N/A 18
MOUND AT /5: PI. TANGS 43

23: VOL/M/DH/A: CHAMBER TOMB A2 52
/7. -VO/OHOK/L/: THOLOS TOMB 75
34: Kdyaos 98
ILIA, NEAR OLIMBIA 39
54: VAP/: STOMION 89
BAY OF / 7' VO/DHOK/L/ 219
THOLOS TOMB IV AT 24: ENGL/ANS 255

SOULIMA VALLEY FROM 35. PE/71STERL4 275
12
Acknowledgements
From his first, encouragingresponseto my hopeful letter enquiringabout the possibilityof

researchto thesepastfew difficult months,my supervisor,Dr RobinBarber,hasbeena constant
sourceof support,exhortation,practicalinstructionand very direct criticism. He hascontinued
to the end to tolerate substandarddrafts, which he hasread and correctedwith patienceand
humour.The final form of this thesisowesmuchto hisvery pertinentquestioningand correcting
of earlierversions,and in a wider sensehe hasbeena sourceof much helpfuladvice.
In my first year at Edinburghmany peoplewere kind enoughto take an interestin me, despite
my only occasionalappearancein the Department(due to the demandsof my job). The
DepartmentalSecretary,Ms Elaine Hutchison, was helpful in many practical matters. Mr
Gordon Howiearrangedfor me to speakat a conferenceIn Athensearly on in my research.My
secondsupervisor,Dr Trevor Watkins,providedearlyadviceand last-minutereferences.
My researchhasbeenprincipallyconductedin Athens, where I havebenefitedfrom the advice

and interestof numerousscholars.I would like to warmly thank ProfessorG. S. Korresof the
Universityof Athensfor actingasmy supervisorseveraltimesunder the provisionsof the Greek
GovernmentScholarshipscheme.He hasshowngreat InterestIn my work, and hasfacilitated
my research,most especiallyby arrangingfor Mr WasZondansof Koukounrato show me
someof the more well-hiddentombsof that region. I alsoexpressmy thanksto Mr Zondans
and hiswife for their kindnessand hospitality.
I have also been assistedby the interest shown by successivedirectors of the British School at
Athens in my work: Dr Elizabeth French, Dr Martin Price, Professor Richard Tomlinson, and
lately Mr David Blackman, who has also acted as my supervisor under the Greek Government
Scholarshipscheme. Mr Blackmanhas smoothed the path to completion of this thesis by freeing
me from other commitments in the last few months. To them all, I offer my thanks.
13
who deserveto be mentionedhere include Dr Chris Mee, who
Other teachersand colleagues
inspiredmy interest in Aegeanarchaeologyand encouragedme to pursuethe topic of this
thesis;his colleagueat Liverpool,ProfessorElizabethSlater,without whoseInterventionI would
never have found myself in a position to begin a thesis, and who has written numerous
referencesin respectof grantand scholarshipapplications,and Mr John Barrett,whoseteaching
Inspiredme andwho haskindly shownan InterestIn my work.
Dr Guy Sanders,who I knewfirst a asAssistantDirectorat the BritishSchooland then simplyas

a friend, hasbeena greatsourceof practicaladviceon the conductof this research.He hasalso
showninterestin the theoreticalissuesthat I havewanted to raise. In his current position as
Directorof Excavationsat Corinth he hasshownuncalled-forpatienceIn delayinga projectwhile
I endeavouredto finishthis thesis.
Much of the researchfor this thesisand Its writing up havebeencarriedout In the Libraryof the
BritishSchoolat Athens. I shouldlike to record my life-longgratitudeto that Institution,and to
all thosewho work to keepIt running.In particularthe Librarian,Ms PennyWilson-Zargnis, the
AssistantLibrarianMs SandraPepelasis, archivistsMs MargaretCogzelland Ms
and successive
Anne Sacketthaveall done more than can possiblybe acknowledgedhere. The Secretary,Ms
Helen Clark, has arrangedpermit matters and also deservesgreat thanks for correcting the
polytonic orthographyin the bibliographyof this thesis.The Fitch LaboratoryDirector, Dr Ian
Whitbread,hasnumeroustimesIndulgedme duringthe finishingof this thesis,aswell asoffering
adviceand encouragement.In numerousother matters Dr LesleyBeaumont,Ms Helen Fields
and Ms Maria Papakonstandinou
shouldbe warmly thanked.Ms EvangeliaKiriatzffreely offered
to translatethe abstractof this thesis.
Besidesthe attentionsof my supervisor,this thesishasbeen Improvedby commentsmade on

earlier drafts by Mr DavidTurner and Ms RebeccaSweetman.Dr GrahamShipley,at the last
moment, read an almost-finaldraft and corrected numerousmistakes,for which I am very
grateful.Somefinal changeswere suggestedby Mr NicholasPotamitis.Smallconferencepapers
basedon this researchbenefitedfrom the criticismof Dr John Bennet,Dr Carl Knappett, Dr
YnnosLlos, Ms SusanLupack,Dr DhtmitraPapakonstandinou, Dr HeatherPaxson,Dr Nigel
Spencer,Ms KatherineStott, and Mr CharlesWatkinson.
Financially,this researchhasbeensupportedby: the Baldwin-Browntravellingscholarshipof the

Departmentof Classicsof the Universityof Edinburgh(1996); a FacultyGroup Scholarship
from the Universityof Edinburghfor 1993-1994 and 1994-1995; the Greek Government
14
Scholarship(1994-1995,1996-1997,1997-1998,1998-1999); a Hector and Elizabeth
CatlingBursary(1996); the SchoolStudentshipof the BritishSchoolat Athens (1994-1995);
the WaterhouseStudentshipof the BritishSchoolat Athens (1996-1997); awardsfrom the T.
B. L. WebsterFundand the Gilbert Murray Trust of the Institute of Classics(1994); and my
parents,who have loanedand givenmoney beyond the call of duty. Dr fan Sanders
gaveme a
job that I love, and hasbeenpatientwith my shortcomingsin the pastfew months.
Although the Impact of one's friends on a thesisis hard to define, nonethelessIn everyday
conversationand In more formal circumstancesthey help to shapeand refine one'sIdeas.To all
my thesis,or who havemerelyIndulgedme, I
of my friendswho haveindulgedme In discussing
offer my gratitude: in these last few months especially I would like to thank Mile Kim Beaufiis,
and in earlier times Dr Roger Doonan. My initial interest in ideas of performance was stimulated
by Dr Beth Bartley. In my travels I have been accompanied at different times by Mr Malcolm
Nicholson,Dr HeatherPaxson,Ms RebeccaSweetmanand Mr CharlesWatkinson.
My gratitudeto three kind and belovedsoulsis beyondwords. KatherineStott sustainedme in

the difficult first few months of this research.Heather Paxsonsharedwith me in discovering
Athensand Greece,and in discussing my research,at a time when deadlineswere distantin the
future.
RebeccaSweetmanhasbeenat my side during the stressand trauma of misseddeadlinesand

endlesspressure.We have sharedIn each other's field research,and latterly In each other's
writing-up. This thesishas been written with her love, support and encouragement,and as I
write thesewords I look forwardto a future whereour time Is our own.
My parents allowed me to choose my own path and have enthusiastically encouraged me to

follow it. I owe everything I am to them, and proudly dedicate this thesis to them.
15
Note on transliteration
With the exceptionof very few placenames with well-establishedtransliterations(for example

Mycenae,Athens),all sitesin this thesisare referredto by transliterationsmadeaccordingto the
schemeset out here. The guidingprinciple Is that the transliterationshould form the closest
approximationpossibleof the Greekpronunciationfor the Englishspeaker.
The acuteaccentis usedto denotethe positionof the vowel accentuatedwhenthe placenameIs

pronouncedIn Its nominativeform. This Is the equivalentof the tnosIn current Greekspelling.
Examples
are
rib.%o; Pi1os
Ba(pc Vafi6
Wherethe tnoslieson a capitalisedfirst vowel,it is omitted in transliteration.
The diaeresisis used exactly as in modern Greek spelling, and indicates two succeedingvowels
forming a diphthong:
Bot8ouotXt Voidhokili3
Greekvowelsand vowel combinationsare transliteratedasfollows:
t, et, TI, ot, vl, 1)
a a
e, at e
o, co 0
ov ou
16
The following vowel combinations are transliterated as vowel-consonant combinations:
av, eu, 711) av, ev, iv or af, ef, if (depending on pronunciation)
Greek consonantsand consonant combinations are transliterated as follows:
V lt p
g or y (depending on pronunciation) P r
dh (pronounced as th in them) a s
z ti t
e th (pronounced as th in thin) (P f
K k x Ii
I w ps
m 77, YK ng
V n lt b
4 x vti d
Greek personal names are transliterated according to the same system. However, where a book
or article has been published in English by a Greek author, the author's name is transcribed in
accordance with the system in operation in the publication.
17
18
ChapterOne
Introduction to the chronology, landscapeand

material under study
THE SCOPE OF THE THESIS
This thesisaims to examinethe evidencefor mortuary practicesin the southernand western

Peloponnese (within the modernboundariesof Messinfa,Ilia and Lakonfa)in the periodsMHI-
LHIIB (circa 2050/2000BC to 1445/1415Bc - table 1.1). By studying grave, tomb and
cemetery location, grave and tomb architecture,and the evidence for mortuary practice
preservedin archaeological remains,it is hopedto approacha completeunderstandingof what
peopledid in relation to the most difficult circumstanceof life: death. Through a detailedsite
catalogue(appendixone) and a closeexaminationof the evidencefor different areasof practice
(location of tomb, cemeteryand grave,tomb constructionand modification, preparation,and
actsat the graveside- chaptersfive to eight), a wide variety of practicesand a seriesof themes
running through the evidenceof all periods are identified and set in a historical narrative
(chapternine).
CHRONOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Chronologically,this study focuseson funerary sites that were built or used In the middle
helladic,late helladicI or late helladicII phases.Conventionally,this representsthe period from
about 2070BC to 1390BC (Warren & Hankey 1989,169 table 3.1) or 2050/2000BC to
1445/1415BC (Rutter: 1993,756 table 2, basedon Manning: 1995, revisingWarren 81
Hankey1989,169 table 3.1), so a periodof at least550 yearsand at most 700 years:
19
MHI 2050/2000 -1950/1900
MHII 1950/1900 - 1750/1720
MHIII 1750/1720 - 1680
LHI 1680 -1600/1580
LHIIA 1600/1580 -1520/1480
LHIIB 1520/1480 - 1445/1415
Table 1.1. Source: Rutter 1993,756 table 2; after Manning 1995.
As is clear from table I. I, I any accepting the current preliminary consensusof opinion that the
eruption of the Thira volcano took place in the summer of I628BC (proposed principally by
Baillie, for example Baillie 1995, chapter 7; accepted by Rutter: 1993; more recent report on
the current state of scholarship by Shelmerdine: 1997, especially notes 7& 8). This revision of
the chronology upward, in combination with a more widespread acceptance of a threefold
division of middle helladic ceramics (Rutter 1993), allows for the observation that the crucial
MHIII phase is short (some 40 to 70 years) in comparison to the preceding MHII phase (200
years); much of the evidence with which this thesis is concerned can be seen to relate to the
MHIII and LHI phases.
The selection of these chronological phasesis easy to explain. The aim is to investigate, through
funerary evidence, the period before the Mycenaean palatial phase (which in broad terns and
for these purposes is regarded as LHIIIA-B; Shelmerdine 1997), both to understand the
archaeology of that period, and to examine the coming into being of `Mycenaean civilisation'
(chapters two 8t nine). With particular regard to funerary evidence, the first monumental burial
placesseem to date from early in the middle helladic period (17: Voidhokili in particular is well
dated to MHI), and moreover seem to be part of a pattern of middle helladic monumental
burial places that overlap with the tholos tombs of the late helladic period (as recognised by the
University of Minnesota MesseniaExpedition: McDonald 8t Hope Simpson 1961,256-257;
1969,172-173). In very broad terms, therefore, the chosen chronological range allows for
both the study of burial evidence regarded as early Mycenaean, and for potentially related but
earlier evidence.
20
POTTERY STYLE AND CHRONOLOGY
The primary chronologicalindicator for almostall sitesincludedIn this study is pottery style
(one site, 14:Ayos lonnis Papolia,has a single radiocarbon determination, although this is not
the primary dating indicator for the site; the inclusion of 60: Sikea is based on the dating of a
sword earlier than the pottery content of the tomb; 31: Dhra Is also not directly dated by its
pottery).
A great many sitesare chronologicallycomplex,havingbeenthe focus for repeatedintrusion,

interference,cleaningout and depositionover sometimesquite long periods,often extending
beyond the period being investigatedhere. Carefully excavatedsites reveal much of the
evidencefor this in their stratigraphy;at other sites,only the juxtapositionin the finds' tray of
pottery of earlierand later periodsbearswitnessto a lengthyperiod or periodsof use.
Somepottery is an extremelycloseindicator of chronology,and the presenceof certainstyles

offers a more precisedating than could be achievedwith any other method. Other pottery
stylesare exceptionallylong lived, and offer no more than a broadindication.The interpretation
of chronology on the basisof pottery style is not therefore a matter of simple, empirical
observation.
The analysisto be presentedin later chaptersis not driven by strict chronologicaltransitional

points: the practicesobserved,describedand interpretedin later chaptersare unrelatedto the
acceptedpottery-stylechronologicalboundaries,suchas MHIII to LHI or LHI to LHIIA. The
chronologicalbandschosenfor the examinationof material In later chapters(MHI-11,MHIII-
LHI, LHI-LHIIA, LHIIB) tendsto straddleboundariesrather than respectthem. The reasonsfor
examining the evidence in these bands are given in the sections below, along with a discussionof
the initial boundary of the period of study, and which monuments fall within it.
EH/// and the transition to middle he//adic
The middle helladicIa II phasescover a period of up to about 300 years,from 2050BCor

2000ac to 1750ac or 1720Bc (table 1.1 above),MHI coveringthe first 100 years,MHII the
following200 yearsor so. The unusualpottery sequenceIn Messinfaand LakonfabetweenEHII
and MHI hasbeendescribedby Rutter (1993,773; 1979,15): virtually no EHIII pottery Is
known from theseareas,either In surveyor excavation.Rutter hasproposedthat EHII ceramic
stylescontinuedto be madeand usedlong after the end of the EHII chronologicalphase,and
Chapter One Introduction 21

that EHIII styleswere never properly or widely adoptedIn theseregions;Instead,EHII styles
continuedto be useduntil the beginningof the middle heliadicperiod. Thesesuggestions
were
made in the context of what Rutter sawas the perhapshighly regionalisednature of ceramic
stylesin the early and middle bronzeage. He hasarguedthat the ceramicassemblageknown as
EHIII and most clearlyrepresentedat Lernashouldbe seenasa fusionbetween,or development
a fusion suggestedto havetaken
of, the EHII (Lerna III) style and the LefkandlI assemblage;
placein central Greeceand then adoptedin placeslike Lerna.The processes
of this adoption,
whetherviolent or not, seemnot to haveaffectedthe southernPeloponnese.
If this is accepted,and alsoin the light of commentsaboveabout the natureof the MHIII/LHI
division,it is clearthat ceramicstylesneednot changesharplynor needthey changeIn all places
at the sametime'.
Dickinson(1982,133) arguedagainstany absenceof an EHIII ceramicphaseIn Messiniaand

Lakonia,callingthis proposition'a counselof despair'.He partly backsthis up by pointingto the
traditionaltheory of widespreaddestructionsthroughoutthe helladicareaat the end of EHII (as
statedmost clearlyby Caskey:1960), which is howeverno longer regardedas tenable(Forsen
1992). He also points to the other changesthat occur between EHII and MHI, notably
domesticarchitectureand 'ordinary domesticpottery'. As far as architectureIs concerned,
Forsen'scataloguelists sevensites In Messinfaand four In Lakonia, of which four Include
excavatedEH architecture(Forsen1992,98-107). At Pulos,Forsendatestwo possibleapsidal
buildingsto EHII, at Voidhokili3the natureof the architectureIs unclear,at Akovitika there are
two 'corridor house'-typebuildings,and at Koufbvounoan apsidalhouseIs dated EHII. The
presenceof apsidal housesin EHII contexts may undermine Dickinson'sargument for an
architecturalchange,since apsidalhousesare generallytaken as Indicativeof the EHIII/MH
period.
A lack of EHIII pottery in Messinfaand Lakonia therefore remains an apparently real

phenomenon,althoughone which is beinggivenmore carefulstudy In recentwork. In the final
publicationof pottery from the LaconiaSurvey,Cavanaghez Crouwel(1996,16) statethat the
'wider problem' of the 'absenceof EHIII ceramics has not been changedby the Laconia
...
Survey'. However,the preliminaryreport of the PylosRegionalArchaeological
Project(Daviset
all! 1997,419) notesthe possiblepresenceof EHIII ceramicsat three sites:Pflos,Ordhinesand
Bell rbel. Moreover the publicationof the excavationsat 30:Nih6rla has produced an MHI
'Ceramic regionalism during this period Is pronounced, far more so than In the preceding EHI1 period
although not necessarilymore so than In the succeedingMH period': Rutter 1995,648.

assemblage that has clear links with EH1II material (Howell: 1992; Dickinson 1992,110;
Rutter: 1993,773). So Rutter'shypothesis,that the southernPeloponnese waslargelyIsolated
from ceramic changesthat anyway occurred gradually elsewhere,seemsnow rather more
than
plausible any suggestion
of an of
abandonment the southern In
Peloponnese EHIII, or that
settlementwasnucleatedIn areasthat surveyhasnot reached(Dickinson1982,133).
The situation in Ilia Is somewhat different. The trenches excavatedIn advanceof the
constructionof the new museumat Olimbia revealedremainsof the EHIII and MHI periods,
with a little earlierand later material(Koumouzelis1980, chapterthree). This EHIII assemblage
is explicitly comparedwith Lerna IV. Four apsidalhousesfrom the Altis at Olimbla are also
dated EHIII by Koumouzelis.HoweverEHIII Is not securelypresentIn other excavatedElean
contexts(Forsen1992,84-94).
If the naturesof the ceramicsequenceand settlementof the period are unclear,tracesof burial
burial evidencefor the EHIII periodwithin the
are evenmore obscure.ThereIs no unambiguous
area under study, and everywhereelse such burials are a rare phenomenon.One Important
questionsurroundsthe dating of certain of the monumentalburial constructionsregardedas
middle helladic in this thesis. Mller (1989), In her catalogue, lists as possibly EHIII
17:Voidhokili(Mailer's site 1) and 14:AyoslonnisPapolia(Mller's site 5). At 17:Voidhoki1i
shecitesthe presenceof'EHIII' pithoi brokenin the dromosof the LHI tholos tomb, whichshe
comparesto certainfeaturesat Sten6on Lefkdha(Mller 1989,18); theseare howeverby no
meansclearly part of the funerarymound. Korres (1982a, 230) summingup his preliminary
statesthat the artefactualevidencefrom the moundsupportsa date of construction
conclusions,
and use of MHI only2. As for 14:Ayos IonnisPapo/ia,the presenceof an ovoid jar
(Al. 14.301) causedMarin3tosto suggestan EH/MH date for the constructionof the mound
(Marintos1954,311-313). Korres' re-excavationof the mound led him to suggesta date of
MHII-III for the mound (Korres 1980), althoughMHI material Is also present;the ovoid jar
was recoveredby the villagersfrom an unknown context and In any case traces of EHII
habitationhave been found at the site. Forsen(1992,101), following Caskey(1986,24),
points out that the shapeis known In both EHII and MH but Is not certainlyattestedfrom an
EHIII context;hencesheexcludesan EH date for this mound,asdo 1.
2 '. axria ria6s xai xpfjatc tov icav& thv ME I, 6vov, cp&ativ '
...
3 ReferencesIn the format Al. x. y refer to Illustrations in appendix one, where xis the number of the site
in the site catalogue, and y Is the illustration number within the site entry. ReferencesIn the format A2. x
or A4. x refer to Illustrations In appendicestwo and four, respectively.

There Is thereforeno strongcasefor datingeither of thesemonumentalburial sitesto the early
helladicperiod, but there Is strong evidenceto suggestthat they were built and used In the
middle helladicperiod. Havingsaidthat, this discussionhasnot touchedon the fact that many
of the moundsin the areaunder studyare unexcavated, and the attribution of date is basedon
the extensivesurveysof the 1950s and 1960s, wheresherdsthat were usedas datingreferents
havenot beenpublished.Nevertheless, argumentIn current debatetendsto centrearoundthe
propositionnot that the tumuli shouldbe dated earlier, but rather that somemight well post-
datethe bronzeage(Daviset alii 1997,485-488; discussed
In appendixthree).
In any case,It is clear from excavationthat someat leastof the Messenlanmoundsdate to the
very beginningof the middle helladicperiod. In the light of the discussion
so far In this chapter,
an EHIII/MH date may simply correspondto the first recognisable
ceramicphaseafter EHII In
this particularregion.Thesemonumentaltombsare a phenomenonthat Is presentfor the whole
middle helladicperiod in the region.
It remainsto considerthe tumuli at Olimbfain Ilia. Two were discoveredduring the excavations
In advanceof the constructionof the new museum(Yialoris 1964,174-176; Koumouzelis
1980,139-140; Forsen 1992,88-89), but only one was Investigated.It consists-of an
ellipticalcircle (A4.2), 3.17m to 3.79m In diameter,of river stonesabout 2 or 3 courseshigh
surroundedby a linear circumferenceof similarstonesmakinga circle about 5m In diameter,
which Is in turn surroundedby a 'paving' of small stones 1m to 2m wide, making a total
diameterof between6m and 1Om. Koumouzelisstatesthat 'the Inner part was 1.2m deep'
...
(1980,139), which Is confirmedneither by Yialoris'descriptionnor by his plan and section
(A4.1). This plan and sectionIn fact suggests
that the 'tumulus' Is not raisedat all abovethe
ground,and this alsoappearsto havebeenYlaloris'impression:he callsit 'a circularfloor' and
'an altar', ashe found tracesof burningamongthe stones.Koumouzelisaddsthat pithossherds
and bone fragmentswere found, which she felt were 'undoubtedly signsof a pathosburial'.
However,she also notesthat no other signsof burial were found below the stoneswhen they
were excavated.
There Is no particular need to take the pithos sherdsand bone fragmentsas Indicatorsof a
pithos burial which would necessarily
needhavelain on top of the stones(henceKoumouzelis'
assertionthat there ought to havebeena moundon top of the stones).The boneswere burned
and becameso as a result of exposureto the fire on top of the stones.This may Indicate
cremation or the partial burning familiar from Steno on Lefk3dha;there is however no

Indicationthat the bone fragmentswere analysed,and thereforewe do not even know If they
were human.The excavatedtumulusis dated'LernaIV: 1-2' (that Is, EHIII) by Forsen.
A third tumulusexistsIn the Altis at Olimbfa, originally excavatedby Drpfeld (1935), and
recently reinvestigated(A4.3; Catling 1988,27; Kyrieleis 1990,186; French 1991,31;
discussedfully by Forsen:1992,92-93). This tumulusis now dated to the EHII period, and
againthere is no specificevidencethat it wasfuneraryin nature:few detailsare availableof the
architecture.
Thesemonumentsand others,particularlythoseat Stenoon Lefkdha(A4.4; Drpfeld 1927),

havebeenusedin the pastto Invokeinvadersfrom the north (Hammond 1967; Hood 1986,
54-59). As noted above,the ideaof an invasionbringingaboutthe end of the EHII phaseis no
longerwidely accepted;nevertheless, that somediffusionistmechanism
it Is often still suggested
might be appositein explainingthe appearanceof tumuli in Greece (Mller 1989; Forsen
1992,232-237). Forsen'ssummaryof the argumentconcludesthat while the numbersof early
helladictumuli are too few to support any theory of immigrantsfrom the north, It Is possible
that this feature travelled south from Albania to Ilia and eventuallyMessinfavia the Ionian
Islands.The Albanian evidenceis particularlydifficult to assess.Hammond, for example,in
pursuitof his thesisthat the buildersof tumuli in Albaniawere of the same'stock' asthosethat
built the grave circles at Mycenae,which he regardsas tumuli, suggestedthat many of the
tumuli of Albania containedmaterialthat shouldbe equivalentto middle helladicmaterial.An
alternativeexplanation,perhapsalludedto by Hammond(1974,129), would be to seetumuli
as artefactsfound throughouta region of intensecontact In westernGreeceand Albania. The
materialculturesof theseareasare howevernot generallybracketed,and so this explanation
seemsrather unlikely.
The tumuli of Lefkdhaand Olimbia are chronologicallydistinct from those Includedin this
study. Burialunder tumulusis a commonenoughphenomenonin different timesand placesthat
there is no pressingneedto rely on a diffusionistexplanationfor its appearanceunlessthere is
somespecificpoint of similarity.The tumuli of Lefk3dhaand Olimbfa, aswell asthoseIncluded
in this study, form a group of heterogeneous
monumentsthat requireno singleexplanation.The
simple fact of a burial under a mound in Itself Is obvious enough to be open to regular
independentinvention.

The middle helladic period
Forty of the sitesunder discussionIn this thesiscertainly,probablyor possiblyhavea middle

helladiccomponent.Only a tiny proportion are explicitly dated to MHI or MHII (table 1.7
for
below), and evenwith thesefew the chronologyIs often unclear.Thereare two explanations
this: on the one hand, a subdivisionof the middle helladic pottery sequencehas only really
becomepossiblein recentyears(definedfor Messinfaby Howell: 1992), so that middlehelladic
pottery Identifiedin older excavationswassimply Identifiedas 'middle helladic'; on the other
hand many MH burial mounds are unexcavated,and so their chronologiesare imprecisely
known,basedonly on field survey(tables1.9 U 1.10 below).
The effect of this is exacerbatedby the largernumberof MHIII sitesnow Identified(table 1.8
below), leadingto an apparentdichotomy betweenMHI-II and MH111.Although this would
appearto be a real increasein number,the largenumberof unexcavatedsites,many of which
would be likely to predate MHIII In their foundation, must be borne in mind. While It Is
impossibleto understandtheir position In the chronologicalsequenceof monumentalburial
forms in the areaunderstudy, nonethelessthey standmute witnessto practicesthat were more
widespreadthan the excavatedevidencealonewould allow.
The /1H///-LH/ transition and the inception of the '/lycenaean period'
In the whole period that we are dealingwith, the principalInnovationin pottery style is usually
takento be the adaptationof Minoan pottery to form the late helladicI style at the end of the
middle helladicperiod. LHI-stylepottery did not, however,replacethe earlierstyles;all of the
MH stylescontinueto be madeand usedthroughoutthe LHI chronologicalphaseand Into LHII.
Lewis(1983,115) notesthat the percentageof pottery of LHI style recordedby Biegenin LHI
levelsat KorkouIs as little as 3.1%, and survivingMH typesstill makeup 49% of the LHIIA
and rather less in LHIIB. Davis (1979,238)

assemblage, points out that the scarcity of
that thesewere discardedbefore
sherdspreservedin the excavationarchivesuggests
coarseware
recording;these percentagestherefore refer to fine pottery only (at 30:Nih6ria, coarsewares
madeup to 70% of MHIII and LHI deposits:Dickinson1992,472). Davis(1979,254) says
'it is clear that often, especiallyIn the caseof simple,more plain types, no fine distinctionscan
be drawn betweenpottery of the later Middle Helladicand earlier Late Helladicperiods.The
date of many piecescannot be preciselydeterminedwithout knowledgeof their context'.
Moreover Dickinson(1974,119) suggeststhat LHI pottery is generallypoorly made and
paintedIn comparisonto LHIIA, which Is closerto later Mycenaeanpottery In termsof quality.

These observationslead to the possibility that past Interpretationsof the chronological
implicationsof ceramiccontextshavebeenbasedon a falseassumptionthat the ascriptionof
date is primarily basedon the presenceor absenceof Mycenaeanpottery styles(Rutter 1993,
756 note 36). Moreover, Mycenaeanpottery stylesare first made or Imported to sites at
differingtimes:at 57:AyosStefanosin Lakonia,for example,Rutter 8t Rutter (1976) showthat
'Minoanising'pottery is presentIn MHIII deposits,whereasLHI pottery appearsfully formedat
30:Nih6ria In Messinia(Dickinson 1992,473), although at that site transitionalMH-LH
depositsare not well represented(ibidem).
If therefore LHI pottery might make up a very small percentage of the total pottery of the LHI
period for any given site, in the relatively closed context of a burial, often associatedwith a
small number of pottery items, it is clearly a possibility that only middle helladic styles of
pottery may be present In any given burial, even if the actual date of deposition should be LHI
(or even LHII, although this is much lesslikely).
The MHIII-LHI period is crucialfor the evidenceunderstudy In this thesis.This period of about
150 yearsis one in which certaininnovationstook placein funerarycustomsIn the region,and
by the end of the period new practiceshad becometraditional. This study will show these
changesas a seriesof related phenomenaobservablethroughout MHIII-LHI; the difficulty In
settingIndividualartefactsand monumentson one or other side of the MHIII-LHI transitionIs
therefore not a major problem, and moreovera specificMHIII-LHI transition point is of little
importance,sincethe changesreferredto do not constitutea single,sharplydefinedevent.
In traditionalterms the interfacebetweenthe end of the middle helladicperiod and LHI marks
the sharp transition to the Mycenaean period. The shaft graves and the assumed Mycenaean
social structure that goes with them mark this sudden transition in the Argolid; elsewhere, the
Introduction of Mycenaean pottery Is a sign of the same sudden social change. This traditional
viewpoint has been seriously eroded, beginning with Dickinson's Origins of MycenaeanCivilisation
(1977), and particularly in the work of numerous scholars In the past decade. The
understanding that Mycenaean pottery Is not a unitary phenomenon Is one aspect of the
emerging complexity of the period; the study of burial customs presented In this thesis Is
another.

The IH/-/IA transition, and the LH//A and LH//B periods
`LHI-IIA' is an undefinedtransitionalphase,a designationoften given to pottery exhibiting

characteristicsof both LHI and LHIIA phases.It is not clear to what extent LHI-IIA might
coincidewith L61os''late phase' LHI pottery, which seemsin any caseknown mostly from
certainsettlementdeposits(Nihdria, the easthouseat Peristeril:Ldlos 1985,537-540).
LHIIA is recognisable
asa phasethrough pottery
very characteristic suchasthe 'palacestylejar',
basedon Minoan LMIB styles.Thereare numerousintact or recognisable LHIIA contextsIn the
tombs under study, both in thosecontinuingfrom the previousperiod and in thoseseemingly
constructedin this phase.
LHIIB on the other hand is much more problematic.Fewinstancesof LHIIB pottery are noted
In excavationreports,perhapsbecauseit Is lesscharacteristicthan the LHI1A pottery, and might
often be describedas 'early Mycenaean'or simply LHII. Dickinson,however,commentingon
the LHIIB assemblagefrom the Nihdria excavations,
says
The rate at which the LH decoratedware developedIn LHII does not coincidewith
that of the other categories,and the changesare minor In comparisonwith the degree
of overallsimilaritybetweenLHII groups.Thus, there seemslittle point in discussing
LHIIA and LHIIB separately.This would involve much repetition and might beg the
question, for the sequenceobserved at Korakou (Dickinson 1972) cannot be
paralleledat Nichorla. It doesnot seemthat the local potters simply reproducedthe
stylisticsequenceof the NE Peloponnese; rather, they appearto haveconcentratedon
a few preferred types, which they sometimescontinuedto produce after these had
becomeobsoleteIn the NE Peloponnese.
Dickinson1992,481.
Dickinson here refers to the evidence from only one site, and with few well stratified deposits;
nonetheless,the generalconceptof regionalvariationin early Mycenaeanpottery stylesis now

broadly accepted,and if Lakoniaand Messinfawere particularlyearly in adoptingMinoan-style
fine decoratedpottery asthe LHI style (Llos1985), then perhapsthey may equallyhavebeen
late In adoptinga particularLHIIB assemblage,
or Indeedthe LHIIB repertoiremay havediffered
from region to region throughoutthe period. Perhapsa better indicator of a late date within
LHII generallywould be an assemblage
with fewercontinuingMH-styletypes'.
" These points ought to be clarified to some extent In Mountjoy's Imminent work on regional Mycenaean
pottery styles, which I have not seen. One question would be whether 'palatial style' Mycenaean pottery
might continue in production Into LHIIB in these regions, in which case all of LHiI would be well
represented in the funerary archaeology.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MATERIAL UNDER STUDY
The material of this study comes from sixty-one sites that range from single burials to
cemeteries of multiple-burial chamber tombs, and from pits in the ground to the most
monumental of tholos tombs. These sites may be arranged and grouped in a number of ways: a
brief critique of the taxonomy of Mycenaean and pre-Mycenaean burial customs is presented in
chapter two. Nevertheless, in order to achieve an overview, sites in this section are arranged
using standard typologies in order to familiarise the reader as quickly as possible with the
material.
Table 1.2 lists non-monumental burial sites' (excluding simpler graves within multiple burial
monuments). These generally consist of burials or cemeteries that are no longer visible after the
inhumation and whose graves are usually built for one person; they are often found within or
adjoining settlement. The graves consist of pits in the ground, pits outlined with stones at
ground level, pits fully lined with stonesor slabs (`cists'), and burials in large jars ('pithoi') set in
pits in the ground. Among these sites there are eight related to settlement contexts and a
further six that may be related to settlement contexts:
3 Nisakoli Yes 3 >3 MHII-III

9 KaratsdhesLoutrd Yes Unknown Unknown MH
24 Englians Unknown 1 0 ?MH-LHII
35 Peristeri (child cists) Yes 9 9 (MHIII)-LHI
37 Mlthi Yes 48 71 MHII-LHIII
41 Filiatr Stomion Yes 1 1 MHII-III
45 Makrlsia Arnokatraho Unknown I Unknown LHII
48 Mirka Yes 8 Unknown MH
50 Armatova Unknown Unknown Unknown MH
51 Anlipsis (cist grave) Unknown 1 Unknown Unknown
53 Menelalon Yes 6 6 MHII-III
55 Amikleon Yes 4 Unknown MHIII-LHI
56 Yerki Yes 3 (or 4) 3 (or 4) MH
57 Ayos Stefanos Yes 636 67 MH-LH
59 Pavlopetri Possibly 37 Unknown Unknown
61 Krokees Unknown I Unknown LHII-III
Table 1.2. Non-monumental burial sites.
Even this most basic division between monumental and non-monumental is of course subjective.
One of the graves at 53: Menelaion, for example, is a shaft grave. Moreover, all graves require
Sitesappear more than once in the tables where they are made up of different categoriesof monument.
Work of the first three seasonsonly: see entry in Appendix One.
29
an effort of construction,and someare embellishedwith stone outlines,stone-linedwalls or
covering slabs.
Thosesitesthat remainform the monumentalclass.They canbe broadlydividedbetweenburial

tumuli, tholostombsand chambertombs:
"a tumulusis a mound createdaboveground of heapedearth, stones,or earth and stones,

with burials Inserted Into it (for example, Al. 21.5, Al. 21.6, and Al. 14.5). These
burials may be housed in pits, outlined pits, cists, pithol or tholos tombs set within the
mound;
"a tholos tomb Is a stone-builtburial chamber(for example,A1.. 74.1 and Al.. TS.58) with
a singleentranceconsistingof a tunnel-likeentryway('stomion', for exampleAl . J4.2 and
Al. 66) Into the chamber and often a long narrow approach to that entryway
-3S.
('dromos', for exampleAl. 57). The chamberIs round and corbelled(so the layersof
-7S.
stone convergeon high to form an apex). The tholos Is often but not alwaysbuilt partly
underground;It may be set in a mound, or a mound may be thrown up around the above-
groundpart; alternativelyit may be coveredIn thick clay. Burialsmay be left on the floor of
the chamber, or set In pits, cists or pithol: these gravesmay also be found to contain
disarticulatedbones;
"a chambertomb is similar in form to a tholos tomb but it is not stone built, but rather
carvedout of the ground,often on a slopingsurface.Its chambermay be round, sub round,
sub rectangularor rectangular(for exampleAl. S2.4 and Al. 52.6). Burialsagainmay be
set on the floor or in gravessuch as pits or casts;disarticulatedbonesmay also be found,
often in nichesin the wall dug at floor level.
Divisionsneed not be clear cut: tholos tombs may be set within tumuli, for example.The
followingtablespresentthe materialaccordingto traditionaltypologicaldivisions.
ChapterOne Introduction 30
1 Finikonda Possibletumulus, unexcavated
2 Evangelisms Single unexcavatedtumulus with pithoi
4 Mesohri Gdhiti Rah! Possibletumulus, unexcavated
5 YSlova Paleohdri Possibletumuli, unexcavated
6 PulaVigles Possibletumulus with pithoi, unexcavatedand destroyed
8 Handrino Kiss6s Excavatedtumulus with pithos and stone-enclosedburials; three
other unexcavatedtumuli nearby
14 Ayos Ionnis Papolia Excavated tumulus with pithos and cist burials and central
construction; four or twelve other mounds in the vicinity
15 Pltanos Three unexcavated tumuli with burial pithoi and slab-cover
stones
17 Voidhokili Excavated tumulus with pithos and stone-enclosed burials (see
also table 1.5)
20 Tragna Kapoureika Unexcavated, destroyed tumulus with pithoi and slab-cover
stones
21 Lefki Kaldmou Six unexcavatedtumuli with pithoi and slab-cover stones
22 PirgosTsoka Unexcavated, partly destroyed tumulus/knoll with pithoi and
slab-coverstones
25 Dhivri Excavatedtumulus with at least one pithos burial
27 Roatsi Three partly excavated tumuli with stone cists and pithoi (see
also table 1.5)
28 Knalos Two unexcavated (one destroyed) tumuli with pithoi and stone
cists
29 Vlta Kastrki Two possibleunexcavatedtumuli with pithoi
33 Militi Ayos Iljas Possibleunexcavatedtumulus with pithoi and stone-cover slabs
35 Peristerl3: Kokorkou Excavatedtumulus with pithoi (see also table 1.5)
43 Kato Samikd Klidhi Five small excavated tumuli with cists; one tholos
46 Makrfsia: Profitis Ilcas One excavated tumulus (or tholos tomb) with one pit burial
49 Myeira One excavatedtumulus with pithoi
Table 1.3. Burial tumuli.
=.
10 Gouvalri Cemetery of seven tumuli, one of which contained ten small

tholos tombs, another contained three, another one, and the
others are unexcavated;two 'canonical' tholoi (table 1.5)
13 Kaminia Tumulus with five small tholos tombs built in the periphery
30 Nihria Nikitopolou Knoll with five small tholos tombs (see also table 1.5)
51 An3lipsis Eight small tholoi, uncertain location (see also table 1.5)
Table 1.4. Multiple small tholos tomb monuments and cemeteries
31
7 Dhidhia & Strefi One excavatedtholos tomb, one or two others unexcavated
10 Gouvalri Two excavatedtholoi (see also table 1.4)
11 Akdnes Two excavatedtholos tombs
12 Koukounra Three excavatedtholoi and perhaps two others unexcavated
16 Korif3sio One excavatedtholos tomb
17 Voidhokili One excavatedtholos tomb set in an older tumulus (table 1.3)
18 Tragna Two excavatedtholos tombs
19 Solinrl Tourlidhitsa One excavatedtholos set in the remains of previous settlement
24 Englian6s Three excavatedtholos tombs (see also table 1.6)
26 Halkias Two excavatedtholos tombs
27 Rotsi Two excavatedtholos tombs (see also table 1.3)
30 Nihbria Two excavatedsmall tholos tombs (see also table 1.4)
31 Dhra (Fr3ma) One excavatedtholos tomb
32 Paleohbria One excavatedtholos tomb
34 Kmbos One excavatedtholos tomb
35 Peristeri Five excavatedtholoi (see also table 1.3)
36 Kopanki Three tholoi, two excavated
38 Xerdvrisi One excavatedtholos tomb
39 Psri Two or three tholoi, one excavated
40 Flliatr3 Ayos Hristforos One excavatedtholos tomb
42 Kaplni Two tholoi, one excavated
43 Kto Samik6 Klidhl One (or two) excavatedtholos tombs (see also table 1.3)
44 Kakdvatos Three excavatedtholos tombs
51 Vorvoura Anlipsis One excavatedtholos tomb (see also table 1.4)
54 Vafi6 One excavatedtholos tomb
Table 1.5. Excavatedtholos tombs.
Ske Description
23 Volimfdhia Cemetery of at least 34 chamber tombs

24 Englians Chamber tomb amid cemetery of later examples (see also table
1.5)
52 Pellna At least six chamber tombs, one at least early
58 Epidhavros Limlr At least five and probably ten chamber tombs
60 Sikea One excavatedchamber tomb
62 Kithira: Kastrf At least seven chamber tombs and four natural rock-chamber
tombs
Table 1.6. Chamber tombs.
CHRONOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE EVIDENCE
The problems of interpreting ceramic evidence for date were presented earlier in this chapter:
here I present a chronology for the sites listed in tables 1.3 to 1.6, mainly on the basisof this
ceramic evidence (for the chronology of non-monumental burial sites, see table 1.2). Full
arguments are presented in the individual site entries in the site catalogue, appendix one, to
which reference should be made. The following tables present the suggestedconstruction dates
for each site, and periods of use. Where the construction date is not certain, the ceramic
evidence being used is the earliest datable evidence, but neverthelesseither does not cone from
32
a context that relates to construction or early use, or else other, more relevant material is not
closely dated. Some sites have two entries here, for example 27: Rotsi has separate entries for
the tumuli and the tholoi. Referenceshould always be made to the relevant catalogue entry for
details of chronological attribution.
Although it is necessary to establish a chronological framework for the discussion, that

discussionis not dependent on details of chronology, which are in any case often questionable.
What follows is not intended to represent a significant contribution to the study of the
chronologies of these sites. Note that where 'possible' or 'probable' dates of construction are
given, the actual date of construction might well predate that given.
d. 1.
14 Ayos IonnisPapolia MHI possible' MHI-III

17 Voidhokill3 MHI certain MHI-LHIII
27 Rotsi (tumuli) MHII possible MHII certain; MHI and MHIII possible
35 Peristerl3 (Kokorkou) MHI/II MHI/ll
Table 1.7. Sitesconstructed in MHI-II.
10 Gouval3rl MHIII probable MH, LHI-IIIC

13 Kam(nia MHIII probable MH, LHI-111C
16 Korifslo MHIII certain MHIII-LHI/Il, possible LHII
23 Volimidhia Kefal6vrlso I MHIII probable MHIII
24 Englians:Vayens MHIII possible MHIII-LHIIIAI
30 Nihria MHIII probable MHIII-LHIIIC, protogeometric
35 Peristeri3 (MH-LH grave) MHIII certain MHIII-LHI
43 Kato Samlk6 Klidhf MHIII probable MHIII-LHIIIC
Table 1.8. Sitesconstructed in MHIII.
I Sim " i" d. Date

ranp of use
2 Evangelisms MH probable MH
6 Plla MH probable MH
8 Handrino Kisss MH probable Probable MH-LHII; certain LHIII
15 Pltanos MH probable MH; likely LH
21 Lefki Kaldamou MH probable MH
22 PirgosTsoka MH probable MH
25 Dhlvri MH certain MH
28 K3nalos MH probable MH-LH
Table 1.9. Sitescertainly or probably constructed in MH (general).
Perhaps more likely to be MHII or even MHIII: refer to the discussion of chronology in the catalogue
entry.
33
,,: 1-;l k
5 Constructiondate Dateran of use
I Finikonda MH possible No information

4 Mesohri Gdhiti Rahi MH possible MH
5 Ylova Paleohdrl MH possible MH
20 Tragna Kapourefka MH possible MH
29 Vlta Kastr3ki MH possible MH possible; LHIIIAI certain
33 Militl Ayos Ilcas MH possible MH
49 Myeira MH possible MH; LHIII
Table 1.10. Sites possibly constructed in MH (general).
....
Date
ranp of use I
7 Dhiddhia LHI probable LHI-II

23 Volimfdhia LHI certain MHIII-LHIIIC
24 Engliands:tholos IV LHI probable LHI-IIA; LHIIIA
27 Rotsl (tholol) LHI probable LHI-IIIA
32 Paleohria LHI-IIA probable LHI-111C
35 Peristeri3 (tholos II) LHI-IIA probable LHIIA
35 Peristeri (tholos III) (MHIII)-LHI certain PossibleMHIII; LHI; possibleLHIIA
35 Peristeri3 (south tholos I) LHI probable LHI-IIIA
39 PsriMetsiki LHI probable LHI-IIIA
46 Makrfsla: Profftis Ilcas LHI probable MH(? ), LHI-III
51 Anlipsis (small tholol) LHI possible LHI(? )-LHIII
58 EpfdhavrosLimir LHI certain LHI-IIIC
Table 1.1 1. Sitesconstructed in LHI or LHI-IIA.
d, Date
Site " i" ranp of use
12 Koukoun3ra LHIIA probable LHIIA-III

18 Trag3na LHIIA probable PossibleLHI; LHIIA; LHIII
24 Engllandse LHIIA probable LHIIA; LHIII
35 PeristerlA(tholos I) LHIIA probable LHIIA; LHIII 81 later
38 Vasilik: Xerdvrlsi LHIIA probable LHIIA; LHIII
42 Kaplni LHIIA possible LHIIA; other periods likely
44 Kakvatos LHIIA probable LHIIA
51 Anlipsis large tholos LHIIA probable Certain LHIIA; possible LHIII
52 Pellna LHI-IIA possible PossibleLHI; certain LHII-III
54 Vafib LHIIA probable LHIIA: LHIII
Table 1.12. Sitesconstructed in LHIIA.
I1 Koukoun3ra Aknes LHII probable LHII-III

19 Solin3ri Tourlidhitsa LHII possible LHII-III
26 Halkis Aells LHII possible LHII
31 Dhra (Fr3ma) LHII possible No information
34 Kmbos LHII probable LHII-II
35 Peristerl3 (tholos V) LHII possible LHII certain; other periods?
36 Kopan3kl LHII possible LHIIA
45 Makrfsia: Amokat3raho LHII probable LHII
Table 1.13. Sitesconstructed in LHII (general).
8 Tholos 3 and chamber tomb E8.
34
60 Sikh LHIIB possible PossibleLHIIB; certain LHIII
Table 1.14. Site constructed in LHIIB.
40 Filiatr3 Ayos Hristofros LHII-III possible PossibleLHII-III

61 Krokees LHII-III probable Probable LHII-III
Table 1.15. Sitesconstructed within the period LHII-III.
The chamber tombs of 62: Kithira, not included in the tables above, date to MMIII-LMIB.
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN PELOPONNESE
The study area was chosen to be as large and varied as could be examined in the depth
necessaryto achieve the aims of the thesis. Regional variation in funerary practice is thus open
to study at the macro- and micro-regional level. Several factors made the area under study
attractive: the use of the tumulus in the western Peloponnese, the appearance of the tholos
tomb in Messinia, the proximity of the southern Peloponnese to Kithira and Crete, and the
'unknown' archaeologiesof Ilia and eastern Lakonia. The presumption of underlying cultural
unity (chapter two) could be tested againstthe variety of data from the whole study area.
This area9 comprises a little over a third of the total land mass (21,643km2) of the
Peloponnese,which is joined to the Greek mainland only by the narrow (about 5km) isthmus at
Krinthos. The Peloponnese in general is a highland area, much of the central and northern
area, and elsewhere, occupied by mountain. The north and west coasts have mostly narrow
plains and sandstone foothills. Elsewherelow-lying areas are few; the alluvial plain of Argos is
the largest plain of the Peloponnese,and currently intensively cultivated. There are two others,
those of Messiniaand of Lakonia.
The Peloponneseis today divided into six ndmoi (counties), and the modern borders of lila,
Messinia and Lakonia are taken as the borders of this study, along with the island of Kithira
I The details that follow are obviously not based on original research by me, although I have travelled
extensively throughout the Peloponnese. I have used as a principal source for what follows the Naval
Intelligence Division's Handbook of Greece (Darby 1944-1945), which describes the entire country in
remarkable detail. For Messinia and southern Ilia, more details can be found in the University of
Minnesota's Messinia Expedition (Loy 8i Wright 1972). Recent survey of central Messinia (the Pylos
Regional Archaeological Project, particularly Zangger et alii 1997) adds some details for these regions.
35
(officially part of the nmosof Pire3s,and often countedasone of the IonianIslands).This area
then includesthe entire southernand most of the westerncoast of the Peloponnese(A4.5).
The centralmountainrangesform its northernand easternborders,althoughthis is not to claim
that the areaformsa naturalunit: it is internallysubdivided,sometimesby very high mountains
suchasTafyetosbetweenMessinfaand Lakonia.
Lakonia
The mountainsof Taiyetosin the westand Prnonin the eastconstitutethe upper boundariesof
Lakonia,almostforminga triangleto the north; betweenthesemountainsis the plain of Sp3rtl,
with the Evrbtas,one of the two major rivers of the Peloponnese(the other being Alfeis in
Ufa), flowing through it toward the sea.The plain is well watered,especiallyto the north, by
tributariesto the river flowing from the mountains.It has alwaysbeen a settled area, and Is
currently richly farmed.Although the plain is broad and flat, with well definededges,there Is a
numberof low hills, and the foothillsof PJrnonapproachthe eastbankof the Evrdtasin places.
One of theseformsthe locationof 53:Menelaion(Al 5.4-7).
.
South of the Spartanplain the land opensout toward the Gulf of Lakonia.The west of this
region is an area of ridgesand hollows, forming the foothills of Taiyetos.To the east is the
coastalplain of Elos,until recentlyan areaof swamp.Theseareasare at the headof the Gulf
betweenthe promontoriesof the Mnl and Moli/Nepolis.The easternof thesepromontories,
althoughpartly formed of bare hills that fall Into the sea, particularlyon the east, Includesa
number of plains.In the south Is the plain of Ne3polis(Vatika), and further north the larger
plain of Mol3i; the west coastIs much lessruggedthan the east.In the eastof the Moial plain
there is a gapin the hills leadingto 58:Epidhavros
Limirand Monemvasfa.
The Islandof Kithira Is separatedfrom the Mol3l/Nepolispeninsulaby a strait 16km across.It

Is small, 30km by 18km, and mostly consistsof a high plateauthat slopessteeplyInto the sea.
There Is a low north-southridge where most of the modem populationIs situated;to the east
the plateauis slightlymore dissected(the Minoansite of KastriIs locatedon the eastcoast).The
Interior of the IslandIs cultivable.
The westernside of the Gulf of Lakonfais formed of the Mini peninsula,which is basicallya
continuationsouthwardof the Tafyetosmountains.A narrow passlinks eastand west sidesof
the peninsulabetweenArepolisand Y(thio. The peninsulais rugged,and Its eastsidebleak;on
the westis a numberof smallcoastalplains.

Messiaia
The easternend of Messinfais defined by the Ta yetos mountains,which separateit from

Lakonia.The land to the west of Tafyetosis fertile plain, runningnorth toward a rangeof hills
(Mt Tetryi) that enclosethe Nedha river, the northern boundaryof Messinfa.Thesehills run
east-west,joining Taiyetosat right anglesand separatingthe Messenianplainsfrom the basinof
Megalopolisto the northeast.Immediatelysouthof Tetryi is an east-westcorridor, the Soulima
valley, an Important route from the coastto the plainsof Messiniaor into Arkadhfa.The sea
formsthe westernand southernboundariesof the province.
The Messenianplain runs from a narrow headsouth to the Gulf of Messinfa.It Is boundedby
Ta yetoson the eastand the centralplateauof Messinfaon the west.The plain Is dividedIn two
by a low ridge; at Its north end (the Steniklarianplain), it meetsthe Soulimavalley.The whole
plain Is fertile and capableof supportinga high densityof population.The areaIs well watered
and marshyat the Gulf.
The promontory of Messinfaconsistsof higher land with narrow coastalplains bordered by

highlydissectedcountry.The coastasfar southasMeth6ni and much of the inlandareaIs highly
fertile; somehigher land inland and to the south is more barren. Exceptalong the coast,there
are few clear linesof communicationinland. The bay of Navarfnois the largestharbour of the
Peloponnese;
it is shelteredby the long narrow islandof Sfaktirla,thus forming a half-moon
shape.Lagoonsform at its north end, includingthe smallbay of 17:Voidhokili3(Al. 17.2).
The Soulimavalley in the north of Messinfa,althoughlessfertile than elsewherein the region,

wasa centreof settlementin the bronzeage(Al.. 35..5-6).
/Ga
Southern Ilia Is dominated by the mountains that enclose the Nedha river. These form a
triangle, and north of them the river Alfels, the second major river of the Peloponnese,runs
northwest toward the coast. The western end of the Aifels Is set In the broad lowland valley
that enclosesOlimbfa. North and west from here, along the coast, Is a broad coastal plain, often
rather waterlogged, and now Intensively cultivated. This plain contrasts with the mountains that
form the eastern part of the region; originally heavily wooded, and In places suitable for
cultivation, they are today sparselyinhabited. The north and east are separated from Ahala and
Arkadhfa by rivers and mountains.

The climatethroughoutthe surveyareaIs Mediterranean;the west (Messiniaand Ilia) hasmore
rain In winter and lessIn summer.The averagesummertemperaturefor Kalam3taand SprtiIs
about 27C, the averagerainfall about 90 days per year. Most waterwaysare seasonal,but
groundwateris availablecloseto the surfacein most regions.
Most of the land is usableto somedegreeIn farmingpractices.40% of land In Messinfaand Ilia

is classedas arable, and most of the rest Is suitablefor grazinggoats or sheep.The original
timber cover of much of the highergroundmay havebeenexploitedIn antiquity, as might the
coppersourcesin Lakonia.
SITE DISTRIBUTION, SETTLEMENT HISTORY AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF SURVEY
The distributionof the 61 sitesIn this study (A4.6) is far from random.The majority of sitesis
concentratedin Messinfa,and particularlyin the Kmbosor plateau.To be precise,a large
numberof sitesIs locatedon and amongthe ridgesthat run generallywestwardtoward the sea.
Particularconcentrationsare to be found around what was to becomethe 'palace of Nestor'
and to the southwestof there around the modem villages of Koukounraand Pltanos.
Relativelyfewer sitesare locatedin the southernpart of the promontory and In the hills north
of 30:Nihria. The other main concentrationof sites In MessiniaIs along the length of the
Soulimavalley.Of greatInterestIs the completelackof knownsitesIn the P3misosor Steniklria
plains(a patternthat changesIn LHIII).
North of Messinfa,the distributionof sitesIn Ilfa Is concentratedaroundthe Alfels river and on

the coast south of there. This area accountsfor only a small part of Il a, yet only one site
(50:Armtova)Is locatedelsewhereIn the nmos.
The picture In LakonfaIs somewhatdifferent. A numberof sitesIs clusteredaroundSpart, but

otherwisesitesare few andwidely dispersedIn the areaof study.
There is howeversomeuniformity in site locations.Very few sitesare locatedin very high or

remote locations: exceptionsto this rule are 39:Psri above the Soulima valley, nearby
26:Halk!Js, and 51:VorvouraAniipsis.Equallyfew sitesare locatedon the coast:59:Pavlopetrf,
3:Nisakoii,43:KtoSamik6Klidhf.A larger numberof sitesIs within closereachof the coast,
but locatedon akropoleis,ridgesor plateauxabovethe level of the coastalplain; and almostall
sitesare locatedon eminences
of somesort, whethercloseto the coastor not.

The distribution can be divided chronologically(A4.7-9). In Lakonfaonly 53:Menelaion,
55:Amikleon,56:Yerkiand 57:Ayos StefanosIncludemiddle helladicmaterial, restrictingthe
distributionto the Evrtasvalleyand Lakoniangulf. LHI is evenmore restricted,representedat
55:Amikleon,57:Ayos Stefanosand 58:Epfdhavros Limir;LHII is not representedonly at sites
53:Menelaion,55:Amikleonand 56:Yerki.It is worthwhilerememberingthat for 53:Menelaion,
althoughthe knownfunerarystructuresare middle helladicin date, occupationat this site Iswell
attestedfor all periods.The date of 59:Pavlopetriis not clear.
In Ilia, by contrast,three or four of the sevensitesincludemiddle helladicfuneraryevidence,

two LHI, and three LHII.
In Messinfa,of the 42 sitesin the catalogue,excludingsiteswhere dating evidenceIs insecure,

and countingonly dating evidencerelated to the mortuary elementsof sites,23 sitesInclude
MH material, 12 LHI, and 19 LHII. In terms of any possibleregionalisationin distribution,no
areasseemto be unrepresentedat any stage,saveperhapsthe southernpart of the peninsulaIn

the early Mycenaeanperiod. In LHI, where the number of sites Is fewer, the distribution Is
restrictedto the area around and to the southeastof the palaceof Nestor; LHI is elsewhere
representedat 30:Nih6riaon the gulf, and In the SoulimaValley at 39:Psri,35:PeristeriJand
37:Mlthi.
Beforeconsideringthe implicationsof this analysis,It is worth rememberingthat the sampleof

sites is restricted to those with funerary evidence.We should therefore consider how the
distributionof thesesitescompareswith that for other sitesof this period. The most up to date
picture of distributionsIs givenby Siriopolou'scatalogueof sites(1994,1995; A4.10-12).
As thesemapsare divided by period, the most striking thing about them Is the vastly greater
numberof middle helladicsitesascomparedto either late helladicI or late helladicIf. This can
In part be explainedby the relativedifficulty of IsolatingLHI or LHII sherdsIn surveys,especially
extensivesurveys,because- asnoted above- much pottery that is LHI-II in chronologicaldate is
MH in style.
Nevertheless,the basicpattern established

in the distributionpattern for this study (A4.7-9) Is
maintainedIn Siriopolou'smaps.In Ilia, sitesare clusteredalong the Alfelds and on the coast
south of there; in Lakonfa,sitesare found In the Evr6tasvalleyor toward the P3rnonpeninsula;
In Messinfa,particularly in MH, sites are to be found everywhere,Including upland areas,
althoughlessdenselydistributedIn the southof the promontory or in the Messenianpart of the

Mani; the LHI-II distribution matches that for this study, concentrated on the plateau and the
Soulima valley.
Thesedistributionmapsare representative not of the overalldistributionof sitesIn the past,but
of the distribution of sites recovered in archaeologicalwork, which has not been equally
intensivein all areas.Messinfaand southernIlia were subjectto the extensivesurveysof the
Universityof MinnesotaMessenia Expedition(McDonaldst Hope Simpson1961,1964,1969;
McDonald& Rapp1972); Lakoniawassimilarlybut lessIntensivelysurveyed(Hope Simpson&
Waterhouse1960,1961); most of Ilia hasnot yet beenso surveyed.The lack of sitesnorth of
Is it alsopossiblethat there being fewersitesIn Lakonia
the Alfeis is perhapsthus explained10.
Is explainedby the lessintensivenature of the surveyof that province?One approachto this
questionis to comparethe resultsof the earlier extensivesurveyswith more recent Intensive
surveys:thoseof central Messinia(the PylosRegional Project:Daviset alii 1997,
Archaeological
Zanggeret alii 1997) and of Lakonia(the Laconia
Survey:Cavanaghet all! 1996).
The LaconiaSurveycoveredan area about 70km2 to the northeast,east and, lessIntensively,

southeastof Sprti (Cavanaghet all! 1996, illustration 24.1; at the time of writing, the
archaeologicaldata have been fully publishedbut the generaldescription,volume one of the
survey,Is not yet available).The total numberof siteslocatedand dated specificallywithin the
rangeMH-LHII (henceexcludinggenerallyLH or bronzeage) Is fifteen"; of these,only one
(the Menelaion)was previouslyknown from the surveysof Hope Simpsonand Waterhouse
(1960,1961).
The PylosRegional
Archaeological
Projecthassurveyedan areaabout 40km2(Daviset alii 1997,
391 and figure 2). The areassurveyedwere not contiguous,and althoughmuch of the area
aroundthe palaceof Nestorwascovered,samplingdesignsoughtto Includecoastal,plateauand
mountainousareas:PRAPresultsmay therefore be more generallyapplicable.Examinationof
the preliminarysite gazetteer(Daviset alii 1996) suggeststhat, of twenty sites examinedby
PRAPand found to have materialof MH-LHII date12,thirteen were known to the Minnesota
MesseniaExpedition,and one further site is anywayIn the vicinity of the palaceof Nestor.
1 Sperling's survey of central Ilia was Interrupted by the war: he made few prehistoric discoveries, and
found no funerary evidence (1942).
" K249, K515, M322, M349, N413, N191, Q360 (the Menelalon), R291,8292, R457, R3025,
S434,5478, U492,11514: Shipley 1996b. One of these sites (R3025) is outside the area of Intensive
survey.
12A02, B05, B07, C01, C02, C03, C05, D01, D02, D03, G03,101,102,103,106, KO1, K02,
K03, LOI, M02: Daviset ali! 1996. Inventorysitesoutsidethe areaof Intensivesurveyare excluded.

Six newsitesin a total of twenty is a very differentpicture from that presentedby the data from
Lakonia(fourteen new sitesin fifteen). Although the interpretationof neither surveyhasbeen
published,many of the small sitesdiscoveredby the LaconiaSurveyare clusteredaround the
Menelaionand the generalSprti area. The area given for the MenelalonIs about 25ha; the
largestof the other fourteen sites is 0.4ha, and most are smallerthan 0.1 ha. By contrast,
amongthe PRAPexamples,site areasare generallylarger and much more variable.The palace
of Nestor covers 18ha, but there are other large sites such as brdhines (KO1,4.64ha),
Beidrbei (101,12ha) and Portes(103,11.06ha). Leavingasidetholostombs (C05,102,106),
one site is smallerthan 0.1 ha (C03 TragnaVourolia,a site partly excavatedby Marin3tosand
presumablyoriginallyoccupyinga largerarea; remainsare likely to have erodedaway;seethe
catalogueentry for 18:Tragna,note 1), three further sitesare smallerthan 0.4ha, and eight
sitesin total are largerthan 1ha. Thesedata suggestquite stronglythat the nature of the sites
discoveredby the two surveysis different: larger, nucleatedsettlementsites are common in
Messinia,althoughsmallsites (individualfarm buildings?
) are also present;In the areaaround
the Menelaion,however,only very smallsitesare present.
These observations suggest that the McDonald 8t Hope Simpson settlement distribution is
reasonably accurate for Messinfa, but that there Is a good chance that the Hope Simpson ex
Waterhouse distribution has missed, at least in some parts of Lakonfa, a pattern of small sites.
These observations are most directly applied to non-cemetery sites. Of the six new sites
discovered around Pflos, none Is Immediately associatedwith burial, although that Is naturally
not excluded; for the fourteen new sites discovered around the Menelalon, again none Is clearly
a cemetery site, although slabsthat had been removed from the ground In modern agricultural
practice at site M349 are suggestedto have been associatedwith bronze age burials. This raises
the question of the extent to which Intensive survey can be expected to Increaseour knowledge
of cemetery sites where extensive survey has already taken place. Before the advent of Intensive
survey, cemetery sites were located either becausethey had been disturbed In some way, by
agricultural practice or road building for example, or because they were easily located In
extensive survey due to factors such as positioning, clear visibility in the landscape or local
knowledge. Cemetery sites by nature contain closed and buried deposits, and where not marked
In some way (by a mound, for example) will not be discovered In intensive survey. Settlement
sites, on the other hand, are associatedwith accumulated debris over a relatively wide area, and
there is a general likelihood that some of this debris will be visible on the surface. Occasional
examples, such as the possiblecist gravesmentioned for M349 In Lakonfa, will be found, but In
general I would suggestthat Intensive survey Is not best suited to add to the corpus of known
cemetery sites where extensivesurvey has already taken place.
ChapterOne Introduction 41
The Implicationsof this are difficult to judge.On the one hand, it may be that a good number
of monumentalfunerarysiteshasalreadybeendiscoveredfor most of the areaIncludedIn this
thesis;on the other hand,it is inevitablethat manyof the deadmust havebeenburied or dealt
with in someother way. I would suggestthat our main deficiencyIn comingto an understanding
of burial traditionsis linkedto the generalproblemof lack of excavationsof middle helladicand
early Mycenaean'settlement' sites. 'Settlement' Is a word applied In surveys and site
distributionsto all sitesthat are not suggested
to haveany more specificmeaning(funerarysites
or other specialistsites,suchasworkshops).The word 'settlement' masksour almostcomplete
ignoranceof the naturesof thesesites,somethingthat will be alleviatedonly slightly by the
continuing publication of Intensivesurvey results. An excavation programme that targets
'settlement'sitesfor theseperiodsis desperatelyneeded.Only through sucha programmeIs an
understandingpossibleof what thesesitesrepresent,In termsof what sortsof buildingsmight be
found there and ultimatelywhat were the routinesof daily life for the inhabitants,and how far
thesesitescan be comparedwith eachother. Sucha programmemay well answerthe questions
surroundingthe burial of most people In the period, sinceIt Is clear that the known funerary
monumentscan hardly havecateredfor anythinglike the whole population. Siteslike 57:Ayos
Stefanosor 37:Mlthi provide hints that burial within nucleatedsettlements,or nearby,might
havebeencommon.
Thus the apparentclusteringof known funerarysites, most of which are monumentalIn the
landscape,may be a genuinephenomenon,rather than a resultof samplebias(althoughthe lack
of extensivesurveyIn most of Ilia leavesthe possibilitythat that area is Incompletelyknown).
This clustering,in the Messenianplateau,the Soulimavalley, around the Alfelds, and around
Sprti,can thereforebe examinedas a consequence of humanaction In the past; this Is one of
the centralquestionsto be examinedin this thesis.

43
ChapterTwo
Mortuary practices- the view from the Aegean
INTRODUCTIONI
From the moment of Schliemann'sexcavation of the shaft graves (Schliemann 1878),

Mycenaeanfunerary architectureand practiceshave been a focus of much excavationand
Interpretation.This chapterhighlightssomeof the recurrentthemesIn traditional analyses,and
briefly positionsthis thesisamongmore recentpublications.
There Is a large literature on middle helladic and early Mycenaean burial practices, exhibiting a
number of different approachesto the evidence and analytical methods. The recently published
Sheffield Round Table (Branigan 1998), for example, contained papers concerned with the
creation of Mycenaean social structures through the transformation of burial practices (Voutsaki
1998), regional variation In Individual funerary rituals (Cavanagh 1998), the meaning of eating
and drinking rituals in the mortuary context (Hamilakis 1998), and engendered studies of
mortuary data (Mee 1998). The approaches and techniques evidenced in that volume,
however, represent a late diversification of interests in theoretical approaches to funerary
customs.
Of the numerousthemesrunningthroughwritingson death in this period, two interconnected

issueshavedominatedthe debate:the statusof the individualdead, and the placeof mortuary
' Two books published In 1998 were received too late to be properly taken Into account In writing this
brief literature review: Cavanagh 8z Mee, and Branagan.In writing this section I should like to echo the
thoughts of Dickinson (1977,6) that detailed criticism of previous work Is tiresome and unpleasant: this
chapter constitutes a review of two specific trends, and not the work of Individual scholars.
44
customsin the establishmentand maintenanceof the Mycenaean'civilisation' or Mycenaean
`statesociety'.
THE STATUS OF THE DEAD
The deaddo not participatein their own funeral,nor is the entire essenceof the social
systemmappedout by this singlepractice.
Barrett 1988b, 31.
Cavanagh8t Mee, in their recent (1998) review of Deathin PrehistoricGreece,devote their

final chapterto a study of statusand identity in tombsand graves.This is in part a culmination
of their previouswork on statusand social differentiation (Mee & Cavanagh1984,1990;
Cavanaghst Mee 1990). In introducingthe subject,they note that the equationof statuswith
elaborationof funeraryarchitectureor ritual has been challengedin recent years:they quote

Hodder (1982), who suggeststhat while burial ritual may reflect some or other aspectof
society,it may equallydistort socialrelationships.
Statushas nonethelessbeen an abiding concern of Mycenaeanmortuary studies. In a very

important article in 1983, Dickinsonsummarisedthe main terms of the debateat that time: In
manywaysthat summaryremainsrelevantto the stateof the disciplinetoday. His approachto
statusis clear:'the degreeof elaborationof the tombs, and the quantityand valueof the goods
placedin them, have direct relevanceto the statusof the buried persons'(Dickinson1983,
56). On the face of it, this seemsan obvious,common senseassumption;It follows from the
work of Saxe(1970) and Binford(1971), and set out asfollowsin 1981 by J. A. Brown:
the socialpersona(or overallstatuscomposite)of the deceasedwill be symbolisedin

funeraryand mortuary behaviour the funeraryrites and burial will be affectedby
...
the size and compositionof the body of individualsrecognisingsome social tie or
linkagewith the deceased.
Brown 1981,28.
Theseprecepts,more or lessas Binford formulatedtheme, pretend to be the applicationof

theory derived from anthropologyto archaeology;in fact, there is nothing that Tsoiindas,for
example,would not haverecognisedIn separatingtholol and chambertombs betweenthe rich
I There are 'two types of social phenomena symbolized or recorded In a burial situation. The first was the
socialpersonaof the deceased;the second was the composition and size of the social aggregaterecognizing
status responsibilitiesto the deceased... the second component will exert determinant effects on the form
which mortuary rites will take' (1971; republished 1972: 232).
Chapter Two The view from the Aegean 45

and the poor, princesand commoners(Tsountasex Manatt 1897,131). This simpleequation
(elaborationof funeraryrites = statusof dead person)has alwaysbeen and remainsa basic
assumptionin Aegean mortuary archaeology.It did not need the Saxe/Binford/Brown
'revelation' to come into existence,even if interpretationsand analysesbasedon it were and
remainunsophisticated (more complexanalyses of highlyvariablemortuary datawere pioneered
in the Aegeanby Morris: 1987, discussed
by Shanks:1996,135-138; and on Mycenaeandata
by Cavanagh:1987, and Cavanagh a Mee: 1990).
In attemptingto assignstatusto the dead (or more generallyto usersof a tomb), the aim of
analysisis taken to be divisionsin society,socialdifferentiation.The analysisseeksto identify
those accordedburial in one or other tomb form, and those not so accordedburial, and to
'read offstatus from that. Other variables,such as the number and 'value' of grave goods
depositedwith the dead,or in a tomb, might alsobe assessed
in order to refine status.
While Hodder (ibidem) criticisedthe assignationof statuson the ground that funerary ritual
might not reflect but distort social reality, there Is
a more fundamentalcriticism of this
approach.Any assignation of statusto the deadthat claimsto reflect an actuallyexistingsocial
reality In the past is an attempt to describesociety In structuralistterms. It Is evocativeof a
societyof namedrolesforming part of a structuredwhole In which the subjectIs subordinateto
her placeIn society.It suggeststhat the proper object of archaeological study Is the structureof
society,to be understoodthroughdiscriminatingbetweenand definingIts constituentelements-
In this case,r6le.
The questionof differentiatingbetweentheseelementsof socialstructurehasbeenapproached

through the methodologicalanalogueof the processof differentiationbetweenthe productsof
the archaeological or taxonomy.
record- classification
Taxonomyis a part of the way we think. It is fundamentalto language,since the ability to

communicateis dependenton the ability to apply different nouns to different objects or
concepts.This in turn is dependenton the ability to distinguishbetweenthings,and moreoverto
do so in a way that is recognisableand seemslogical to those others with whom we are
communicating.Talk dependson a sharedrecognitionof the object of discussion,or on the
ability of one speakerto communicatethe conceptof the discreteobject to another.
Taxonomyis the basisof archaeology.Excavationcan only take place if the excavatorfeels

confidentto distinguishbetweenthe productsof excavation,and the processof excavationItself

is Intensive in its requirement on the excavator to distinguish: discrimination Is the principal
mental activity of the excavator. In areas like the Aegean, where the material record is
particularly rich, taxonomy as applied to artefact finds becomes a skill. Institutional structures -
universities, government bodies - tend to dictate that the most important skill that an
archaeologist possess be taxonomic: the ability to be an expert in some broad material
category;. Skills of excavation itself are valued far below an ability to interpret the products of
excavation in a fit manner: typically, the senior members of a research excavation will be
Involved in some way in finds processing,while the supervision of digging is left to students and
the actual digging to local workmen, who may or may not be experienced. The primary field
skill in the Aegean is not the excavation and recording of context, but taxonomic pottery
knowledge.
This expertiseis hardly neutral: the sorting and categorisingof material is not an objective
activity. This is not in itself a problem,aslong asthe point is accepted.However,the impression
one gets of the elaboratetaxonomiesof Aegean archaeologyis that they are presentedas
neutral. The ordering of material is seen as a largely scientific exercise, and any wider
interpretationof that material,a subjectiveexercise,canonly take placeafter the scientificwork
of taxonomyhasfinished.In manyways,interpretationis expectedto ariseout of the ordering
of excavatedmaterial(Shanks1993,1996; Morris 1994).
The crux of the problem is that the ordering of material is related to the past in an
uncomplicatedmanner. If one acceptthat the ordering of material is scientificand somehow
'correct', this impliesthat the orderingis somethingother than a product of our own minds;it
impliesthat the orderingreflects,howeverimperfectly,somepast reality. The interpretationof
the past, or at least some aspectsof it, is seento arise directly and reliably from a 'good'
orderingof material(Shanks8t Tilley 1992, chapterseven).
The ordering of material has also been important to understandingsof Mycenaeantomb

architecture,and moreoverthe concernsof taxonomycan be seento underlie a concernwith
the status of the dead. Wace (1923) presentedan evolutionarytholos typology basedon
stylisticobservations;Evans(1929) acceptedthe Importanceof style but suggestedregression
rather than evolution. In both casesthe typology could be mobilisedIn explanation:for Evans,
3 Both Shanks (1993,1996) and Morris (1994) have stressed the Importance of the proper
Interpretation of style In 'classical archaeology', but neither has investigated the role of taxonomic skills In
the practical reproduction of the discipline.

the magnificent'early' tombswere indicativeof a Minoan dynasty,whereasfor Wacethe tombs
were a local development,albeitwith somedegreeof Minoan'influence'.
A hierarchicaltypology of Mycenaeantombsand tomb types, at leastIn Its simplestform (the

notion that tholos tombs were for more important peoplethan chambertombs) Is presentIn
almost all writing on the subject: Dickinson(1983,56-58) codifies and makesexplicit the
format of the typology and many of the assumptions In it. Perhapsmost telling Is the fact that
the typology Is not strictly basedon architecturalfeaturesor material culture finds: Dickinson
acceptsthat sometombsought to be of different status(havea different hierarchicalposition)
by 'objective' factors(architecture,'wealth'): It 'seemsquite misleading'to
than that suggested
classsmallertholostombswith largertholostombson the basisof sharedarchitecturalfeatures',
when largertholos tombswere 'quite clearlythe burial-placesof Important personages'.Hence
that larger tholol were for the important becomesa premise, rather than a result of
Interpretation;that smallertholoi were not for the Importantis apparentlyself-evident.Status-
that of the tomb or the dead within - Is therefore the principal ordering factor within tomb
typology. Statuscreatestomb typology, and it is seento be embodiedIn the typology; status
may also,however,be Inferredfrom an understanding of typology.
An argumentthat the statusof the dead need not be reflectedin factorssuchas architecture
and 'wealth' would thereforeunderminethe basison which the conventionalunderstandingof
burial practicesIs based.'Social systemsare not constitutedof roles but by recurrent social
practices'(ParkerPearson,quotedby Barrett: 1990b, 160). The commonand definingfeature
of the otherwisedisparatepost-processualist
approachesin archaeologyhas been the emphasis
on humanagency.The key is not to disputewhetherrolesexistedin pastsocieties,but whether
they are a fit categoryfor archaeological
analysis.R61es,insteadof being fixed and empirical,a
property relating to the social structure, are instead actively maintained, and Indeed
manipulated,by actors. In a study of humanity rather than social 'systems',the actor is the
subject,not a seriesof abstractedroles. If the roles of the dead did play a part in funerary
practice, It can only be throughthe agencyof the living who organiseand take care for the
funeral.The role of the deadis a productof the funeralitself, and more specificallyof the taking
care of that funeral by the living; It is related to that Individual'slife In an indirect manner
through the Interpretationof thosewho take care of the funeral. In this way a king may well
havean elaboratefuneral,but only becausesucha funeralcomesabout through the agencyof
I Dickinson does however claim that 'it Is not always clear that they were domed like true tholoi': 1983,
58. There is little doubt that the examplesdiscussedin this thesiswere so domed.

those who are still alive and actively want and create an elaboratefuneral. Hence for an
archaeologyof humanity the subjectof studyin the mortuary field is the living, not the dead.
What, then, of the statusof the dead?It will be arguedIn chaptersthree, four and nine that
through study of the actionsof the living In the mortuary arena,one can gain real InsightInto
the nature and reproductionof socialstructures- the 'recurrent practices'mentionedabove.
Such an analysisshould respect the complexity of past societies,rather than reducingthe
questionto the rolesand statusof the dead.
MYCENAEAN CIVILISATION: THE ETHNICITY OF THE DEAD
The descriptionof a humanbeing In terms of roles can be used to uphold a fairly simplistic
structuralistview of the world. By structuralistI meanhere that the socialworld Is seento be
composedof certainfixed underlyinglawsthat governpossibleoutcomesIn an overall,bounded
'schemeof things'. Structuralistarchaeologywould seekto define those boundariesand the
underlyinglawsoperatingwithin them. This Is equivalentto the 'new' or processualarchaeology
of the 1960s to 1980s which soughtas Its goal the definition of lawsof humanbehaviourIn
much the samemannerasthe naturalsciences soughtto isolateand definelawsof nature.These
lawswere to be broad-basedand generalising,and hencewidely applicable.The operationof
theselawscould be usedin a predictivemannerIn different circumstances
(discussed
widely In
the literature,for exampleShanksa Tilley 1992, chaptertwo, Barrett 1994b, 157-164).
In processual
archaeologythe humanbeingIs decentredand marginalised.SheIs seento be part
of a processof which she is probablyonly partly aware,or (more often) her understandingof
the processhasbeendistortedby the operationof Ideology,which is seenas a mechanismfor
social control that obscuresthe real relationsbetweenpeople. Socialstructuresin processual
archaeologycan be describedwithout any referenceto the activity of the humanbeing, since
freedomof action Is seento be limited by the parametersof the structuresbeingdescribed,and
so highly predictable. Hence the descriptionsof processualarchaeologiesoften reduce the
humanbeingto a seriesof rolesprescribedby the processItself.
This structuralistconceptionof role is Importantfor the other main theme of recent discussion
of burial practices:the 'rise of the state' or the 'developmentof Mycenaeancivilisation' (for
example,amongothers, Wright 1995,1987, and Dabney8t Wright 1990; Voutsakl 1995;
Bennet1995; and manyof the papersIn the Thanatos
volume: Laffineur 1987). In the absence

of the much desiredprecursorsto the LHIII palaces,funeraryevidencehasprovena rich source
of apparentconfirmationof the stratified nature of societyIn earlier periods, and Is regularly
brought into play in confirming the early genesisof the kings and officials of a Mycenaean
society'revealed'by the LinearB tabletsand LHIII 'royal' abodes.
These questionsabout the developmentof Mycenaeancivilisation are always framed in a

retrospectivefashion.For example,Bennetasks
How did BronzeAge Pylos- the pu-ro of the LinearB tablets;the site centredon the
palaceat Ano Englianos- becomethe only palatialcenter for a 2000-km2 areaof the
southwesternPeloponnese by the late LH I11Bperiod?
Bennet1995,587.
Questions about the developmentof Mycenaeancivilisation assumethat LHIII (perhaps
specificallyLHIIIB) Mycenaeanculture Is a known quantity. In many casesit is clear that this

knownquantityderivesfrom the Interpretationof LinearB archives,Interpretationssuperficially
confirmed by the archaeology of the period. The research problem is therefore framed thus: we
know what society (specifically, the socialsystem) was like in LHIII(B), so how can we work back
from there to the simplicity and poverty of the middle helladic period? For example, Bennet
again:
the most effectiveway of addressingthe questionis, first, to reconstructthe political

geographyof the polity In LH IIIB - the period immediatelyprecedingthe palace's
destruction,ca. 1200BC- on the basisof the Linear B documents;and, second,to
trace the origins and developmentof the system attested in LH IIIB using the
diachronicperspectiveafforded by regionalarchaeologicaldata from late-MH to LH
IIIB.
Bennet1995,587; emphasisin original.
What is assumedto be givenin theseanalysesis the systemicnatureof the state in LHIIIB, and
the evidencesought is for state formation processes.These studies are firmly rooted in
archaeology,and their genesiscanbe tracedbackto the interestshownby Renfrewin
processual
suchquestions,and not only in the Aegean(1972; Renfrew8t Cherry 1986).
Despite this superficially processual framework for analysis, it is clear that the basic
understanding of `Mycenaean civilisation' Is a culture-historical one: as perceptively noted by

]ones (1997,27-28), although processualanalysesdownplay the cultural-historical framework,
nonethelessthey often rely on that framework for closure In the system. Closure In this case Is
represented by the extent of Mycenaean civilisation spatially and temporally. This extent Is

defined by those archaeologicalremains that are culturally regarded as Mycenaean, and for the
earlier period these are limited to Mycenaean-style pottery (and, to a much lesser extent,
Mycenaean-styleartefacts in general) and Mycenaean burial customs.
Of these two classesof evidence, pottery often seemsto provide the 'background' - the extent,
perhaps, of 'Mycenaean', while dynamic aspects of the system are represented by burial
customs. For this reason Mycenaean burial customs have been made to bear the brunt of
theorisation in respect of the origins and inception of Mycenaean civilisation (as for example
with Bennet 1995, already quoted above, Dickinson 1977, and numerous examplescited at the
beginning of this section; more emphasisIs given to pottery and wider categories of evidence In
Rutter's 1993 review). Although disparate methodologies are employed, and different routes
from the poverty of the middle helladic period to the acme of civilisation are postulated, the
premise is largely the same: the roots of later Mycenaean complexity can be studied In the social
stratificationapparentin earlierMycenaeantomb types.
It is not necessary to stressthat the cultural-historicalapproachhascome under intensescrutiny

and criticism In both processual and post-processual (for
archaeologies exampleRenfrew 1974,
Shanks8t Tilley 1987; Barrett 1994b; )ones 1997); It Is curiousthat the Impact of these
fundamentalreviewshasbeenso negligiblein the Aegean(seeMorris 1994 for the divergence
of archaeologyIn Greecefrom archaeologyelsewhere).In recent years, however, numerous
particularlyIn the field of pottery
voiceshavestressedthe importanceof regionalarchaeologies,
studies;Voutsaki(1998) hasintroducedthe sameIdeato the studyof mortuary archaeology.
Mycenaeancivilisationof the LHIIIB period can no more be explainedby recourseto the

mortuary evidenceof earlier periods than it can be adequatelycharacterisedfrom Linear B
evidence(Darcque1987). An understanding of the archaeologyof either period must be firmly
groundedIn the evidence.Statusand role can no more be simply 'read offthe evidencefor
'palaces'than from tholos and chambertombs. This thesispresentsan attempt to understand
the archaeologyof burial customsin a specificplaceand time, and showsthat the writing of
history demandsfirst that this be done for all the periodsand placessuch a history seeksto
address,and secondthat socialdifferentiationin societycannot be understoodfrom evidence
derived from contexts(suchas monumentalburial forms or, indeed, 'palaces')divorced from
the everyday,routine reproductionof that differentiation.
Fp/L E
J\V.
ChapterTwo Theviewfrom theAegean 51

52
ChapterThree
Theorisinglandscape,action and the mortuary locale
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this chapteris to sketchan outline theory of humanaction with particularemphasis
on thoseaspectsof actionrelatedto the constructionand useof tombsand cemeteries.
The reasonfor presentingsucha theory is that this thesisis concernednot only with how people
acted but also why: In other words, not merely describingthe evidence,but explainingit in
relation to the ultimate objectsof study, societyand the individualhumanbeing. A theory of
action therefore must also addressthe conditionsunder which people act: the context and
motivationfor action.
This chapter will not set out a prescriptive theory to be tested against 'the data', nor will It
provide explicit hypotheses regarding the relationship between the observed remains and past
reality. Many attempts at explicit theorisation consist first of theorisation, often In structuralist
form, and then a demonstration that data patterns 'fit' the theory. Such theorisation, although
often Intended to be general In application, tends to adopt certain very specific assumptions;the
'data' seem to fit the theory well, but the whole is rather inflexible (see for example Shanksand
Tilley's consideration of Renfrew's systemstheory as applied to Aegean prehistory: Shanks81
Tilley 1987,31.36).
Instead of Introducing a theory that attempts to explain patterns within observed data In terms
of structural analysis, this chapter's aim Is much more basic. It Is an examination of the
conditions under which people act, with special reference to the questions under consideration In
53
As
this thesis. such, it is of
an examination human agencyin relationto These
society. concerns
are not specificallyarchaeological:they are sharedfundamentals in all of the The
humanities.
aim here is to approachan understanding of what sorts of conditions might prevail on human
agencyin the areasof mortuarypracticethroughan understanding of socialtheory.
The approachadoptedhere Is post-structuralist

and is basedprimarily on the work of Antony
Giddens(1979,1984). GiddensIs a sociologist,who developedhis theory of structuration
without any thought for its applicationto archaeology.Nonetheless,It has found general
acceptanceamong a number of what might be called leading post-processual theorists In
archaeology (for example Barrett 1994b, Tilley 1994).
In brief, structurationsetsout to prioritisehumanagencyin socialtheory while at the sametime

developinga more sophisticatedanalysisof structure,seeingstructure as a product of action,
routinely reproducedbut nonethelessopen to continual revision (the 'duality of structure':
Giddens1979,4-5; 1984,25-28). This analysisof societyis appositeto a study of funerary
practicesthat seeksboth to understandhow and why peopleactedwithin the circumstances

of
individualfunerals,and longertern questionsconcerningthe maintenanceand developmentof
funerarytraditions.
This chapterthereforesetsout to createa frameworkwithin which mortuary practicesmay be

studied, and its principles, not the product of a specific archaeological context, ought to be
widely applicable.
THE AIMS OF THE STUDY
Havingset out the generalscopeof theorisationto be developed,the basicquestionsthat the

study seeksto addressshouldnow be made explicit, so that the theory can be examinedwith
thoseparticularquestionsin mind.
The followingare the most basicaimsof this investigation:
" locale:where in the enculturedlandscapedid peoplesituateburials,tombs and cemeteries;

how were such placesapproachedand occupied, and what was their place in the wider
landscape?
Chapter Three Theorisinglandscape,action and the mortuary locale 54

" architecture:what was the effect of funeraryarchitectureon those approaching,entering,
leavingor usinga tomb; why wasarchitecturemodified?
" instancesof humanaction in the mortuary sphere:what did people do in the tombs, and
what canbe understoodof their societyfrom their actions?
" longevity:how are practicesand traditionsreproducedand transformedthrough time; what
did it mean to reuse a tomb; how do traditions become widespreadand how can we
understandthat in local and regional terms; how are burial places maintained and
transformedthroughmanyyearsof use?
Beforeseekingto answerthesequestionswith specificreferenceto archaeological

evidence,this
chapter considershow one can answersuchquestionsin relation to an understandingof how
people act in society.
BASIC THEORY OF HUMAN ACTION
Action is incomprehensible
if unrelatedto two of its fundamentalaspects:locale,and the human
body. Localedescribesthe physicaland socialcontextwithin which action takesplace,while the
humanbody is the mediumof action.
Action and locale
'Locale' refersspecificallyto the humanunderstandingof place, thus differentiatingabstracted

space,topographyor placefrom localeasa mentaland socialconstruct.
This understandingis primarily a product of knowledge.Knowledgein this instancerefers to

memoriesof a placeand the actsthat havetaken placethere; understandings of socialcontexts
of the placeand the actionsthat havetakenplaceIn It, and expectationof actionsthat will take
placethere In the future, alongwith experientialknowledgeof 'how to go on' In sucha placein
given circumstances(Barrett 1994b, 72-77; 1988a; Giddens 1984,118-122). The
memories,understandings and expectationare personalbut nonethelesssubjectto discussion
and modification In the face of the perceptionsand knowledgesof others. Moreover such
knowledgeIs not static but is continuouslyre-evaluatedIn the face of everydayexperienceand
socialconditions.
Chapter Three landscape,action and the mortuary locale

777eorising 55
In the foregoing definition locale is understood primarily as the context for action. A knowledge
of the sum of routine and extraordinary action at a locale is employed in reaching a social
understanding of the meaning of the locale. In coming to understand a building as a house, for
example, the sum of the acts of routine domestic occupation, along with the social knowledge of
what constitutes an inhabited dwelling, would lead to the conclusion that the building is a house.
Were routine domestic occupation to come to an end, the house would undergo a
transformation in how it was perceived, leading to its being understood as an abandoned house.
In this case, the physical attributes of the place are unchanged; the change in how the place is
occupied (the routine actions that occur there) leads to a change in how the place is
understood. The understanding of locale is therefore dependent on human action, and locale is
simply the human understanding of place.
If an understandingof localedependson action, so an understandingof action is dependenton

locale.Action must occur somewhere,and so localeprovidesa context for action (Tilley 1994,
19; Giddens 1984,118). Apparently similar actions are open to widely differing
interpretations(and motivations)In different contexts.Eatingfood, for example,a superficially
simpleaction, is in most societiesone of the most significantof humanactions.The context of
eatingis crucialto understanding the motivationand meaningof the act. Part of that context is
provided by locale, so that eating in a private dwelling is to be understooddifferently from
eatingin a public setting,or eatingin a tomb. Action is so bound up with localethat the one
cannotbe understoodwithout the other, for the simplereasonthat the one cannotexistwithout
the other.
Each locale is unique, and each understanding of it is also unique. However, for the purposes of
this study one can differentiate between four broad categories of locale. These are locales
routinely occupied by those we are studying, locales occasionally occupied, locales occupied by
different groups of people, and mythical or extremely remote locales. The modes through which
these different types of locale may be understood differ, and so each is considered separately
below in relation to human action.
Locale and routine action. Locales subject to routine occupation are the places where the
routines, traditions and basic institutions of everyday life are reproduced through repeated and
predictable activity (Barrett 1994b, 74; Giddens 1979,216-222). Routine Is one of the most
powerful concepts for understanding how the apparent structures of society are reproduced
through action. In structuralist thought and particularly In processualistarchaeologiesthe routine
is often a regime Imposed by the structuring forces of society; people have little understanding

of their actions,and can only break free of the cycle by attackingthe structureof society.As
has often been pointed out, this comprehensivelyunderestimatesthe ability of people to
the in
understand conditions which they find themselves, and manipulate them. A re-evaluation
of this conceptis the first principleof Giddens'
structurationtheory: that structureis both the
mediumand the outcomeof action (1984,25-28). Routine action would therefore be seenas
everydayactivity tendingto conformto sharedideasof societyand to reinforcesocialstructure.
Giddensdistinguishes betweenthree types of consciousness in relation to action (1984,6-7).

This is a simplificationof the way peoplethink, but it is a usefulmodel in understandinghow
different typesof action are motivatedand thought about as they are undertaken.In discursive
consciousness action is carriedout with consciousthought and under constantreview (action is
'monitored'); one thinks about what one is doing, questioningthe reasonsfor and efficacyof
the act. In practicalconsciousness
action is carriedout without explicit consideration,and is only
is the way in which
monitored in terms of acting as expected. Practical consciousness
nondescript, everyday activities are carried out. The third type of consciousnessis the
unconscious.The unconsciouscan provide part of the motivation for action carried out in
discursiveor practicalconsciousness.Actions in discursiveconsciousness
are questionableand
considered;they are not routine. Actions in practicalconsciousness
are not questionedand are
only cursorily considered;they are routine. Such actions can however be questionedand
change:so routine actionsare not normally controversialbut
consideredshouldcircumstances
can becomeso. Where unconsciousmotivation is present,this is a partial barrier to acting in
discursiveconsciousness.
These concepts are crucial both for understanding the routine and for a clear understanding of
how the 'structures' of life can be reproduced and transcended by human beings. Routine,
everyday activities are produced in practical consciousnessand in general need not be closely
considered or regarded as controversial. It is the everyday occurrence of these activities that
gives society the appearance of cohesive structure, but it is the everyday repetition of these
activities that creates social structure. The ability of the actor to question or consider any aspect
of the routine empowers the actor and society or groups within society to change or modify
apparentsocialstructures.
Structure,then, is reproducedin the routine, and is open to manipulation.Any interpretation

of the past that imposesa structureor seeksto identify a monolithic, unchangingstructureis
simplywrong: socialrulesare alwaysopento testingand change,and structureexistsonly in the
moment of action. An understandingof routine should be a principal goal of archaeologyIn
Chapter Three Theorisinglandscape,action and the mortuary locate 57

approachingthe past,and the remainsof settlementsitesare excellentresearchmaterialtoward
this goal.
Routinisedactivities create routinised locales;the longevity of localesis explainedby their

everydayreproductionin routine action. The understandingof everydaylocalescomesfrom
repeatedand anticipatedaction in that locale.This is a very basicmode of the reproductionof
anysocialgroup,whetherit be a villageor any other corporategroup. The institutionalisation
of
routine practicescomesabout in this way, and a socialinstitutioncan often be partly definedby
locale(Giddens1984,118).
Localesand tradition. Localesoccupied occasionallyare maintained other than by routine

occupationand action; cemeteries,tombsand gravesfall into this category.Localesoutsidethe
routine are principallymaintainedthrough discourseand memory, and occasionalaction. The
structuringprincipleof action at suchlocalesis tradition(Giddens1984,200; Barrett 1994b,
36).
The placeof tradition in understandinghow people acted in theselocalesis parallelto that of

the routine in routinely occupiedlocales.Tradition is therefore one of the central themesin
approaching the core aims of this thesis. Tradition can be seen as a shared body of knowledge
consisting of practices, memories, mythologies and histories, maintained in a more or less
controlled manner through time for a given social grouping. Traditions are however negotiable
and insubstantial, and they do change from generation to generation. Specific institutions may
exist for the maintenance of tradition, and the degree of sophistication of such institutions may
reflect a certain hierarchisation of society. The most sophisticated mechanism for maintaining
tradition is the written archive; the appearance of an 'objective' written record marginalises
alternative discourses. Other institutions might be named social roles, for example priest or
shaman. Such institutions might reproduce themselvesthrough the control of knowledge and its
controlled propagation in an apprenticeship structure. In less hierarchised societies control over
traditional knowledge may be widely distributed through the population.
In actions that partly depend on tradition, there may be much negotiation over procedure.
Competing knowledgesof tradition empower agents In negotiating their roles In that which Is to
be done. In a funeral, a possible area of conflict might be between agents of an Institutionalised
religion and family members with knowledge of family or local traditions, for example. A funeral
will be carried out as a composite of acts carried out under the authority of varying recollections
of tradition.

The sharedunderstandingof tradition is thereforea discoursebetweencompetingauthorities
instantiatedand realisedin the moment of action. Action in theselocalesis therefore largely
carriedout in discursiveconsciousness
and with a much heightenedmonitoringof the actionsof
self and others.Examples
of suchlocalesother than in the mortuaryspheremight be cultic sites,
placeswhereeverydayoccupancyis forbiddenor subjectto restrictions(suchas a chief'shouse
or, for the uninitiated,some placeonly open to initiates), placesroutinely occupiedby those
regardedas belongingto anothergrouping,and so on. Eachof theseexamplesis not a part of
the routine yet is maintainedasa 'known' quantitythroughmemoryand talk.
Locales and social groups. Some locales are routinely or occasionally occupied by different
groups. These groups might be sub-groups or corporate groups within a larger social entity, or
might consider themselves `separate groups' or communities. Along with the elements of
tradition just mentioned, it might be the case that competing claims of legitimacy in action or
occupation would characterise the interaction of these groups at the locale. Examples of such
locales might be religious sites, and indeed some of the tombs to be studied in this thesis might
have been subject to competing claims of rights of accessduring their life cycles. Interpretation
and knowledge of tradition ultimately remains the field of discourse for the playing out and
resolution of the claims of different groups with respect to locale.
The mythologicallocale. Finally, one other category of locale is the mythical or extremely
remote
locale. It is important to mention these places for completeness of the theory, but they have
little bearing on the present study. Examples of such locales for different
peoples might be
paradise, Mt Olympus, or (in some extreme cases) the next village, the next island. The
understanding of such locales is maintained purely in memory and discourse and is not the
subject of actual experience.
Action and the human body
So far we have consideredthe location of action; now we must considerthe medium of

action, the humanbody (Barrett 1994a, 91-92; 1994b, 72-73).
The interfacebetweenlocale and perceptionis the human body. Understandinghow people

acted in the past can only come about with an understandingof how the body can act and
perceive,as constrainedand facilitatedby the propertiesand resourcesof locale:architecture,
space, material culture. We can begin with some very basic observations.Movement is

conditionalon the interplaybetweenthe dimensionsof the body and the scaleof architectureor
surroundings.A vasthall facilitatesfree movement;a narrow tunnel constrainsit. Movementis
also constrainedby the number of others present:hencemovementin a vast hall might be
subject to constraint if the hall is filled with others. The human frame and the scale of
architecturealsohavea bearingon presence,
the mostlynon-verbalprojectionof selfto others.
The human body is profoundly and unavoidably oriented. That we have a front, a back and two
sides is not a cultural construct; it is inevitable through the regionalised nature of our
perception, particularly sight, and the way that walking forward is the only easy way to walk.
Movement has a beginning, a pathway, and an end, during which the orientation of the body is
crucial to how we inhabit space. The location of our eyes, toward the front of our heads,
ensuresthat the orientation of the head is fundamental to perception. The front is where most
contact work takes place; only under special circumstancesdoes interaction take place back to
back, for example.
The perception of locale Is very dependent on these physical features. The Immediate
Interpretation of locale Is coloured by our perception of front and back places, most
immediatelydefined by the orientation of the body. How actions are carried out is
partly
dependenton this Interpretation.It Is for this reasonthat, In
attempting to understandhow
people might have Inhabitedpast locales,a plan and section are distracting.They place the
archaeologistIn the positionof privilegedobserver,ableto surveythe whole at
once.Action did
not take placeunder suchconditions:an understandingof locale comesthrough enteringInto
and InhabitingIt, to the extentthat the remainspermit us to do so.
Interaction Is a highly oriented affair. It is

carried on through words, Intonation, facial
expression, movement of the head, expressiveaction of the limbs, orientation of the body and
manner of holding oneself; where culturally acceptable, there may be much touching or
stroking. All of this Is likely to be carried on front to front, and where a different orientation Is
used, there Is likely to be a special explanation, such that using a different orientation becomes
part of the Interaction as expressingdeference or arrogance, and so on.
Theseobservations
on the humanbody shouldleadto particularquestionsof locale'. How many
peoplecould occupya place,comfortablyor at a push?In what way doesany architectureact
' In reviewing Tilley's (1994) consideration of embodied experience of landscape, BrOck (1998) argues
that the variability of human experience Is partly rooted in the body, In other words that the experience of
(for example) moving through a landscape Is not universal but unique, Individual and determined by
differing characteristics (male, female, tall, small, physical ability) as part of Individual consciousness.My

to constrainmovementor orientationor perception?In what waysis the body free to move and
perceive?If specificactivitiesare suggested
by materialremains,giventhe answersto the first
questions,in what ways might those activities have been carried out? Answers to these
questions,as I have suggested,dependfirst on enteringpast placesusing our own bodiesto
suggestwaysin whichthosein the pastmight haveusedtheirs.
THE ENCULTURED LANDSCAPE
The foregoinghasconsideredhumanaction in terms of its medium, the humanbody, and its

setting, the locale. The idea of the locale must be developedin two directions: first, in this
section, the place of the locale in the wider landscape,and second,in the next section,the
effect of the propertiesof localeon humanaction.
In order to adequatelytheoriselandscapeit is necessaryto move away from the 'distribution

map' style of landscapeanalysisand considerways in which the landscapemight have been
understoodby thosewho inhabitedIt in the past. In this I am following on the work of Tilley
(1994), Barrett(1994) and Giddens(1984).
The enculturedlandscapeconsistsof a nexusof interconnectedlocales.For eachIndividual,Its

core consistsof a complex web of routinely occupied localesand the connectionsbetween
them, while at the edgesof the nexuslie the lessroutinely occupiedlocales,mythicalor remote
locations,and a generalised
ideaof a wider landscapebeyondexperience.
This landscape,as a mental construct, might be understood through the term topography. The
constituent roots of the word are topos (Tdao; ), meaning place, and for our purposes locale,
and graph! (ypa(p:j), writing. Topography is used here as the active production of a web of
meaning linking the locales of life and mythology (compare Tilley 1994,43-47: Ayers Rock in
Australia is 'perhaps the most striking example of topography embodying living
mythology').
Topographies are personal, contingent and constantly subject to revision. The basis
of
topography is the linking of locales, routes and the wider landscape in an extremely complex
manner involving knowledge (as defined above), and its production is through the practical and
discursive acts of moving through and between locales. Some locales will be linked by well-
remarks on the body in relation to landscapeand architecture have been aimed not at specific historical
reconstruction but at understanding what factors might structure the multiple possibilities of Interaction
between the human frame and landscapeand architecture. I accept however that my brief analysistakes
no account of differing physical abilities.

777eorising 61
travelledpaths,othersmore tenuouslyor not at all; and outsidetheseareasexiststhe sumof the
rest of the landscape,
seenor imagined but not travelled. Such a topography is in a state of
continuousflux, aspathschangeor horizonsshrinkand broaden.
The interconnectionsof localesin this topographicnexusare equallycomplex.Any givenpath

will itself havesomeof the propertiesof locale:it be in
may referable speech,(for example`the
path to the it
windmill') and may have physicalproperties (a worn path or a road). But paths
might alsobe defined simply by duration,
destination, and a seriesof known points or locales
en
route. Sucha path is producedin action (that is, in going), and may haveno other existence.
The reificationof the path - its being mademanifestin the worn track or in the building of a
road - Is a result of the daily or otherwiseregularreproductionof routine activities,of going
from placeto place. Routinisationof pathsin this way causesthe path itself to be a referable
artefact,a localein itself, and one opento modification(a well usedpath could be madeinto a
road, or a road becomelinedwith settlements,or tombs).
Topographythereforerelatesboth to an idea of how different placesare linked, and the actual

physicalact of moving from one placeto the other. It Is therefore experiential,rooted In the
humanbody and personalknowledge.Nonethelesstopographyhasa sharedaspect:at the core
of routine action is social sanction,and since that routine action Is situated, social sanction
appliesalsoto the locale.Topographythereforeincludesan understandingof the landscapeas
inhabitedby others, and a shared,socialunderstandingof the landscape(Tilley 1994,27). If
we are to approachthe landscapeIn searchof someunderstandingof Its Interpretationby those
who camebeforeus, theseare the fundamentalconceptsto grasp.
Although the workingsof topographyas describedmay seemclear in relation to the localesof

everyday life, it may be lessobvious how the wider landscapecan be part of such understandings
as well. The scale of knowledge of the wider landscape depends on the level of mobility and
nucleation of the group or groups with which any given person might interact or belong.
Nonetheless, it is clear from many cultures around the world, not least our own, that the wider
landscape is brimming with named locales (Tilley 1994,18-19). A knowledge of wider
landscape is articulated around the naming of the otherwise meaninglessprogression of valley,
hilltop or mountain crag. The names might refer to the nature of the place, or be simple
to
references stories and people, historical or mythological, that work the landscape intimately
into how the community understands itself. The ancient Greek landscape was populated by
miscellaneousgods, demi-gods, heroes, nymphs and spirits, all rooted in place (and pre-existing
any later cultic building). To some extent the saints of the Orthodox church perform the same

role in post-Romantimes (numerouspeaksare named after Profitis Ilias). Landscapecan
thereforebe understoodand inhabitedwith referenceto sharedmythology.
Theselocalesare the buildingblocksof topography.They link inhabitedlocaleswith eachother

by paths that passby natural featuresof the landscapeoften richly inscribedwith cultural
meaning. In this way the reproduction and recreation of mythology and the stories that
communitiesuse to understandthemselves(and hence,in a partial sense,socialstructure) Is
boundup in the simplestactsof movingfrom one placeto another.
This understanding of landscape, personal and contingent but in large sense shared with other
group members, may well be contested between people and groups. Different groups moving
through or sharing areas of land may understand places through different names and different
histories:competingclaimsto knowledge.
With the landscapealready populatedby name and meaning,new projects such as houses,
villages,farms,plantationsor Indeedcemeteriesare creatednot in the vacuumof a 'new' site,
but rather in a matrix of complex,interrelatedmeaningsimparted to that new project by its
relationshipto the enculturedlandscapeas understoodby thosebuilding,usingor shunningthe
place.
Although this web of Insubstantial

and shiftingmeaningmight seemephemeral,the archaeology
of landscapeIs open to us, from tomb to settlementand backagain.The ascriptionof meaning
to landscapeoften leads to physicalalteration: in the historical period, for example, the
constructionof cult buildingsIn placessacredto one god or another.This monumentalisation
of
the landscapeat Its most intenseIs an archaeologicalartefact that remainsfor us from the
prehistoricperiod throughoutthe mainland:the tombsof Mycenae,or of the Potmitou Arpi
(sites 10-13, A4.13). Grave,tomb and cemeteryIn the enculturedlandscapeare the
subject
of chapterfive.
SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORTUARY LOCALE
There is huge variation in mortuary practice and in the remains left for archaeologists. Very
often, remains are simply absent; sometimes we suspect that the remains we have recovered
cannot account for the whole population, suggestingpossibly institutionalised differentiation in
funerary practice. Casual disposal of the dead is rare, however, and often demands special
ChapterThree Theorising actionandthe mortuarylocale

landscape, 63
explanation,suchas disregardfor enemy dead in warfare. For most, if not all cultures,then,
there are good reasonsfor approachingmortuary data with complexquestions.One reasonis
the often high qualityof the preservationof contextsin burial sites;anotheris the specialnature
of the practicesevidenced in thosecontexts.With an adequate theorisationof how people act in
complex circumstancessuch as these, it should be possibleto develop insights into the

conditionsof the actswe recover.
The mortuary arenais bound up with that most upsettingof the eventsof life: death. Other,
lessimmediate,aspectsare often present:in many culturesdeath is understood,at leastat a
community level, through religious or spiritual means;and in some cultures the dead, as
individualsor as a corporate group, are continually presenced2at mortuary sites through
'ancestorrituals'. Hencewe might expectthe mortuaryarenato cater for practicesthat address
someor all of theseissues:disposalof the corpse,the workingthrough of grief and perhapsthe
frantic reworkingof socialrelationsin the absenceof the dead,'correct' behaviourin relationto
religiousor spiritualmotivation,and activitiesin relationto ancestorcult or worship.Whereany

or all of thesemotivationsare present,they tend not to form separatecategoriesin the mindsof
those involved:they are all aspectsof the whole issueof dealingwith death. Moreover, any or
all of theseactivities(exceptdisposalof the corpse)may take placein part or full awayfrom the
mortuary localeor in an archaeologically invisibleway.
In usingthe term 'ancestorritual' or 'ancestorcult' I am consciousthat different definitionsexist

and that, for some people, ancestorcult can only be understoodas specificworship of the
ancestors.In this thesisI adopt the following definition for ancestorcult: ancestorcult is any
activity that either seeksto presenceor tendsto presencethe ancestorsor the deadamongthe
living (in the first, presencingthe ancestorsor the deadis an intendedoutcome; In the second,
it is a consequence of action not directly intended).
The aspectsof the mortuarylocaleand humanactionto be consideredhereare the localeIn the

landscape,the role of architectureIn practice,the role of materialculture, and the life-cyclesof
monumentsand traditions.
z By 'presence' I mean bringing Into the mind In a very immediate way the memory of the dead; this need
not be straightforward. If the dead are Invoked In order to pronounce opinion or settle some current
dispute or problem, the presencingof the ancestorsis likely to be controversial.

777eorising 64
The mortuary locale In the landscape
The place of the mortuary locale in a known landscape, where topography is learned and
maintained as social as well as private knowledge, where landscapeis understood through names
and histories ascribed to places, ought to be open to interpretation. Such an interpretation
should focus on two issues: the position of the locale in the topographic nexus, and its
maintenancethrough time.
Given the incompletenature of archaeologicalknowledgefor any given area, the placeof the
cemetery site in local and regional topographiesIs one of the most Intangibleof research
questions.Normative assumptionsaside (for example, 'each cemetery Is associatedwith a
settlementsite'), the lack of informationon settlementmakesIt difficult to placecemeteriesIn
the inhabitedlandscape'.It is howeverpossibleto study the landscapecontext of a cemetery
site In termsof Internalfactors,suchasthe numberof tombsand their spread,and In termsof a
wider landscapeof burial grounds.This refers to a subsetof the inhabited landscape- the
mortuary landscape,a conceptthat may havebeenmeaningfulIn somepast times and regions.
Some funerary acts might be partly understoodas Incorporatingthe dead Into a landscape
already rich with ancestralsignification.These Ideasare not to be taken as given, but the
evidencemight bearout suchlinesof Interpretation.
archaeological
The architecture of the mortuary locale
Localesmay well be built structures,but they could equallybe open spaces,natural features(a
cave Is a good example), or modified natural features.The boundariesof locale are not
generallyfixed, except when specificarchitectureacts to create a clear boundary. Otherwise
boundariesare createdIn the praxisof action and situation (Barrett 1988a). The
namingand
maintenanceof localeswhich are entirely unmodified natural featuresIs an aspect of the
enculturationof landscape,asdescribedabove.
There is a range of Interpretationsto be associatedwith architecture,from the Intentionsof

those who built it to the interpretationsof those who have inhabitedit, including ourselves.
Understandingthe form of a monument alone cannot explain to us how it was used or
understoodin the past, or even what its makersintendedby it. Insteadof trying to intuit a
3 Although the final publication of Intensive surveys may eventually improve the position, a detailed
programme of settlement site excavationsis required in order fully to understand how the landscapewas
occupied.

meaningfrom form alone,we shouldrely on two sources:first, the evidenceof what activities
might havetaken placeas preservedby the remainsIn the monument(examinedIn the next
section), and secondthe possibilitiesfor action as allowedfor, controlled or preventedby the
architecture.
Architecture Influencesperceptionand movement.This Is Its physicalaspect:most obviously,

architectureis likely to closeoff or bound an area. Evenwherethe arearemainslargelyopen,
suchasthe areaundera colonnade,It Isstill clearlyboundedby the architecture.More regularly
the architecturewill closeoff from view much or all of the boundedspace.It may well createa
specificpoint of entry: a threshold,definingthe point of movementfrom one placeto another.
Architecture often respectsthe idea of front and back, which is derived from the body itself.
The most obviousexamplesof this are placeswhere peoplegather,suchas theatresor stadia,
where specificarchitecturefacesmany peopletoward a centre. Lessobviousbut no different is
the positionof the hearthin a house:In manycultures,the hearthis the focusof the room. The
architecturalfocus is therefore derived directly from the orientation of the human body. A
doorway is itself a focus, especiallyfrom the outside.Within, all sorts of focal points may be
available as resourcesto be called upon in action. Some of these may not be strictly
architecturalat all, but are artefactsintimatelyassociated
with the place,on which more below.
Ultimately, however,any focal point can only be realisedin action: the focusof
a crowd on a
stage is created in their collectiveorientation to the stage;the focus of one approachinga
doorwayis createdin the act of approaching.
Scalemore than anythingelseenablesand constrainsaction and directly

affectsthe numbersof
peoplelikely to be present.One shouldrecognisethat scaleas enablingand constrainingworks
both ways:for example,while at first glancethe fact that a tiny chambertomb
constrainsthe
possiblenumbersof people inside, and limits the possibilitiesof expressiveaction, one can
equallysaythat it enablesthe discrete,secretgatheringof a limited numberof peopleto carry
out hiddenactivities.At the oppositeend of the spectrum,while largescalearchitectureenables
free movement,or largegatherings,it preventssmallscale,secretactivitiesfrom taking place.
Both aspectsof scaleshouldalwaysbe considered.
Beyondthe action of architectureon the physicaland perceptivehumanframe,there Is a whole

rangeof possiblesecondaryInferencesIn the Interpretativeprocess.This Is becausemeaningIs
not constructedsimply of the physicalnature of architecture.These secondaryInferences
involveknowledge:the meaningof the buildingas suggestedby memory of Its constructionor

of previous experiencesthere, myth or stories told about and heard of the building, and
symbolismdiscernedin the architecture.
Construction as a phase is extremely important in our interpretation, and will be considered

below. For those who were involved in or witnessedconstruction, whether of a great monument
or a simple hut, a great deal of their idea of the meaning of the building will have been fixed at
that time. Construction involves time and effort, and is out of the routine (except for corporate
groups who specialisein construction); It brings together a group of people who will later share
a bond of their mutual involvement in the building phase. Construction is also important
because it is during construction that the idea of the building is realised, and the realisation,
being the product not just of the architect but also of the builders, may well be a fraught
experience.
Knowledgeis not directly a feature of architecture,but of locale in general.However, the

interpretation of architectureis altered by previousexperienceif that experienceallows for
insight that the normally architecturedenies.Hence,where lately closedoff placeshave been
visited before, their hidden or secretnature is refined by an anticipationof what might go on
within. Thusis architectureembeddedin tradition.
Without knowledgeor tradition architectureIn itself would not necessarily

reveal Its meaning
and purpose.Tholostombs were thought by Pausanlas to be store-housesfor treasure,as also
suggestedby someof the early travellersto Greece.Thusthe meaningof architectureneedbe
maintainedaspart of the knowledgeof the locale;this Issuewill be takenup below.
Material culture and practice at the mortuary locale
Beforeconsideringthe role of materialculture In the localeIn general, the

or mortuary localeIn
particular,we must pauseto considerhow materialculture Is understoodby Its usersand later
by archaeologists.
Much recent theorisationof material culture emphasises Its active role In
society.
Artefacts do not carry a meaningof themselves(Barrett 1994b, 168.170). Every act of

ascriptionof meaningto, or inferenceof meaningfrom an artefact, is a sociallyand culturally
embeddedact. This is what it meansto saythat materialculture Is socially,historically,actively
and meaningfullyconstituted(Shanksat Tilley 1987, chapter 4; Barrett 1994b, 169): It has
no meaningfulexistenceoutsidethe interpretationsof thosewho made, usedand depositedIt.

777eorising 67
In a similarway materialculture is a resourcethat we useas archaeologiststo produceour own
understandings,and it hasno meaninguntil it is givenby us (Barrett 1994b, 169).
That an artefacthasno single,empiricalmeaningis one of the most fundamentaltenetsof post-

processualarchaeologies.Interpretativestrategiesthat prioritisethe ordering of materialon the
basisof somearbitrary feature(style, decoration)abovestudy of the contextualassociations of
losethe contextualdetail requiredfor an Interpretationof
materialand structureswill necessarily
how people may have acted in that context. Many early excavationreports describeobjects
found in greater or lesserdetail with virtually no information on context; even in recent
excavations,contextis secondaryto the perceivedinnatequalitiesof the artefact.
Having identified archaeologicalcontext as the primary sourceof evidencefor action in the

locale, the poor recordingof context becomesa methodologicalproblem. In this thesisI deal
with this problem by attemptingto reconstructas much informationas possibleabout context
for eachgraveor tomb (detailedin individualcatalogueentries:appendixone), but it will be
clear from studying chapterssevenand eight that much more satisfyinginterpretationsare
possiblefor siteswith better recording.
An artefactgoesthrough three phasesof incorporationin humanactivity: production, use,and

deposition.All three phasesmay be presentin the mortuary sphere.Although I will arguethat
objectswere rarely made for specificburial ceremonies,production seemsto havebeena part
of the rite at one tomb at least'; and funeralceremoniesobviouslycalled for the useand the
depositionof artefacts.In eachcasethe meaningof the artefactis definedthrough its use(that
is, through action), and so both meaning, action and motivation ought to be open to
investigation.
Material culture and architectureare both actively constituted; In practice, the difference
betweenthe two is portability. Artefacts can be picked up, moved around and broken, while
architecture,oncecomplete,is largelygiven,unlessa new constructionphaseIs undertaken.The
boundariesbetweenthe two are movable: a pithos Insertedin the floor Is Immovableand
becomesan architecturalfeature,while a door may be takenoff Its hinges,and hencedetached
from the architectureto becomea portable artefact once more. In practice, the difference
betweenarchitectureand materialculture is likely to be the extent to which architectureaffects
the body, while the body affectsmaterialculture.
4 Thereis sporadicevidencefor stone-workingat 39:Psiri; Carterhasdemonstrateda similarphenomenon

for EBACrete: 1998.

Material culture is brought into any localeto be used, and is therefore part of a strategyfor
structuringaction.To explainwhat this means,think alongtheselines.If I enter a room carrying
a pot, the questionis not so much 'what am I doing?' but rather 'what am I doing with the
pot?' I act with the item. This is the role of material culture in the tomb. For us as
materialculture shouldnot merelyrepresentgravegoodsor funeralgifts or the
archaeologists,
of the dead, and it is more than a chronologicalreferent: it is the presentmaterial
possessions
remainsof the actionsthat the mournerscarriedout at one or many mortuary ceremonies.If
we can recover to some extent what people did in the tomb then we are some way to
recoveringthe meaningsthe actsheld for them.
In the interpretationof pastmeaning,what is the placeof the corpse?Given that this chapteris
setting forth an outline theory of action, there is clearly no active role for the corpse. In
approachingthe mortuary ritual, the concernsare to understandwhat people did and the
meaningthey derived from it. The focus of interpretation is therefore not on the person
representedby the corpse,or his or her 'status' in life or society;but rather on thosewho have
come togetherto work throughthe funeraryrites, and their grief, for that person.In theoretical
terms action on the corpseis to be interpretedjust asaction on any other artefact.There are of
coursedegreesof meaning,and the corpseis likely to be the most meaningfuland significant
inanimateelementof any funeraryceremony.Nonetheless,the corpseis passive:worked over
by the mourners, cleaned, painted, dressed,adorned with jewellery, carried around and
deposited. None of this should go to deny the lingering humanity felt so keenly by the
bereaved,which so many of their actions on the corpse are intended to bring out and
the only point is that the corpseis usedand investedwith meaningjust as any other
emphasise:
culturalartefact,and cantake no actionof its own accord.
Single-usetombs are relatively rare In the material Included in this survey. Any theory of
materialculture must thereforetake into accountnot only materialbrought Into a tomb for the
purposeof burial or other activity (ancestorcult as definedabove)but alsothe role of material
culture that is alreadypresentIn the tomb. This materialrequiresmultiple Interpretation,since
not only does It have primary meaningsas depositedIn a specific ritual, and Is an obvious
referent to that ritual (or past rituals in general),but it also developslater meaningsas It Is
brought Into subsequentopeningsand usesof the tomb. In respectof bonesand associated
artefacts,one of the most frequent complaintsagainstthe MycenaeansIs that they would
disrespectfully'sweepaside'the remainsof pastburialsIn their zealto lay down their dead.As
far asInadequatereportingallows,this 'sweepingaside'ought to be open to analysisIn the light
of the theoriesI am outlininghere.

Another methodologicaldifficulty for this study is that interpretationis necessarilya complex
processwhen a tomb is reused,perhapsrepeatedly over severalgenerations.In thesecases,the
most usefulinformationwill refer to the end of the tomb's life-cycle,which Is often outsidethe
chronologicalboundaryof this study. Nonethelessthere is often sufficientdetail to reconstruct
someof the detailsof the distantpast.
The life cycle of the mortuary locale
Few of the gravesin this study could be describedas single-instance intermentsnot associated
with other interments;the majority are found in cemeterylocales,within multiple usetombs,or
both. Wherea tomb or cemeterylocalehasbeenusedand reusedover a period of time (its life-
cycle), a key researchaim is to understandhow the localeis maintainedin the reproductionand
developmentof socialstructures,how practicesare maintainedand becometraditional, and the
placeof landscape,architecture,materialcultureand knowledgein this question.
The placeof the mortuary localeIn the landscapeis not given;it needsto be maintained.In the
modem westthis might be donethroughsuchstrategiesasmarkingoff the areaof the cemetery
with a fence or wall, signallingIts existencein written languageon signs,building a mortuary
chapel on the site, and using headstonesabove individual gravesthat have a dual purpose:
Individually,they presencea nameddeadpersonIn the minds of those readingthe stone, and
mark off that smallpart of the cemeteryfor that person;communally,they presencethe mass
of the deadIn the locale.In neolithicsouthernBritainsomeof the deadwere placedIn massive
earthen mounds (barrows) that were widely visible and through their mass Imposedtheir
presenceIn the otherwise'natural' landscape.
Yet theseare only visibleand perceptiblefeaturesof the mortuary locale.There might equally
be no visible sign of a burial place, yet such a place is maintainedIn use for generations.
Moreover, without knowledgethe visible mortuary monument Is little more than an alien
artefact. The maintenanceof the mortuary locale is dependent on practice and the
communicationof knowledge.Memory and story-tellingare particularlyImportantwherethere
is little perceptibleto keeppast eventsand meaningsIn mind: this especiallyapplieswhere the
mortuary localeis remoteor whereit is completelycoveredover or filled in after use.
Where the mortuary localeis placedcloseto or within everydaylife paths, It assumes a dual
locality. One meaningIs routine: how to go Into or near(or Indeedavoid) the placeIn everyday
activity; this may or may not Involveexplicit referenceto Its mortuary character(is one allowed

near the place? must one take a specific path? must one carry out an act of acknowledgement
on the way?) At the time of a funeral or other mortuary ritual, the funerary meaning of the
place must be rediscovered and recreated. This may involve a special route to the place,
procession, opening up of tombs, acts of appeasementto the ancestors, and so on: all parts of
the performance. Whatever the tensions between individuals or differences over how to go
about the businessof the funeral, the overall performance will tend to maintain and recreate the
mortuary locale. In many casesthe separatenessof the mortuary locale from the everyday will
be emphasisedby a movement to the locale. In a funeral this will involve the carrying of the
corpseand will almostinevitablytake on the appearance

of a procession.
The performanceof the funeral then requiresboth physicaland mental movement from the
everydayto the extraordinary.Duringthe physicalact of goingto the grave,the mindsof those
involved becomefocusedon their knowledgeof mortuary custom. In thinking of the funeral
thoseinvolvedrecoverfrom their mindsmemoriesof past funeralsand their roles in them, and
perhapsalsostoriesfrom other funeralsthey haveheardabout. The funeraryperformancemay
evenincludea more or lessritualisedrecountingof storiesfrom the (mythological)past.
Hence the maintenanceof the funerarylocale in the landscapeis dependenton a number of

factors, first among which is the disseminationof knowledge,and second is the occasional
practiceof going to the locale for funeraryor mortuary purposes.A third factor may be the
maintenanceof the localeasa featureof the local topography.
The funerarylocaleis maintainedthereforein knowledgeand praxis;the natureof this practice

needalsobe maintained.Locale,architectureand materialculture are the mediathroughwhich
tradition is maintained.Eachof thesethree elementscan be seento facilitatethe reproduction
of funerary practice. The processionto and reuse of locale ensurescontinuity in how the
landscapeis understoodduringthe period of the funeral.
Funerary architecture also facilitates the reproduction of funerary practice. As we have seen that
architecture affects the freedom of movement of the human frame, the numbers of people that
may convene within, and how people may move from one area to another, so that architecture
retains these characteristicsat each funerary performance, thus making it seem natural that the
way space Is occupied should follow a traditional form. Where new tombs are constructed to an
existing architectural pattern, this facilitates the reproduction of familiar practices In new places.

Finallythe materialculture usedat thesetimessimilarlyfacilitatesthe reproductionof funerary
practice.Where a tomb is openedfor reuse,the artefactsthat formed a part of prior practice
will often be found once more in the tomb, witnessto what had gonebeforeand broughtback
into the mindsof thosethat had witnessedpreviousevents;different typesof artefactmight be
associatedin knowledgewith specificacts. The effectivenessof the performanceunder way
might seem to be reinforced by its conformancewith tradition, and the use of the same
artefacts,or of new artefactsin the samepractices,might seemto enhancethat conformance
with tradition. The continualopeningand reopeningof tombs, to be confrontedwith the way
that thingswere done beforeasevidencedby corporealand materialremains,in the processof
carrying out an act that clearly aimed to conform to tradition (for otherwisenew tombs and
new practiceswould be evident),would leadto a widespreadreproductionof practicesthrough
the mediaof repeatedlyrecoveredartefacts.
The direct knowledge,the strengthof tradition, may well be variable.Wherea cemeteryis used
by the same group of people for all of its dead, knowledgeof funerary practice would be
widespreadin the group and stronglyreproducedthrough time. However,this is not the only
possiblemode of reproduction.Somecemeteriesor localesmay be only occasionallyused,or
may be sharedwith other groups,and so knowledgeand tradition might be weaker,or more
open to innovation.In thesecasestradition might be more openly controversialand a subject
for dissent.In other casestombs may be used by groupswith no direct knowledge
of past
practice at the tomb or cemetery.The impact of locale, architectureand material culture on
thesegroupsis different, and shouldbe recoverablein analysis.
PERFORMANCE
The verb 'perform' sumsup a numberof aspectsof how one can think
of people behavingIn
the mortuary locales.To 'perform' originally included the Idea of perfecting or closingan
action, and, asidefrom its theatricalreference,It alsomeans'to carry through to completion',
implying somesort of consensus of what the act ought to be; In other words, performanceIs
action carriedout, if not to a fixed script, at leastso asto fulfil certainconditions.
5 See also Boyd 1994 for

some of this material.

Performanceimpliesrole, a word not far removedfrom status.I havebeenarguingthat status
is
or rle never a fixed attribute of a person,but is rather recreatedIn every act. RBIe,in
referenceto performanceat the mortuary locale, is somethingthat Is created out of the

it. This is becauseno two performancesare the same
performance,rather than presupposing
given the differing that
circumstances must prevail on each Each
occasion. actor comesto the
performancewith a number of expectations,and the Interplay between expectationsand
motivations brings the performance Into existencethrough interaction. Even where people
expect to fulfil identified rles, suchas priest or shaman,the differing circumstances
on each
occasionprovide for differentoverallperformances.
Most obvious,as ever, might be a

Some funeralstake placeunder exceptionalcircumstances.
burial in one of the Mycenaeshaft graves.The largenumberof artefactsdeposited,alongwith
very stronglythat roles In that funeraryperformancewere very

their perceivedvalue, suggests
much a source of tension: roles not necessarilyIn evidenceIn simpler gravesare almost
mandatory(who to carry all the pottery, for example?and how was it used?who was given
wine to drink by whom?)
Performanceis a particularlyappositeword wheresomeelementof ritual is involved. Ritualised

action, particularlyin the mortuary sphere,impliesaction that conformsmore or lessto some
sort of known code (Barrett 1994b, 81). Certain types of behaviour are prescribedor
expected;this is the (often very loose)plot of the performance.In the kindsof societiesunder
study, elementsof improvisationin performances will havebeennumerousand important, since
one ought not assumethat some sort of universalstructure dominated such acts as burial.
Recurrentand unique featuresin the archaeologicalevidencemay reveal both widely diffused
aspectsof the ritual and individualvariationsin performance.
In Giddens'terms, 'performance'Is part of discursiveconsciousness:

action that is provocative,
daring, unusual,demandingof interpretation:as action producedand monitored in discursive
consciousness.Richard Schechnerseemsto be getting at this when he says, 'And what is
performance?Behaviorheightened,if ever so slightly, and publicly displayed;twice-behaved
behavior' (1993,1). Performanceis action carriedout in the awarenessof the gazeof others.
Performersand audience(the distinctionmay be blurred and transientin the mortuary arena)
are engagedin a mental struggleto understandthe actionsof their fellow performersand to
situatethemselves
meaningfullyin this flow of conduct:a mentalstrugglethat is largely in
absent
the routinisedflow of life.

The mortuary locale,aswe haveseen,is broughtinto meaningfulexistencethrough action and
its interpretation.The performancemust seekto rediscovermeaningand reinvestthe site with
those meanings,de-emphasising of the daily locale, creatingthe performance
the associations
locale. In the cemetery,much of this is achievedby the physicalalteration of the setting as
tombsare openedor reopened.
Expectationsin relation to ritual or performanceare in great part basedon what has gone
before. Performances
in the long term can be institutionalised:as peoplegatherto rework their
memories of past performance,this reproduction of knowledgethrough the performance,
conformingto or confoundingexperienceand expectation,givestheir practicean institutional
facade.
Performanceis improvisedaround resourcesthe actorscan draw on: architecture,knowledge,

artefactsand bonesin the tombs. This reflexive and intuitive renegotiation- structuration-
through the materialstructureof architectureand localeand the dangerous,dynamicpracticeof
the performancecan be characterisedby the label liturgics.'Liturgy' has come to mean the
practice of Church ritual, defined by sacredtexts and not open to innovation. A broader
meaningof 'liturgics' could allow for innovativeperformancesof ritualsthat are not codified in
textual form. The Greek root in 'Xcttovpyia' means'public work' and cameto signifypublic
works for the gods, especiallyin the temples.An archaeologyof liturgics would examinethe
ritual structurescreatedand reproducedin the activemanipulationof constrainingand enabling
architecturaland materialculture resources;not only how people emphasisedcertain features
that became stereotypical and a core part of the liturgy, but also the possibility of
experimentationand the variant ideasworked through at individual performancesby those
empowered to rake through the scenesand acts, sets and props of past and present
performance,in memory,architectureand materialculture.

75
Chapter Four
The analyticalframework
INTRODUCTION
We must confront the full diversityof our data. This is only possiblewith the aid of a
theoreticallycompetentframeworkdesignedto exposethe natureof specificpractices.
Barrett 1988b, 32: emphasisadded.
Chapter three set out the basicprinciplesof a theory of human action with emphasison its
applicationto the studyof funerarypractices.This chapteroutlinesa specificframeworkfor this
analysis.The first sectionconsidersthe sourcesemployed- publishedreports - and the problems
to be overcome in their interpretation. The aim is to understand both the intellectual
circumstances underwhich excavationhasbeencarriedout, and how thosecircumstances affect
attempts at reinterpretation. The second section sets forth an analytical methodology
appropriateto the evidencein order to cometo an understandingof humanaction in the past,
on the basisof theorisationin the previouschapter.
READING EXCAVATION REPORTS
Beforeexcavation,the possibilitiesfor Interpretationare endless.Most excavatorswould accept

that a primary goal of excavationis to narrowthe field of those Interpretativepossibilities,and
to createa climatein which it is possibleto makestatementsabout a site In the past.While this
practicethat goeswith it ought to be a matter for
is uncontroversialin itself, the archaeological
debate.In particular,there Is usuallyan expectationof what sorts of statementsone Intendsto
be able to make. If excavationbecomesa processtailored toward answeringsuch specific
76
questions,thosewho later seekto askdifferentquestionsof the publishedrecord may find the
publicationinadequateto answertheir questions.This is an inevitableconcomitantof the reality
of fieldworkand interpretationascontemporarysocialpractices.
A sensethat archaeologicalpracticeis uncontroversial,that It Is a straightforwardprocessthat

doesnot needtheorising,is fairly ubiquitousin most of the publicationsexaminedIn the course
of researchingthis thesis.One notableexceptionattemptedto explicitly theorisean excavation
(Rappet ah 1978); otherwise,excavationmethodologyis rarely describedor explained.This Is
Important because,If we accept that as archaeologists we are InterestedIn narrowing the
interpretativepossibilitiesof a site throughexcavation,we shouldbe concernedaboutthe theory
and practice of how we do that. Instead, excavationreports often present a series of
'discoveries',of thingsfound duringthe excavation,apparentfactssuchasthe form of a building
or the natureof a clay Idol, presentedasIntact,completeand 'perfect' (in the senseof 'closed')
discoveriesthat are obvious and uncontroversial.The supporting evidence,the stratigraphy,
plans, sections,drawings,contextualassociations
and contextualdescriptions,may neither be
reportednor In most casesrecorded.
In comparisonto the areaexcavationof complexsettlementdeposits,the

excavationof a tomb
ought to be a relativelysimpleaffair. ExceptIn thosecaseswhere the tombs are locatedwithin
settlementor other context, the tomb itself forms a relatively closedcontext, often dug Into
otherwisenon-archaeologicalsoil. It might be part of a cemetery,In which casethe spatialand
chronologicalrelationshipsbetweentombs Is Important; the cemetery might Include other
features, such as paths or markers such as
stela!. Nevertheless,the tomb itself ought to
represent,in most cases,a relativelysimpleexercisein excavation.
Time and again,basicInformationis not presentedin reports. The stratigraphyof the tomb is
describedIn the simplestmanner,or not describedat all, and rarely Illustrated.Finds
may well
often be describedbut their exactfindspotsleft vagueor not mentioned.Although the majority
of excavationreports used for this catalogueare nominallyprovisionalIn nature, it Is clear in
many casesthat any putative final publicationcould not have includedthis sort of Information
becauseit wasneverrecordedduringthe excavation.
In attemptingto usethe sum of Informationpresentedby sucha body of excavationreports,

one therefore hasto come to an understandingof the circumstances
In which excavatorsfelt
themselvesto be working. Although past excavationrecordsare here criticisedas Inadequate,
the fact of the existenceof somesort of publicationIn an academicjournal suggests
that these
ChapterFour framework
Theanalytical 77
excavatorsfelt themselvesto be workingat leastadequatelywithin an academicparadigmand
that their excavationswere worthy of publicationand scrutinyby a wider audience.The task
that facesus thereforeis to come to somesort of understanding of the paradigmwithin which
reportswere producedin order to assess both the validity of the data in thosereportsand also
how much datamight be missingfrom thosereports.
John Barrett makesthis point In a discussionof the possibilitiesof reinterpretingexcavation

reports (1987). He pointsout, quotingAlcock, that reinterpretationof a site report basedon
that report aloneIs impossible,'becauseIt Is impossibleto know either what the excavatorfailed
to observe,or the excavator'sgeneralcompetenceIn the tasksof excavationand recording'
(Barrett 1987,410). Reinterpretationflows Instead from two sources. The first Is an
examinationof the internallogic of the report, attemptingto evaluatethe author'sassumptions,
the record of the excavationas published,and any explicit Interpretationof that record. The
Interpretationcan be seento be a result of a meshingof the author's assumptions
with the
record of the excavation.This level of reinterpretationcan only, however,demonstratedoubts
about the excavator'sinterpretationof her material.It cannotlead to new Interpretations.This
comes only, and partially, from the secondsource alluded to above: an attempt to fit the
excavationInto a broaderInterpretation.In his article Barrettshowsthat the originalreportson
the Glastonburylake village are open to considerabledoubt, but that reinterpretationflows
mainly from a reconsideration
of thosereportsIn the light of more recentexcavationsat related
sitesnearby.
I have followed this reasoning,where possible,in

my discussionof sitesin this thesis.In some
casesit has proved possibleto offer specific reinterpretationsof sites, but these are always
provisionalin that they are uncheckedby new excavation.Some generalcomment on the
contextsin which earlierworkersproducedtheir reportsis necessary here.
Sincewe have alreadyestablishedthat excavatorsIn all probability felt comfortable

with the
publicationsthey were producing',which In so manycasesshowthat contextualInformationwas
regardedas superfluous,we shouldbe able to establishwhat sorts of Informationthesereports
were Instead providing, and why that was regarded as essential Information for
1 This may not be the case with

rescue excavations, but I would argue that while rescue reports can be
even more abbreviated than the preliminary reports of research excavations, an examination of the
research and rescue reports of the 1950s to 1970s would reveal little difference in what sorts of aspects
of an excavation might be reported.
Chapter Four Theanalyticalframework 78

presentationin a preliminaryreport. I proposethat two factorsformed an Important part of the
context within which people worked. The first concerns the nature of what was being
investigated:a generaland basic but vague and undefined consensusabout the nature of
Mycenaeansociety - heroic, in some ways Homeritz, certainly aristocratic and rigidly
hierarchical (middle helladic society concomitantly backward and primitive). The second
concerns how one should carry out an investigation: the methodological primacy of
classification,Identificationand typology. Thesetwo strandsInform the vast majority of pre-
1960s writing and muchwritten after that, and the primacyof typologyremainswith us today.
As an exampleof thesefactorswe might considerS. N. Marin3tos'work at 10:GouvalrlIn the

late 1950s and early 1960s. Marintos noted up to eight burial mounds, of which he
Investigatedthree. One was found to containtwo mid-sizedtholos tombs, another contained
three smalltholos tombs, and the third wasnot IntensivelyInvestigated.The two 'royal' tholos
tombs receivedfar more coverage(five pagesover severalreports) than the mound with three
smallertholol: this wasdismissedIn half a paragraph.The coverageIn print reflectsthe Intensity
of excavation,so that Marintosreturnedto the 'royal' tombs severaltimes, sievingthe earth
lest he missedImportantartefacts.The descriptionthat Marintosgivesto the mound with the
three smalltholol Is Instructiveasto hisattitude to this archaeology:
Another mound,number2, showedthat it concealedthree smalltholostombs,whose

diametersdid not surpassthree metres. They are rough and artlessconstructions,
without entrances,the deadburied either from aboveor through an openingIn the
roughwallingof the chamber.None of the three tombsheld a skeletonor evena skull
so that It seemsthat the other bones,which - broken and Incomplete- lay here and
there, probably came from the removal of remains elsewherewhere they were
broken.The most interestingof the three tombswasthe first (the western),which had
in Its north part a flat stonestandingupright on Its flat edgeand on it small circular
rocks (plate 1460), which howevercoverednothing.The findswere a thin knife and
other bits of bronze,a bronze pin length 10.2cm bearingon Its head an opening
(without ring), an arrowheadof yellow stone,bits of spindlesand bits of handmade
pottery, mostly from tomb 1, whosediameteris 2.75m and Its highestremaining
height 1.15m.
Marintos1959,175. Transiation:author.
Marintoshere describesthe excavationof a mound containingthree small built tombs that

appearat leastto be similar to tholos tombs. While the excavationof the two 'royal' tholol
would haveoccupiedmore effort simplyIn termsof volume, the ratio would not be as greatas
Is implied by five pagesto one paragraph.Besides,any archaeologicalreadercan quickly point
2 Mycenaean beliefs In relation to death are regarded as essentially Homeric by Mylonas (1948), despite
the obvious differences; Andronikos (1968) places most of the customs described in Homer in the
protogeometric and geometric periods.
Chapter Four The analyticalframework 79

out basicInformationmissingfrom the quotationabove.What were the dimensionsof mound
2? Wherewere the tholol, horizontallyand vertically?What were their dimensions?
What was
the constructiontechnique?What contextswere excavatedwithin the tholol? What were the
of the finds?What typesof pottery werepresent?
associations
Beyondsuchbasicquestions,someguidingprinciplesIn Marin3tos'work are obvious.Selection

In what to report (and what to record) has clearly taken place. Marintos' descriptiongives
somecluesas to how that selectiontook place.The tholol are Introducedas being'rough and
artlessconstructions':so, in somesystemof judgementthat Is not madeexplicit, they are not as
good as someother standard(presumably'royal tholos tombs'). For Marin3tos,tombssuchas
theseare not asimportantasothers. It Is acceptableto him that his recordingof thesetombsIs
cursory,andwe mustassumethat he felt his intendedaudiencewould acceptthat judgement.
As well as architecturalInferiority, the burials representedIn those tombs are also of little
Interestbecausethe apparentmode of burial alsobelongsto an Inferior class.Ratherthan there
being Intact inhumations,the remainsInsidethe tombs are of disarticulated
skeletons,perhaps
mixed with artefacts.Time and again In his work Marintos gives recording and reporting
precedenceto Intact Inhumationsassociated with artefacts.As his many reports makeclear, he
regardsthe disarticulationof bonesand mixingof artefactsasan activity that Is not asInteresting
as Inhumation;In fact, more than not Interesting,It Is an act of vandalismagainsthis pristine
burial context. ThoseIn the pastwho might haveenteredthe tomb
and InterferedIn someway
with the remainsare almost alwayscalled robbers, and no attempt Is made to distinguish
qualitativelybetweena 'robbery' duringthe prehistoricperiod and a robbery In modem times.
I suggesttherefore that in facing the reports of Marin3tos and others

working in that time and
milieu, we have to face a distinct recording and reporting preference for articulated burials,
associated with 'rich' or numerous Items, In large tombs. The recently excavated site at
52: Pellnastill exhibits these preferences: of four excavated tombs, description centres
on the
large and Impressive one, and two are not described at all. Further examples (other than
Marin3tos' excavations) are 54: Vafi, excavatedby Tsodndasand published In far greater detail
than the nearby tomb at 34: Kmbos, also excavated by Tsondas, even allowing for the
difference In numbers of finds; the seven tholol at 51: Anilipsis, of which only the large one Is
described in any detail, the smaller ones being dismissedas uninteresting; the chamber tombs of
58: EpfdhavrosLimir.
Theanalytical 80
Returningto the exampleof Marintos'excavations at 10: both
Gouvalrl, the two larger tholol
and the three smallertholol are In this thesisregarded as belongingto a broad context of early
Mycenaeantholos tombs, variableIn architecturebut forming part of phenomenaopen to
chapters).The burial practicesrepresented
interpretation(aswill be demonstratedIn succeeding
In both mounds are also given consideration.In an Interpretativestrategy that emphasises
evidencethat haseffectivelybeensuppressedin the originalpublication,the main recourse,as
suggestedabove, is to an understandingof the conditions under which the evidencewas
produced,and a studyof more recentand better reportedevidence.
In many excavationreportsthe underlyinglogic is of hierarchicaltaxonomy.Everyaspectof the

material evidencecan be classifiedand held up as an exampleof a type (or sometimesas a
uniquecircumstance).Taxonomy permeateseveryaspectof the report,
excavation whetherit is
the categorisationof pottery or other finds,of kindsof burial, of classesof behaviourevidenced

in the finds, or architecturaltypology. In this interpretativescheme,the importance and
meaningof a pot are not so much in its stratigraphiccontext, as Its classification.Potterythat is
readily classifiedis much more likely to be reported than difficult to classify, unpainted
coarseware;whole or restored pots are more likely to be reported than sherds. Tomb
architectureis also to be classified,and these classificationsbear directly on how well the
architectureis recorded. Largertholol are recorded In greater detail than smallertholol; cist
gravesand chamber tombs might be cursorily described.This approach to the material Is
facilitatedby a classification
systemthat first separatestheseclassesof monumentand then sets
one abovethe other.
Even In modem and well publishedexcavations,the primacy of typology Is apparent.The

bronze age occupationof Nihdria was publishedjust a few years ago (McDonald & Wilkie
1992); for the middle helladicperiod, 27 pagesare devotedto stratigraphy,plans,sectionsand
architecturaldescriptions;162 pagesare devotedto the description(81 pages)and illustration
(81 pages)of the pottery; there is a similar pattern for the late helladicperiod, though with
proportionally less descriptionof pottery. Moreover, the excavationtechnique used, even
though the site is an extensivesettlementrather than simply a number of funerarycontexts,Is
that of discretetrenchesexcavatedto depth and separatedby baulks,rather than open area
excavationwith singlecontext recording(Rapp et alii 1978,8-9). In essencethis techniqueIs
unchanged from that employed by Biegenat Korkou in the 1910s (the excavation method Is
In
not made explicit the report, Biegen 1921, but see the report on Prosymnafor a brief
description:Biegen1937,8) or Caskeyat Lemain the 1950s (for example,Caskey1954: 4.5
Theanalytical 81
and figure 1), and in eachcasethe primary aim of excavationis madeclear in the reports:the
establishment of pottery stylesfor typologicalpurposes.
of a reliablestratigraphicsequence
Overall, therefore, although in a sampleof 61 sites we are dealingwith many excavators

working at different times and in different intellectualmilieux, we can establishsome basic
principlesthat applyto most of the sites:
" the primary interpretativegoalis typology,whetherof architecture,burial, or artefact;

" often (but not always)there is a clear biastoward thosemembersof eachclassregardedas
somehowbetter.
The work of G. S. Korns in Messinfain the 1970s and 1980s hasgonesomeway to correct
thesebiases.His work hasbeenprimarily concernedwith checkingand testingMarin3tos'earlier
excavations,with an eventualview to a full publicationof his work (Marintosmadeno serious
start on final publication).Although Korns' work is not yet finally published,his preliminary
reports are richly detailed, and form the basisof some of the longer descriptionsin the
catalogueentriesin this work. Korns hasdevotedmuch effort to areasneglectedby Marintos,
particularlylessmonumentalburial types.
The goalsof this thesisare, first to Identify instancesof humanpracticein the

massof evidence
from the past, and second to weave this Infinite variety
of activity Into a historical
understanding.For the first of thesegoals,typologicalstudiesare lesspertinent than detailed
contextualdescriptionsof tomb deposits.It shouldbe clearthat any conclusionsadvancedIn the
followingchaptersare basedon a reinterpretationof a body of evidencethat wasnot collected
with this goal in mind; my conclusionsshouldthereforebe open to questionIn the context of
new field work. Nevertheless,the evidenceat handis not completelyInadequatefor a study of
this type. No descriptionof past activity could ever be complete,as Is even clear in casesof
direct observationIn anthropology;I thereforeIn eachcaseseekto makestatementsthat can be
supported by the evidence that is available.These statements can never be complete
descriptionsof past activity, but rather suggestthe possibilitiesfor action In the past basedon
the availablecontextualevidenceof architecture,burial and artefactualremains.The depth of
the Interpretationdependslargelyon the degreeto whichthe evidenceis recorded.
In the context of Individual observationsand historical outlines suggestedin the following

chapters,I believethat future excavationprojectsthat record detailedcontextualInformation
will serveto bring richer detailto the outlinealreadyIn place.

ANALYSING MORTUARY BEHAVIOUR
The first sectionof this chapterdealt with the problemsassociated with the Interpretationof
published archives;this section devises a methodology whereby one may make definite
statementsabout mortuary practiceon the basisof the kinds of evidence availableto us. The
centralproblemin devisinga methodologyfor the analysisof mortuary behaviourliesIn relating

the archaeologicalrecord, evidenceexcavated,surveyedand reported, to Ideasabout how
peopleactedIn the past.The link is not direct, but is formed througha chainof Interpretation:
I, asauthor of this thesis,Interpretthe archaeological
record,which in itself consistsof a written
summary of the numerous observationsand interpretations of previous workers; those
observationsand Interpretationshaveno direct accessto the past, but constitutea partial and
subjectiverecord of the materialevidenceof pasthumanactivity; and this materialevidenceis
not in itself a direct witnessto truth, but Is merely the detritus of past action, articulated
throughsuchmediaand Imbuedwith multiple and constantlyshiftingmeaning.
The method employedis to distinguishgenericfieldsof practicerelatedto the mortuary arena,

and to analysethe record for evidenceto identify suchtypes of practiceand allow for a more
definite understandingof how those practiceswere carried out. Mortuary behaviouris very
amenableto this method, since it tends to consistof certain unavoidableacts (the ultimate
disposalof the corpse,for example,is unavoidable)as well as perhapsother acts not strictly
functionallynecessaryto the performanceof a funeral (examplesof which might be ancestor
rituals, or modificationsof the corpse). Merely identifying these general practicescan be
straightforward,but the aim is to interpret under what circumstances
suchacts may havebeen
carried out. For the purposesof this analysismortuary behaviourhas been divided into four
separate'acts', eachwith its own time frame and scene.This artificial division is essentialin
order to analyseseparatelysuch activitiesas inhumationand graveconstruction,which might
not be immediatelyrelated. Within each act, certain generic fields of practice have been
Identifiedfor consideration.In this way the methodof analysisallowsInterpretationto proceed
from an idea of the spectrumof possibleactionsto a specificInterpretationof humanaction
through time at any givenfunerarysite, basedon availableevidence.The four actsof mortuary
practiceare
" The locationof cemetery,tomb and grave;

" Constructionand modification;
" Acts outsidethe grave;
" Acts at andwithin the grave.
Theanalytical 83
The broad distinction drawn between these four headings is not ideologically driven, but is
methodologically useful. The construction of a tomb, for example, may be separated from any
given act of interment by hundreds of years: the construction of the tomb would therefore be
unconnected with the burial. Acts away from the grave may be separated in time from acts at
the grave; and the latter can include 'ancestor rites' or other interventions in the grave when no
funeral is being undertaken. In the complex nexus of actions and actors that is the funerary
performance, some or all of these acts might be closely linked, which will become clear through
interpretation.
The fields of practice that might be evident under these headings, and hence the analytical
framework, are given in the table below:
Locatingthe grave Preparationof materials

Processionand gathering Preparationof the corpse
Other actsoutsidethe grave
Preparationof constructionmaterials Movement

Other acts before beginning Engagementwith the material past
Diggingor building the grave Acts Involving materialsbrought to the grave
Acts at the end of the construction phase Depositionof material and corpse
Opening the grave
Closing the grave
Table 4.1. Mortuary practice.
This interpretative scheme is non-linear; it is not proposed that actions be identified proceeding
from one category to the next until a complete picture is obtained. Rather, I have identified as
many general types of activity as might be evidenced in actions associatedwith death, burial and
tomb use; the evidence at any given site will be partial and reflect only some of these acts. The
sub-divisions under each heading are not necessarilysequential; for example, the last two types
of activity under 'Construction and modification' would normally occur before and after rites of
interment'.
Before considering the analytical framework in detail, I want briefly to consider the nature of
interpretation itself. In the 'chain of interpretation', mentioned above, relating statements about
3 Certain important practices that are not evidenced in the material under study, such as excarnation away
from the tomb, or cremation, would require small modifications of the scheme.
84
itself, links
Interpretation each stageof the chain.InterpretationItself Is an
the pastwith the past
ill-definedprocess.This is of interestnot only In how interpretationleadsto statementsabout
the past In this thesisand In work
archaeological but
generally, also because all understanding
and ultimately all knowledge of how to go on, as employed by those In the past who are the
by depend
object of studyaswell as ourselves, on of
processes Interpretation.
Interpretation is a mental process through which contentions between knowledge (the

comprehended world) and circumstances(perceptions or new knowledge that cannot
immediately be reconciledwith knowledge)are resolvedby creating new knowledge(the
Interpretation).Interpretationis thereforenot a statementof the obvious(Tilley 1994) and Is
personaland subjective(Shanks8t Tilley 1992, chapter5). In Giddens'terms (chapterthree),
it is clearlyproducedin discursiveconsciousness.
Interpretationin archaeologyis the productionof 'knowledge'of the pastthrough study of the

'archaeologicalrecord' (either directly through excavationor autopsy,or through secondary
interpretationof the written record). The pastItself,and any 'complete' archaeologicalrecord,
cannot be known; hence Interpretation in archaeologyIs always contentiousand open to
challengeor revisionin the light Archaeological
of new evidence. interpretation is cyclical in
nature: ideasabout the pastinfluencework carriedout, which In turn Influencesideasabout the

past,and so on.
Archaeological interpretation is double, in that the processof interpretation consists of working
through both the archaeological record and ideas of how the past may have been, and the
interpretation of each of these depends on the other (Barrett 1990a, 34-35, summarised in
the following schema):
ideasabout pastpractice(-4 InterpretationE-4 the 'archaeologicalrecord'
'Pastpractice' no longerexists,but one can throughInterpretationsuggestIdeasabout how the

past may have been; the 'archaeologicalrecord' cannot be known In Its entirety, and even
it
understandinga part of requires Archaeological
Interpretation. Interpretation Is therefore a
compositeformed discourse between Ideas about the past and Ideas about the
of a continuous
Barrett InterpretationIs so that each new Insight
archaeologicalrecord. As pointsout, cyclical,
on the other.
on one sidepromptsreconsideration

The methodological framework for producing an understandingof the past is therefore, on the
right side, representing the archaeologicalrecord, my interpretation of that record as presented

in appendix one; on the left side, ideas about past practice as set out in 'neutral' form in this
chapter (the possibilities of action in the mortuary sphere). The interpretation of the
archaeological record, ideas about past practice, and the interpretative interface between the
two, form the basisfor discussionin the succeedingchapters:
I r, M-E 7-777
77 F-7771
E-12
'17M,
theory of human action (chapter 3) chapters 5-9 chapter 1
analytical framework (chapter 4) site catalogue (appendix 1)
Fable4.2. Interpretation in this thesis.
The rest of this chapter offers specific consideration of the acts and fields of mortuary behaviour
asset out in table 4.1.
Location of tomb, cemetery and grave
These categories of action can be said to realiseand define the place of the cemetery, tomb and
grave in the landscape: physical movement and mental acts of location define the grave
topographically.
Locating the grave. Location implies two slightly different processes:it can be the act of placing a
grave within the landscape, of finding an appropriate place for it in the topographic nexus;
where a grave is reused, it implies finding and choosing again that grave. Hence 'location'
involves both making place and finding place.
The location of a burial in the landscapeinvolves a hierarchy of topographic decision making.

Even 'simple' graves, such as single use pit burials, are located in a complex manner with
respect to topography, and may be found in relationship with other burials and with habitation
areas. For the more complex circumstancesof burial found at sites in this study, up to five tiers
might exist in a hierarchy of location:
86
" locationof cemetery within landscape
" locationof burial monumentwithin cemetery

" locationof burial placewithin burialmonument
" locationof gravewithin burial place
" locationof burialwithin grave
'Cemetery' is defined in the secondedition of the Oxford EnglishDictionary as 'A place,

usuallya ground,set apart for the burial of the dead', or 'a largepublic park or groundlaid out
expresslyfor the interment of the dead' (SimpsonBr Weiner 1991,1027). This definition is
applicableto some of the sites consideredin this thesis, but in the case of many burial
monuments,we have to deal with a nexusof relativelywidely spacedfunerary monuments,a
nexusitself enmeshedin a routinely traversedand inhabitedlandscape:not a placeexpresslyset
asidefor burial. In other words,althoughin somecasesa burial groundset apart from everyday
life can be identified, in other casesburial monuments,often clearly related one to the other,
are to be found set amid the localesof everydaylife.
Thereforethe locationhierarchynoted aboveshouldbe modifiedand mademore complex.We

must understandrelationshipsbetweenthe nexus of funerary monumentsand its elements,
betweenthe wider cultural landscapeand its elements,and all of the cross-relationships
between
them. Becauseall that we observeis the detritus of the past, and we never have a complete
knowledgeof any artefactor monument(nor did anyoneelsein the past), theseare not simple
relationshipsbetweenthings:there is no empiricalrelationshipbetweenany of the elementsof
the cultural landscapethat may be observed and written down. Such relationshipsare
fundamentallyperceptual and therefore contingent on the observer. An analysisof the
archaeologicallandscapeshould therefore encompasspossibilitiesof how people might have
situated themselveswithin a conceptualtopographyof funerary monument, settlementand
pathway.
A static first attempt at presentingthe possibilitiesof theseconceptualrelationshipsIs presented

in figure 4.1 below:

wider cultural
landscape'*
Individual nexusof
monuments monuments
her elements
in cultural
landscape
Figure 4.1. Landscape and funerary monuments. The diagram presents two conceptual totalities, the
'wider cultural landscape' and the 'nexus of monuments', and two collectives for Individual elements,
'individual monuments' and 'other elements In cultural landscape'. The arrows Indicate the Inter-
relationships of these nodes, multiple arrows Indicating the both the collective and Individual nature of the
Items to the bottom and the left. The diagram simplifies the possibly highly hierarchical nature of these
Inter-relationships. All relationships are conceptual: dependent on the observer and open to constant
reinterpretation.
This is not a model or reconstructionof any actuallyexistingpastsituation.Instead,It Is a guide

to the interpretationof evidence.It is a representationof how a pastobservermight understand
the topography of monumentsat any given time (although time Itself Is missingfrom the
equation). The relationshipsIndicatedIn the diagramare the baseson which a knowledgeof
topographyIs built. The relationshipsare known through the Interpretationof past eventsand
the Interpretation of stories and statementsgiven by others. Fundamentalaspectsof this
knowledgemay Includethe experienceof traversingthe landscape,alone or with others, and
thus buildingan understandingof localesand pathways;taking part in or observingactivitiesat
or nearsuchlocales;and the interpretationof storiesof the pastinvolvingtheselocales(chapter
three). This knowledgeIs personaland contingent(so it differs from personto personand Is
open to continuousrevision).
The simplified diagram of figure 4.1 attempts to present an immenselycomplex range of

possibilitiesin a simple model. Any overall nexusof monumentswould not be made up of a
seriesof simplerelationshipsas indicated:in reality, different monumentsmight be understood
to have important inter-relationshipsforming multiple sub-nexuswhich again might be inter-
related. The sameis true for the other elementsof the cultural landscape.In reality, such a
static picture is in any caseuntenable, since the agent would consider only certain aspectsat any
time, and events and circumstanceswould cause continuous modification of the details of the
relationships.

The processof choosingan appropriateburial placewould often involve a numberof people.
Thesemight include any of the following: personsmakingkin, social, institutionalor group
relationshipclaimson the dead; persons acting in socialroles associatedwith death or burial;
and personsclaimingcontrol over the landscape, a monument, or an individualgrave.The last
category might include those claiming to be inheritors of rights from previous dead. The
location of the burial and many other aspectsof the funeral will be the result of discussion,
consultationor negotiationbetween In
suchpeople. somecases much of that discussion
will be
ruled by tradition, and many aspectsof the funeral, including location, might seem largely
'given'; this howeverneednot be the case.
These considerationsapply to the location of burials within the landscape,within cemeteries and
within monuments. In the latter case discussionwill revolve around differing understandingsof
the monument: not only its place in the landscape,but understandingsof its micro-topography:
perhaps conceptual relationshipsbetween already existing graves(and their apparent occupants),

or other features of the monument. The processof negotiation might be completed before the
funeral begins, or might be ongoing, so that the very act of choosing a location is part of the
procession, the act of choosing a place within a monument might be part of the funeral
ceremony, and depend on conditions found to exist only after the monument is opened.
Reuseof a graveis occasionally to be fortuitous. If fact there may be different degrees

suggested
of relationshipbetweenburials.A gravemay be knowledgeablyreused;a gravemay be reused
whose significancehas been forgotten but nonethelessis located in a known cemetery; or
occasionallyeventhe significanceof the cemeterymay have been forgotten. In many casesof
monumentreuseafter a long period of disuse,it seemslikely that while knowledgeof the first
usersof the tomb may be lost, the traditional nature of the burial monument placesit in a
widely understoodcontextand imbuesthe remainswithin with ancestralsignificance.
Suchthen are the considerations

involvedin burial in a monumentallandscape.At first it may
seem archaeologicallyintangible, and so it is, but the existenceof monuments, funerary
and burialssuch as we have to deal with in this thesisIn Itself confirmsthat these
landscapes
considerations did
and situations existand wereworked through.The questionto be resolvedIn
this study is how far theseactionscan be identifiedand understoodfrom the evidence(chapter
five).
Processionand gathering.This activity in most casesshould be closely associatedwith the

previous category, since the location of the grave Is made manifest in the co-ordinated

movementof the mournerstoward it, and their gatheringaroundor In It. Although the actsof
processionand gatheringmight seemto leaveno trace In the archaeological record, at some
point in the funeraryprocessthe corpsemust be takento the graveside.In the caseof adultsIt
movementIs
is unlikelythat just one personwould undertakethis task:somesort of processional
almostrequired.For children,it Is possiblethat this phasebe relativelyunimportant,the corpse
beingcarriedto the graveby one person;a processionof peopleis howeverjust aspossible.
These acts are potentially extremely important parts of the funerary ritual. Given that
preparationshavebeenmade for burial, this is the momentwhere the dead is taken from the
habituallylived areasof the communityto an areaspecificallypreparedfor a deadperson,and
in a very clearway signalsthe changesthat havetakenplace.Hencethis act is likely to be highly
charged:perhapsa deeply emotionalmoment, wherethe mournersconsidertheir relationship
to the newly-deadand articulatethat throughtheir actionsin respectof the corpse;and where
they begin to rethink their relationshipsamongthemselves.For those claimingor feelingsome
relationshipto the dead, this moment is an extremely public opportunity to articulate that
relationship,throughaction on or with the corpse.Suchconsiderations
spill over into the actsat
the graveside.
An understandingof the acts of processionand gatheringcan come from a study of the

architectureof the grave.In casesof 'simple' burialsthe graveis relativelysmall-scale
and is not
visiblein the landscapefrom any distance:the mournerscan be expectedto maketheir way to
the graveand gatheraround it. The order of movementwill be dictated by the corpse,since
those carryingit must be alloweddirect accessto the grave. In casesof more complexburial
monuments,two or more phasesof processionand gatheringmust be considered:a procession
to the entranceof the monument, and then a re-orderingof the group and the entry of a
smallernumberof peoplewithin. Thesequestionsare givenfuller considerationin chapterfive.
Coastnictloa and modircation
There are three related aspectsto acts of constructionand modification. First Is construction
itself, creatinga graveor tomb where nonewasbefore. Modification relatesto the makingof
architectural changesto an existing monument, and Is most relevant In terms of the creation of a
new grave within an existing monument, but also impinges on the third aspect: the modification
of the properties of the tomb by opening and closing it.
Chapter Four Theanalyticl framework 90

Preparationof constructionmaterials.For example,the quarryingand cutting of stone, and the
fashioningor procurementof tools. Theseare evidencedby the materialsthemselves:cut stone
bearswitnessboth to its cuttingandthe tools usedto cut it.
Other acts before beginning.A phaseof constructionmight be precededby acts, rituals or

ceremoniesthat form part of the constructionphasebut either leavevirtually no archaeological
remainsor leaveremainsthat cannoteasilybe associated with construction.This categorymight
include preparationat the spot where the deadis to be interred or a tomb is to be built, for
exampleby foundationdepositsor feasting.
Diggingor buildingthe grave.This phase,highly complex in the caseof large monuments,Is

evidencedin the graveor tomb itself. Studyof architecturalremainsallowsfor suchquestionsas
how the graveor tomb wasbuilt, whetherspecialistskillsinvolved,and how many peoplemight
havebeeninvolved.
Gravediggingand tomb buildingmay be a highly organisedand structuredprocess.In western

societies,for example, grave digging is often carried out by paid workers who dig graves
regularlyand are connectedto the dead and the mournersonly by a wage-labourobligation,
usuallynegotiatedby a third party suchasa town council. In the prehistoricperiod one Is more
accustomedto imagine that grave digging was an ad hoc activity organisedby mourners
separatelyin connectionwith eachfuneraryevent. Neverthelessthe following chapterssuggest
that sometomb buildingactivitiesat leastmight haveinvolvedspecificcorporategroups.Grave
diggingmight on occasionhavebeenorganisedundersocialpreceptsof which we are unaware.
Acts at the end of the constructionphase.As with acts before beginning,ceremonyor ritual
markingthe end of the constructionphasemay well take place,but may leaveno archaeological
trace, or no remains obviously connected with construction. Again feasting or foundation
deposits may play a part.
Openingthe grave.The last two categoriesof action may be entirely unrelatedto the original
constructionof a graveor tomb, but sincethey requiredirect interventionin the architectureof
the graveor tomb, they are properlyconsideredhere.
Thereare two aspectsin the interpretationof the openingof a graveor tomb. The first Is one of
effort: in in
some casesminimal, the most extreme of casesrequiring the labour of a large
numberof people.The is
second symbolic,and likely to be chargedwith before
significance: a

graveor tomb is opened,its form is everyday,mundaneand safe,perhapssymbolisedby the
blank facadeof the tomb or the low moundof earthover the grave.Openingthe gravechanges
the circumstancesof the world: one approachingmust be ready to face the bones of the
ancestorslaid bare before her, and all the socialmyth, history, power and meaningthat they
might seem to represent. So by opening the tomb requirementsIn behaviour and In
interpretationare changedand heightened;for thosewho claim or feel someconnectionwith
the tomb and the dead within, their understandingof society and their place in it will be
brought Into questionor madeexplicit in relationto the tomb. It Is the preludeto contactwith
the deadwithin, the liminal momentthat marksthe beginningof the mortuaryceremony.In the
caseof built graves,the entrancemarksthe liminal point betweenthe graveand the outside
world, mirroring the liminal role of the act of opening.
Closingthe grave.This act mirrors the last: again liminal, it marks the end of the mortuary
ceremony.The building of a wall, or the filling of a gravewith earth, createsan impermeable

barrier betweenthe locale now inhabitedby the dead and the world of the living. The act is
evidencedin the fact of the closedgrave,and other evidencemay often be taken to indicate
peripheral activities associatedwith grave closure in a non-functionalmanner: evidenceof
feasting,fires,or toasting.
Acts outside the grave
This section includesall of the actionsthat lead up to a funeral or other InterventionIn the
grave. Since this activity Is likely to take place away from the grave, evidenceis limited,
althoughthe presenceof artefactsIn the gravecanoffer InsightInto the preparatorystages.
Preparationof materials.Although it is possibleto carry out a funeral without the use of any
specialartefacts,this would seem rarely to have been the reality. Two different types of
preparationare consideredhere: the preparationof materialsto be useddirectly on the corpse,
and the preparationof materialsthat will play a particularrole in the funeraryprocess.Wherea
graveis openedfor non-intermentpurposes,both typesof preparationmay still haveoccurred:
equipmentmay be brought for usein the grave,and someof that may be useddirectly on the
bonesof the older dead.
Although the most obviousquestionto askof materialfound In the mortuary context Is how It
wasused(consideredbelow),the sourceof the materialis alsoopento Interpretation.Wereany

of the objectsmadefor the grave,and if not, from what contextsare they likely to havecome
and how wastheir transformationinto itemsassociatedwith the funeralarticulated?
There are two modesby which an item might be made for the grave: It might be made In
advanceof need,and held until the momentof the funeral;or alternativelyit might be madefor
the funeralof a specificpersonafter the momentof that person'sdeath.The secondalternative
is likely to apply to a few, easy-to-make
objectsonly, as the speedof decompositionof the
corpsein the Mediterraneanclimateis likely to havelimited the period of time betweendeath
and interment.
Most items in the grave are unlikely to have been made explicitly for the grave, but are more
likely to have been taken from some other context and, through incorporation in mortuary
rituals and physical incorporation in the tomb, to have been transformed in meaning. The
source of such objects may be difficult to ascertain, but certain hypothesescan be examined. In
the case of objects adorning the corpse, were any of them associatedwith the dead person in
life, or were they gathered from other sources?And in the case of objects used In funerary
rituals, what would be likely to be their previous context and meaning? Certain objects may
have embodied a duality: perhaps routinely incorporated in day to day existence, yet
nonetheless understood as maintaining the possibility of taking on a new meaning in the

mortuary context.
Preparationof the corpse.The corpsemay be preparedfor interment by direct modificationof

the body (cutting, painting,tattooing), dressingin clothing, adorningwith jewelleryand other
artefacts(suchasweapons),and layingout on a mode of transportsuchas a bier or a wagon.
The archaeological
evidenceincludesmaterialthat appearsto havebeen part of the raimentof
the corpse, and perhapsevidencefor the arrangementof the corpse within the grave (for
example,a contractedposition may indicatetrussing).In terms of how the corpseis prepared
for burial, the effectsof rigor mortisalsorequireconsideration.
There are three typesof evidenceto be consideredIn this category:whetherany artefactmight

be the remainsof an act of dressingthe corpse,that Is whetherItemsthat might havebeenworn
by the corpse are preservedIn the grave; whether the dispositionof skeletons,where not
disarticulated,givesany clue to treatment before Interment; and whether any other artefact
might havebeenusedIn the preparationof the corpseand then depositedwithin the graveor In
the tomb.

The attention given to the corpseis often an important part of the procedureof mortuary
customs,and offersgreatinsightinto how any givengroupof peoplemight dealwith death.This
phasecould be elaborateand prolonged,and yet leave little in the way of archaeological
evidence,sincemuch of the evidence(modificationof the flesh,wearingof clothes)will not
survive. Sites that are unexcavatedor where excavationis barely reported can offer no
informationasto thesequestions.
Other acts outsidethe grave. Activities away from the grave are inherently unlikely to be
evidencedin the gravecontext.The previoustwo categoriesdiffer becauseevidencefor them is
likely to be broughtfrom elsewhereto the grave.Other aspectsof the period beforea funerary
ceremonyare difficult to recoverfrom the archaeological
evidence.Traditionssuchaskeepinga
vigil over the corpse,for example,could not be evidencedin the grave.This field of action Is
alludedto asa signifierof the irretrievablein the studyof funeraryarchaeology.
Acts at and within the grave
This sectioninvolvesthe analysisof all the actsthat can be carried out in the grave,and these
activitiesare thosemost immediatelyevidencedby the archaeological remainsfound in tombs.
Movement.This sectionexaminesthe effect of tomb and gravearchitectureon the humanbody,

and in particularexamineswhat kindsof individualor group activity might havebeenenabledor
constrainedby the architecture.In combinationwith other evidencefor funeraryactivities,this
method of analysisallowsfor interpretationsboth of how monumentswere used,and how they
were intendedto be used.
Engagement with the materialpast. When a tomb or grave is reopened,whether for another
burial or for someother purpose,peoplemust come into contactwith the remainsof previous
burial ceremonies.Often the evidenceof how they did so is present in abundanceduring
excavation,althoughrecordingis may be inadequatefor detailedinvestigation.
The approachto and useof an existingmonumentis a consciousengagement with pastlivesand

past acts. The creation and continuinguse of a collectivetomb evidencesthe desireof those
involvedto structuretheir funeraryactsin sucha way asto be ablein a materialand visibleway
to referencethe pastand the ancestorsasa fundamentalpart of the activity.

The aim of this analysisis to understandhow peopleengagedwith the materialremainsof the
past,what meaningthey may haveinvestedin thoseremains,and how that meaningIn turn was
reproducedin continuingactivity in the graveor tomb.
It hasbeencommonlysuggested
in the pastthat the natureof interferencewith the bonesand
objectswithin middle helladicand Mycenaeantombs can be characterisedby words such as
disrespect,carelessness,theft and pillage(to give referencesIs superfluous,as this view Is close
to universal;dissentingvoicesIncludeWells 1990, Boyd 1994 and Cavanagh8t Mee 1998).
This point of view is impressionistic,
Inasmuchasthe sceneof chaosthat awaitsthe excavatoron
openingthe tomb speaksto him or her of the violationof the grave;impressionistic,
Inasmuch
asIt dependson the excavator'sIdeaof how a graveought to be. The 'violated' graveIs always
(implicitly and often explicitly)placedin comparisonwith the Ideal,untouchedgrave.
Hence acts that led to the final condition of the grave as excavatedare rarely closely
Investigated.Yet the effectsof that action (brokenobjects,brokenor disarticulatedbones)can
be explainedwaysother than those relatedto vandalismand theft. As noted by Cavanagh&
Mee (1998,116), It Is in the natureof multiple burial monumentsthat their userscameInto
contact with the remainsof previousburials; Indeed, it can be arguedthat this becamean
Important concern. Therefore the question revolvesaround the motivations of those who
Interferedwith the remains.
Differentmotivationscanbe imagined,not all of whichare 'bad':
" the removalof artefactsfor their 'worth' by thosewith no interestin or perceptionof the
deadin the tomb;
" the removalof artefactsfor their worth, wherethat worth is partly or wholly perceivedas
relatedto the assumeddeadof the tomb;
" the removalof artefactsaspart of a rite directedat the deador other supernaturalforces;
" the removalof bonesfor the samereason;
" the interferencewith or breakingof bonesor artefactsas part of a rite directedat the dead
or other supernaturalforces;
" the interferencewith or breakingof bones or artefactsin direct preparation for a new
interment.

The aim of the analysisof evidenceunderthis headingis thereforeto definethe extentto which
older burialswere later interfered to to
with, and come an understanding of what people felt
they were doing in actingin this way.
Acts involvingmaterialsbroughtto thegrave.Aside from the materialthat may alreadybe present

in the graveor tomb, most action in the graveis carriedout throughthe mediaof the corpse
and other artefactsbrought to the tomb. Often materialusedin funeraryceremoniesmay be
depositedin the tomb, allowingfor a partialreconstructionof thoseceremonies.In other cases,
material may be used and then removedfrom the tomb, makingthe action archaeologically
invisible.Whereartefactshavebeenfound with disarticulatedbonesit is possiblethat they may
have been used on more than one occasion.The analysishere seeksto understandthe role
artefactswere madeto play in the tomb, and how thoseroleswere reproducedthroughtime.
Depositionof materialsand corpse.There are three modesby which material may come to be
depositedin a tomb or grave.The most direct is deliberatedeposition:an artefactis broughtInto
the tomb or gravecontext for the purposeof deposition,and therebyattainsits meaning.In all
funeralsthe corpseis the primarysuchartefact,and other traditionsmay operatethroughwhich
Itemsare deposited.The secondmode is consequential
deposition:depositionIs not an Intended
outcome,but Is consequential on someother aspectof the funeral.The most obviousexample
of this Is any itemsadorningthe corpse:their primary meaningrelatesto their role In adorning
the corpse, and their ultimate depositionin the tomb Is as a result of the depositionof the
corpse.The third mode Is transformationaldeposition:wherecertainartefactsare broughtto the
grave context with the primary purposeof being used In some ritual, In so being used their
meaningmay be transformedso that they seemto belongwith that context.As an example,If a
cup Is chosenfrom a routine context to be usedIn a drinking ceremonyIn a tomb ritual, In
beingusedits meaningmay changeso that the mournersassociateIt with the funerarycontext,
rather than the routine. Such a transformationmay result in the deposition and perhaps
destructionof the object.
Since Items adorning the corpse should be primarily understood In their role as adornment and
not as items to be deposited, at the end of the funeral, if adornment were no longer perceived
as appropriate, it is possible that some Items might be removed from the corpse. In ancestor
rituals or secondary burial ceremonies, Items of adornment might be removed for the same
reason, or becausethe transformation of the corpse from flesh Into bones might seem to make
their continuingpresencein the tomb superfluous.

Whereasit is relativelyeasyto discernInstances depositionIn a gravecontext,
of consequential
it may be impossibleto distinguishbetweendeliberateand transformationaldeposition:the
question hinges on the role of the item in the funeral. Instancesof deliberate and
transformationaldepositionwill have been identified in trying to distinguishbetweenartefacts
usedin funeraryceremoniesand thosewhich may havebeensimplydepositedin the grave(acts
involvingmaterialsbroughtto the grave),whereasinstancesof consequentialdepositionwill have
been identified in relation to the adornmentof the corpse (preparationof the corpse).This
of deliberateand transformationaldeposition.
sectionwill examinethe circumstances
Interment is evidencedby the skeletalremainsof the corpse.Where secondaryactionshave

been carried out on the corpse, the evidenceof Interment Is thus obscured,and In many
multiple burial monumentsthe evidenceof how early Intermentsmight havebeenpositionedIs
lost. The position In which the corpse Is found may also be as much a product of the
preparationphaseas of the Intermentphase.Where the corpsehasbeen preparedby binding,
for example,this maywell havetakenplacebeforeInterment,duringthe preparatoryphase.
The following chaptersseekto provide an interpretationof the archaeologicalevidenceIn the

terms givenabove.

98
ChapterFive
The mortuary locale in the landscape
INTRODUCTION
This chapter, and those that follow, discussthe evidence presentedIn the site catalogue
(appendixone) in termsof the fieldsof action presentedin chapterfour. The chapteris divided
(the logic behindthis divisionIs
into three broad period bands:MHI-11,MHIII-LHI, and LHI-1113
set out in chapterone). However,becauseof the sparsenatureof the data, and chronological
inexactitude,two categoriesof evidenceare discussedseparately:`simpler' graves,and (mostly
unexcavated)burial moundsgenerallyregardedas being of MH date. Thesemonumentsare
listed respectivelyin tables1.2 (chapterone) and 5.2 (below). This structurefor the discussion
is maintainedin chapterssix, sevenand eight.
'SIMPLER' GRAVES (TABLE 1 2, PAGE 29)

.
Locating the grave
The Immediatelocation context for many of these cemeteriesIs settlementor an otherwise

constructedenvironment: this applies to at leastten, and perhapsup to twelve, of the sixteen
here.
discussion Individual
graves are predominantlylocatedIn the vicinity of others:
sitesunder
only four sitesconsistof a singlegrave, and in thesecasesfurther excavation might well reveal
At first therefore the simpler gravesof all periods tend to belong within
more graves. glance
intramural cemeteries.An examinationof the Individual sites will show, however, that
the normalmodeof burial.

Intramuralburialwasnot necessarily
99
37:Mithi: the hilltop settlementsite of M3ithi, overlookingthe SoulimaValley (Al. J7.1.2),
has 48 known graves,all but one locatedwithin the wallsof the settlement.The gravesare
summarisedin the catalogueentry in appendixone in tabular form (table A1.37.1). The
chronologyof the Mlthl gravesis a particularlyintractableproblem, of which I presentan
analysisin the catalogueentry. I concludethat, with a few clearlydatedexceptions,the datesof
constructionand useof the gravescannotbe recovered,savethat most fell within the MHII-
LHII band,and somemay dateto LHIII.
The graveswere all, except for two pithos burials,inhumationsin pits or cists (Al.. 77.3.5).
The largemajority were children,and most graveswere single,althoughsomewere reused:71
individualswere presentin total. Almost all were locatedwithin the walls of rooms insidethe
settlement.They are not closelygroupedin their location,but are found in five groupingsthat
encompassmost of the village (Al.. J7.10). The majority of those buried were children:
childrenwere presentin 37 graves,adultsin seven,three graveswere empty, and other graves
containeda mix of adultsand children (seecatalogueentry). Many of the children may have
beeninfants.
Despitethe chronologicaluncertainty,therefore,we are in a positionto makesomecomments

on the burialslocatedwithin 37:Mlthl.First,it shouldbe clearthat the excavatedburialsdo not
representanythinglike the total numberof deadthat we would expectfor a settlementof even
such a moderatesize, especiallygiven that the likely period of occupation Is so long. This
observation,in associationwith the noted disproportionatelylarge number of child or Infant
burials, suggeststhat the sample excavatedat M3lthi Is far from representativeof the
population.So far, therefore,from confirmingthat MAIthifollowsa pattern of Intramuralburial
for the deadcommonin MH settlements,it rather seemsthat burial within the wallsmay have
beenan unusualcircumstance.The predominanceof child burialsmakesit tempting to Imagine
that, for at leastsomeof the period of occupation,the burial of a child wasmore likely to take
placewithin the walls,but that adult burialwould be locatedelsewhere.
Those who made and used these gravesfaced a number of choicesIn grave location. The
at first glancethat they
majority of burialsare insiderooms,and often cut into walls,suggesting
post-dateoccupationIn their sector. Others, however,are buried in the floors of rooms, and
the recordedevidenceis Inadequate to determinewhetheroccupationIn a room continuedafter
a burial wasplacedIn the floor (or even in somecasesIf the burial predatesthe room). These
preferenceswould tend to suggesta concernto locate the dead within the domesticcontext.
that the room or housewasabandonedafter the deathand
Alternatively,it is not inconceivable
ChapterFive Themortuarylocalein the landscape 100

burial of a child within. Perhapsthe most likely possibilityhowever, especiallygiven the
conclusionsabout 57:Ayos StEfanos
to be set out below, is that burialstook placeIn sectorsof
in
the town abandonedand perhaps ruinsat the time of the burial. In any a
case, link between
the domesticsphereandthe deadseemscertain.Giventhe lackof chronologicalcontrol and the

unrepresentativenature of the sample,theseconclusionsmay relate to unusualor short-lived
socialtraditions.
One perhapssignificantclue is that the burials at 37:Mlthi seem grouped in five areas
(Al .. 17.10). If it were possibleto prove the generalcontemporaneityof burials in a given
group (which it is not), this in
might all casesprove that the burialspost-dateoccupationfor
their sector,sincein eachgroup at leastone and usuallymore burialsclearlycut through house
walls. Lack of stratigraphiccontrol hasled to that
a picture suggesting the walls of eachbroad
phaseat 37:Mlthiwere all in useat once,whereasthe evidencefrom most excavationstendsto

suggestthat settlementsites present a confusingpalimpsestof house walls due to regular
rebuildingthroughoutthe We
period of occupation. have no idea at
of subphases 37:Mlthl, but
it may well havebeenthe casethat the useof sectorsand buildingsfor habitationand for burial
alternatedregularlyover fairly short periods(compare57:Ayos Stefanosbelow, and discussion
of burial locationsin the Argolid in Hgg8zNordquist 1990,42).
What can be said is that burialsat 37:Miithi are not locatedin those wide areasof the citadel
where occupationis not attested.Theseare areaswhere bedrockprojectsfrom the surfaceand
were unsuitablefor habitation;Valmin claims(1938,53-54) to have investigatedtheseareas,
althoughit is possiblethat not findinghousewallshe may haveexaminedit lessthoroughlyand
missedsome graves.Nevertheless,almostall the known 37:Mlthl gravesare located on, in,
within and betweendomesticwalls. One burial outsidethe citadel (XXVII), an adult, hints at
the alternativepossibilities(Valmin reportsthe testimonyof the landowneras to other burials:
1938,231): one suspects that further adult burials might well lie undiscoveredoutside the
settlementwallson the crownof the akropolis,or on Its slopes.
Although the majority of 37:MIthlgravesare singleinhumations,a numbercontainedevidence

of multiple use (12 gravesout of 48, or 25%). These gravesare listed in table 5.1, below.
Three of these gravescontained collected bones, and one Is likely to represent a dual
inhumation;the other eight examples(that Is, 16.67% of all graves)are likely to represent
gravesusedon two separateoccasionsfor Interment.The reusedgravesare either clstsor pits
with stone outlines, and the children buried in these gravesseem usuallyto have been very
(below two years)- however is
this not unusualamong the 37:M31thIsample.The reuse
young
Chapter Five The mortuary localein the landscape 101

of graves was therefore neither common nor sought after, but was not unknown, and when
practised the location of the grave was presumably brought about through the visibility of the
cist or pit-with-stone-outline amid the ruins of domestic architecture (see also page 142 below).
7 pit/stone outline 2 Two Infants, articulated, supine Buried at sametime?

18 cist 2 Two infants, articulated, supine, Two separate
one buried above the other interments?
19 cist 2 Two Infants, articulated, one Two separate
supine, one on side, one lying interments?
above the other
23 cist 2 Two Infants, articulated, supine, Two separate
one buried above the other Interments?
25 pit/stone outline 2 Two Infants, disturbed Unknown
26 pit/stone outline 3 Three or four infants In two layers Two separate
interments
32 cist 7 Sevendisturbed graves Unknown
34 pit/stone outline 2 Two disturbed gravesat opposite Unknown
ends of the pit, on the floor
36 pit/stone outline 2 Two disturbed gravesat opposite Two separate
ends of the pit, on the floor interments?
37 pit 3 Two adult and one child, disturbed Unknown
38 pit 8 Eight disturbed burials Unknown
40 pit/stone outline 2 Two disturbed graves Two separate
interments?
42 pit/stone outline 2 Two infants, one articulates, Two separate
supine, the other disturbed Interments
Table 5.1. Graves at 37: Mjlthi containing more than one individual
57: Ayos Stefanos:an analysisof the data from 57: Ayos Stefanosas presented by Taylour in the
1972 preliminary report (thus excluding later excavationswhich are only superficially reported)
is presented in table Al 57.2. (in the catalogue entry for this site). This analysis is an attempt
.
to reconstruct as far as possiblecontextual relationships between graves, burials and surrounding
contexts: floors and walls. This is based on the data contained in the preliminary report, which
was not designedto allow for such an analysis.Plansexist of all trenches but sections are mostly
unavailable, and textual descriptions rarely place a burial in context.
In general it has proved impossible to reconstruct contextual relationships between graves and
their surroundings. One or two casesare quite clear, but becausethey are so few in number
they tell us little about the general tradition of burial. Close study of the 1972 report has
however led to some important observations. In what follows the material is discussedin the
order of Taylour's trenches. Trench A is located in the centre of the site, trench D to the north,
and trench B to the south (Taylour 1972, figure 1).
102
Area D (Al. S7.12): Taylourrecognises two alignmentsof wallsamongthe remains,and one
that the earlierwallsare either EH or early MH In
set Is clearlylater than the other. He suggests
date, on the basisthat somepottery of EH dateis associated
with someof the wallson the same
alignmentin trenchA to the south.Floorsare not explicitlydescribedIn the report and are not
placed In relation to the walls. The finds from the excavationhere are all LHIII with the
exceptionof one EH and one LHI/ll Item. The later seriesof wallsIs datedto the MH period on
the basisthat burialsD7 (Al. S7.15) and D25 (Al. S7.13 right), both quite well-datedto
MH, are later than the secondseriesof walls.Somerebuildingis perhapsattestedIn LHIIIB. The
smallamountof pottery recordedfrom the trench (without context) Is all fineware,which leads
one to questionwhat coarsewares
were presentand how they shouldbe dated.
The only absolutelyclear-cutInstanceof a contextualrelationshipbetweena burial and domestic

architecturethat may be read from the preliminaryreport Is that of burial D10, which lay on
top of wall bc. Taylour supposedthat this skeletonhad been removed from one of the cast
gravesnearbyand placedon the wall. Wall be Is part of the earlier seriesof buildings.In the
casesof other burialswhere It Is clear that a relationshipexisted,for exampleburialsD27 or
D25, there Is little In the report to facilitateassessmentof what that relationshipmight be.
BurialD7 Is saidto cut wall bb, and D25 Is saidto disturbwallsbi and bm. It seemslikely that
burial D27 cutsInto wall bo. The burialsIn trench D are all dated MH or LHI, althougha good
manyof thoseare so datedwithout specificartefactualevidence.
On the basisof the evidenceaswe haveit, thoseburyingin areaD were makinguse

of an area
not at that time usedfor settlement.The sequenceis:
Firstbuildingphase(EH or earlyMH)
Secondbuildingphaseon differentalignment(MH)
Cemetery(MH-LHI)
Somerebuilding(LHIII)
As far as choiceof locationis concernedin trench D at 57:AyosStEfanos,rather than a strictly

intramuralsetting,it appearslikely that burialswere beingplacedin an area not then usedfor
settlement.Those burying there would, however, hardly have been unawareof the detritus
locateddirectly beneaththe ground.Eachact of graveconstructionwould be likely to throw up
the remainsof the past. Therefore it may be that choice of location was governedby the
presenceof ancestralremainsin the area. This brings to mind the situation at for example

I7: Vo"dhokili,
wherean MH moundwasheapedup of EH remains
settlement (other examples
of this phenomenonare givenbelow).
Area A (Al. S7.3): this is locatedat the crown of the site, to the south of areaD. Here the
domesticarchitectureseemsto representthree phases,two EH and one MH, with LH material
with architecture.The burialsof this trench are
presentin the upper layersbut not associated
either EH or MH In date, with two noted as 'MH/LH? ' The MH walls are listed as ad, ax, ar,
aq, ak. The two gravesrepresented by A29 (Al. S7.6 right) are presumably dated `MH/LH? '
because both seem to cut into the continuation of ar, the supposed apse of a long apsidal
building whose west wall Is ad.
In generalit seemslikely herethat all the burialsare disassociated

with contemporarydomestic
structures.If there Is a long apsidalbuildingto the east,Its relationshipto the burialsIs unknown
(savethat A29 shouldpresumablybe later). I believethat here alsothe best Interpretationof
the limited evidenceis that the burialsformedan interveningphasewhen the areawasnot used
for domesticstructures. The preponderance of cist gravesin the southernpart of this areais
alsoof interest,suggesting
that that particularlocationmay havebeendeemedmore suitableto
a slightlymore monumentalform of gravearchitecture(for example,A23 Al. S7.6 left; A31
Al 57..7).
.
Area B: the stratigraphyIn this areawasextremelycomplex,as explainedby the excavator,and

It Is Impossibleto offer any assessment
asto whetherburialsIn this areawere madeamongthen-
current habitationor not. Taylourdid not recognisean EH period In this area,but did find both
MH and LHI architecture.
Other areas:thesetrenchesclusteron the westsideof the site. Thesetrenchesare too smallto

makeany statementsaboutthe contextof burials.
To summarisethe contextual analysisof the earlier excavationsat 57:Ayos Stefanos,It Is

suggested,on the basisof limited that
evidence, most MH-LHII burialswere located In areas
known to havebeen inhabitedIn the past but not actuallyInhabitedat the time of interment'.
While the burialsare generallydispersedthroughoutthe excavatedareas,In some casesthey
for in
seemclusteredtogether, example the north-centralsection of trench D, and somelarger
castgravesseemcentred around the southernsectionof trench A. If these observationsare
' Similarobservations at Mee: 1998,24.

are listedby Cavanagh
elsewhere

in
valid, then the act of locationchoice for those burying at 57:Ayos Stefanos two factorsmay
be present:a desireor tradition that burial take placeamongruins associatedwith ancestors,
and a topographiclogic suggestingthat one burial may be positioned relative to another In
accordancewith someperceivedconceptualrelationship.
The sizesof the trenchesthat producedthis formidablenumberof burialsare small,and given

the presenceof adult and child burialsin almostevennumbers,it seemsmore likely herethan at
37:Mlthi that the whole population is represented,although more chronologicalcontrol is
neededto determinethe lengthsof useof cemeteries.Thus, althoughthere are problemswith
working hypothesisIs that
the Interpretationof both setsof material,it seemsthat a reasonable
37:Mlthi and 57:Ayos Stefanosdo not revealsimilarburial practices.At 37:M31thiIntramurlal
burial is restricted to a minority of people, usuallychildren, and the practice may well be
restrictedchronologically.At 57:AyosStefans Intramuralburialseemsmuchmore likely to be a
standardpractice, perhapsthroughout the MHI-LHII period which is here under study; it is
however possiblethat the practice becameless common toward the end of the period.
Ultimately,with no knowledgeof the true extentof the site, the intensityof its inhabitation,and
the true number of intramural burials, it remainsan open questionwhether burial or other
funeralrites might haveat timesbeenconductedelsewhere.
Very few of the 57:Ayos Stefanosgraveswere reused, despite the fact that architectural
refinementssuch as stone surroundsmay well have made them visible for some time after
construction.Only three gravescontainedmore than one burial, and althoughin other cases
skeletalmaterialhad beendisturbedby later burials,it is often clear that theselater burialswere
not beingspecificallylocatedin the samepit or cast- makingit likely that the earlier material
was discoveredfortuitously. In locatingthe gravetherefore, althoughgraveswere placedin a
cemeterycontext, there doesnot seemto havebeena specifictradition of returningto graves
to use them again,but it was not unusualto come acrossand rebury skeletalmaterial in the
cemetery area.
Other 'intramural' sites: although with sites such as 3:Nisakoll, 9:KaratsJdhesLoutr6,

35:PeristeriJ, 37:Mlthi, 41:Fi1iatr3Stomion, 48:MirJka, 53:Menelalon, and perhaps
59:Pavlopetrf,one cansaythat peoplechoseto bury within an areaof settlement,this doesnot
imply that intramuralburial wasthe normalchoice,sincethe numberof known gravesIs small,
and other burial locationsmay not have been soughtor found by excavatorsand surveyors.
Choiceof locationmay thereforebe dependenton other factors;as alreadynoted at 37:MJlthl
for example,the majorityof burialsare of children.

The meagreevidencealso Indicatesthat where intramuralburial was being practised,it may
again be disusedparts of settlementwhere such burial was taking place. The singlegraveat
41:Fi1iatr
Stomion(Al. 41.2), for example,seemsto be situatedIn a previouslyusedareaof
settlement,but not In a layerIndicatingcurrentoccupation2.At 53:Menefaion,on the Ai tos hill
burialswere made In an area previouslyusedby two MHII kilns, with no other
evidenceof occupation.Whenthe graveswere built, the areawasseeminglynot In usein any
other way. At 48:Mirka,gravesappearto be locatedslightly away from walls (Al . 48.1);
there Is howeverno stratigraphicInformationas to the relationshipbetweenwalls and graves.
The relationshipbetweenthe 24:Englian6sgraveand any possiblecontemporaryhabitationIs
unknown.
The child gravesat 35:Peristeriwere placedin the floors and walls of the rooms of the East
(Al 35..51) and North Houses,suggesting (but not proving) that the burialspost-datethe use
.
of the areasfor occupation.The chronologyof the EastHouse,basedon the objects found
within, placesIts destructionat the very end of LHI, with the constructionof tholos tomb 1
followingalmostImmediately(Llos1985,540). If the child gravespost-datethe habitationof
the EastHouse,they form a brief funerarypreludeto the constructionof tholos tomb 1. The
habitation period of the EastHouseIs contemporarywith
nearby tholos tomb 3 and south
tholos 1. No structureon the hill hasso far beenshownconclusivelyto havea middle helladic
phase,so the earliesttombsand other structuresare broadly contemporary.Are the structures
simple dwellingsamidst the tholos tombs, or are they part of an Infrastructuremore directly
related to the tombs themselves?The location of burials In the East House after Its
abandonment,and its subsequentpartial destructionand completeburial In the constructionof
tholos tomb 1, reinforcesthe significanceof the mortuary aspectsof the hill from MHIII to
early LHIIA.
At 3:Nisakodiltwo burials,one in a pithos and the other extendedIn a pit, lay within a few
metres of a middle heliadic'altar' (a third burial was of Iron age or later date, or had been
disturbedthen). It seemspossiblethat in this unusualcasethe 'altar' formed a point of focus
around which burialscould be located.The reported areaof excavationis quite wide, but no
other burialsare reported.The altar seemsto havebeenusedoften, so perhapsthe burialswere
located here becauseof the importanceof the altar, rather than the altar being a primarily
funerarydevice.A buildingwasnoted In the vicinity. One other child's burial Is knownto have
beenlocatedamid the wallsof settlement.
Z ThisIs dependenton my understanding

of stratigraphicdetailsIn a report which Is preliminary.

Extramural tombs and cemeteries: few sites seem to represent extramural cemeteries:
45: Makrisia, 50:Armtova, 51: Anlipsis, 55: Amikleon, 56: Yer3kl and 61: Krokees, but these are
either unexcavated or very poorly understood. At 56: Yerikl (Al. 56.1-3), the burials were
located on an akropolis probably inhabited in the middle helladic period, at 61: Kroke6ssurvey
indicated that the tomb may located in the midst of settlement, and at 55: Amik(eon it Is possible
a habitation site was nearby. The cist tomb at 51: AnJilpsis was found near the thoios tomb
cemetery, although the connection is obscure. Each of these potentially extramural sites is
located on high ground, whereasthe locations of all the sites under consideration here are highly
variable, ranging from akropolis sites like 37: Mlthi (Al.. i7.1-2) and 46: Makrlsia to sites on
the plain like 57: Ayos Stefanos(Al S7.1-2) and those on the coast like 59: Pavlopetrf.
.
In summary,the sampleof sitesdiscussedhere can hardly be Imaginedto be representativeof

any time or region. It seemslikely that the reasonsfor burial locationswill have been locally
determinedand understood,and there will never have beena generaltrend. However,much
evidenceIs requiredto pursuethis questionproperly.

more well-excavated
Procession andgatheriag
The relationshipbetweenplacesof burial and habitation,which hasformed the

main subjectof
discussionconcerningthe location of simpler burials, also to a great
extent defines the
parametersof movementto and gatheringat the grave.In a very few cases,where It Is possible
that the deadwere buried in the housewhere they died, there would be no transportationof
the corpseand consequentlyno procession;but it is suggestedthat such burial formed a very
small minority of those under discussionhere, or none at all. Therefore in most or all casesa
processionfollowingthe corpseto its graveis at leastlikely. Where burialstook placewithin or
adjacentto the inhabitedarea,sucha processionwould passthrough the streetsof the town; at
57:AyosStefanos,whereit is suggested that the burial groundswere not Inhabitedat the time of
their funeraryuse,the processionwould come perhapsfrom a nearbyInhabitedareaand then
passInto the abandonedpart of the site now usedasa cemetery.
Extramuralburial wasprobablynormal for adultsat 37:M3/th1,while Intramuralburial may have

been more normal for children: processionsand routes of movement to the grave would
consequentlyvary with ageat death.This perhapsalsoappliesat 48:Mirka,wherethe burialsIn
however.
or at the edgeof settlementare all of children.It doesnot apply to 57:AyosStEfanos,

The ability for the mourners to gather at the grave is constrained by grave architecture and by
the immediate environment. As described in chapter six, all of these burials are placed in simple
gravessuch as pits and cists, which have little modifying effect on the environment in terms of
freedom of movement. Mourners may therefore gather around these graveswith no particular
orientation and no favoured position. In the case of intramural graves, the built environment
would clearly have an effect in constraining this freedom to gather; however, given the
suggestionin many casesthat the surrounding architecture was out of use and probably in ruins
by the time it was used for burial, the effect may have been minimal. In some cases,however, If
a burial took place within a standing structure, the number of people able to attend at any given
time would be quite limited. This might reflect either the small-scalenature of the event, or else
it might allow for a section of the funeral to be private, something participated in by a select
group of people.
THE MHFII PERIOD (TABLE 1 7, PAGE 33)

.
Locating the grave
The locationsof the five sites consideredhere can be related to

a wider landscapeof burial
mounds:at 14:Ayos lonnisPapolia,the excavatedsite is part of a group of at leasteight: and
perhapssixteen4mounds;at 17:Voidhokilithere are two knownmounds;at 27:Rotsithere are
three; at Kokorkou (35:Peristeri)there is a single mound, excavated as part of the
investigationof the nearbylater Mycenaeancemetery.
14:Ayos lonnisPapolia:the excavatedmoundand othersare locatedon the

raisedlevel of the
plateauon a ridge top that is fairly broadand gentleat that point (Al. 14.6). This locationIs at
the northernend of a core of funerarysitesof middle or very early late helladicdate (described
below). Within 2-3km of the site are 15:Plitanosto the west, Ikiena (Siriopolou 1994,686)
to the southwest,where MH sherdsat two sitesindicatepossiblesettlement,another possible
settlementto the southeast(McDonald& Hope Simpson1964,232), and 27:Rotslto the
northwest.Four unexcavated moundsare locatedwithin about 400m of the site.
s Includingthe site itself, the four listedby Korresasnearby(seesite entry), and three at 15:P13tanos.
4 ThoseIn note 3 aboveand othersmentionedby Marin3tos:seesite entry.

Thus at the excavatedmound one finds oneselfsurroundedon all sidesby the ever-fainter
resonancesof other sites.Settlement
and other burial are
moundss locatedonly a few minutes'
walk away,and other sitesare on the peripheryof proximity.
There is alsosomeevidenceconcerningthe choice of location for the excavatedmound. We

betweennearbysitesbecauselackof excavationmeansthat the
cannotspeculateon relationships
is
exact chronology obscure. At the mound of 14:
Ayos Ioinnis itself,
Papolia though, there is
evidencein the form of a few sherdsof the early helladicperiod from the matrix of the mound
that EH settlementwaslocatedin the closevicinity. It Is thereforelikely that this burial mound
was createdcloseto or on top of an 'ancestral'settlement,as Is the casewith others noted
below, and recallsthe practiceof interment In the ruins of settlementnoted for many of the
simplergravesabove.
17:Voidhokili:this site is locatedon the coastat the north end of the Bayof Navar(no,on the
north side of what is now the entranceof the Bayof Voidhokilia (Al. 17.6). The situationis
spectacular:to the west and northwest,the sea; to the southwest,the continuation of the
peninsulatoward Sfaktiria(Al. 17.2); to the south and southeast,the Bayof VoTdhokili3and
beyondthe lagoon(Osmnaga)and the Bayof Navarfno(Al. 17.2); to the eastand northeast
a smallplateauand beyond,the coastalplain (Al. 17.6); to the north, the hill of ProfitasIlcas.
The precisepositionof the moundIs on the narrow neckof land runningsouthwestbut pierced
by the seaso that the mound on three sitesIs surroundedby low cliffs and the sea.The site is
widely visiblearound, to the north from ProfitasIlcasand to the southwestfrom the height of
Pale6kastro(Al. 17..3).
Knownsitesin the vicinity IncludeVoidhokilimound B on ProfitisIlcas,postulatedto be similar

to mound A. Korns speculatedthat settlementmight be located In between,on the small
plateau (1977a, 287). ElsewhereMH occupationIs attested In the Cave of Nestor (below
Palekastro;Siriopodlou 1994,227), as well as EH and late Mycenaean. Bronze age
occupationIncludingprobablythe middle helladicperiod Is attestedin the nearby Osmnaga
Lagoon (McDonald st Hope Simpson1964,232-233; 1969,149-150). Another mound
with pithosburialsis likely to be situateda little to the south (25:DhlvJrl).
The tumulusof 17.Voidhokiliis itself heapedup of the mixed settlementremainsof an EHII

habitationsite locatedunder and around the later MH monument. Excavationhasrevealeda
s Because the
they are unexcavated, contemporaneityof thesesitesIs not they
secure; are broadlyMH In
date.
Chapter Five The mortuary localein the l.indscape 109

numberof wallsand roomsalongwith many artefacts.One wall is saidto be neolithicin date.
This site is the clearestexampleof the occasionalrelationshipbetweenprevioushabitationand
burial,wherethe existinglocalehasbeenradicallytransformedIn form and meaningthroughthe
constructionof the MH burialmonument.
27:Rotsi:thesemoundsare locatedto the eastof the Englians

ridge and are separatedfrom It
by a deepgorge.The generallocationis that of a broadridge-top(A1. Z7.1). A short distance
to the southeastare the sitesaround 14:AyoslonnisPapoila,
asnoted above.
Once again early heiladic sherdswere found in the matrix of one of the mounds (the
Kaloyeropoloumound), raisingthe possibilitythat the location of this mound, at least,was
Influencedby the presenceof earlierhabitationremains.
35:Per!steri:the Kokorkoumound and the area of 35:Perlster!

i generallyare locatedon the
southsideof the SoulimaValley abovea high sheerface(A1.30-6). The Mycenaeansite of
35:Peristeriis located 500m to the east of and somewhatbelow the site of the mound of
Kokor3kou,which seemsto havebeenplacedat the north end of a high ridge so as to overlook
the valley to the north and perhapsthe site of 35:Perlsteribelow and to the east (Al. 35..1,
Al.. 35..4). The locationof this site is at the boundarybetweenthe valleyand the mountains:it
Is possiblethat it was locatedon a route into the mountainsfrom the valley; alternativelyIts
position might have been chosenas marginalto routine paths, but In a position to overlook
them.
Aside from the nearby and slightly later site of 35:Peristeri3,

where there Is evidencefor
MHIII/LHI habitationand burial, no sites are known In the Immediatevicinity,
nor is there
evidenceof earlier habitation.The nearestknown site is probably that of Vrfses,about 4km
southwest,again located above the Soulima Valley, where there was slight evidence for
habitation(Siriopoiou1994,676)'.
In summary,the foregoingobservationson all sitesconfirm the generalpreferencefor elevated

situationsalreadyremarkedon in chapterone. In severalcasesburial monumentsmakeuseof,
or at leastInterferewith, 'ancestral'materialin their matrices:localesthat were alreadyresonant
with human activity. Beyond these observations,It Is difficult to come to any deep
understandingof the locationof thesesitesIn the wider, Inhabitedlandscape.Observationsof
proximity to nearby sites are compromisedboth by chronologicaluncertainty and more
fundamentallyby incompletesurveyand lackof excavationInformationfrom thosesitesthat are
known. The lack of associatedsettlementin many casesmay well be an actual phenomenon
Chapter Five The mortuary localeIn the landscape 110

rather than an artefact of preservationor observation.It is legitimate to Imaginethat the
organisationof burial practicesand the locationof sitesin the landscapemight haveoperatedon
principlesmore complexthan a one to one relationshipbetweena given burial monument(or
monuments)and a settlementsite: this Is amply confirmedby taking the mainly unexcavated
sitesof the followingsectionInto accountaswell.
It remainsto considerthe locationof burialswithin monuments.
14:Ayos lonnisPapolia:as there Is no specificevidencethat the central constructionwasever

used for burial, It is perhapspresumptuousto discussIt here. There is howeveran interesting
contrastbetweenthe two main phasesof the mound. If we assumethat the horseshoe-shaped
constructionwas originally plannedas a burial chamber,then the architectureof the original
mound tendsvery much to emphasise and createa focuson that burial space(Al - 14.17). It Is
centralIn a constructionthat risesaroundit and from the landscape,and is madeprominentby
Its elevationand Its flat stonecappingor paving.The 'burial' spaceIs emphasised
by Its covering
of largerstoneslabs,and perhaps(the point is unclear)by Installationsoutsideat Its 'entrance'
and a possiblebreak in the mound to createa way in and line of focus. It is alsopossiblethat
this first phasewascoveredby an upper layerof earth.
If the centralconstructionshouldbe regardedasoriginally burial

a space,then it Is the only such
spacewithin this first phasearchitecture.Peripheralburials or their remainshave not been
located(althoughit shouldbe noted that the mound hasnot beenfully
excavated).The location
of burialsIn the mound at this time, if there were any, wasthereforelargelypredeterminedby
the architecture.
The secondphaseenlargedthe mound and buried the central construction(or buried it

more
deeply). However the secondphasearchitecture(as describedIn chapter six) was explicitly
designedto accommodatea series of peripheral radial burials In large pithol (Al. 14.5,
Al. 14.7). This leadsto two observations:first, the secondphaseof the mound changesIts
nature from a monumentwith a singleburial spaceto one designedto accommodatemore
burials,one after another, in separateburial spaces.Second,becauseof this design,It seems
that, evenIf the locationof burialswasnot exactlyplannedIn advance,the architectureof the
mound facilitatedthe placingof burialsIn certainplacesrather than others (and concomitantly
the mode of burial alsoseemspredetermined).

The consequences are ImportantIn an overallinterpretationof theseburial
of theseobservations
practices.Having chosenthis place as the location for burial, the monument Itself partly
structuredburial practices.Its architecture,aswell as a sharedhistory of how that architecture
had alreadybeenInterpreted,facilitatedsomekindsof burial practice(buryingin the periphery
of the mound) and constrainedothers. In thus structuringthe funeral, the mound need be
reinterpretedand Its structuresreworked.In this way the concernsand preceptsof thosewho
createdthe secondphasemound were continuallybrought Into discourseas each new funeral
wasmadeto happen,and through time this projectionof the IdeasphysicallyembodiedIn the
moundbecamea palimpsestof superimposed burialacts.
The burialsof this moundwere generallylocatedIn Its periphery.The deadwere placedIn large
pithol which are then placedwithin the mound at a point determinedby openingthe upper
stone layer to makespace.In generalthe pithoi were placedradially, mouths pointing to the
periphery,basespointing to the centre, althoughthere are one or two exceptions(detailedIn
the catalogueentry). The pithol were placedhigh In the mound, projectingfrom the shallow
cuttingsIn which they are set (againthere are one or two exceptions).In choice of location
within the mound, therefore,most timesa certainuniformity seemsto havebeenrespected,In
this as in other aspectsof the funeral.This againpoints to funeraryrituals that reproduceand
reworkperceivedtraditions.
The other burials of the mound are mostly later than those In the pithoi, and are mostly
regardedas later than the chronologicalboundsof this study (detailedin the catalogueentry).
One, numberfourteen,is quite possiblymiddle helladicin date and conformedIn locationand
orientationto the pithol: it wasset radiallyIn the periphery.The very smallcasts6,9 and 10 do
not conform to these principles,and equally exhibit quite different burial rites, in that they
containedthe mixed bonesof children. It Is possiblethat theseare MH In date. Theselater
burials were located In the mound, but with less respect for (and knowledge of?) the
orientationsdemandedof the primaryseriesof burials.
17:Voidhokifi:the history of mound A at 17:VoTdhokiliJ

In the MHI-II period Is somewhat
simpler than Its counterpartat 14:Ayos loJnnisPapou/1a,
consistingof only one architectural
phase.The location of burialsIn this mound followsa similar logic to those In 14:Ayos loinnis
Papolia.Again they consistof pithos burials placed radially In the mound, mouths to the
peripheryand basesto the centre(Al. 17.9, Al. 17.7). The site asexcavatedpresentsa more
confusedpicture becausein Its later historysomeof thesepithol were exhumedand reburiedat
different points within the monument. Two non-pithosburials are also associatedwith the

mound. One castburialwaslocatedon the periboiosof the mound, cutting It and not obviously
oriented with respectto the centre of the mound. The other was found on the eastside and
orientedeast-west,so perhapsalignedwith the mound.
In termsof locationof burial,then, the moundat 17.Vofdhoki1i3

seemsto haveactedthroughIts
architectureand people'sperceptionof it, as well as the mode of burial, to structurefunerary
practices.While the constructionof the mound and the specific acts of construction for
individualgravesdiffered from 14:Ayos loinnis Papoulia,the spatiallogic understoodby those
who used the mound seemsto have been identical to that understoodat 14:Ayos Ioinnis
Papolia.In this logic both the relationshipbetweenthe burial and the mound, and those
betweenburials,acted in determininglocation. The radial placementof burialsis thereforea
resultboth of the architectureof the moundand of an awareness
of other burialsat the time of
Interment.This logic appliesequallyto 17:VoTdhoki!!
J and 14:AyosloJnnisPapola.
27:Rotsi:in comparisonwith the previoustwo sites,the positionsof burialswithin thesethree

moundsare much lessclear. Of the mound made of stone no burialsare mentioned.Of the
Yorgopoloumound,there is a brief mentionof castgraves.
In the Kaloyeropoloumound at least one pithos burial similar to those of 14:Ayos loinnis
Papoliaand 17.Voidhokiliwas found, along with one peripheralcasttomb and a central pit,
similar in shapeto the central constructionat Papodlia,Its edge outlined with stones.The
meagreInformationdoesnot allow the reconstructionof a chronologicalseriesfor thesegraves,
so their relationshipto eachother in that senseIs obscure.While the picture presentedby the
Incomplete excavation seems less structured than that for 14:Ayos oJnnisPapoulia
and
17:Vo7dhokili3, it is worth pointing out the large and unusualpit In the centre of the mound
(Al. 27.2), perhapsforming a focus of activity and so
perhapsrelevant to the later act of
makinga newburial.
35:Peristerl3:
one pithosburialwaslocatedIn the northwestperipheryof the Kokorkoumound,
oriented with the mouth to the outsideand the baseto the centre. At leasttwo other pithos
burialswere present.It is possiblethereforethat a similarlocationallogic wasemployedat this
site asat 14:Ayosloinnis Papolia
and I7: VoTdhok1113.
Reuse, both of burial monuments In general and individual graves In particular, Is Indicated by
the evidence at each of these sites. None of the monuments under discussion here, or In the
following sections, appears to have been used only once. Their monumental appearance and

often eminent locationensuredthat, once they
constructed, becamea more or lesspermanent
and henceopento continuousreassessment.
part of the inhabitedlandscape, The Intent of their
makersis unlikelyto havebeento makea monumentto an Individual;but evenIf it were, that

intent wasquicklysubverted,so that eachof thesemonumentsseemsto haveaccruedmultiple
(thoughnot very numerous)burials,often followingsimilarburial customs.
There is also evidencefor the reuseof Individualpithol, clsts or pits: examplesare 14:Ayos
lomnnisPapouliapithos 5, where a secondskull was Insertedinto the pathos;pathos19 of the
samemound, where a secondIntermentfollowed the first (Al. /4.22); others of the pithol
from this mound may have been reusedor otherwiseInterferedwith - Information from the
1950s excavationsis sketchy;certainother castsfrom this moundwith multiple remainsmay or
may not date to the middle helladicperiod; from 17:Voidhok1lf3
pithoi 4 (Al. 17.19) and 6
(Al. 17.21) containedsecondIntermentspost-datingthe first; one castIn the Kaloyeropolou
mound at 27:Rotsicontainedfour skulls, evidencenot only of a return to the grave but

probablyalsoof Interferencewith the other gravesin the mound.Theremay be other Instances:
older excavationreportscanbe vagueon this topic.
The gravesin this sampleare markedIn two ways:in beinglocatedwithin a definedand raised
area (the mound) and, in the caseof most pithoi, In being located within gravesthemselves
monumentaland visible.The locationsof most pithol, not buried deeplyand with mouthsto the
outside, raisedabovethe level of the mound, leadsto the Impressionthat such graveswere
placed deliberately that their mouths would be easily noted, even If closed by stones
(Al. 14.23). This In turn suggests
that It wasIntendedthat the pithol be accessible,
and hence
be open to beinglocatedagain.However,althoughreuseof existinggraveswasclearlypossible,
It doesnot seemto havebeena regularpractice:most graveswere usedonly once.
Procession and gathering
None of the sitesunder discussionhere is closelyassociatedwith settlement(the closestlikely

example,the postulatedsettlementsite at 17:VoTdhok! is severalhundredmetresdistantfrom
113,
each burial mound). The monumenttherefore forms a point In the landscapeto which the
mournersmust move In order to carry out the funeraryrites. At 35:Peristerl3,the burial mound
of Kokorkou,locatedsome500m west of Peristeri3on anotherhill, would havebeena visible
point to which the mournerswould have toiled with the corpse. This time of movementor
processionmay well havebeenslow and disordered,but nonethelesshave Involveda body of
Chapter Five The monuiry facile In the landscape 114

peoplewith a unity of purpose.The situationIs similarat I7: Voldhokllli,where eachidentified
moundIs locatedabovethe supposedsettlementsite.
Although other factorsmay haveplayeda role, the only certaintyof processionis the needto
transport the corpseto the burial place. With theseburials,not only is the burial monument
elaborated beyond the `simpler' graves discussedabove, but also the mode of burial Is
elaborated.Most of the burialsIn thesemounds,In particularthoserelatedto the MHI-II phase,
involvedlargepithol (theseartefactsare fully discussed
in chapterseven).The processionwould
be emphasised by the requirementto transportthe pithos to the grave. Four or more people
would realisticallybe requiredfor this task, unlessthe jar were transportedon a wagon,which
would presentIts own difficulties.Blitzer(1990) talksof rolling the pathosdown a hill, but the
pitharlain questionwerestrengthened with ribs for this reason.
A numberof possibilitiesare present,dependingon whether the body was Insertedbefore or

after the procession:If before,then the processionwould focuson the pithos, as it wascarried
on the shouldersof the mourners,draggedalong by them, draggedalong by a donkey or
similar, or carried on a wagon. If the body were not already Inside the pithos, then the
processionwould havetwo foci (or Indeedthere may havebeentwo separateevents).In any
case,it is clear that the processof movementfrom elsewhereto the graveIs elaboratedby the
needto bring the pithos.
The monumental burial place located at least a short distance from

settlement, and the need to
transport corpse and pithos to that monument, ensured that a group of people would be
required to move from settlement or wherever the corpse was held before burial to the place of
burial. The need for people to act together to move heavy items (the
corpse and the pithos)
suggestsa group moving together. A procession Is therefore almost certainly an Important part
of the ritual of burial associatedwith these monuments.

BURIAL MOUNDS OF LIKE LY MH DATE
These mounds are listed in table 5.2 below.
I1i( Ii1iT-l)I'
I Finikonda MH possible No Information

2 Evangellsms MH probable MH
4 Mesohdrl Gdhiti Rahi MH possible MH
5 Y3lova Paleohrl MH possible MH
6 Pfla MH probable MH
8 Handrlno Kisss MH probable Probable MH-LHII; certain LHIII
15 Pl3tanos MH probable MH; likely LH
20 Tragna Kapourefka MH possible MH
21 Lefki Kaldamou MH probable MH
22 PirgosTsoka MH possible MH
25 Dhiv3ri MH probable MH
28 K3nalos MH possible MH
29 V3lta Kastrki MH possible MH possible; LHIIIAI certain
33 Militi Ayos Was MH possible MH
49 M3yeira MH Dossible MH: LHIII
Table 5.2. Tumulus sites of likely MH date.
Locating the grave
Most of these monuments are located on high points: I: Finikotinda (A I. /. 1-2), located at or
near the top of a hill overlooking the sea and the Gulf of Messinia; 4: Mesoh6ri (Al . 4.1),
situated on a crest above the surrounding plain; 5: Y3/ova,on top of a ridge or ridges high above
the coast and Navarino; 6: Pila (AI. 6.1), on top of a ridge at the interface between the coast
and the hinterland, with views over Navarino Bay; 8: Kiss6s (All . 8.5), the excavated mound
situated rather dramatically on the edge of (now) cultivated land as it drops into a ravine that
runs alongside the high conical hill of Profitis Iljas, one of the most visible landmarks of this part
of Messinia; 15:Pltanos(AI. 15.2), situated at the end of a low ridge; the seven mounds of
20: Tragnaand 21: Lefki, strung out along the great Ambelbfito ridge, and at various raised
points on the ridge (Al . 21.1, Al . 21.3-6, Al . 21.8-9, Al . 21.17); 29: V31ta,where if a
mound ever existed, it was situated on a high point in the landscape, perhaps on the saddle
between hills; and 33: Mili6ti, if it is a burial mound, is said to be located on the crest of a ridge.
This list includes most sites under discussionin this section. Of those not included, none can be
said to occupy a non-prominent position: for example, none has been found in the ravines
between the ridges of western Messinia (although there Is a possibility of bias in the Intensity of
The for this is not merely that there was a preference for prominent points in
searches). reason
116
the landscape;it is alsothat the very architectureof a mound,which juts out of Its surroundings
and attractsthe focusof those approachingIt toward Its centre, is servedand enhancedby a
locationat the most prominentpoint In the landscape.The few locatedon non-prominentareas
nevertheless becomeprominent becauseof their protrusion from the landscape(for example
2:Evangelism6s,
and in the previoussection, 14:Ayos loinnis Papolia:Al. >4.2, A1.11.9). In
other words, the logic that makesthe form of the mound prominentIs clearlyenhancedby the
choiceof a prominentpoint for the mound.
This is not howeverthe only considerationin theselocations.Although by no meansuniversal,

In many casesit seemsthat these moundswere located not merely on high ground, but at
marginalpointsof the landscapethat may seemto serveasinterfacesbetweenthe coastand the
Interior, and may well be relatedto routesfrom the coastInland.This would appearto be the
casewith the Ambelfito ridgesites(20:Traginaaz21:Lkfkl), wherea seriesof moundsis strung
out along a ridge running from the coastalstrip up Into the Messenianplateau;other sitesas
noted aboveare locatedon hills or ridgesabovethe coast: 1:Finikodnda,5:Y3lova,6:Pllaand
29: Vlta.Other sitesare clearlyat points of Interface,althoughnot of coastand inland; most
notably,8:Kiss6s.Similarconsiderations
might be appliedto someof the sitesInvestigatedIn the
previoussection:35:Peristeri3Kokor3kou,and I7: Voidhokili3;and similar factorsapply to some
of the later sitesdiscussed
below.
Not all sitesfulfil the criteria of placementIn a marginallocation, and In each Individualcase
transientfactorsrooted in the individualsInvolvedwould haveplayedthe most Importantrole in
location. The observed preference for marginal locales resulted from those individuals'
of the landscapeand an appropriateplacefor the deadIn It. While the deadwere
understanding
to be hidden away In the mound, the presenceof the dead, through the medium of the
prominently positionedmound, was to be made permanent.The marginal localesservedto
emphasisethe cultural landscape:in prominenceand visibility, In location on everydayor rarely
used pathways,betweencoastand hinterland,betweenlowland and upland, and betweenthe
localesof life: settlement,cultivated areas, harbours.The mounds of Messinfaare located
between;they refinethe meaningof the Interface.
Giventhat most of thesesitesare unexcavated,It Is generallyunknownwhetherany of them are

locatedon top of previoussettlements,assomeof the moundsdiscussed In the previoussection
were (a singleEHII sherdfrom mound 123 at 2I: Lefklprovidesthe meresthint of this).
Chapter Five The mortuary locale In the landscape 117

The locations of graveswithin monumentsIs hardly open to Investigationin unexcavated
monuments.A few have provided a little evidence:many of the moundson the Ambeldflto
ridge (20:Traganaex 21:Lefkl), for example,apparentlyshowedevidencefor 'cover slabs'and
pithos fragments,evidencethat different modesof essentiallysingleburial were practisedat the
sites.
The very visible stone slabsreported again and again In connectionwith these mounds, If
correctly Interpretedas gravecover slabs,may well havebeenas visibleIn the pastas they are
in the field today. If the slabswere left uncoveredby earth, or IndeedIf one or
to researchers
more wasset upright, then they may well have formed markerson the surfaceof the mound,
visiblereferencepoints to memoriesof pastevents,eachnew burial perforcelocatedIn relation
to thoseothersmadevisibleon the surfaceof the monument.The sameappliesto caseswhere
pithosburialsremainedprominenton the surfaceof a mound.
Little more can be said of the sitesthat have been excavated.At 8:Klss6s,for example,the
mound containeda number of burials in pithoi and in 'grave enclosures'.The sequenceof
constructionand depositionfor this mound is rather unclear(seecatalogueentry), but I assume
that the pithoi were earlier and the 'grave enclosures'later: the locationallogic of burial may
therefore have been similar to that at some of the sitesdiscussedin the previoussection.At
49:M3yeira,it appears'that a mound containedseveral(at leastfour) funerarypithol, although
nothing Is knownof their arrangement,which may havebeendisturbedIn a later period in any
case.
The point that thesesites are generallylocated in marginallocations,not directly related to

settlement,addsemphasisto the necessityfor a processional
phaseas part of the funeraryritual.
As noted with the excavatedmounds above, this phasemust in many caseshave Involved
movementfrom settlementor from any givenstartingpoint toward the mound, often Involving
a climb to Its elevatedposition, some at least of the mournersburdenedby the body and
perhapsIn manycasesby a largepithosaswell.
b The Interpretationof this siteIs problematic:refer to the catalogueentry.
Chapter Five The mortuary localeIn the Lindscipe 1 18

THE MI1111 LHI PERIOD (TABLES 1 II, PAGES 33-34)
.8&I.
With the possible exception of Kokorikou at 35: Peristeri3,all sites discussedas MHI-II (table
1.7, page 33) continued to be used in this period, and 8: Kiss6swas also probably in use.
Locatingthe grave
None of the sites under consideration here seemsto be isolated from other, similar sites, with
the exceptions of 16:Korifisio and 46: Makrisia, where it may simply be that associated
monuments have not been discovered. We can therefore say that in almost all cases
monumental funerary sites of the MHIII-LHI period in the area under study are found in groups
of closer and wider associations, and indeed are often associated with earlier or later
monuments as well. These groupings are set out in table 5.2 below.
7 Dhidhia 81 Strefi Likely two other tholol nearby

8 Handrino Kisss Three other mounds at around 1km distance from excavated mound
10 Gouval3ri Eight mounds containing tholos tombs (where excavated) at site;
akropolis site of Katarah3kl over gorge; five other tholol of early
Mycenaean date in vicinity (12: Koukounira); another tholos perhaps
late Mycenaean; 13:Kaminia
13 Kam(nia two mounds at site; IO:Gouvalirl
14 Ayos Ionnls Papolia Mound with three or seven other mounds In the vicinity; three
mounds around I5: PI3tanos;three mounds and two thoios tombs at
27: Rotsi
16 Korifsio None/uninvestigated
17 Voldhokili3 Two mounds
23 Vollmidhia Cemetery of at least 34 chamber tombs; 24: Englian6s4km distant
24 Englian6s:Vayen3s 6t One other tholos (LHII); LHII chamber tomb and later chamber
tholos IV tombs; 23: Vollmldhla 4km distant; on Ambel6flto-Trag3na ridge to
west and northwest, two LHI-III tholol (18: Tragina) and perhaps
many MH burial mounds (20: TragJna812 116W); others more
distant to the east
27 Rotsi Three mounds and two tholoi; 14:Ayos Io3nnlsPapoliaclose by
30 Nlh6ria Group of (likely) five MHIII or LHI tholoi; two other early tholol
nearby; mound; LHIII tholos tomb
32 Paleohrla Unknown/ I. 5km from IO:Gouval.rl
35 Perlsterl3 Five tholos tombs, MH burial mound, MH-LH grave, other graves
39 Ps3rIMetsfkl two or more tholos tomb, possibleother funerary monuments
43 Kato Samikb Klldhf five or six tumuli, one tholos
46 Makrfsla: Profftis Ilfas None/uninvestigated
51 An3flpsis (small eight small tholol; LHII tholos; MH clst nearby
tholol)
58 Ep(dhavrosLlmlr chamber tomb cemetery (at least 10 tombs, LHI-IIIC)
62 Kithira: Kastri A group of seven and more chamber tombs, and four cavesused as
chamber tombs
Table 5.2. Groupings of burial monuments. Many are intervisible; some are simply proximal, and a few
are related by other features, as explained In the text below (for example, sites 10 & 13 by the Pot3ml
tou ArSpi).
119
The listingsin table 5.2 demonstratethat
" singletombs are almost never found, and where they exist InadequateInvestigationmight
explainthe apparentabsenceof other tombs;
" most tombs thereforeexist In closeproximity to others (usuallyunder the samesite name
and catalogueentry);
" moreover(in Messintaat least)the tombsand groupsare linked In wider landscapenetworks
of this period and of precedingand succeeding
periods.
10:Gouvalirlcollectivelyrefers to numerousmonuments,and taking Into accountnearbyand

linked sitesit forms the centre of one of the largestfunerarycomplexesof Messinfa.The site
Itself consistsof eight mounds,not all of which have been (legally) excavated,but those that
havewere shownto containtholos tombs.The most prominentmound encirclesthe two larger
tholol (the only tombs regardedas 'proper tholoi' In the traditional typology: chapterfour for
the excavationof this site). This mound is situatedat the highestpoint abovethe Pot.ml tou
Ar3pl, a stream (officially the GouvalriRiver) that hascut an extremelydeep bed with sides
straightdown. The other main excavatedmound (A) liesto the eastof the moundwith the two
tholol, acrossa basin-likedrop (Al. 10.50) that separatesthe edgeof the Pot3mland the two
tholostombsfrom the main flat areaof the Messeniankmbosthat otherwisesurroundsthe site.
No surveyof the site hasbeen published,and I have not been able to produce even a rough
sketchof the area,for reasonsexplainedIn the catalogueentry.
The Potmitou Ar3pi (A4.13) is the most Interestinglandscapefeaturein this area,and It has
been made use of In the topology of the burial monumentsof the area. This area of flat and
fertile land which stretchesas far as the eye can seehasIts modem boundsare definedby the
villagesof Koukounrato the west, Stenosi3to the southwest,Handrino to the southeast,
Soulin3rlto the east,and Kremmfdhiaand Velanfdhiato the north and northeast.The Pot3mi
tou Arpt runs southwestfrom Kremm(dhiato just east of Koukoun3raand further south. It
effectivelycutsthe main areaof the plain off from routesto the coastalstrip to the west, asthe
Pot3ml is largely impassable.It therefore forms a barrier and a likely route southwestto
northeaston this sideof the plain.
At the site of 10:Gouvalirlthe width of the Pot.ml is minimal (certainlylessthan 50m). On the
westside, oppositethe mound with the two largertholol, a smallakropolisjuts out toward the
site and abovethe surroundinglandscape.This akropolis(Katarah1kl;Al. IA51) wasoccupied
Chapter Five The mortuary localeIn the landscape 120

In the MHIII-LHI period, and excavationshave the superimposedremainsof two buildings7.
Despitethe proximity of the mound and the akropolis,there Is no route betweenthe two (I
estimateabout 2 hoursto walk betweenthe two, usinga point In the river cutting to the south
that is today passable).Evenif the gap were bridged by a rope or wooden construction,the
landscapesetting remainsextraordinary.Although the view between the two sites is now
obscuredby thick vegetation,one can imaginethat the sight of the tholos mound from the
akropolis,or the sightof the akropolisfrom the tholosmound,would be striking.
A number of other funerary sites is strung out along this gorge In both directions,
predominantlyon the eastside:on the westonly the site of 11:Akneshasbeendiscovered.On
the eastside,startingfrom north and movingsouth,the known sitesconsistof two moundsat
13:Kaminia,the mounds of 10:Gouvalrland a small tholos nearby at Poll Dhendhra,two
mounds (one at least containing a tholos tomb) and one other (underground) tholos at
12:Fities, and one or two tholol at Livadhiti (120ties). One further tholos tomb at
32:Paleoh6riais probably some distancefrom the gorge (perhapsabout 1.5km east of it,
situated in the middle of the plain). The majority of these other sites (the exceptionbeing
13:Kaminia)date to LHI-IIA or later, and are discussed
in the next section.
Another, perhapslessclearly defined, funerarylandscapeis formed of the monumentsof and

aroundthe later Palaceof Nestor (24:Englianos).Specificallyonly the Vayenstholos tomb and
tholos IV seemto date to this period, but In the Immediatelysucceedingperiod anothertholos
tomb and a smallchambertomb cemeterycomeinto use.Englian6sIs one of the seriesof ridges
running northeastto southwesttoward the Bay of Navarino (Al. 24.3). The surrounding
landscapehasrecentlybeenstudiedby Nigel Spencerunder the auspicesof the PylosRegional
Archaeological
Project (Spencer 1995). He draws attention to the number of funerary and
settlementsites around Englian6s,and in particular points to the likely high visibility of the
prominent mounds of the Ambel6fito ridge (20:Tragana& 21: L. fki) from the palacesite
(A1.21.1, A1.21.3). To suggestthat all thesemonumentswere placedso as to encirclethe
site of the later palacemay only be part of the explanation:both the Englian6sridge and the
Tragina-Ambel6fitoridge may have been well-usedroutes from coast to hinterland,and the
monumentslocatedon them will havebeenand becomelocalesentwinedIn theseroutes.In the
" Here Marintos excavated the remains of at least two buildings, one of which measured 10.8m x 5.5m
and contained two column bases, suggesting that its usage might be something more than domestic
(Al. 10.52). He suggestedtwo phasesof use, LHI and early LHII, but these excavationsare so slight and
provisional that we should be careful about these results. Middle helladic pottery Is also noted, and there
are other buildings on the hilltop. The pottery characterisation was confirmed by Ldlos (1985,28-41),
who also published a sketch of the remains taken from Marintos' notebook (1bldem,figure 27).
Chapter Five The mortuary locatein the landsG3pe 121

caseof the 24:Englian6smonuments,however,the locationsof the monumentswere partly
definedin relationshipto the locationof the later palace.
The later Palaceof Nestor Is set on a low eminenceon the high point of the ridge, coveringan
areaof about 170m northeastto southwestand up to 80m to
northwest southeast. Tholos V Is
of the later palace,on slightly lower ground,while tholos

locatedsome 145m south-southwest
IV is locatedsome 100m northeastof the,eminence(or about 180m northeastof the later
palaceA1.24.9-10); In other words,the three monumentsare locatedIn a line on top of the
ridge (generalplan, Biegenet all! 1973, figure 301). The many small testson the palacesite
haveconfirmedmiddle helladicand earlyMycenaeanoccupationof the site, while the enclosure
wall (Biegenet alii 1973,8-18; Al . 24.9) is believedto be an LHI construction:the entrance
of the wall is alignedwith the dromosof tholos IV. The two tholostombsof this date therefore
form part of the wider locale of the occupationof the later palacearea in the MHIII-LHI
period.
About 4km north of Englian6sIs the site of 23: Volimfdhia.Of the 34 and more tombs at
the earliest(Kefal6vriso1) Is the only one of differing morphology:it may be a
23: Vo11mfdh1a,
funerary mound, or a simpler grave (Al. 27.1, A1.2718 left). It is dated to MHIII, and
more or lessimmediatelywas followed by the constructionof chambertombs in very close
proximity. By the late LHI period the numberof thesehad reachedmore than 34, and the area
of the cemeterycoveredseveralhundredmetreseastto westand north to south.
The first questionto be answeredin relation to the location of this site concernsthe initial
foundingof Kefal6vriso1. This monumentis uniqueIn this site in not being a chambertomb,
and Its purely MHIII pottery contrastswith the other chambertombs, all containingMycenaean
pottery. It Is possiblethat other suchearly gravesmight not havebeendiscovered.Thereis little
to explainthe location of Kefal6vriso1. It is set In the middle of a plain, and althoughIt may
havebeen coveredby a mound, it was certainlynever a prominent point (the later chamber
tombsare set In the sameflat groundand are non-prominent).Whateverpromptedthe location
of Kefal6vriso1 at this point, the earliestchambertombs of the cemeterywere built In very
closeproximity (20m to 30m at most) to it, perhapsevenbeforeit went out of usefor burial,
and almostcertainlywhile it wasstill a visiblepoint In the plain. The other groupingsof tombs
seemlikely to dateto a slightlylater phaseIn LHI.
of the tombs.Although they were regarded

The secondquestionrelatesto the interrelationships
as clusteredwhen excavated,this does not seem to be the case:tombs were found during the

different groups.Now that
excavationin proximity to eachother in different areas,suggesting
34 or more tombs have been excavated,the three groups of Angelopolou, Vori3 and
Kefalbvrisoseemin fact to form a more or lesscontinuousarea(about 250m eastto westand
about 100m north to south), and only the Koronfougroup still looks to be separatefrom the
mainarea(about200m to the north of the Kefal6vrisogroup). Scanttracesof settlementIn the
vicinity are dated LHI/IIA (Lobos1985,23-27). All of theseelements- the MHIII burials,the
LHI chambertombs, and the LHI-IIA 'settlement'- must be consideredIn an Interpretationof
the formationof the culturallandscape
of 23:Volimldhia.
The chronologicalevidence- flawedas it is - is stronglysuggestiveof a hypothesisthat hasan

initial burial site chosenat Kefal6vriso,and in the aftermaththe constructionof a numberof
chambertombs in the sameplace.Then, during a relativelyshort chronologicalhorizon,many
more chambertombswould be constructedover a largerareaand as far awayas the Koronfou
and Angelopolouareas.It is possiblethat other strictly MHIII gravesremainunexcavated,but
all the chambertombsare at the earliestMHIII-LHI, and most are LHI or LHI-IIA (asarguedin
the site entry). The 'settlement'evidence,suchas it Is, comeslate in this sequence,makingit
possiblethat the existenceof the 'settlement'is a resultof the presenceof the cemetery,rather
than the other way round.
Individually,the tombswere locatedIn relation to one another, as shownnot only In physical

proximity but also in orientation.The majority of the tombs are oriented with dromoi to the
west, and in somecasesare clearlylined up (especiallythosein the Angelopolouarea,where
the tombs are built next to eachother in a very slight slope). The growth of the cemeteryis
most easilyunderstoodin terms of an expansionwestwardfrom the core group at Kefal6vriso,
with orientationto the west.Only the Koronfougroup Is significantlydifferentlylocated.
The landscape
of 23: VolimidhiaIs not ImmediatelyImpressive.The cemeteryis locatedin almost
flat land to the north of the modem town and away from the highly dissectedcountry to the
south and west. The areais a smallplain, with the Egaleonmountainrangerising to the north
and east. The flat land and the spring of Kefaldvrisomake the area a good candidatefor
settlement, as It Is In modem times, and was clearly In Roman times (the entire area of
Volimidhia Is thickly scatteredwith Romansherds).Its positionIs further emphasised
both as a
smallplain betweenthe mountainsto the north and eastand the ridgesto the south and west,
and asa likely crossroads
of routesbetweenthe coastand the mountains.

30:Nih6riais locatedon the other sideof the Egaleonrangefrom most of the Messinlasites,and
so does not belong to the network of sites on the west coast. The Nihdrla ridge Itself Is
spectacularlysituated(Al.. T0.1, Al. 30.3), especiallyapproachingfrom the south,wherethe

ridgerisessome40m abovethe land below(Lukermann& Moody 1978; Rapp1978). On the
north side too, the ridge is prominentfrom the surroundinglandscape.The tombscollectively
referredto under this nameare locatedIn variousplaces,not on the ridge itself but mainlyon
its westside:perhapssignificantly,asthe westsideIs the easiestapproachto the ridgeitself.
Thesetombs are unusualin being so explicitly associatedwith a large settlementsite. The

surroundingareaof Nih6rla was fairly intensivelyinhabitedin this period, and other likely MH
or early LH tombs have been located (detailed in the catalogueentry). Likely routes of
movementbetweensitessuggestthe locationof burial monumentsin relationto thosepathways
(Lukermanna Moody 1978).
Two sites are located in the far north of Messinla,In the SoulimaValley: 35:Peristeriand
39:Psri.The former Is an akropolisthat risesdramaticallyin sheercliffs on the southsideabove
the valleybottom and the river no greatdistanceinto the valleyfrom Its western
coastalterminus.The approachto the site may well not havebeendirectly from the valley,but
rather from the coast(asit is today). The earliestcomponentof the burial sitesIs the moundof
Kokorkou,on a separateridge to the west; on the akropolisItself one large tholos tomb is
located in the central upper part of the site, with two other tholol lower and to one side
(Al . 35..3); the other tholol are on a plateauat the bottom of the akropolis;the entire areais
surroundedby higher land on all sides, especiallyto the south where lie the mountains
(Al 35..7). This site is againthereforeat topographicalmarginsand likely positionedon routes
.
of movement(asnoted above).
The site of 39:Psri,much further alongthe lengthof the valley, is one of the more remote of
all those In this thesis:on the north side of the valley, high in the mountains,the tholol are
situatedon an akropolissite jutting outwardto the south (Al . J9.1). Although this locationIs
much more remote than 35:Peristeri,the situationIs similar, on an jutting and sheerakropolis
overlookingthe valley.
Furthernorth, In southernIlia, 43:KtoSamikKIidhfIs one of two sitesIn this period. The site
lies on the coastalstrip, on flat land within sight of the sea, the moundsclusteredaround a
naturaleminenceforming an akropolis(Al. 4.T.1). The known moundsare locatedto the east

and to the north of the akropolis. Sherdsfound during the excavationof the tholos tomb
Indicatenot only MH but alsoEH settlementin the vicinity.
Is locatedon a hilltop site; MH and LH sherdscollectedon the hilltop

46:MakrisiaProfitfis111as
suggestsettlement,and there Is a report of two Mycenaeangravesnearby('Hani', westof this
mound) and the LHII site of 45:MakrisiaArnokatraho.
In Lakonia,the tombs of 58:EpfdhavrosUmir3 are located in the easternpeninsulaof the

southernPeloponnese, closeto the shore on the east side, on the slopesof a narrow ravine
(Al. 58.2). A slopinglocationis normal for chambertombs (unlike many of the 23:Volim1dhia
examples),and the 'requirement'to build into a slopeto someextent constrainsthe choiceof
location. There are two setsof three tombs, the others being more spreadout, but without
proper investigationof the slopesfor further tombs it is uselessto speculateon the differing
possibilitiessurroundingthe groupingof tombs. There are no other sitesnearby (seenoteson
the regionalarchaeologybelow).
The remote 51.AnXipsistombs are locatedin the upland far north of Lakonia.The site In this
period consistsof at leasteight smalltholos tombs, and there are indicationsof previoususein
the form of an MH(?) cist grave,and anothertomb of unknownform.
The tombs of Kastrf (62:Kithira) are set in the Asprogahill and on nearbyridges(Al 62.1),
.
and others are known elsewherefrom the island (see site entry). These are similarly set In
slopingland, and there appearto be both clustersand singleexamples.
As with someof the sitesmentionedin previoussections,so certainof thesesites(16:Korifsio,

43:Kto SamikKlidhi) appear to have been founded In or above early helladic settlement
debris.The locationof thesesitesamid the detritusof former settlementwill haveImpactedon
those using the sites during constructionphasesand may have been a factor in choice of
location.
A rather similarsituationobtainswith the Ak6nessite at 30:Nih6riawhere an MH/LH or LH

mound wasconstructedon top of earlierMH settlementdebris:In this case,the architectureof
the burial spacesmimickedthe ruineddomesticarchitectureunderthe mound.
Certain sites in use In this period were being reusedafter a phaseof disuse.The most likely
candidate Is 17:Voidhokili, where an LHI tholos tomb was set in an MHI-II mound. Some

continuity is evidencedIn the finds (detailedIn catalogueentry), but the constructionof the
tholos tomb and attendantalterationsin the mound and locationsof Its burials constitutea
refoundingof the mound: In choice of location, therefore, a site with (perhapsill-defined)
wasselected.It is possiblethat 13:Kaminiawent through a similar,though
ancestralassociations
shorter, period of disusebetweenpithos burialsand tholos tomb construction,althoughthe
chronologyis lessclear.
It should be clear from the foregoingdiscussionthat there Is marked regionalvariationIn the

known distributionof the funerarymonumentsof this period. The locationsestablishedby the
few excavatedsitesof the MHI-II period, and the concentrationssuggestedby the unexcavated
burial mounds,are very much reinforcedby the distributionof the sitesunder discussionhere.
The main concentrationof sitesIs that of the Messenian Kmboswestof Egaleonand the coastal
strip; other sitesare found in the SoulimaValley, on the MessenianGulf, In Ilia, and (one) in
easternLakonia,but theseareasdo not seemto havethe concentrationof numbersand types
found in west Messinfa.Two questionsmay be asked:what leadsto the concentrationof tombs
In one area,and how are thoseIndividualexamplesfrom elsewhereto be explained?
Beforeattemptingto answerthesequestions,I proposeto reviewthe regionaldata, noting also

the generalcontext of known sites. Half of the 18 sites under discussionin this sectIon8are
locatedin a smallareaof centralwesternMessinfa,roughly triangularIn shape,definedby the
sites of 17:Voidhoki1i
to the southwest,8:Kiss6sto the southeast,and 23: Vol1mfdh!
a to the
north, and comprisinga seriesof ridgesrunningsouthwesttoward Navarfno,and the plain area
to the eastof them. This areaalsoIncludesthree of the five excavatedMHI-II sitesand six of
the 15 MH mounds(A4.14). Although part of the reasonfor this remarkableconcentration
must lie In the Intensityof surveythat hasbeencarriedout in this region over the years,other
parts of Messinfahave been equally Intensivelysurveyedwithout similar results (the Pylos
RegionalArchaeological
Projecthasnot addedto the number of known sites). The distribution
mapsof Messinfain the MH and LHI periodsproducedby Siriopolou(1994,694; 1995,
798) showclearlythat this apparentconcentrationof funerarysitesis borne out in considering
the generalconcentrationof discoveries
in this area(chapterone).
Elsewhere
in Messinfa(A4.6), 7:Dhi6dhia8TStrefi and 30:Nih6riaare locatedbetweenthe head
of the MessenianGulf and the southeasternfoothills of Egaleon,and 35:Peristeriand 39:Psri
are located to the north, In the SoulimaValley. If we take the evidenceof the unexcavated
8 8: Kiss6s, 10:Gouvalrl, 13:Kaminia, 14:Ayos loinnis Papolla, 16:Korifslo, 17:Voldhoklll3,

23: Volimldhla, 24: Englian6s,and 27: Roiitsl.

mounds Into account, then there is one other funerary site In the area of 30:Nih6rla and
7:Dhi6dhia& Strefi, althoughno othersin the SoulimaValley. The evidencefor all knownsites
In theseareas(Siriopolouibidem)suggeststhat the southernpart of the Messinfapeninsula,
roughlyin a line from Pflosto Petalidhi,wasnot much InhabitedIn the MH and LHI periods:a
situationthat remainsunchangedthroughoutthe bronzeage,saveperhapsin LHIIIB. The areas
aroundNihbria and in the SoulimaValley, on the other hand,both showmoderatedensitiesof
MH and LHI sites.
The Eleansitesof 43:KtoSamik6Klidhland 46:Makrisiaare locatedwithin about 10km of each

other. Makrislain particularis locatedin the fairly denselyinhabitedarea of the Alfefos river
and the generalareasouthof Olimbia.
58: EpfdhavrosLimir at first glance seemsrather Isolated, but other remains are known from the
peninsula: there Is a suggestionof middle helladic graves, for example, at Finiki, about 10km to
the west of Epidhavros Llmir3 (Dhelivorls 1969); at Dhemonia, about 15km southwest, there
Is an MH/LH site with possible pithos burials (Hope Simpson 8t Waterhouse 1961,141); at
Plitra, about 20km west-southwest,there is a site with middle helladic sherds (Hope Simpson 8t
Waterhouse 1961,139-140); at Sten3, near Ne3poli (A4.17) there Is an LHI habitation site,
as well as undated chamber tombs (Hope Simpson at Waterhouse 1961,141-142). More
undated chamber tombs were noted nearby at Ne3poli, although only LHIII sherds were found
at the nearby habitation site (Hope Simpson U Waterhouse 1961,142.144; A4.18 for a map
of the Vtika area), and further chamber tombs, some with stepped dromol like the Epidhavros
Limir examples, are reported from Ayos Ydrgos, located between Sten and Nepoli (Hope
Simpson 81 Waterhouse 1961,145). Finally, the site of 59: Pavlopetrihas MH or LH
settlement
and two likely LH chamber tombs. Thus the seeming Isolation of the site may be partly Illusory,
although there can be no doubt that the Malgas peninsula was much less densely inhabited than
other areas.
The tombs at 51:Anlipsisseem equally Isolated:there are no nearby MH or LHI sites in

Lakonia,althoughthere are somein easternArkadhfa.Furthersouth in easternArkadhfaIs the
site of PaleohdrlMikrf Torla (Hope Simpson8t Waterhouse1961,132-135), where a
numberof early, tholos-likestructureswere excavated.Another group of smalltholos tombsis
noted '10 kilometresnorth of Analipsis',and also on the banksof the Sarandaptamos, and
were thought to be LHIII In date (Hope Simpsonex Waterhouse1961,130): this date was
basedon just a few Items,which might easilyrepresenta secondor later phaseat the site.

Havingexaminedthe evidencein the wider context of known sites,we can attempt to answer
the two questionsposedat the beginningof this section. In seekingto understandhow sites
come to be concentratedin particularareas,we can first note that the densityof settlementin
the areais not necessarily
the mainexplanation.We are dealingwith monumentalgraves,andso
the mere pressureof populationand the necessityto disposeof the deaddo not by themselves
explain a concentrationof monumentalsites in one area. However, the possibilitythat the
MessenianKmbosarea might have been relativelydenselypopulatedopensup a number of
first, the landscapein which thesemonumentscameto be situatedmay be seen
considerations:
asmore open to multiple possibilitiesof interpretationthan a sparselyinhabitedlandscape.This
is partly becausewe mustassumethat not only are there more individualhumanbeingsto move
throughand interpret the landscapein their daily lives,but alsowherepopulationsare relatively
large,more numerousand complexgroupingsmay form, impactingon how the landscape
might
be understoodand inhabited. One factor uniting the diversemonument types is that they
provide for differenttypesof collectiveburial, suggesting
that part of the meaningof any funeral
is to situatethe dead,and perhapsin somesensea group or groupsclaimingaffiliationwith the
dead,within a particularmonumentin the landscape:a monumentwith multiple historicaland
socialreferencesand interpretations.
The foregoing is not intended to be reduced to the simple statement that monuments likely
belong to a single clan or family and indicate claims of ownership to the adjacent land. The
concentration of these monuments in cemeteries or perhaps along routes of movement, as

already suggested, does not lend itself to an interpretation in terms of territorial claims.
Moreover the kinds of groupings that might use these monuments cannot be deduced from the
monuments:this informationis lost. While the nuclearor extendedfamily is one possibility,it is

one very much derivedfrom our own society.Given that we know so little of the organisation
of society in these periods, we can have no justification for claiming to see the controlling
presenceof family or clanmerelyon the basisthat the numbersof individualsrepresentedwould
on averagebe aboutright for a familyor clan. Other corporategroupscan existin societies,did
existin the past,and existnow in differentsocietiesaroundthe world.
Leavingthe specificnotion of 'family' aside,it is suggested

that one part of the meaningof these
monuments,and a structuringprinciplein how they were constructedand used, is the Ideaof
the group.The very act of burial In sucha monumentmarksthe deadand his/her Inheritorsout
asclaiminga relationshipto the other deadof the mound (and their Inheritors).The appearance
of the monumentalburial site in the middle helladicperiod, and In particularIts concentrationin

this area in this period, is the result of a concernto expressgroup identity in the funerary
kinship)and inheritance.
process,and establishlinesof relationship(not necessarily
The relatively dense population of the MessenlanKmboscontributes In two ways to

concentrationof such monuments: first, the denser population may have led to tensions
betweengroupingsthat cameto be partly expressedthrough the monumentalisation of locale
and the likely claimsthat go with it, and secondthe denserpopulationmay have led to the
likelihoodthat 'successful'monuments- thosethat fulfil the expectationsof thoseusingthem, In
varioussenses- will be emulatedelsewhere.This hasbeenspokenof as 'competitiveemulation'
(for example,Voutsakl 1998). Competition,at leastin the sensethat we understandIt, need
not havebeenvery important. The groupingsinvolvedin the constructionof thesemonuments
may not havebeenfixed, stableand institutionalisedto a great degree,and they may not have
regardedthemselves
and othersin terms of absolute Groupings
divisions. may havebeen loose,
personsmay havemoved from to

group group and have had multiple affiliations.Competitionis
therefore not a necessaryelement in this explanation.Emulation,on the other hand, is the
primary factor in the typologyof thesemonuments,asexaminedin chaptersix.
are requiredfor the more distantand isolatedmonuments.In someways,

Differentexplanations
the form of the monumentis one of the most Important parts of such explanations,for the
questiondoesnot revolvearoundthe interactionsof local groups,but rather askshow formsof
monumentscome to be used by fairly small groupingsof people. The adoption of these
monumentsin other areasdoesto someextent placethose groupsof peoplewithin wider-scale
interactions,not only in the areasunder study In this thesis,but also (particularly) with the
andwith Crete.
northeastPeloponnese,
Thelocationof burialswithinmonuments. The final aspectof practiceto be consideredunder the

headingof location is that of the location of burialswithin monuments.Here i considertwo
variables:both the locationof burialplaceswithin monuments,and the locationof burialswithin
thoseburial places,whereappropriate.Theseconsiderationsgo togetherwith thoseconcerning
architecture,sincethe specific of
architectures monuments and burial placeswithin them havea
direct bearingon the locationsof burials.This sectionwill consideronly in generalthe evidence
for whereburialswere placedwithin the monumentand the relationshipsbetweenthe different
placesof burial in the monument.Examplesfrom someof the better known sitesare discussed
below.

10:Gouvalri:of the eight moundsat this site, four havebeeninvestigatedso that we know the
locationsof burial placesand in somecasesindividualburials.Hencemound A containedten
Individualburial placesIn the form of small tholos tombs; mound B containeda singleburial
place,againa tholos tomb; mound2 containedthree smalltholos tombs; and the main mound
containedtwo larger tholos tombs. It is reasonableto suggesttherefore that the moundsof
Gouvalritendedto containmore than one burialspace.
As for Individual burials at Gouval3ri, most of the burial chamberswere very small, yet
contained relatively large numbers of Individuals. These were accommodatedby the
disarticulationof skeletons,a practice that preventsus from Investigatingthe positioningof
skeletonsIn the primary interment.Although a numberof articulatedskeletonsare presentIn
thesetombs,the long period of usemeansthat they neednot relateto the period under study
here. In any case,burialswere locatedeither on the floor of the tomb or occasionallyIn pits In
the floor (for example,Al. 10.24). In the former casethe burial Is placedamidstthe remains
of previousburials (if It Is not the first burial); In the latter casethere may be a concernto
separatethe Individualfrom the othersIn the tomb. As for the two largertombs, there Is little
publisheddataconcerningthe locationor conditionof humanbonematerial.
13:Kamfnia:the excavatedmoundcontainedburialsIn five smalltholos tombsand In up to four

pithol. One of the pithoi containeda burial with the headuncanonicallyto the mouth of the
pithos (Al. 15.8, Al. 1.. 11); another containedone or possiblytwo skeletons.The five
tholol present the same picture as at IO:Gouvalrl,although only one pit Is noted: the
excavationIs Incompleteand so In somecasesmore pits may be presentIn the floors.
The two different practices point to two different traditions in terms of how burials should be
conducted,and in particularabouttheir location.The pithol fall very much into the tradition of
sitessuchas 14:Ayos1onn1s
Papodis or 17:Voidhokili,representingthe locationof individualor
dual burialsat variouspointsin the mound.The tholol contrastwith these,In representinglarger
spacesfor the locationof more burials.It is significantthat two of the pithol were found partly
workedInto the matrix of the wallingof one of the tholol: they had perhapsbeenexhumedand
placedthere during the constructionof that tholos. One of thesepithol was empty (the other
was not Investigated),and so perhapsnot only were the pithol worked Into the very fabric of
the new constructions,but perhapsalsothe skeletalcontent was removedand reburiedIn the
newcontextof the tholoschamber.

17:Vo1"dhokili:
the architecturalalterationsof the LHI period created a single burial In
chamber
a mound which had previously been used for pithos burials all over Its surface. However,
althoughthe new understandingof the mound was firmly rooted In Its conversionto a tholos
to Its usersand respectedby them, In that
tomb, the older meaningswere both comprehensible
they exhumedcertainof the burialsand carefullyreburiedthem In the peripheryof the mound
In a custom no longer regardedas appropriate for the contemporarydead. This evidence
complementsthat of 13:KaminiaIn terms of the continuinguseof and transformationof these
monuments.
23:Volimidhia:the site consistsof a cemeteryof separateburial chambers,at least34 in total,

over a relativelywide area. The chamberswere generallyfound to contain large numbersof
Individuals9,and it would seemlikely that the primary locationof burial would be more or less
central on the floor of the tomb. The presenceof other skeletonsmight prompt either the
removalof thoseskeletonsor elsethe body may havebeenplacedso as not to interfere with
them. In any case,most skeletalmaterialeventuallyendedup In the floor-levelnichesfound In
most of the tombs(or lessfrequentlyIn floor pits). The chronologicaluncertaintymeansthat we
further
are unableto ascribespecificpracticesto different periods.Thesequestionsare discussed
In chaptereight.
24: Englian6s:the Vayenstomb consistsof a single burial chamber. Burial locations, at least as
they were excavated and so as they represented the final condition of the Interior, were more
highly structured than Is usual. Both collected remains and Individual Interments were present,
all deposited In pits In the floor (there was no scattered bone material on the floor). The
Individuals were found In a pithos In a pit, In a palace style jar bedded In the floor of a pit,
extended In a pit (this burial Is LHIIB-LHIIIA In date), In another pithos, this one set upright,
and finally In another jar. The late date for final use and the structured tidiness of the tomb
make it likely that much If not all of this arrangement Is a result of events In LHIIB-LHIIIA. As
for tholos IV, there Is no Information on the location of early burials.
30:Nih6ria:the little circle and the other tholos tombs (Nikitopolou 2-6, Veves) all present
singleburial chambers.The Nikitopoloutombs,however,are locatedwithin a naturalknoll, so
that although not part of an artificial mound like those at IO:Gouvairland 13:Kaminia,
and effect of so being.Hencethe Nikitopodlou knoll has
they havethe appearance
nonetheless
9 It Is Impossibleto be precise on this point as the information has not been recorded. It seemslikely that
a minimum average for the number of individuals found In the 23: Volimfdhla tombs would be between 5
at 10 persons; one tomb contained 47 skulls, although this might be the result of post-Mycenaean
Interference.

five Individualburial chambers.The burialsIn the Nikitopodlou and Veves tholol were badly
disturbedIn all casesby Interventionsover long periods.The little circle Is a specialcase:lower
levelsIncludean articulatedskeletonIn a pit and others,disarticulated,on and abovethe floor.
At a higherlevel are the remainsof eight or more Individualsseeminglydumpeden masseInto
the tomb from above(seefull discussion
In catalogueentry).
Elmira:this site consistsof discretegroupsof Individualburial chambersin the

58:Epidhavros
form of chambertombs;someof them alsohavesidechambers.The informationabout burials
Is scant,but it is likely that burialswould be locatedon the floors of the chambers,and after the
dissolutionof the flesh be moved. Pits and niches for disarticulatedbones are mentioned,
althoughtheseare not presentin the sidechambers.
Although the chronologicalevidencethat placesthe constructionand first use datesfor all of

thesesiteswithin the MHIII-LHI bracketIs in most casesreasonablyfirm, none10of the burial
chambers(tholos or chambertomb) can be saidto havebeenclosedIn this period and not re-
openedlater. Thereforethe observationsaboveon the location of burialsIn most casessuffer
from the likelihoodor certainty of Interferencewith the remainsand the introduction of new
burialsin later periods.Nonetheless,the evidenceshowsthat monumentsof this period created
a specificareawithin them (a chamber)where burial could take place. Within this chamber,
burialsmight be laid on the floor, or they might be placedin pits or casts(a link with previous
practice).Skeletonsmight later be movedand placedwithin pits or niches.Therefore,the reuse
of burial places(the choiceto locatea burial in an existingtomb or grave), noted In previous
monumentsas multiple burialsIn a mound, with occasionalreuseof graves,In this period Is
specificallyfacilitatedby the variousdifferenttypesof monument.
Indirect evidencefor procession(beyondthe needto transportthe corpseto the grave)can be

with many of the burials found in thesetombs (fully
found In the materialculture associated
describedIn chapterseven).One of the Intendedeffectsof clothing a corpsein raimentof gold
must havebeento createa highlyvisiblespectacle.This spectaclemight havebeenplayedout in
terms of an organisedviewing of the corpse before burial, but it might equally have been
achievedby processingfrom the point where pre-burialceremonieswere carried out to the
t Although only LHI evidence Is recorded for a few of the 23: Vollm/dhla chamber tombs, the recording
of these excavations is Inadequate and there is no certainty that those chambers were unused In later
periods.

tomb. The particulareffect of the gold would presumably have been to make the corpse flash
blindingly in the sunlight;alternativelyto reflect the torchesduring a processionin darkness.
This latter functionwould alsobe repeatedin the darkenedchamberof the tomb. The bright
gold masksthe decayinherentin the corpseitself.
It will be argued in succeedingchaptersthat there Is considerableevidencefor the regular

Interferencewith and removalof material from the chambersof tholos and chambertombs.
Although much of this activity must havebeenrelatedto the numerousinstancesof interment
in many tombs, it may be that on someoccasionsthe tomb might be openedfor non-funerary
At
purposes. any time the removalof artefactsmay well have led to their displayoutsidethe
mortuary context: perhaps in the form of a processionmimicking that associatedwith
interment, or elsea relativelystatic displayto a group of people gatheredat the end of the
dromos.
The specificfacadeof the tomb (chaptersix) also opensthe possibilityfor processingto and
gatheringat the tomb whenclosed;the facadewould then form the stagefor activitiesaimedat
presencingthe deadwithin amongthe living gatheredoutside.
The architectureof tholos and chambertombs affectsthe mannerIn which peoplemight have
gatheredat the tomb, and is discussed
in chaptersix.
THE LHI-IIA, LHIIA AND LHIIB PERIODS (TABLES 1.12-1.15, PAGE 34-35)
Locating the grave
Locationof cemeteries ArchaeologicalevidenceIndicatesthat the new sitesof

in the landscape.
this period are rarely found in isolation, continuing the trend of preceding periods. This
is
evidence set out In table 5.3 below (comparetable 5.2, page 119, for the precedingperiod).

Site Associations
I1 Koukounra Akbnes Two tholol; nearby tholol of 10:Gouvalrl, 12:Fities, and akropolis
site of Katarahki opposite 10:Gouvalri
12 Koukoun3ra Livadhiti Unexcavatedtholol nearby; 12:Fities tholoi to north; further
north, 10:Gouvalri,Katarahki
12 Koukoun3ra Fitles Two tholoi; other monuments excavated and unexcavatedto
south; 10:Gouvalri81 Katarah3kl to north
18 Trag3na Two tholoi; located at southwest end of Tragna-Ambelfito
ridge parallel to Engliansridge; Vorolia to northeast, MH burial
mounds at 21: Lefki and 22: TragnaKapourelkafurther northeast
19 Solinri Tourlidhftsa about 1km from 8:IGss6s
24 Englians tholos III 1km southwest of earlier tholoi; chamber tombs close
to palace area
26 HalklsAelis Unknown
31 Dhra (Frma) Unknown
34 Kmbos none, but note the nearby 'Sotirianika treasure'
35 Perlsterl five tholos tombs, MH burial mound, MH-LH grave, other graves
36 Kopanki three tholos tombs, other sites nearby
38 Vasilik:Xervrisi noneclose;37:Mlthi(and two LHIII tholoi) about 4km distant
40 Filiatr3 Ayos Hristforos tholos near or in settlement; another settlement about 1.5km
distant
42 Kaplni unknownbut closeto recordedsitesnear 1:Finikonda
44 Kak6vatos three tholoi; later 'palatial' settlement on akropolis above
45 Makrfsia: Arnokataraho Unknown
51 Anlipsis large tholos eight small tholoi nearby, but otherwise quite Isolated
52 Pellna at least six chamber tombs; another chamber tomb cemetery less
than 1km distant; other Important sites apparently In the vicinity;
but note no specific evidence for pre-LHIII has been published
savethe large chamber tomb
54 Vaf16 vicinity of late Mycenaean settlement; 53: Menelaionand
55:Amikleon nearby
60 Sikea later tombs nearby
Table 5.3. Tombs discussedin this section and other sites nearby.
Two observations may be made on the locations of new tombs. One is that some tombs are
built as part of already existing funerary landscapes. The best example of this is the LHII
construction of five or more further tholos tombs on the Potmi tou Arpi axis (A4.13),
bringing the funerary landscapeof that area close to its final form. Other new tombs were built
at 24: Englian6sand at I8: Tragna,completing the array of monuments in the area of the later
palace (save LHIII chamber tombs in the immediate vicinity of the palace).
In other cases it may be that tombs were located on established routes. This might be best
illustrated by the example of 44: Kak6vatos. Little is known of the akropolis site where later
Mycenaean 'palatial' architecture was uncovered by Drpfeld; but given the location of the
tholoi on the route from the coastal plain to the akropolis (much as at Mycenae), it appears
that the final approach to the akropolis was monumentalised by the foundation of the tombs;
something similar may well have happened at 35: Peristeri3.
134
The other observationIsthat, In termsof numbers,fewertombswere built In thesecentralareas
In LHII than were built In MH-LHI; on the other hand,more were built elsewhere,eitheradding
to existing sites and areas (35:Peristeriand other SoulimaValley sites), or In new areas
(44:Kak6vatos,sitesin Lakonfa).There are also Instancesof sitesIn perhapsremote locations:
34:KJmbos, In the MessenianMani, has no near neighbours;the tholol at Finikodnda
(42:Kaplni),26:Halkfasand 51:Anl1psis
are all Isolated,highlandsites.By the end of LHII the
SoulimaValley had a relatively large number of tholos tombs, not only the five tholol at
35:Peristeri,
but othersboth In the valleybottom, suchas38:Vasilik6Xer6vris1
and the three at
36:Kopankl.Two othersat 37:Mithiwere apparentlybuilt In LHIII (appendixtwo).
In the MH-LHI period, a tendencyto concentrationwas observedin the location of funerary

monuments.By LHII it is clear that this tendencyhasall but played Itself out. Although new
tholoi were built in the vicinity of 10:Gouvalri,for example,it Is unclearif any were built at the
site itself; thoseknownto be built in LHII are at somedistanceand tend to reinforcethe wider
landscapeaxis of the Potmi tou Arpi rather than focus on the site of Gouval3ri Itself
(A4.13)". Concentratedtholos constructionin this period doesoccur at 35:Peristeriand at
44:Kak6vatos,
two sitesfar to the north of the centralMessenian
area.
The explanationfor this liesin a changeIn the natureof funeraryarchitecturewhich had already
taken placeby the end of LHI (chaptersix): the ability to build largertombs led to the normal
constructionof a singleor at most two tholol In a mound, rather than the numeroussmalltholol
In burial moundsat 10:Gouva1Jr1,13: Kaminia,30:Nih6ria,and perhaps8:Kisss12. Thesechanges
In architecturepromoted single, larger burial chamberswithin mounds, rather than multiple
smallchambers.While manysitescameto consistof two tholostombs, few consistedof three or
more.
Tholostombswere locatedIn wider networksof landscapepath and locale.In somecases,such

asthe Potmltou Arpi sites(A4.13), or thoseIn proximity to the later palaceof Nestor, the
axesof thesenetworksare obvious;elsewherelessso. But it would appearthat a generalshift
occurredtoward the importanceof wider landscapenetworksand awayfrom localisedcemetery
landscapes.The constructionof tholos tombs at points more or less remote from existing
funerarysitesmay havebeenIntentional;differing locationsmay simply haveresultedfrom the
" The construction dates of the small tholol at Gouvalri are discussedIn the catalogue entry. I
suggest
that most were built In MHIII-LHI, even where this date Is unsupported by ceramic evidence.
12In the sensethat the 'grave enclosures'form separate,built burial areaswithin the tomb: I am not
that they representsmalltholostombs(chaptersix).
suggesting

Increasingwillingnessand ability of differentcommunitiesor groupsto participatein Mycenaean
funerarytraditions.
The locationsof Mycenaeantombs in the surveyarea In LHII contraststronglywith patterns

observedin the Argolid and other 'core' Mycenaeanareas.Here the clusteringof tombs In
chambertomb cemeterieswaswell under way in LHII, and wasset to continuefor the rest of
the Mycenaeanperiod'3. In the areaunderstudy in this thesis,on the other hand,few chamber
tomb cemeteriesexistedin LHII. Theseconsistof the 23: Vo11mfdhia
cemetery,which continued
from the LHI period and therefore had a history of use, maintainedin this period; other
chambertomb cemeteriesscarcelyexist.The one tomb in the Pellnacemeterythat Is securely
LHIIA in date is a colossalimitation of a tholos tomb, and perhaps also drew on the
) of the Volimfdhiacemeteryfor its Inspiration.One tomb
architecturaldetails(and architects?
in the 60:Sikeacemeterymight have been constructedin LHIIB, but if so was presumably
Limircontinuesfrom the previousperiod, and Kastrt
isolatedin the landscape.58:Epidhavros
(62:Kithira) continuedto function into the LMIB period. It is also possiblethat other chamber
tomb cemeteriesknown to exist in the Malgas peninsulamight date to this period. One
possibilityis a north-southline of burial practicefrom the Argolid and surroundingareasdown
to the Malgaspeninsula,with the obviousInclusionof cemeterieson Kithira and at Knosson
Crete.The adaptationof Mycenaeanburial practicesto clusteredchambertombsmaywell have
occurredlargelyon this north-southaxis,with little influenceon the east-westaxis.Only In the
LHIII period do chambertomb cemeteriesappearIn significantnumbersIn the west: a great
manywere foundedIn Ilia in LHIII (appendixtwo), the explanationfor which hardly liesin the
westernPeloponnese,
but rather is as a result of lines of communicationwith the Argolid and
Ahaia. Fewchambertomb cemeteriescameto be built in Messinla,althoughthey certainlydid
exist; the eventualnumberof chambertombs aroundthe palaceof Nestor, probablylessthan
two dozen,hardly compareswith Mycenae.Similarlyfew are known from Lakonia,savethe
examplesalreadymentioned.
The corollary of theseobservationsis that the introductionof the tholos tomb to areassuchas
the Argolid occurredat the very end of LHI or in LHII probablyIn much the sameway that
they came to be built in Lakonia.The tholos remainedthe normal location for monumental
burial practicesin Messinfa,at leastuntil the end of LHII, whereastholoi in areassuchas the
The
Argolid or indeedLakoniaweremuch lesscommon,and on averagemore monumentalised.
" Cavanagh8L Mee list In their cataloguefor the early Mycenaeanperiod 21 cemeteriesor Isolated
examplesof chambertombsIn the mainlandand Peloponnese; theseIncludeeight cemeterieswith five or
moretombs.

Mycenaetholol, for example,were clearlybuilt with tholos tombs suchas 35:PeristeriI or II,
or EngliansIV In mind; not the smallertholol that predominateIn termsof numbers.Chamber
tomb cemeteriescame to be normal in the Argolid and then throughout much of the
Peloponneseand centralsouthernGreece,while In Messinfaand to someextentwesternLakonia
they were muchlesscommon,and in Ilia do not appearbeforeLHIII.
Someregionsof the study arearemainedwithout Mycenaeantomb sites:the Mani peninsulain

Lakonia,althoughthe tholos at Kmbosis situatedon the west coast of the Mni south of
Kalam3ta,and Ilia north of the Alfeios. This replicatesthe observationsfor the preceding
periods.
Thelocationof burialswithin monuments.In generaltombsconstructedin LHII containa single

burial chamber(some of the tombs continuingin use from LHI consistedof multiple burial
chambers).Thereis no needto discussthe detailsof burial locationwithin the monumentson a
site by site basis,as a generalhomogeneityof tomb form and burial practice meansthat a
generaldescriptionwith specific observationsshould suffice. For details, refer to individual
catalogueentries.
ThereIs thereforegeneralcontinuity In the practicesthat led to the depositionof burialswithin

tombs.EspeciallyIn tombsthat continuedIn usefrom LHI to LHII, there Is widespreadevidence
of the disarticulationof previousburialsand their depositionIn pits or niches.Primaryburials
were generallylaid out on the floor of tombs, so for examplethe three supineskeletonsfound
In the centreof SouthTholos 1 at 35:Peristeri were probablyplacedthere In LHIIB; they might
alsobe placedIn pits, asIn the caseof the pit excavatedIn the 54:Vafi6tholos, probablydating
to LHIIA, which seemedto have containedthe supineskeletonof a single adult. 27:Rotsi
tholos two containedLHIIA burialsboth In pits and on a kind of platform In the centre of the
tomb; In one of the pits other, earlierburialshad beendisarticulatedand reorganised.
The generaldifficultiesof locatingthe original positionsof burialscausedby the near universal

phenomenonof later interferenceappliesto this period just as to the last and to the succeeding
ones.

Procession andgathering
The continuityof architectureinto this periodimpliesa continuityin suchactivitiesasProcession

and gathering.The generalmonumentalisation of tombs,and perhapsan Increasingcomplexity
of burial ritual, as evidencedat some sites and discussedin succeedingchapters,could have
added to the importanceof this phase.The wider scope of certain cemeteriesor funerary
landscapes(the Potmitou Arpi sites,35:Peristeri,
24:Englian6s,
23: Volimidhia)may alsohave
been brought about through, and have brought about, more complex understandings
of the
landscape
articulatedthroughprocessionalactivities.

139
ChapterSix
Architecture, graveconstructionand modification
'SIMPLER' GRAVES (TABLE 1.2, PAGE 29)
Preparation of construction materials
There is little in the way of direct evidencefor the useof tools at thesesites,savethe obvious
fact that tools were presumablyusedfor diggingholes.In the context of sitessuchas37:Mlthl,
57:Ayos Stefanosand elsewhere,where burials are located within a settlementsite, but (as
suggestedin chapterfive) the areasusedfor burial were generallynot in use for settlementat
the sametime, the materialgatheredand usedin buildingcist gravesor providingpit graveswith
stone surroundswould representdisiectamembraof settlementdebris. Hence preparationfor
gravediggingat thesesitesmay often have includeda direct engagementwith the past in the
form of dismantlingof wallsby removingstonesfor usein the constructionof the grave.
Fewif any of the sitesunder discussion

showany evidencefor working of stones.One might be
the 'shaft grave'at 24:Englian6s,
whereBiegensuggests that someof the stonesin the 'platform'
in the bottom of the gravewereworked,especiallyat the ends.
Other acts before beginning
There is no direct evidence of feasting before building one of these graves, and there are no
foundation deposits associatedwith such small graves. No other evidence is available in relation
to pre-constructionpractices.In somecaseswhereburialsperhapswerelocatedwithin inhabited
140
rooms, preparatoryacts before constructionwould at least have included the cessationof
routine activity.
Digging orbuiidiag the grave
For the two large excavated sites, 37: M3ithi and 57: Ayos Stefanos, a number of different
architectural types has been identified; lack of chronological control means that it is not possible
to suggestthat different types may have been favoured in different sub-phases,although it seems
likely that this was never anyway the case. Types are the earth-cut pit, the stone-built cist, the
pit with a stone surround, sometimeswith cover slabs,the pithos burial, and rarely cutting in the
bedrock (for example, Al.. 77.3 grave 1: pit with stone surround; Al.. T7.4 grave IV: cist
grave).
Eachof thesetypesinvolvesthe samebasicdesignconcept:digginga hole in the groundthat is

more or lessfitted to the corpse.Somegraves,suchasthe shaftgravesof CircleA at Mycenae,
were obviouslybuilt in largerdimensions,presumablywith the expectationof hostingmore than
one corpse.This doesnot apply to the gravesin this sample:only 45:MakrisiaArnokatrahoand
61:Krokeesmight seem to have been designedfor multiple inhumations.The exampleat
61:KrokeesIs large (3m x 1.5m x 2m) and Is describedas a shaft grave; it Is set In a late
Mycenaeanchambertomb cemetery, and its date of constructionIs possiblyLHII-ill, thus
makingit marginalto this study. Very few detailsare available.The other exampleIs evenless
well known,saidto be a 'destroyedrectangularbuilt grave'and dated LHII. The 'shaft grave'at
24:Englian6sis not large, and the shaft gravesat 53:Menelaionand 57:Ayos Stefanos,Intact
contexts,eachcontainedonly a singleburial.
Gravesat the largersitescertainlywere reused,however:the only body of data availableis that

from 37:Mlthi (dimensionsare not given for the 57:Ayos Stefanosmaterial), and of the 48
gravesat that site, Valmin suppliesfull dimensionaldata for only 24 (table 6.1 below, basedon
table A1.37.2). Gravesvary between12cm and 35cm In depth, and there Is no correlation
betweendepth and numberof burials.On average,multiple gravesare about 15% longer, 11%
wider and 20% deeperthan singleor empty graves;but there suchwide variationin the dataas
and in any casethe actualdifferencesare small.It is therefore
to makean averagemeaningless,
safeto say, with the 37:Mlthi tombs, that In creatingdimensionsfor a graveIts destinyas a
single or multiple grave was not anticipated.
Chapter Six Architecture, graveconstructionand modification 141

37 pit 3 205cm x 75cm x 32cm
1 pit with stone outline 1 child 53cm x 28cm x 22cm
10 pit with stone outline 1 adult 128cm x 44cm x 12cm
16 pit with stone outline I child 47cm x 24cm x 19cm
26 pit with stone outline 3 85cm x 22cm x 24cm (upper part only)
40 pit with stone outline 2 child 44cm x 23cm x 21 cm
3 cist 1 child 45cm x 18cm x 22cm
4 cast I child 62cm x 26cm x 20cm
6 cast 1 child 56cm x 28cm x 36cm
27 cast 1 adult 148cm x 28cm x 28cm
35 clst 1 child 38cm x 14cm x 18cm
47 cast 0 68cm x 38cm x 32cm
Table 6.1. Graves at 37: Mlthi with full dimensional data.
It may however be that the method of construction might have some bearing on its possible re-
use. One third of 37: Mlthi 'pits with stone outline' are multiple (7 of 21), and half of pits (2
of 4); but only four of 17 cists are multiple, and neither of two pithoi. At 57: Ayos Stefanos
there are only three multiple burials, so comparison is not possible. The provision of the stone
outline to a pit might have been intended to indicate a possibility of future reuse, but it is more
likely that it simply made the grave conspicuous and so in later episodes more likely to be
reused. It seems likely that multiple burial was almost never a factor in tomb design and
construction for these sites (see also pages 101-102 above).
The 37: Mlthi tombs are conspicuously shallow where data are available (table 6.1), no matter
what their construction method. It is unfortunate that comparative data from 57: Ayos Stefanos
are not available but it seemslikely that these gravesalso are shallow graves. The stone outlines
above certain pits probably formed a peribolos that after closure would have retained a low
mound of earth (these periboloi might be added as part of the closure of the grave rather than
its construction).
To some extent variation in grave lengths is accounted for by the difference between adult and
child graves. This is apparent both in the graves listed in table 6.1 (and in table A 1.37.2 for
142
thosegraveswhere lengthand width but not depth were givenby Valmin) and In the plansof
gravesfrom 57:AyosStefanos(Al. S7.3, Al. S7.9, Al. S7.12 and Taylour 1972, figures2,
11, a 15), where It is clear in many casesthat graveswere built In accordancewith the
dimensionsof the corpsethat they were Intendedto receive.Hencethere seems,for mostif not
all of these graves,to be a clear relationshipbetweenthe act of diggingthe grave and the
deceased: graveswere intendedfor a specificperson.
Although this last point may seem trivial, it is in fact crucial to an understandingof the
institutional structuresbeing reproduced during these acts. At both 57:Ayos Stefanosand
37:Mlthi, and at many of the other sitesin this sample,the actsof graveconstructionand of
intermentwere closelyrelated:a gravewas createdfor a specificdead person,who wasthen
interred in it, and in most casesthis representsthe end of observableevents.One aspectof the
changesin tradition that occur is a separationof thesetwo acts, so that gravebuilding is no
longer necessarilyconnectedwith the death of one person,and burial is no longer necessarily
connectedwith graveconstruction.
Floors are not often described:many consistof natural earth or bedrock. There are a few
examplesof pebblefloors: 57:AyosStefanos(site 57), where gravesAl and A2 had floors of
'small, rough stones',as perhapsdid TT7-3; 37:Mithl, where grave33 had a floor of pebbles
and sherds;and 41:FiliatrStomion,where pebblescovered(and marked?) the grave,although
in this casethesemay havebeenlargerstones.Pebblefloors are discussed
in relation to MHI-II
sitesbelow.
Acts at the end of the construction phase
No tracesof feastingor other ritual associated

with the end of constructionare known.
Opening the grave
The act of openingthe graveonly applieswherethe gravehad beenclosed:hencenot to newly

constructedgraves,but only to reuseof existinggraves.Chapterfive showsthat few gravesfall
into this category,mainly at 37:Mlthi. In thesefew cases,havinglocatedthe gravethe act of
opening would be relatively simple, requiring the excavationof the small amount of earth
coveringtheseshallowgraves;perhapsIn somecasesgraveswere rediscoveredand openedby
accident(this happenedin somecasesat 57:AyosStefanos,leadingto the reburialof remains).

Closing the grave
Thereare two kindsof evidenceto be consideredhere:artefactsfound in the graveand thought

its
to relateto closure,and the act itself, in
evidenced the fill or the There
architecture. are few
artefactswhosedepositionmight be Interpretedas havingtaken placeduring the closureof the

grave. In D 12 at 57:Ayos Stefanos a 'miniature bronze chisel'was found In the fill abovethe
skull. This suggeststhat it was cast or placed In the graveafter it had begun to be filled with
earth. In D 13 at the samesite a flint 'saw' was found abovethe grave.Again this may have
beenplacedor castIn the fill, but asTaylournotes"Flint wasrare exceptIn the shapeof 'saws',
which mostly occurredin the A area" (1972,262), so this artefactmay have been in the fill
anyway,or beenintroducedin later disturbance.
Methodsof graveclosureare limited to the useof coverslabsand the Introductionof earth Into
the grave,or a combinationof the two. Coverslabsseemto havebeenusedrelativelyrarely: at
Mlthi at leastelevenof the 48 graveshad cover slabs(numbers2,4,7,8,9,12,16,19,
23,24,27 and perhaps34; illustratedA1.. 77.3-5); at 57:Ayos Stefanos,only A31, D24,
D25, perhapsD27, and TT7-3 8z TT7.5 are noted as havingbeen coveredwith slabs.The
57:AyosStefanosgravesare adult burialssavefor D27. The shaft gravediscoveredIn the later
excavationperiod had a slabcover over the lower pit: four slabswere used.The 53:Menelaion
shaft gravesimilarly had a coveringof six slabsover its lower pit (Al. S.7.2). The graveat
41:FiliatrStomionwascoveredin pebbles,of unknownsize,perhapsasa marker.
GravesTT7-3 8t TT7-5 at 57:AyosStefanoswere coveredwith slabs,one over eachgravebeing

incisedwith linear designs(Al. S7..10). It Is unclearwhetherthesedesignswere made during
constructionor earlier (either in preparationfor the funeralor indeedif the stonescame from
someother context); the significanceof the Incisionsis obscure.
THE MHI-II PERIOD (TABLE 1 7, PAGE 33)

.
Preparation of construction materials
No tools havebeenfound that may havebeenusedIn the work. Moundsare generallymadeof

earth and unworkedstones:thesewould have to be gathered.Ditcheshave not been noted at
any of the sites,leavingopen the questionof source for both stonesand earth. The stonesIn the
14:AyosonnisPapolia moundare carefully laid flat stones,but probablynot worked (perhaps

the coveringslabsfor the centralconstructionwere slightlyworked). At I7: VoTdhokili3
much of
the constructionmaterialwasculledfrom the EH settlementdebris.Preparationmay therefore
partly haveconsistedof the more or lesscarefulselectionof material and dismembermentof
remains.At 27:Rotsi,the moundsare very largeand so requireda great deal of construction
material.At 35:Peristeri
the Kokorkoumound is ringedwith a massiveperibolosconsistingof
large roundedstonesprobablybrought up to the site from the river in the valley below. This
would havebeena considerableoperationand suggests a relativelylarge numberof organised
peopleinvolvedin constructingthe monument- an observationthat appliesto eachof the sites
mentionedabove.
The moundof Kokor3kou(35:Peristeri) wasfoundedon a naturaleminence,and the excavator

reportsa thin burnedlayeron top of this knoll and belowthe earth addedin the constructionof
the mound. Although excavationwaslimited, this suggests that the eminencewaspreparedby
settinga fire on top of it. This fuel for this fire may simply havebeenthe vegetationnaturally
presenton the mound, or further combustiblematerialmay havebeenbrought for the specific
purpose.Although sucha fire, if set simply for the practicalpurposeof clearingthe vegetation
before raisingthe mound,could havehad minimalsignificance,it may equallybe the casethat
the fire was a symbolicpart of the constructionprocess,removing nature in order to bring
about the constructionof a cultural artefact. If lit at night, it may well have been a visible
beaconover a very wide areaof the valleybelow,aswell as from the site of 35:PeristeriJ.
Digging or building the grave
It was noted above that the simpler gravesIn most casesexhibit a clear link betweenthe
constructionof a graveand the Intermentof a specificcorpsewithin, after which act the graveis
closed and little else is observablearchaeologically.With multiple burial monumentsthe
relationshipbetweena corpseand the architecturalmatrix within which it may be placedis not
so specific,and may Involvemore complexconceptualand spatialrelationships.The
necessarily
hereserveto Illustratetheseshiftsof emphasis.
four tumulussitesunderdiscussion
The constructionof the mound is the first and greatestundertakingin the history of the
monument,and will not be repeatedon eachfuneraryoccasion:In fact, it is extremelyunlikely
to be associatedwith a funeral at all. The monumentcould be constructedIn anticipationof
future use, before any presentneed in the form of a corpseawaitingdeposition.However,
ChapterSix Architecture,graveconstruction
andmodification 145
without goinginto questionable requiredto build different structures,
estimatesof person-hours
none of the monumentsdiscussedhere (with the possibleexceptionof 14:Ayos IonnisPapolia
phaseone) could havebeenbuilt betweenthe time of someone'sdeathand their burial. Some
sort of temporary burial would have been necessaryduring the construction period.
Architecturallyspeaking,the mound is independentof any given burial, even if in intentionit
might havebeenso associated
in the mindsof its constructors.
Thereare architecturaldifferencesbetweeneachof thesesites. 14:Ayos lonnisPapodis exhibits

two main constructionphases.The meaningintendedby the constructorsof the first phase
mound is enigmatic:the moundIs smalland low, and as far as it is understoodat this moment,
it was built as a casingaround a large central cast, providing bulk and emphasisfor it
(Al 14.13-18). The moundseemsnot to havebeenintendedto facilitatemultiple burialsand
.
the (incomplete)evidenceIndicatesthat it was not so used. Inasmuch,therefore, as the first-
phasemound wasnot usedfor multiple burialsand (I would argue)wasnot Intendedto be so
used,it is different from the othersIn Its intentionand meaning.The mound is simply emphatic
on a centralburial which providesthe meaningfor the mound (assuming,of course,that there
wasoriginallya burialIn the centralconstruction:it wasempty whenexcavated).
The secondphaseof the mound (Al. 14.7, Al. 14.9) contrastswith the first in architecture
and intention, but at the sametime owes much to that original phase.The buildersof the
secondphasemound chosenot to create a new monument, but to use and transformwhat
alreadyexisted.This Indicatesa clear link In their minds betweentheir own project and their
interpretationof alreadyexistingarchitecture.Their project transformeda smalland low mound
with an emphasison a single,centralburial spaceto a larger, higher mound intendedto havea
dispersedburial focus around the periphery, and intended to hold multiple graves.The
enlargementof the mound effectivelycoveredthe central construction,althoughthe eventual
radialarrangementof pithoi did serveto emphasise
the centreof the mound.
In creating a multiple-burialmonument, the phasetwo architectstook an already existing

monumentand transformedits meaning.Its first-phasemeaningin largepart wasderivedfrom
the central construction,the focus of the monument: perhapsthe burial place of a named
individual,or closelydefinedgroup.The extensionof the monumentwasIntendedto allow for
that meaningto be extended,reinterpretingthe centralconstructionand addingnew gravesto
the monument.In the act of transformingthe structureIn sucha radicalway (I would suggest
that the transformationof a monumentfrom a singletomb, perhapsof a namedIndividual,to a
multiple burial monumentIs radical)the architectsdid maintaina continuity: they extendedthe

monument by repeating its structure, and (assumingthe stone capping was not covered by a
final layer of earth) its final appearance
-a mound with a flat stone paving- wasmodelledon
the final appearance of the first-phase
mound.
The other sitesunder considerationhereare structurallysingle-phase

monuments(excludingthe
Although all of them are multiple-burialmonuments,In
tholos tomb phaseat I7: Vo1-dhokili).
somecasesthere seemsa possibilitythat the meaningof a monumentis partly derivedfrom a
centralconstructionand that the architecturalformat waschosenin order to allow for this. The
exampleof 27:RodtsiKaloyeropoloumay be pertinentin this respect.The excavatedpartsof
the mound showthat a large, horseshoe-shaped
pit with a ring of stonesaround the top was
constructedIn the centre of the monument(Al. 27.2-3). Whether primary In sequenceor
not, the positionof the pit at the centreand at the top of the mound makesIt a focusfor the
monumentasa whole. The pit Is howeversmallIn comparisonto the overallsizeof the mound,
and It is unclearwhat, If anything,of It would normallybe visible.The mound must havebeen
plannedfrom the first asa multipleburial monument.
The Kokorkoumound (35:Peristeri)wasalso large (20m diameter), and this alongwith the
fact that it wasusedfor at leastthree pithosburialssuggests
that It wasintendedto be a multiple
burial monumentat the moment of its construction(Al.. TS.8). The excavationreport does
not allow us to discernwhetherit containeda 'first' or centralburial, assuggestedfor 27:Rodtsl
Kaloyeropolouand first-phase14:AyoslonnisPapolia.
17:Voidhokili (Al. f7.7, Al. 17.9), superficially similar to 14:Ayos loJnnis Papolia, Is
essentiallya single-phasemonument (excluding the later tholos tomb construction), although it
seemsto have been altered and remodelled In parts at different times, often in associationwith
burial acts, thus making its construction difficult to Interpret. One unanswered question
concerning 17:Voidhokili Is whether there was a central burial or central construction:

unansweredbecausethe later construction of an LHI tholos tomb in the mound destroyed and
removed whatever there may have been in the middle of the mound. The respect shown by the
builders of the tholos tomb for pithos burials In the mound (they exhumed and reburied those
affected by tholos construction) suggeststhat similar respect would have been shown to a
central construction If one had existed, though this need not have been the case, especiallyIf the
central construction were empty like that at 14:Ayos loJnnis Papolia. In any case, It is clear
from Its dimensions and evidence of use that 17:Vofdhokili was Intended as a multiple burial
mound.
andmodification 147
In summary,therefore,the constructionof a moundIs separatedfrom an act of burial, and the
buildersof all of thesemonuments,saveperhapsfirst-phase14:Ayos IoJnnisPapolia,set out to
constructmoundsopento multipleburial. It Is possiblethat somemoundswere constructedfor
a specificfuneraland that the resultantgraveoccupieda central place In the mound, but In
most casesthis seemsratherunlikely.The architecturalIntentionof the builderswasto createa
raisedspaceIn the landscape,largeenoughto accommodatea numberof burials(from two or
three up to aboutthirty). The IntentionmayalsohaveIncludeda focuson a centralconstruction
or gravecreatedat the apexof the mound.Inasmuchasthe architectsmay haveset out to plan
future useof the mound,In thosemoundsthat exhibitradialpithosburialsthe pithol, their bases
to the centre,may havefurther servedto emphasise
the centreand apexof the mound.
The constructionof individualgraveswithin moundsmay be seenas preservingthe traditional

act of graveconstructionfor a specificfuneralasexhibitedin the simplergravesof the previous
section. However, for many of the gravesin these monuments,there is a more complex
relationshipbetweenthe creationof the graveand the intermentof an individual,relatedmore
to the burial practicesevidencedin the monumentsof succeedingperiods' than to a simple
transferof a burialtraditionsfrom the unmarkedcemeteryto a burial mound.
This Is most clearly marked by the adoption of the use of burial pithol In the mounds. Although
one or two burial pithol are known from the simpler graves, they were small and used for Infant
burial. The pithol in consideration here are much larger (some over 2m In length: for example,
A1.14.21) and used mainly for adult burial. Of the gravesthought to be of MH date In these
mounds2, there are at least 27 pithol, compared with five or perhaps nine or more3 graves of
castor pit type.
Eachtime a new pithoswasto be InsertedIn a givenmound, a spaceof the correct sizehad to

be createdIn the mound. In no casewere pithol InsertedverticallyIn the mound: In fact, pithos
cuttingswere almost alwaysmade so that the pithos would rest horizontally.In a few cases
pithoscuttingswere madedeepInto mounds,but In most casesthe cuttingswere fairly shallow,
suggestingthat the pithol would not be fully buried on Insertion.To support the mouths of
thesepithoi, drystoneconstructionsof flat stoneswere sometimesbuilt up to and then around
' Someof thesemonumentscontinueIn use to at leastMHIII, so Indeedsomeof the burial practices

evidencedin them dateto that period.
2 Seecatalogueentry 14 for discussion of the probablypost-MHclst tombsof that mound.
3 Five:assumes all cist burialsin 14:Ayosloinnls Papollamoundpost-MH;nine: assumes cists6,9,10 at
14 are MH, otherspost-MH;more than nine: assumes that many or all of the burialsin 14:Ayosloinn(s
Papolia are MH In date (maximumtherefore17 graves;underthis unlikelyhypothesisnon-pithosburial Is
still rare at the other sites).
andmodification 148
the neck,so that the mouth of the pithoswould eventuallyseemto protrude from the mound,
with a stonebuilt facade(Al. 14.23).
At 14:Ayos lonnisPapodis the architectureof the secondphaseseemswell suited to pithos

burial. Each new pithos entailed the removal of the upper layer of stones and the earth
underlyingit, as far asthe secondlayer of stones.This layer In most casesformed the bedding
for the pithos (Al. 14.19), the upper layerof earth and stonesthen surroundingthe pithos;In
most placeshoweverthis layerseemsto havebeenratherthin - it may havebeenthickertoward
the periphery.Stonesin somecaseswere clearlyplacedIn contactwith the pithosand ringingIt,
againbeddingIt. It is clear howeverthat the pithol were by no meansfully burled within the
upper layer, raisingthe questionas to whethera further layer of earth wasever laid on top of
the mound,or If individualpithol might be coveredby more earthor stones.
There is a number of graveswith pebble floors: they are most numerousat 17:Voidhokili,
wherea multi-colouredsea-pebblebed wascreatedfor the corpsein pithos 6 and probablyalso
in pithos 7; the burial in the gravejust to the eastof the later dromoslay on a pebblefloor and
wasprobablyalsocoveredin pebblesduring Interment;the two burialsin a castto the eastof
the mound alsolay on a pebblefloor; and finally the chamberof the later tholos tomb wasalso
strewn with pebbles,althoughthis is a secondaryfloor after the chamberwas cleared(other
tholos tombswith pebblefloors are noted in the relevantsectionbelow). Other examplesare
found at 27:Rotsi,whereone of the cist tombs In the Kaloyeropoloumound had a pebble-
strewn floor; and beyond the sites under immediateconsideration,35:Peristeri,where the
MHIII-LHI gravebesidethe later tholos 1 periboloshad a thick pebblefloor; and severalgraves
at 57:Ayos Stefanos,37:Mlthi, and 41:FiliatrStomion(all describedin the relevantsection
above).The effect of the pebblesis not immediatelystartling, but they form a subtle marker
and interfacewith the earth, and an embellishmentof the grave.A built grave,especiallyone
locatedwithin an artificialmonument,allowsfor the depositionof the corpsein a partly cultural
environment,and the provisionof a pebblefloor might alsohavebeen intendedto Isolatethe
deadfrom naturalearth.
any excavatedevidencewith activitiesthat may havetakenplaceasan

It is difficult to associate
act of closurefor the constructionphase.A possibilityIs 14:AyoslonnisPapoliafirst phase,for
example:althoughI generallyassumethat the central constructionwas a burial spaceand the
lack of finds Is explainedby later removal,It Is possiblethat no burial ever took place. If so,

then the feastingandsacrificeevidencedin front of the constructionby an 'altar', ashandbones
action.The feastingand sacrificeare howevermore likely to
might relateto a post-construction
relateto either post-funeraryritual or generalancestorworshipactivity.
The data and their Interpretationwith the centralconstructionat 27: RodtslKaloyeropolouare

similar. Here the largecentralpit wasalsofound empty, but outsidewere three pottery Items,
Includinga doublecup. The cup at leastmay be plausiblyInterpretedas associated with ritual
activity. Again, however,althoughIt Is possiblethat the activity relatesto someact at the end
of construction,the positionof the remainsoutsidethe pit suggests
that the activity took place
with referenceto the pit, and so Is more likely to relate to post-funeraryor generalancestor
worshipactivity.
Opeaiug the grave
The bedding of funerary pithol, with the mouth at surfacelevel, Indicatesthat they were
Intendedto be accessible.
In most cases,openingthe pithol would Involvesimply removingthe
cover slab usually placed over the mouth and sometimesheld In place by a drystone
construction.It would not havebeennecessary
to InterveneIn the mound Itself. In the caseof
castburials,whosedatesare In any caseuncertain,It would have been necessaryto remove
whatevercoveringstoneswerein placeIn order to gainaccessto the grave.
Closing the grave
There are no artefactsto be associated

with the closureof thesegraves.Pithol were regularly
stoppedby one or more stoneslabs,placedup againstthe mouth and held In placeby earth or
drystoneconstruction;sometimessuchslabswere not found, and the mouth may simply have
beencoveredwith earth. The other gravesseemto havebeencoveredwith earth for the most
part, althoughthe southerncistwithin the 17:Voidhokilimound may havehad a woodenroof.
ChapterSix Architecture,graveconstructionandmodification 150

BURIAL MOUNDS OF LIKELY MH DATE (TABLE 5.2, PAGE I 16)
Preparation of coastruct/oa materials
Many of thesesitesare notedashaving'cover slabs'aswell as pithos fragments,the implication

beingthat both pithosburial and castburial waspractised.Theseslabsare still visibleat someof
theseunexcavatedmonuments(for example,21:Lefki,A1.21.13-14). Suchslabswould need
to be procuredand broughtto the site.
Someof the moundsare large,and consequently

would haverequiredthe collectionof a large
amountof earthandstonesto form the matrix.
No evidence.
Digging orbui/ding the grave
Fewof thesemoundshavebeenexcavated,but where a mound hasbeen damagedby farming

or road-makingactivity, some structural details may have been observed.The mound at
2:Evangelism6shas been sectionedby the constructionof a track: it appearsto be almost
entirely made of earth, with no other structural enhancements.At 6:P17a,
the mound was
apparentlymadeof stoneand coveredwith 'hard white clay'. If so, givenits position (described
above), the white clay may well have been related to its visibility in the landscape(a role
perhapsreplicatedby the stone pavingof 14:Ayos 1onn1s Papo/ia).One of the moundsat
15:PiJtanosmay be partly stonebuilt, althoughmuch of the visiblestone is likely to be modem
dump.
The moundsof the Ambelfito-Tragna ridge (20:Tragna8E21:L, fki) are describedas being
from 2m up to 5m in height.Thesedimensionsdeservecarefulconsideration.If a burial mound
is 2m in height,this meansthat if someonestandsat the basethat personmust look upwardin
order to look at the centreof the mound - the mound is taller than a person.A mound 5m in
height, however,is two and a half times as largeagain:a very tall constructionIndeed.By far
the majority of Messenian
moundsobservedduring fieldwork for this thesiswere around 2m in
height,and someare much lower. Rareexceptionsmight be 13:Kaminia,3.5m to 4m high, or
mound 126 of 21:Lefkl, about 4m tall (3m accordingto the PylosRegionalArchaeological
andmodification 151
Project: Alcock, Bennetat Davis 1996). There seemsto have been a tendency for the
Expedition(McDonald& Hope Simpson1961,1964,1969)
Universityof MinnesotaMessenia
to exaggerate the heightof burial mounds,and the observationof lower heightsnow cannotbe
entirely explainedby farmingactivities(a 5m mound is unlikelyto be ploughedawayto a1m
rump). This Is partly confirmed by the published observationsof the Pylos Regional
Archaeological
Project(ibidem).
The recent destructionof 22:PfrgosTsokahasrevealedthat the mound was natural,although

burialswere dug into it quite deeply.This is an important observation:an existingknoll might
just aswell be utilisedasa burial site as an artificial one, and ultimatelythe differencebetween
those two categoriesmight not be discernibleto those usingthe mounds.(The observationis
somewhatweakened,however,by the claim that the site relatesonly to the historicalperiod:
discussedand disputedin appendixthree). A similar exampleis the Nikltopodlou knoll at
30:Nih6ria.
8:Kiss6sseemslike a low, earthenconstruction(althoughIts excavatorsuggestsIt Is '3m or 4m

high', it Is certainly no more than 2m high as preservedtoday). The original form of the
enigmaticstonestructures('graveperibolol') set within the mound Is unknown,but they clearly
createseparatespaceswithin the body of the mound. In this sensethey may play a similarrole
In the mound as pithol and built stonechambersIn other, similarmounds:specificand defined
burial placesto which peoplecould return againand again.
Acts at the end of the construct>onphase
No evidence.
Opening the grave
These generallyunexcavatedmounds offer no new Insightsbeyond those reported In the

previoussection.
Closing the grave
The often-reported'cover slabs'are assumedto relate to the closureof castgravesby placing

one or more slabson top. In somecasesthesemight havefunctionedasmarkers.

THE MHIII-LHI PERIOD (TABLES I 11, PAGES 33-34)
.8&I.
With the possibleexceptionof Kokor3kouat 35:Peristeri,all sitesdiscussedas MHI-II (table

1.7, page33) continuedto be usedin this period, and 8:Kiss6swasalsoprobablyin use.
Prepiratioa of coastrnctioa materials
The materialrequiredIn constructingmany of the sitesunder considerationhere Is as greatas,

and often much greaterthan for thosedescribedin previoussections.Many sitesare set In an
artificial mound, as beforerequiringthe gatheringof earth and stone;moreover,In the caseof
siteswhere chambersare built of stone, there Is need to procure, prepareand transport the
stonesInvolved.Most of the tholos tombs are built of squared,slab-likestones,which usually
occur naturallybut must at leasthavebeengathered,If not quarried,and then brought to the
point of construction.In somecases,for example39:Psiri Metsiki,stoneswere derivedfrom the
immediatecontextsurroundingthe tomb. At 17:Voidhokilithe stoneswere probablyprocured
from the beachbelow. Elsewhere,
stonesmay havebeenbrought from somedistance,and the
locationof the sourceIs rarelydeterminedby excavators.In the caseof the largertholol, up to
about 8m In diameterand perhaps7m or more In height, the volume of material requiredIs
considerable.Even with the smaller tholol, a not Inconsiderablemass of stone would be
required.A relativelylargebody of people,actingIn a co-ordinatedfashion,would be required
in the procurementof materialsfor many of thesetombs. This requirementcontinuesIn the
constructionphase,asnotedbelow.
There Is little evidencefor dressedstoneworkat MHIII-LHI tholos tombs (stonesIn the stomlon
at 24:Englian6s
tholos IV are dressed).
Two tomb types- the chambertomb, and to a lesserextentthe tholos tomb - provide evidence
for the useof tools. The constructionof chambertombsdemandsthe useof an axe-or pick-like
device, as describedbelow. Such an item would presumablyhave to be made of bronze,
althoughperhapsthe stoneinto which the 23:Vo11mldhla
tombswere cut wassoft enoughfor a
that the rock herewasvery soft and easyto cut: 1966,
stonetool to carve(lakovfdhissuggests
98). Again at 23: Vo1imldhia the chambersare often so well rounded and smooth that some
other tool, perhapsa knife, must havebeenusedto createthe smoothsides.Tholostombsare
often at leastpartly underground,and so diggingtoolswould be required.

At 17:Voidhokili there was an unusualand complex preparatory phase for the second period of
use for the mound. The first phase of the site consisted of a large burial tumulus containing
burials In large pithol generally placed radially In the mound. This phase of use probably began
In MHI and continued through MHII with perhaps some further use In MHIII. By MHIII
Interventions In the mound seemsporadic at most, suggestingIts status as a historical rather than
current burial place. In early LHI this historical character was reworked by Initiating a
reconstruction (described below). In preparation for this the builders rearranged the mound,
exhuming those pithoi likely to be affected by the new construction and reburying them around
the periphery of the mound. Up to four of the nine funerary pithol seem to have been treated
in this way (numbers 1,5,7,10). The evidence for this activity In two casesIs that the pithol
were buried high In the mound, above MH levels In a layer created during the construction of
the tholos tomb; in one case that all the material within had gathered at the bottom of the
pathos,as If It had been momentarily set upright before being laid down again; and in one case
that the pithos was placed on a bed of stones, unlike the other pithol. Certainly In the first two
casesat least the observation must be valid: we therefore have evidence that the builders of the
second phasemound were at some pains to preserveIntact the physical remnantsof the
activitiesof thosewho camebeforethem. Despitechangesin architectureand funerarypractice,
the secondphasebuildersclearlyfelt that their acts in somesensemaintaineda continuity and
link with the pastandthe actsof thosethat camebeforethem.
At 39:Psrithere Is evidencefor activitiesprecedingthe constructionof the tholos tomb, In that

when the artificial floor of the tomb was excavatedremains of fire-blackenedearth were
discoveredunderneath,along with flint and obsidianwaste characteristicof the site. Two
possibleinterpretations suggestthemselves:
either the tomb was built in a previouslyinhabited
area, perhapsan areaassociated with flint and obsidianworking, and that in levellingthe area
and creatingthe floor of the tomb charcoal and stone working wastewere concentrated In the
limestonehollowsunder the floor; or that a specificactivity preparatoryto the constructionof
the tomb left behindcharcoaland stoneworking wastewhich was deliberatelygatheredunder
the floor asa foundationdeposit.
The architecturesof MH burial mounds,while on occasionbetrayingconsiderablecomplexity

amount to more or lesscarefully
(the multiple layersof 14:Ayos onnisPapofia),nonetheless
andmodification 154
constructedpilesof earth or earth and stones,with gravestructuressuchas cists,equallynon-
specialistin their construction.The only evidenceof specialistskillslay in the useof funerary
pithol, and as it will be concludedthat in most casesthesewere reusedfrom anothercontext
(chapterseven),the specialskillsrequiredfor their constructionshouldprobablynot be related
directly to the actsof constructionfor the burial.
In the case of the sites under discussion here, various structures and techniques require the
active presence of skilled workers and experienced specialists at the construction site: In
particular the construction of tholos burial chambers on the principle of corbelled stone vaults
(7: Dhi6dhia U Strefi, 10:Gouvalri, 13:Kamfnia, 16:Korifsio, I 7: Voidhokili3,24: Englian6s,
27: Rotsi, 30: Nih6ria, 32: Pa1eoh6ria,35: Peristeri,39: PsJri, 43: K3to Samik6 Klidhi and possibly
46: Makrisia), and the carving of a chamber from rock (23: Volimldhia, 58: EpldhavrosLlmir and
62: Kithira). At some sites, tholos tomb structures post-date an earlier phase of use within the
MHIII-LHI bracket: 13:Kaminia, 17:Voidhokili, and possibly 10:Gouvalri.
The recognitionof two principaltypes obscuresthe high degreeof architecturalvariability In

thesemonuments.In manycasesthe life history of a monument,or of a group of monuments,
had a profound effect on the form of an MHI11-LHIconstruction.Nonethelessthe two basic
forms, the corbelledstone built chamberand Its carvedequivalent,seemto appearsuddenly
and widely In the record,and not only In the areaunder study (althoughdefinite LHI examples
outside this area are few: only the Thorikds elliptical tholos, and some chamber tombs at
Prdsimna,Nfplio and Mycenae).
The origins of the tholos form. In considering a possible'external' origin for the tholos form, two
possible levels of Influence must be examined: were tholos tombs directly Imported or adapted
from elsewhere, or did the existence of similar tombs elsewhere form an Influence on the
adoption of the tholos form? These questions are Important because, if tholos tombs were an
adaptation of a Minoan form (the view comprehensively set forth by Hood: 1960, and
supported by Pelon: 1976,442-53), then questions concerning the construction of these
tombs would revolve around the means by which Cretan skills and techniques were transferred
to' the mainland; If not, then evidence for the Inception of the form, and the techniques
requiredto createit, needbe soughtIn the Messenlan

evidence.

Tomb 1 Setting Masonry
7 Dhiodla 4.2m Unknown Unknown

10 Gouval3ri Gouval3ri 1 6.25m Mound, double Flat stones
(some large)
10 Gouvalrl Gouval3ri 2 5m Mound, double Flat stones
10 Gouvalri Mound 2 tholos 2.75m Mound, multiple Flat stones
10 Gouvalrl Mound 2 tholos <3m Mound, multiple Flat stones
10 Gouval3rl Mound 2 tholos <3m Mound, multiple Flat stones
10 Gouvalri Mound B 3m to 4m Mound Flat stones
10 Gouvalri Mound A tholos 1 2.9m Mound, multiple Flat stones
10 Gouvalri Mound A tholos 5 2.1 m to 2.8m Mound, multiple Flat stones
10 Gouval3ri Mound A tholos 6 3.48m Mound, multiple Flat stones
10 Gouvalri Mound A tholos 9 3m Mound, multiple Flat stones
10 Gouval3rl Mound A tholos 10 4.73m Mound, multiple Flat stones
13 Kamfnia Tholos I 3.2m to 3.4m Mound, multiple Flat stones
13 Kamfnia Tholos 2 2.7m Mound, multiple Flat stones
13 Kamfnia Tholos 5 2.1 m Mound, multiple Flat stones
16 Korifsio 6m Underground Flat stones
17 Voldhoklli3 Tholos 4.93m to Mound/protrudin Large pebbles,
5.03m g with clay coating sandstones
24 Englians Vayens (tholos 5) 5.4m Mound? Flat stones
24 Engllanbs Tholos IV 9.35m Mound Large, squarish,
partly dressed
stones
27 Rotsi Tholos I 5.4m Underground Flat stones
27 Rodtsi Tholos 2 5m Underground Flat stones
30 Nih6ria Nikitopolou 2 3m Knoll, multiple Flat stones
30 Nihria Nikitopolou 3 3.4m Knoll/mound? Flat stones
30 Nih6ria Nikitopolou 4 3.4m Knoll, multiple Flat stones
30 Nihbria Nikitopolou 5 5.2m Knoll, multiple Flat stones
30 Nih6ria Nikitopolou 6 3m Knoll, multiple Flat stones
30 Nihria Veves 5.1m Unknown Flat stones
35 Perlsteri Tholos 3 6.9m Mound?/hillside Flat stones
35 Perlsteria South Tholos 1 5.08m Freestandingwith Large pebbles
clay coating (?)
(/Mound? )
39 PsriMetsfkl Tholos 1 8.05m Mound Large squarish
stones, partly
dressed
42 Kato Samtk Samikon mound 5.5m Mound Flat stones?
Klidhl4
42 Kato Samlk6 Mound 5 5.65m Underground/ Large rough
Klldhl mound limestones
46 Makrfsias 3.8m Mound? Flatstones
51 Anlipsls Eight small tholoi unknown Unknown Flat stones?
Table 6.2. Sizes,settings and construction materials of MHIII-LHI tholos tombs.
4 Not published as a tholos tomb: refer to site catalogue entry.

I Not published as a tholos tomb: refer to site catalogue entry.
156
The first mainlandtholostombswere built in MessinfaIn MHIII: there Is no evidencethat any
tholos tomb precedesthis period. Minoantholos tombs, althoughprincipallyan artefactof the
early Minoan period, continuedto be used sporadicallyin the middle Minoan period and
beyond,and somefew exampleswere built in that period. Minoan tholoi differ In many details
of architecturefrom their Mycenaeancounterparts,but the debatehastendedto focuson the
corbelledvault, which Is an essentialfeatureof Mycenaeantholos tombs. It is certainthat the
vast majority of Cretantholol were nevervaulted, as hasbeenshownby Cavanagh8t Laxton
(1981,131.133). The recent publicationof the Minoan cemeteryat Fournt (Arh3nes)has
howeversuggested
that the three Minoan-typetholoi there were suppliedwith corbelledroofs,
along with the two later Mycenaean-typetholoi and 'burial building 19' (Sakellarakis8t
Sapouna-Sakellarakl
1997,243). The main descriptionof tholos B (ibidem, 171-173) doesnot
mentionthe roofing system,however,and there Is little evidenceof an incline In the preserved
coursesof the walls. Similarlythe roof of tholos E is not described,and In fact the tomb Is
preservedonly In one or two courses;'burial building 19' is an apsidalstructure, and only
partial corbellingis claimed.It Is thereforeonly tholos C (A4.15) that Is clearlyclaimedto be
vaulted (ibidem 181). This is an EMIII construction;even should one accept it as a vaulted
building,its date of constructionis so remote (over 300 years)from that of the first mainland
tholol that the knowledgedeployedIn its constructioncannotbe shownto be still currentat that
later date.
The tholos tomb at Kamilrl(Levi 1962) is said to havebeen constructedIn the MMI period
(equivalentto MHI or early MHII: table 6.4 below). This tomb's constructionis thereforean
event closerin time to the constructionof the earliestmainlandtholoi, althoughthere Is still a
considerablegap In time. Despitea claimedslightcorbellingin the survivingwallsand a quantity
of stone removedduring excavation(A4.16), it remainsdoubtful that the tomb could have
beencorbelled(comparethe collapsedvault and mound of 35:Peristeritholos 1: Al.. 35..63).
Foundedon bare bedrock,a massivetumuluswould havebeen necessaryto retain the 7.65m
diameterchamber,of whichthereis not the leasttrace.
The reasonsagainstdirectadaptationof the MinoantholosIn Messinfaare strongIn themselves:
" there Is a significantchronologicalgapbetweenknownMM tholol and the first MHIII tholol;

" the two architecturesare very different,especiallyIn roofing and In entranceways.
Theseobjectionswere deducedfrom consideringthe Minoanevidence.However,the Messenian

equallystrongobjectionsto the directadaptationof the Minoan tholos. If one
evidencesuggests

believesthat tholol were Introducedfrom Crete, then the question of transfer of skills Is
Cretan
straightforward: masters taughtthe Messenians
all they knew. Moreover, If one believes
that the tholos form was Imported fully formed from Crete, this would explain the early
appearanceof relativelylargetholoi like 16:Korifsiowith smallertholol; indeed, the smaller
tholoi might be seenas the pale Imitationsby lesserarchitectsof the Cretan originalsthey
struggledto reproduce.
However,a closerexaminationof the architectureof the earliesttholos tombs showsnot only

that they differ significantlyfrom Cretantombs,but alsothat In many casesthey can be seento
be rooted In existingfuneraryforms and practices.Among securelyMHIII tholos tombs", only
Vayen(24:Englian6s, Al. 24.22) might be arguedto be freestanding:howeverthe complete
destructionof part of the tomb, and razingof the rest of It down to the bottom 30cm, means
that It could just as easilyhavebeena canonicalmainlandtholos set In a mound, both being
destroyed at the same time. Other MHlll tombs are 16:Korifsio,set almost completely
underground(Al. /6.1-3), one of the larger tholol at 10:Gouvalrf(Al. /0.45), set In a
mound, and smalltholol In moundsat IO:Gouva/ri(Al. /0.1) and 13:Kamfnia(A1.1. 1-4),
and In a knoll at 30:Nih6ria(Al. 30.15). None of thesetombs Is freestanding,and most are
small(2m to 4m diameter)andset In mounds.
In the central Messenian milieuof funerarymounds,a freestandingstone-builtstructurewould

certainly be an alien form; on the other hand, a mound containingone or more built burial
chamberswould follow in an already establishedtradition of multiple burial spaceswithin
funerary monuments.Consideredfrom this point of view, there is therefore a clear line of
developmentIn the architectureof burial monumentsIn Messinfa.Rather than viewing the
tholosstructurein isolationasan exceptionaldevelopment,it can be viewedin its Initial form as
simply anotherway of creatinga burial spacewithin the context of the funerarymound. Only
after the constructionof a numberof suchsmall thoioi within moundsdid the Impetuscome
Into being for the tholos to be madeon a largerscaleand ultimately to form the singleusable
burial spaceof a funerarymonument.
Korns (1996) has perceptively suggestedthat in form the small tholos tombs are similar to
pithoi, and that the pithos may have suggestedthe shape of the tholos tomb. In particular the
6 The chronologicaluncertaintythat attendsthe constructiondate of any tholos tomb meansthat there

will neverbe a reliableway of producinga chronologicalsequencefor thesemonumentsthat Is anything
better than a bestguess.Another possibleMHIII tholostomb (not freestanding)Is 35:Perlsteritholos 3:
refer to the catalogueentry, appendixone, for details.

pithos exhibits the qualitiesof possessinga darkenedInner chamberapproachedthrough a
narrow opening. These qualities are recreated In stone In the tholos tomb. The tholos
constructiongoes beyond other types of burial, however, In that It can Itself contain less
monumental forms: a tholos chambermight have pits or In
casts Its floor, or (rarely) contain
pithosburials.At I3: Kaminia,two pithol were built Into the fabric of a tholos tomb: thesetwo
pithol may well havebeendisturbedduring the constructionof the tholos, and were carefully
exhumedand then set Into the architectureof the tholosIn a symbolof continuity,their content
perhapsevenbeingreburiedIn the tholos.
Whetheror not any conceptuallink existedbetweensmalltholol and burial pithol, they shared
setting (a funerary mound), function, and numerousaspectsof the funerary customsof the
period. It seemsreasonablethereforeto posit their local development,rather than to adduce
the deusex machinaof Cretantholol in order to explainthe appearance
of thesemonuments.
Tholostomb constructiontechniques.The techniqueof building a corbelled vault in stone is

complex, and has been thoroughly discussedby CavanaghSZ Laxton (1981). Their work
examinesin great detail the principlesof constructinga dome usingthe corbellingtechnique,
and the theory they presentcomparesfavourablywith measurements from existingtombs. In
conclusion they suggesta construction method which should have been open to the
Mycenaeans.
Cavanagh$t Laxton'swork did not set out explicitly to examinethe Inventionor discoveryof
tholos building techniques.They examined tombs In the range of about 7m diameter
(Marathon) up to about 14m (Mycenae,Treasuryof Atreus); the earliesttombs In Messinfa
rangefrom about 2m diameterup to about 6m for the 16:Korifsiotholos. Sincethe corbelled
vault of the tholos tomb hasno known predecessor,the techniquemust have been Invented
through trial and error, and so it makessensethat the earliesttholol would be of manageable
dimensions:easierto rebuild if a mistakecauseda collapse,and safer for those Involved.The
suggestionmadeabove that early tholol set out to createburial spaces
within moundsIn much
the sameway as pithol or other gravetypes Impliesthe constructionof relativelysmall tombs
PapoIa,Is In the
(the length of the largestknown burial pithos, 2.18m from 14:Ayos 1onnis
rangeof the diametersof earlytholostombs).
Havingperfectedthe techniqueof corbellingfor small tombs, the possibilityof building larger

tholol seemsto havesuggested
Itselfto MessenlanarchitectsalmostImmediately,so that at least
three tholol of 5m to 6m diameterhad beenbuilt by the end of MHIII. While the construction

technique and skills required to build larger tombs are basically the same as for smaller tombs, it
is important to grasp the different scalesinvolved. A 6m diameter tholos tomb is not twice the
size of a 3m diameter tholos tomb: both in terms of volume and floor surface (in human terms,
the amount of space inside) and the surface area of the walls (hence the amount of construction
material required and the area over which architectural control must be maintained during
construction), the 6m tomb is much larger than the 3m tomb: approximately eight times larger
in volume and four times larger in floor and wall surface area (table 6.3 below). Moreover, for
larger tombs thicker walls are required, increasing the amount of construction material even
further.
(TO
DIameter !tu-f. --@ of (T. -21
sti-face arpa of walls
(Tr2j Me
1 0.79 1.57 0.26

2 3.14 6.28 2.09
3 7.07 14.14 7.07
4 12.57 25.13 16.76
5 19.63 39.27 32.72
6 28.27 56.55 56.55
7 38.48 76.97 89.80
8 50.27 100.53 134.04
9 63.62 127.23 190.85
10 78.54 157.08 261.80
11 95.03 190.07 348.46
12 113.10 226.19 452.39
13 132.73 265.46 575.17
14 153.94 307.88 718.38
15 176.71 353.43 883.57
Table 6.3. Approximations of floor and will surface area and volume for tholos and chamber tombs of
Im to 15m diameter. The approximation assumesthat the chamber is a perfect hemisphere and the floor
is circular; in practice the height of the chamber is much greater than the radius, but the intention is to
illustrate differences in scale. Area of circle: nr2. Surface area of hemisphere: 2rzr2. Volume of
hemisphere: 2/3nr3.
Therefore, for two basic reasons I suggestthat the smaller tholoi were built before the larger
tholoi in central Messinia. On the one hand, there is a technological reason: there is no strong
evidence that the technique of creating corbelled structures was directly imported from Crete or
elsewhere. It must have been invented by trial and error, a process made much easier by trying
to construct smaller rather than larger buildings in the first instance. On the other hand, the
small tholos tombs seem clearly to be part of, and advance, the already existing structures and
traditions of burial in tumuli. They can be seen to fulfil the role of creating a burial space within
the mound, and to do so in ways not unconnected with other methods. At the same time, the
tholos construction created new possibilities, which seem to have been very quickly understood
and exploited.
160
Secondaryadaptationof the tholosform. To conceiveof thesetholol as merely anotherway of
creatingburial spaceswithin tumuli is probablyto underplaythe Importanceplacedon them
once they were created,but it doesmakethe point that the tholos form continuedto fulfil the
needfor variousdiscreteburialspaceswithin a mound.The earlyexamplesdo suggest,however,
that once the ability and will to build tholol was established,this form beganto eclipseother
possibilities.In the 13:Kaminiamound, earlierwaysof makingroom for the deadin tumuli, In
the form of pithos burials,were superseded,while at the 10:Gouvalrlmounds,other burial
forms have not been found; and slightly later at 17:Vo1-dhok111J,
where a continuingfeelingof
understandingfor the monumentand connectionto the dead led to the exhumationand
redepositionof someof the funerarypithol, In the processof constructingan LHI tholostomb:
the tholos, however,becamethe only possibleburial spacewithin the mound from that point
onward.
Sincein their Initial constructiontholol were envisagedas facilitatingthe useof burial mounds,
as a way of somehowmakingthe ritual of mound usesomehowbetter, they were not Intended
by their makersto replacethe burialmoundand createa newcategoryof burial monument.Yet
this quicklybecamethe unintendedconsequence
of the creationof the first tholostombs;tholol
were quickly adopted and adapted so that by the end of the period (MHIII-LHI) the
constructionof largertholol In their own moundswasnormal.
The chronologicalevidenceshowsthat the appearanceof largertholoi wasnot the resultof the

gradualconstructionof ever largertholol, the largestonesbeing the culminationof a process;
rather, the evidenceof earlydatesuggests
that largetholol were built very quickly after the first
tholostombs.Whateverthe exactsequence,It is clearthat theselargertholol, alongwith others
regardedas early LHI, were being built within the samechronologicalhorizon as the smaller
tholol.
As hasbeennoted, the differencebetweensmallerand larger tholol Is not one of construction

technique,but of scale.The sameconstructionmaterialis usedIn early 5m - 6m tholol asIn the
small tholol (that is, mainly flat slabsof schistand sometimesmore variable,roundedstones),
and the differenceis simply one of scale.However,this increaseIn scalebrought about the
secondaryadaptationof the tholos tomb, making it not one burial place among many in a
funerarymonument,but ratherthe only' burial place,often with multiple burial spaceswithinIt,
In fact many Messeniantholos tombsare found In pairs, either In two moundsor occasionallysharing
the samemound.Thisobservationdoesnot detract from the fact of the tholos becomingthe architectural
focusof the mound.
andmodification 161
In the form of pits and casts.The moundoften retainedits prominentrole in the landscape,but
attentionwasdirectedat the built architecturewithin the mound (architecturalfocusIs discussed
In chaptereight), and tholosmoundsseemneverto havebecomea focusfor burial outsidethe
tholos tomb itself. Undergroundtholostombswere the resultof the sameprocessof secondary
adaptation,and in this casedispensed
with the moundaltogether.Theseadaptationscanbe seen
as both themselvessubservientto changesIn burial tradition, In how people wanted and
expectedto be ableto usefunerarystructures,and bringingaboutchangesIn burial tradition.
There is no discernibledevelopmentIn the architectureof tholos tombs In the LHI period after
their Initial, rapid developmentIn MHIII. Small tholos tombs In multiple burial mounds
continuedto be built and used,but as far asthe evidenceallowsno new multiple burial mound
wasconstructedin LHI, in Messinlaat leaste,while manynew tholos tombsof the largervariety
werebuilt In this period. Thereis a remarkablehomogeneityIn constructiontechniquefor these
tholos tombs, and almostall fall within the 5m to 7m diameterbracket (the exceptionsare
46:Makrisia,3.8m; 39:Psri,8.05m; and24:Englian6s tholos IV, 9.35m).
Architecturaldetails.Most tholol were built Into a mound, often partly underground.Only a

very few exampleswere built completelyunderground,suggestingthat the mound retained
ongoing importance as a physical marker of the tomb's presenceIn the landscape;the
constructionof an undergroundtholosalsorequireda very considerableexcavation.Although In
most casesthe moundwill havecoveredthe tholos tomb, there Is evidenceIn a few casesthat
the upper part of the vault protruded abovethe mound and was covered by a clay capping.
One such exampleIs 17:Voidhokili:the original MH mound, about 1m high, was Increased
aroundthe tholos to at least2m, and probablyhigher; the remainingclay-cappedapexwould
haveformed a white, pointed markerabovethe mound. The mound was removedIn front of
the blocked facadewith the protruding
the stomion (there was no dromos), thus emphasising
apexbehindIt and the MH moundslopingdown on both sides.A clay cappingwasalsopresent
at 35:Peristeri
south tholos 1, and probablyat someother early tholos tombs (evidencefor a
clay cappingIs easilymissedin excavation).
Many of the 10:Gouvalri

tombslack (or apparentlylack) dromol: the sameIs true for someof
thoseat 13:Kamfnla.An explanationfor this Is that In the first casemanysmalltholol weresited
relativelyhigh and to the edgeof their respectivemounds,rather than deepin the centre:this is
a result of the continuingidea of multiple burial points around the outsideof the mound. In
The eight smalltholoi at 51:Anlipslsmay date to LHI, but there Is no evidencethat they were located
In a burial mound.

these casesthe stomia would open onto the edge of the mound, and when walled up the walling
could present a facade and a visible marker for that tomb. The development of the dromos is
part of the secondary adaptation of tholos tombs, and it perhaps first became an Important
architectural device in the case of chamber tombs (below). If the dromos Is accepted as a
secondary development, however, it is by no means late: In mound A at 10:Gouval3ri, for
example, the tholos most obviously with a dromos, number 10, is most likely MHIII-LHI In
date.
A numberof tholostombsexhibitan unusualfeatureIn someor all of the dromos,stomionand

chamber:an elongateddoublegrooveor pit or combinationthereof. This featureIs found at
10:Gouvalri1 8t 2 (Al. /0.39), 27:Rotsitholos 2 (Al. 27..17) and 35:Perlsteriatholos 3
(Al.. 7S.35-37); It reappears In later tombs at 18:Tragna(A1.18.4, Al. 18.7-8,
A1.18.14). This wasoccasionallyIn the pastexplainedasa featureallowingfor the entry of a
cart (carrying the corpse)or a coffin Into the tomb, but this explanationIs untenablefor a
numberof reasons(discussionand referencesin Korres 1976a and - In connectionwith similar
featuresIn chambertombs of the Argolid and Vlotfa - Akerstrm 1986). On more than one
occasionamong the presentsample,these featureswere associatedwith hoard of bronzeor
gold, and so the most likely explanationfor them Is that they relate to specificInstancesof
deposition,not necessarilyprimary In the architecturalsequenceof the building.The Instances
(outside Messinfa)studied by Akerstrm (1986) also date to LHI-II; he suggestedthat the
groovesmaintaineda linking channelbetweenthe chamber and the dromos wheneverthe
stomionwasblocked,to be usedfor libation or other 'offerings'. It shouldbe noted, however,
that this featureoverallIsvery rare; pan-helladicexplanationsare unlikelyto be adequate.
found in tholostombs,asat 17:Voldhokilimentionedabove,

Pebblefloors are alsooccasionally
at 43:Kto SamikKlidhl,wherethe floor of the chamberwas strewn with gravel,and In later
tombsat 54:Vafi6,whereTsondasmentionsa layerof pebbleson the floor of the dromos,and
possiblythe floor of the secondtholos at 12:
Fities.Otherwise,the floors of tholos tombs are
generallyof packedearth.
The largest(diameter9.35m) and most impressiveof MHIII-LHI tholos tombs is 24:Englian6s

tholos IV (A1.24.11-15). Aside from Its monumentality,architecturalrefinementsare few:
constructiontechniquesseemvery much the sameas for the other tholoi. Coursesof stones
present a smooth face in the interior and are quite well laid, but still consist of irregularly sized
flattish stones. Only in the facade of the stomion are there signsof more elaborate work: stones
are larger and squared, suggestingthat they were dressed and fitted for their positioning; In

particular, there are largesquared stones as corner piecesin the facade.Nonetheless,
courses
are still of irregularsizes,andthe survivinglintel block seemsto havebeenunworked.
Tholos 1 at 39:PsriMetsikl(Al.. 39.7-8) Is anotherlargetomb (8.05m diameter),with large

blocksIn both chamberand stomion.The tholos is mostly aboveground and surroundedby a
largemound madeof stone.Architecturallyone might expectthis tomb to be later than LHI,
and the evidencefor an earlydateis not fully published.The stomionIs very long - 4.9m, while
the dromos is 6m In length, reachingto the edgeof the mound. The dromoswas lined with
stone,which is uniquefor this period, althoughIts locationIn a stonemound makesthis feature
Inevitable.The mound was retainedby a peribolos,also unique for tombs of this date. The
periboloswall, asidefrom Its practicalfunction of retainingthe mound over the tholos, forms
part of a complex,multi-layeredarchitecturewithin the mound.The peribolosalsofunctionsas
a visible boundarybetweenmound and not-mound. In short, the architecturaldesignIs well
suited to its location, high in the mountainsIn a rocky area, but might also be said to exhibit
manyenhancements on the basic,centralMessenian either a slightlylater date
design,suggesting
or the resultof simplelocaldevelopment.
Chambertombs.The chambertomb may at first seemrather different from the tholostomb: It

is not set in a mound, and it is hackedor carved out of rock rather than built of stone.
Nonetheless,a numberof other factorsmakechamberand tholos tombsextremelysimilarboth
architecturallyand in termsof their use.In form the chambertomb closelyresemblesthe tholos
tomb (for example,Al .21.39). It consistsof the samethree basicelements:chamber,stomion
and dromos, although in generalthe stomia of chamber tombs are very undevelopedIn
comparisonto tholos tomb stomia,and rarely of any great length, a restriction due mostly to
the mode of construction.The tomb is locatedunderground,usuallyon the slopeof a ridge or
hill, the dromosleadingfrom the hillsideinto the hill to the depth of the tomb, endingat the
facadewhich is formedof the rockfaceat the end of the dromosand the stomioncarvedout of
it (for example,Al. 25..39 top right). The chamberis carvedout of the rock underground.
In the wider helladicworld and especiallyin the LHIII period, chambermorphologiesare very
variable, but in the sampleconsidered here, limited to three early sites, there is much less
variation.Tholos-likechambers,found In most of thesetombs, are rare in later tombs, whose

chambersrange from sub-roundto sub-rectangularIn shape, and there are examplesof
(for
extremelyneatlycarvedrectangularchambers example at Dhendhr3In the Argolid, Persson
1942).

In Messinla,In the same central area where many early tholos tombs are located, at
23: Volimldhia,there is a chambertomb cemeteryof at least 34 tombs, dug undergroundbut
into extremelyslight slopes.The slight slopeis not the only unusualfeature of the cemetery,
sincethe tombsalmostwithout exceptionhaveextremelyneatlycarved,circular chambers(for
example,A1.2. 12, A11.2119, A1.2J32, A1.2J. 39), which makeclearreferenceto the
form of the early tholos tomb, exemplifiednearbyat, for example,24:Englian6s(lakovidhis
1966; Kontorli-Papadopoulou 1987,145-146). The sizesof the chambersmirror thoseof the
earlytholostombs,generally3m to 5m in diameter,risingto 6m In a few cases.Stomiaare not
deep(long), and are usuallylow in height,up to about 1.5m high; dromol are usuallyshort but
steep,occasionallystepped.Someof the tombs had second,smallerchambersopeningoff the
dromosto the left about half-waydown; clearlysecondaryconstructions,and perhapsIn some
casespost-bronzeageIn date. Originallythought to be locatedin distinct groupings,it Is clear
that they are fairly evenlyspread,althoughin placestombs have been built one next to the
other, in a clusteror line (above,pages122-123).
Tombsat 58:Epldhavros
Umirare similarin shape:short, steppeddromol, short stomia,and in
this caseellipticalchambers,still Imitatingtholol (Al. S8.3). The tombshavesidechambersoff
the left side of the dromos, of similar size to the main chambers.Where dimensionsare
recorded,theseare rathersmallIn all features,so that chambersare of the order of 2m to 3m
In diameter,stomialow, and dromol 1.5m long. Thesetombsare more canonicallyset Into the
sidesof a ridge.
The chambertombson 62:Kithiraincludeboth artificialchambersand naturalchambersadapted

for burial use (Al. 62.2). The rock-cutchambertombs differ from the two mainlandsitesin
that most of them hadmore than one sidechamber,and theseled off from the centralchamber
rather than from the side of the dromos.Otherwisearchitecturaldetailsare similar: chambers
are roughly sub-round,dromol are short and often stepped,and overall dimensionsare rather
Umir examplesthan those at 23: Vo1imfdh1a.
small, closer to the 58:Epfdhavros The largest
examplehasa centralchamberabout2.5m squareand 2m high, with six smallersidechambers
(A1.62.7).
Thedevelopment of chambertombs.Differencesin architecturebetweenthesethree sites,aswell

as differenceswith contemporarytholos tombs, suggestdifferent lines of developmentand,
ultimately,that the purposesfor whichthe tombswere designedwereslightlydifferent.

By the time of the constructionof the first 23:Vo11midhia
tombs, either late MHI11or early LHI,
the ideaof the tholostomb wasbecomingestablished.
The chambersof 23:Volimidhiatombsare
closely comparablewith nearby tholos tombs In shapeand dimensions(lakovfdhis 1966).
Differencesare to be found In entrances:In many small tholos tombs, the dromos Is
undevelopedor completelyabsent,so that the stomionactsasthe tomb's externalInterface.For
tholol in burial mounds,this suggests
a line of walled-uptomb facadesset radially In a mound.
The chambertombs at 23:Vo1imidh1a all featuredromol (technologicallynecessaryfor a tomb
buried 2m underground)but the stomion Is reducedto a simple door In the rock facade,
normallywalledup.
Wherethe dromosis Insubstantial, there is opportunity for thosearoundthe tomb to focuson

the facadefrom a wider arc: activitiesat the facadeare visibleand open to a wider potential
audience.This fits well with earlier traditions at multiple burial mounds, and insubstantial
dromoi at largertholos tombsmay relate to the samefactors.Where the dromos Is short and
steep,asat 23: Volimldhia,fewerpeoplecan form an audiencefor activitiesat the facade,which
will in any casebe circumscribedby the narrow width of the dromos. Hencethe end of the
dromosmaywell havebecomea focusfor activity, for actsperformedbeforeenteringand after
leavingthe tomb: the liminal point, with the dromosItself, descendingto the chamber,forming
from one areato the other. This Is the role taken on by the dromosIn most tholos
the passage
tombs (chaptereight), and the presumedshort, steepdromosat 16:Korifsiofunctionedin the
sameway. The developmentof dromoi In tholos tombs, a part of the secondaryadaptationof
tholos tombs, may have been strongly influencedby the construction, through necessity,of
dromoi at the early23:Vo11mfdh1a
chambertombsand the I6: Korifsiotholos tomb, and later In
LHI in other tholostombssuchas27:Rodtsi.In thosecases,althoughthe dromoswasa necessity
for undergroundtombs, the architecturalpropertiesof the dromoscame to be appreciatedso
that more developeddromoi cameto be a normalpart of tholos tomb architecture,evenwhere
not strictly required; and in LHIIA the developmentof the dromos at some sites reached
monumentalproportions(35:Peristeri tholol 1 8t 2; 54:Vafi6).
The principal differencebetweenthe 23: Volimfdhiatombs and the 58:EpfdhavrosLlmir &

62:Kithiraexamplesis one of scale.While the 23:Volimidhiatombs are generally3m to 4m in
Umirand 62:Kfthiratombs are about 2m to
diameter,and someare larger,the 58:Epldhavros
3m In diameterand low In height.The 23:Volim!dhiatombs are In scaleequal to many tholos
tombs In their vicinity. The 58:Epfdhavros
Um!r tombs, Isolatedfrom central Messinfa,may
havebeenbuilt with the 62:Klth1raexamplesIn mind, or someof the early Argoild examples,
rather than the 23: Volimfdhlacemetery.The differencein scale(table 6.3 above)is relevantIn

terms of the number of peoplethat might occupy the chamberand the scope of funerary
Um1r3and 62:Kithiratombswere built
activitiesthat might take placewithin. The 58:Epidhavros
with funerarypracticesinvolvingfewerpeoplein mind, and perhapsa needto keepthe moment
of interment or of entry into the tomb a highly restrictedmoment; the 23:VoImidhlatombs
allow for a numberof peopleto enter the tomb at once and view or be InvolvedIn activities
there. These differences,locally significant, and related to different trends in funerary
architecture,do not obscurethe basicequivalenceof their architectureand their function as
multiple burial monuments.
A different aspectservesto set the 62:Kithiratombsapart from most mainlandexamplesof any

period: the use of side chambersopening off the main chamber. The 23: Vo11midhla
and
58:Ep1dhavrosLimir examplessometimeshave side chambersopening off the left of the
dromos,which form alternativefoci for the monuments,but are secondaryto their construction
(at leastwith the 23:Volimidhiaexamples).With the 62:Kithiratombsthe sidechamberscreatea
quite different architecturalmeaningfor the tombs. The chamberis no longer the principal
focus, the point, of the architecture;the chamber becomesa central gatheringplace with
multiple radial foci, a zoneof exchangefrom chamberto chamber.This may haveconsiderable
implicationsfor an understanding of how peopleexpectedto be able to usethe tombs: rather
than the chamberbeingthe focusof activity, it may havebeensecondaryto more secludedrites
in sidechambers.
Overall, therefore,the architectureof thesetombs Is closelycomparableto that of the tholos

tomb, with the differencesmentionedabove.The differencesare minor In comparisonto the
similarities;at 23:Volimfdhia,the tombs were almost certainly conceivedas simply a different
way of creatinga tholostomb, and while at 58:Epldhavros
Limirand 62:Klth1rathe Ideaof the
tholostomb may havebeenlessimmediate(or evennot present)in the mindsof thosebuilding
the tombs, their intentionsin building the tombs were the sameas for those building tholos
tombs. In MHIII-LHI tholos and chambertombs were understood through their common
differencefrom other burial types:that they were closedoff, circular vaulted underground(or
undermound) chambersapproachedby low, narrowentrancesand perhapsby wider dromol.
Constructiontechniquefor chambertombs.One aspectof chambertombs little mentionedin the

literatureIs constructiontechnique.SkillsInvolvedIn the constructionof chambertombsInclude
the ability to recognisesuitablerock or rock combinations,and a practisedability to carry out or
organisethe excavationand carvingof the tomb. The constructionof a chambertomb would
andmodification 167
have involved continualdangerof the collapseof the massof stone aboveas one worked to
carveout the chamberfrom below.
That the dromosof a chambertomb must be constructedfirst is both obvious(for the dromos
providesthe only accessto the placewhere the chamberis to be carved) and shownby the
numerousreports of dromol abandonedbecauseof a (presumed)unsuitabilityof the rock,
discoveredonly once the cutting of the dromos had been carried out. Havingconstructeda
dromos,the architectwould presumablymark out the areaof the entranceand beginto tunnel
into that area.Once the 'tunnel' reachedthe point that wasto be the end of the stomionand
the edgeof the chamber(usuallylessthan 1m), the 'tunnel' would be widenedto createthe
chamber.One possiblemethod would be as follows: having decided on a diameter for the
chamber,on reachingthe point wherethe edgeof the chamberwasto be situated,the workers
could dig forward to a distanceequal to the plannedradiusof the tomb. At this point they
would have effectivelyreachedthe middle of the chamber.Using a rope the length of the
radius,they could dig around,makinga circularchamberby diggingonly as far asthe lengthof
the rope. By this stagethe chamberwould exist in all its diameterand to the height of the
stomion. Diggingupward would be the most dangerouspart in view of the possibilityof
collapse.Sincethe height of the chamberis rarely as much as the diameterof the floor, the
chamber'sinner surfacemay haverequiredmore complicated
carvingof the quasi-hemispherical
calculations,althoughin practice it may simply have been achievedby eye. An alternative
constructionmethod might be to tunnel into the chamberas far as the centre, dig aroundto
createhalf of the floor and at the sametime dig upwardthus creatingthe half of the chamber
on the entrancesidebeforediggingout the other half.
The 23:Volimfdhiatombsare by far the bestconstructedof thoseunder considerationhere, and

in fact are amongthe most carefulconstructionsof any Mycenaeanchambertombs. In almost
all of them great care was taken to create a circular chamberand a tholos-likevault. The
58:EpldhavrosLimir tombs are more elliptical In shape,suggestingthat the exampleof the
tholos tomb was lessImmediate;chambermorphologiesat 62:Klthira are more varied, and
reflect a variabilityin chambertomb shapecommonto Minoan and later Mycenaeanexamples-
they alsosuggesta lessprecisemethodof construction.
Theoriginof the chambertomb form. The earliestchambertombs under considerationhere are

undoubtedlythe 62:Kithiraexamples,which date to MMII at the earliest,and certainlyMMIII-
LMIA and later. The dating terminology refers to the find not of helladic but of Minoan
materialculturewithin the tombs. In fact, chambertombsare known in Crete from manysites,

rangingchronologicallyfrom MMII-III to LMIIIC: not only are they in continuoususeon Crete
for the whole of their currencyon the mainland,but also they both predateand outlast their
mainlandcounterparts.At first glancethis might suggestthat mainlandchambertombsmaywell
be Cretan offshoots,and no doubt contributesfavourablyto the argumentthat tholos tombs
a closerlook at the situationshowsthat the large

were alsoImportedfrom Crete.Nevertheless,
majority of Cretanchambertombscontainmaterialof Will or later date: exactlythe period
whenthe rolesare supposedto be reversedand Crete hascome under Mycenaeandomination.
In other words the majority of chambertombson Crete might be supposedto havebeenbuilt
undermainlandinfluence.
Chambertombsof the protopalatialand neopalatialperiodsare relativelyfew in numberand, In

termsof typology, form one minority type of funeraryarchitectureamongothers.They seemto
be more or lessrestrictedto cemeteriesnear Knosbsand modem IrAlio (Cadogan1994,62-
63 and note 28). Hood & Smyth(1981,11) note MMII chambertombsin the Mvro Splleo
(A4.19) and'Ailias' cemeteries,somecontinuingin useuntil LMI, while further tombson Ano
Yipsdhes(A4.20) werebuilt in MMIII; the recentlyfully publishedchambertomb (' 1967') at
Pbros,at the other end of the Valley, canalsobe datedMMIII-LMI and other tombsare known
from that vicinity (Muhly 1992; A4.21). There can be little doubt that the first chamber
tombsat Knos6spredateany mainlandexample.
The architectureof the early chambertombs at Knosds9Is far from stereotypical:tombs I

(A4.22) and III at Mvro Spfleo,for example,were clearlyof the 'normal' form, with dromos,
stomion and chamber,the dromoi short and steep,chambersof sub-roundor sub-rectangular
plan and section; but most of the early tombs from this and the other cemeteriesexhibit
architecturalpeculiarities.Tomb IX at Mvro Spileo,for example,had an entranceleadingto an
elongatedchamberor corridor, with four tunnelsleadingoff to other chambers.Many of the
tombs were of the so-called'kidney' shape,where a rounded chamberIs Interruptedopposite
the entranceby a baulkleft in the rock, thus forming two partly separatedchambers;thesecan
then be elaboratedby deepeningthe chambersor adding niches,as for exampleat the early
tombs V (A4.23) and VII (A4.24) at Mvro Spfleo, or tomb XVIII at Ano Yipsdhes
but little signof a dromos.Other earlytombsat
(A4.25). The latter alsohadan ante-chamber,
KnosdsIncludea caveusedasa chambertomb in the MMI-LMI period (Hood & Smyth 1981
9 Theseare listedby Cadogan(1992,62 note 28): up to six tombsat Ailias (unpublished;seeHood 8T

Smyth: 1981,54 site 257 for references);sevenof the twenty tombsat M3vro Spfleo(Forsdyke1927);
one or possiblytwo tombsat Ano Yips.dhes(Hood et alit 1959); and the tombsat P6ros(Muhiy 1992).
Other chambertombsIn the Knos6sregion,far greaterin number,dateto LMII-III and later.

45 site 140). Few, if any, chamber tombs of the MM period are known from elsewhere on
Crete (none are listed in the index of Siriopolou's recent catalogue: 1995).
The coincidence in chronology, material culture content and architectural morphology between
the Minoan tombs concentrated at Knossand the tombs at 62: Kithira is therefore striking. Both
modified natural rock holes and artificial chamber tombs were used at Kastri, and the
architectural features of the tombs as excavated correspond well with the Knoss examples, in
particular the variability in chamber form and in the use of side chambers off a central chamber.
The excavatorsof the 62: Kithira tombs described the chamber tombs as 'typical Minoan tombs'
(Coldstream 81 Huxley 1972,220). In fact, as we have seen, they are not typical, in that the
Knoss tombs are unusual for this period, but they might be described as typical of Knossian
MM chamber tombs'.
The normal view of 62: Kithira Kastri is that it was a Minoan colony (Coldstream Sz Huxley
1984 and discussionthereafter), and following that point of view one must suppose that the
chamber tombs are an indication of a custom brought to the island by the Minoan colonists.
Tentative dates for the Middle Minoan period as suggested by Manning (1995) correspond
with the dates used in this thesis (chapter one) as follows:
Mainland phase
Calendar 1
Minoan phase
Calendar 1.
MHI 2050/2000 - 1950/1900 MMIA 2050/2000 - 1925/1900

MMIB 1925/1900 - 1900/1875
MHII 1950/1900 - 1750/1720 MMII 1900/1875 - 1750/1720
MHIII 1750/1720 - 1680 MMIIIA(-B) 1750/1720 - 1700/1680
MMIIIB-LMIA 1700/1680 - 1675/1650
LHI 1680 -1600/1580 LMIA 1675/1650-1600/1550
LHIIA 1600/1580 - 1520/1480 LMIB 1600/1550 - 1490/1470
LHIIB 1520/1480 - 1445/1415 LMII 1490/1470 - 1435/1405
Table 6.4. Chronological comparison of mainland and Cretan pottery styles for the period of study in this
thesis. Source: mainland, Rutter 1993,756 table 2; Crete, Manning 1995,2 I 7.
The earliest of the Knoss tombs therefore correspond with mainland MHII, probably
continuing to MHIII-LHI, while the main use of the 62: Kithira tombs corresponds to mainland
MHIII-LHI, and certainly the earlier phase of that period. We can therefore discount the
possibility that the chamber tomb form on Kithira was derived from the mainland, and must
assumethat if there was any type of influence, it flowed from Kithira to the mainland (Pini
1968,41).
'o In terms of burial practices, there are some differences: larnakes were not noted In the 62: Kithira
tombs.
170
Thereare closesimilaritiesamongall of thesesites,mainland,Kithiran and Cretan,but there are
also significantdifferences.An explanationfor the first constructionof the chambertomb at
58:EpidhavrosLimir, at 23:Volimldhiaand in the Argolid Is not evident from the mere
acknowledgementof the earlierconstructionof the 62:Kfthiratombs. Wasthe existenceof the
62:19thirachambertombs (or indeedthe Knosbschambertombs) a factor In the Inceptionof
individualmainlandchambertomb cemeteries?If so, how did the buildersand usersof each
mainlandchambertomb cemeteryunderstandand employ their knowledgeof the Kithiran (or
Knossian)tombs?
There is no direct answerto these questions.The three cemeteriesmay share a common

architecturalform, but there is enoughvariety In how that form was producedat eachsite to
showthat the influenceof the Kithiranand Knossiantombswasindirect, perhapsminimal.The
tombs at 23:Volimidhiaowe much more to tholos monumentsin the vicinity than to distant
Crete or Kithira; but the degreeof CretanbackgroundInfluencein Messinfa,in the sensethat
Cretan artefactswere found in tombs such as 24:Englian6sVayen3,or the adaptationat this
time of Cretan pottery forms into the LHI style, make It possiblethat an experienceor
knowledgeof tombs at Knos6sor on Kithira played some part in the foundation of the
23: Volimidhiacemetery.The 58:Epidhavros
Limirtombs, conversely,are not set In a landscape
of recently constructedtholos tombs. They are the first known Mycenaeantombs In their
region, and are closer in form to the Kithiran tombs than the Messenlanexamples.Their
constructionmust havesatisfieda perceivedneed of their users,a combinationof a desireto
build tombsthat consistedof dromos,stomionand chamber,the canonicalform, yet which was
perhapsmore informed through direct experienceof Kithiran architecture than of either
Messenlanor, possibly, Argotic examples.While both cemeteries at 23: Vo1im1dhla and
58:EpfdhavrosUmir3 built single-rather than multiple-chambertombs, a conformity almost
universalin the mainland for the whole Mycenaeanperiod and for thousandsof tombs
(Dickinson 1983,57), the side chambersof the Kithiran tombs were transformed at
Limirinto side chambersoff the dromos, and at 23: Volimldhlathe numerous
58:Epidhavros
floor-level nichesin most tombs, providing spacefor collected bonesto be deposited,echo
distantlythe sidechambersof Creteand 62:Kithira.
The appearance
of the chambertomb, then, in the southernand southwesternPeloponnese,
was
not merely the direct result of contact with the Minoan world, nor did it simply answerthe
needfor a lesselaborateform of burial for a suddenlyformed middle class.ThesetombsIn the
MHIII-LHI period are a rarity, limited to three knownsiteswithin the study areaand very few
elsewhere.The tombs of 62:Kithiraowe their existenceto a group of Cretan origin following
andmodification 171
certainburial customsof contemporaryKnosbs.The tombsat 23:Vo11mfdhia
cameinto beingas
a result of the developmentin central Messinfaof a burial custom Involving corbel-form
chambers:the 23:Volimfdhiachambertombsare a recreationof that burial customin a different
medium, but perhapspartly inspiredby chambertombs on Crete or 62:Kfthira.The tombs at
58:EpfdhavrosLimir,fewer In numberand isolatedfrom other sites,seemto havecome Into
beingwith the distantechoesof other cemeteriesin mind, certainly62:Kfthira,but perhapsalso
the tholos tombs of Messinfaand the chambertombs In the Argolid at Mycenae,N3fplio and
Prsimni.
Maintenance
and dissemination Tholos building depends
of knowledgeof constructiontechniques.
on certain architecturalprinciples,and certain knowledgesare requiredto put those principles
into action effectively(Cavanagh a Laxton 1981). Constructiondependson the presenceof at
leastone proficientarchitect,someonewho throughexperienceknowshow to placemasonryso
that the correct shapeis formedand the tomb doesnot collapse.Although Cavanaghst Laxton
showthat this knowledgeis not particularlyobscure,it Is alsonot obviousfrom merely knowing
the shapeof a tholostomb. Specificskillsare alsorequiredin chambertomb construction.The
questionhere is whetherthe architecturalrecord suggests
any meansfor the dissemination
and
maintenanceof this knowledge.
There are various modes through which architectural knowledge might have been disseminated.
One extreme would be relatively free dissemination, where little or no control was exerted over
the core knowledge of construction, and given the right circumstancesthis knowledge could be
acquired without difficulty by the representativesof almost any community or group. The other
extreme would envisagea close control over the core knowledge of construction by a particular
corporate group, or a small number of (competing?) corporate groups. In this case any
individual, group or community seekingto construct a tomb would need to engagethe services
of one of these groups. Another alternative would see the core knowledge of construction
maintained through numerous small corporate groups, these groups allowing relatively wide
disseminationof the knowledge.
A numberof factorscan be examined.How specialised

are the knowledgesInvolved?Are they
so specialisedthat a high degreeof practical competencewould alwaysbe required of the
architect? Are there stereotypical or individualising elements in different tombs that might
suggestthe repetition of stock elements, experimentation, or the decisions of an architect only
vaguely familiar with other examples? Are there any repeated elements that are structurally
unnecessary?

Practicalcompetencyin chambertomb constructionwould not necessarilybe requiredin the
LHIII period, when suchtombsare numerousand the generalprinciplesof their construction
would probably be generallyknown through observation,talk, and the practicalitiesof their
constructionin such numbers;but in the MHIII-LHI period, cemeteriesare few and remote
from eachother. At eachsite the knowledgeof constructionmust havebeenlocallymaintained
and left largelyunchanged,which is shownby the reproductionof tomb morphologiesat each
site.
Certaindetailsof form at 23:Volimfdhiashowthat a very particularmethod of constructionwas

employedand repeatedtime and againIn the tombsat the site: the almostperfect circularityof
the chambersand the shapeof the vault, the smoothedsurfacesof the walls,and especiallythe
cone-shapedapices all suggestthat not merely a general knowledgeof how to build an
undergroundchambertomb wasemployed,but that particularand specificmethodologieswere
used. This knowledgewas local and not repeated elsewhere'
1, but was clearly maintained
throughoutthe period of constructionof the tombs (MHIII-LHI-LHIIA and possiblylonger:see
catalogueentry). A specialistgroup of tomb builders(obviouslynot employedat suchwork full
time) existedwithin the communityof thoseusingthe 23: Volimfdhiatombs.This knowledgewill
havebeenmaintainedamongthem through practiceand reproducedthrough time In tradition,
just asany other traditionalaspectof the funerarysphere.
Beyondbasicconstructiontechnique,it Is difficult to Identify elementsthat might suggestthe

existenceof specialisttholos tomb builders.Constructionmaterial for most MHIII-LHI tombs
consistsof smallto mediumflat stones;thesestones,unworked,are usuallylocally-sourcedand
abundant,hardlyan Indicationof specialism;moreover,asseenat 17.V01-dhokili,
other typesof
constructionmaterial may be used where available.Other elementsthat might Indicate the
presenceof specialists,suchas cut stone or 'advanced'featureslike the relievingtriangle, are
largelyabsentfrom thesetombs". One other feature,repeatedbut hardly universal,Is the single
or doublegrooveor pit cut In the stomionand chamberof someof the tombs, discussed above
(page 163); thesefeatures,where present,are not stereotypical,and need not relate to the
construction of the tomb. In short, beyond the technique of corbelling and the basic
architecturalform of the tholos,there is nothingto suggestdifferentarchitecturalschools.
" It Is conceivablethat a knowledgeof the 23: Vo11m/dhia tombswasemployedat 52:Pellina.

12A relievingtriangleIs claimedfor 27. Rotsitholos 1; there dressedstoneIn the stomionat 24:Engllan6s
tholos IV.

Nonethelessthe evidence can sustainthe view that tholos building was organised by a relatively
restricted group of people. The appearance of the type in central Messinfa and Its rapid
proliferation in that area, as well as the development of the technique in that area so that the
first of the large tombs appear there1z, suggeststrongly that In the first Instance a single group
was Involved in organisingthese acts of construction. The appearanceof these tombs elsewhere
can then be ascribed to two factors: the movement of a practised architect or group to another
area, and the desire among groups or communities In that area to sustain tholos building
activity. This need not imply some kind of cultural unity between these areas, any more than
one might believe in cultural unity between Messinfaand Kithira on the basisof chamber tombs
In both areas; Instead It implies a situation where a readinessexisted to adopt these kinds of
tombs. This readinessis the same as the readiness, for example, to adopt a form of Minoan
pottery as LHI painted pottery.
Tholos tombs outside the core area In MHIII-LHI are however limited in number and
distribution,suggesting
that tomb buildersdid not travel widely. Early'outlying' tholol are to be
found along the west Peloponnesian coastalstrip: at 35:Peristeri,not far into the Soulima
valley;at 43:K3toSamikKiidhf,on the coast,and possiblyat 46:Makrisia,in the Alfel6s valley.
It is tempting to suggestthe first communitiesable to call on and harnesstholos building
expertisefrom central Messiniawere those located on the coast and In contact with central
Messinfathrough seatransport". At the end of LHI and Into LHIIA, this distributionpattern
was maintainedfor the west, with numeroustombs appearingIn the Soulimavalley, and at
44:Kak6vatoson the Eleancoast,but tombs built to the eastwere locatedInland (51:Anl1ps1s,
54:Vafi6) as well as on the coast (34:Kmbos);the appearanceof tholos tombs outsidethe
studyareais alsoan LHI/IIA phenomenon.
Carefulstudyof the evidencethereforesuggeststhat constructionknowledgewasrestrictedto a

few people or groupsfor all of the MHIII-LHI period, and even In LHIIA that knowledgeIs
likely to havebeenmaintainedamonga relativelysmall numberof regionallybasedgroupsof
architectsand tholosbuilders(below,pages183.184).
Theconstructionof graveswithin the tombs.Tholosand chambertombsmay exhibit a numberof

secondaryarchitecturalfeaturesassociated
with interment: pits, casts,niches,or side chambers.
Thereis greatvarietyin the number,placement,sizeand shapeof thesefeatures,and sincetheir
13Both at the 5m to 6m diameterrange, for example 16:KorlfsloIn MHIII, and also the first of the
reallylargetombs,24:Eng!lanosat 9.35m diameterIn LHI.
" It Is perhapsrelevantthat the soleearlytholostomb outsidethe area,the ellipticaltholosat Thorik6sin
Atdkf, Isalsolocatedon the coast(datedLHI/IIA).

construction is not necessarily related to the construction of the tomb, in many cases the
features listed below will post-date the MHIII-LHI period. Material of earlier date than the
construction of a secondary architectural feature may come to be associated with it (for

example, the secondary burial of collected bones and artefacts in a newly created pit), or an
earlier feature may be emptied out and a later inhumation placed in it.
' Site Tomb Architecturalfeatures I
7 Dhi6dhia Dhi6dhia Unknown

10 GouvalJri GouvalJri I Elongatedpit in stomion and chamber
10 GouvalJri Gouvalri 2 Elongatedpit in stomion continues as two
furrows in chamber
10 Gouvalri Mound 2 tholos Unknown
10 Gouval3rl Mound 2 tholos Unknown
10 Gouvairi Mound 2 tholos Unknown
10 GouvalJri Mound B Pit
10 Gouvalri Mound A tholos I No feature
10 Gouval3ri Mound A tholos 2 Two pits
10 Gouvairi Mound A tholos 3 No feature
10 Gouvalrf Mound A tholos 4 'Stone fI'; pits
10 Gouval3r1 Mound A tholos 5 Pit
10 Gouvalrl Mound A tholos 6 Cist
10 Gouvalrf Mound A tholos 7 Unknown
10 Gouvalrl Mound A tholos 8 No feature
10 Gouvalrl Mound A tholos 9 Pit
10 Gouval3rl Mound A tholos 10 Two pits in layer above floor
13 Kam(nia Tholos I Unknown
13 Kamfnia Tholos 2 No feature
13 Kaminia Tholos 3 Unknown
13 Kam(nia Tholos 4 No feature
13 Kamfnia Tholos 5 No feature
16 Korffsio Unknown
17 Voidhokiii3 Tholos Cist
23 Volimfdhia Kefal6vriso 2 One or two pits; nine peripheral niches
23 Volimfdhia Kefal6vriso 3 Three pits; eight peripheral niches
23 Volimfdhia Kefal6vriso 4 Three pits
23 Vollmfdhia Kefal6vriso 5 Pit and two peripheral niches
23 Volimldhia Kefal6vriso 6 Two pits and three peripheral niches
23 Volimfdhia Kefal6vriso 7 Unknown
23 Volimfdhia Kefal6vriso A Five pits and one peripheral niche
23 Volimfdhia Kefal6vriso B Four pits and one peripheral niche
23 Volimfdhia Angelopolou I Two pits
23 Volimfdhia Angelopolou 2 Raisedcentral strip in floor
23 Volim(dhia Angelopolou 4 Eight peripheral pits/niches
23 Volimfdhia AngelopoOlou 5 Unknown
23 Volim(dhia Angelopolou 6 Unknown
23 Vollmldhia Angelopolou 7 Unknown
23 Volimfdhia Angelopolou 8 Two niches
23 Volim(dhia Angelopolou 9 Unknown
23 Volimfdhia Angelopolou 10 Unknown
23 Volimfdhia Angelopolou II Pit in dromos, pit in chamber, eleven
peripheral niches
23 Vollmfdhia Mastorki I Three pits and two peripheral niches
23 Volimfdhia Vori3 I Pit and nine peripheral niches; pit In side
chamber Vori Ia
23 Vollmfdhia Vori 2 Pit and three peripheral niches
175
Site Tomb Archhecturalfeatures
23 Vollmidhia Vori 3 Five pits and one peripheral niche

23 Volimidhia Vori 4 Six pits and unknown number of peripheral
niches
23 Volimfdhia Vor1S5 Two pits and six peripheral niches
23 Volimfdhia Vori 6 Two pits
23 Volimidhia Vori 7 No feature
23 Volimidhia Rigas Five pits and four peripheral niches
23 Volimidhia Koroniou 1 Unknown
23 Volimfdhia Koroniou 2 Unknown
23 Volimfdhia Koroniou 3 Three pits and seven peripheral niches
23 Volimidhia Koroniou 4 Unknown
23 Volimfdhia Koroniou 5 Unknown
23 Volimfdhia Koronfou 6 Unknown; side chamber contained fourteen
niches
24 Englian6s Vayens (tholos 5) Four pits
24 Engllan6s Tholos IV One pit, one built cist
27 Rotsi Tholos I 'Niche' in floor
27 Rotsi Tholos 2 Two pits, secondary deepening of floor in
chamber, stomion and dromos
30 Nih6ria Nikitopolou 2 Unknown
30 Nih6ria Nikitopolou 3 One pit
30 Nih6ria Nikitopolou 5 Unknown
30 Nih6ria Veves One shallow pit
30 Nih6ria Little circle One pit
35 Peristerl Tholos 3 Elongated pit in chamber and stomion
35 Peristeri South Tholos 1 One pit
39 Psri Metsfki Tholos 1 No feature
42 Kato Samik6 Klldhf15 Samikon mound Unknown
42 Kato Samik6 Klidhf Mound 5 Six pits
45 Makrisia16 One pit
58 EpfdhavrosLimlr Ayia Tridha A Three pits, perhaps more
58 EpfdhavrosLimir3 Ayia Tri3dha B Four pits, one peripheral niche
58 EpfdhavrosLimir Ayia Tridha C Unknown number of pits
58 EpfdhavrosLimir Vamvaki Unknown
58 Epidhavros Limir3 Pale6kastro" Unknown number of pits
51 Aniipsis Large tholos Two pits
51 Anlipsis Eight small tholoi Unknown
62 Kithira Staffs'tomb One niche, one side chamber off main
chamber
62 Kithira: Kastrf Tomb A Three side chambersof main chamber
62 Kithira: Kastrf Tomb B No chamber
62 Kithira: Kastri Tomb C Unknown
62 Kithira: Kastrf Tomb D Three side chambers presumably opening off
main chamber
62 Kithira: Kastrf Tomb E Six side chambers off main chamber
62 Kithira: Kastrf Tomb F No feature
62 Kithira: Kastrf Tomb G No feature
62 Kithira: Kastrf Tomb H Four side chambers off main chamber, two
with one cist each (probably of the Roman
period)
62 Kithira: Kastri Tomb ] No feature
62 Kithira 1977 Unknown
Not published as a tholos tomb: refer to site catalogue entry.

16 Not published as a tholos tomb: refer to site catalogue entry.
" More than one tomb.
176
She Tomb Architecturalfeatures
62 Kithira 1990 Three chambers

Table 6.5. Secondaryarchitectural featuressuch as pits, cists, side chambers, and niches. In many cases
excavation or recording is incomplete: the list reflects only published information.
The few intact contexts of certain early date (mentioned above) show that tholos and chamber
tombs were always regarded as placeswithin which it was acceptable to inter in traditional ways,
in pits, cists or pithoi, but at the same time that it was possibleto inter on the floor. Continuous
accessto tombs over the years led to the creation of multiple pits, cists and niches as alternative
locations for burial, or for the secondary burial of material collected from the floor. The
23: Volimidhia chamber tombs, for example, contain numerous niches in which it became
traditional to store the bones of earlier dead.
The creation of furrows or a long pit in dromos, stomion and chamber at a few sites
(10: Gouvalri 1&2; 27: Rotsi 2, and 35: Peristeri 3) might be related to the end of the
construction phase; the deposition of bronze or gold hoards in them might then be seen as
foundation deposits. However, there is nothing to link these features with the construction of
the tombs, and indeed at 27: Rotsi and at 35: Peristeritholos 3 these features seem likely to
post-date construction.
Opening the grave
The architecture of tholos and chamber tombs provides for clear and obvious entrances that
need to be negotiated in order to enter the tomb. Two barriers may be present: in almost all
caseswhere evidence is available, it is clear that the stomia of tombs were closed with drystone
walls; and it is also commonly assumedthat dromoi were filled with earth after each use of the
tomb. The act of opening the tomb would therefore entail the removal of the drystone blocking
wall in the stomion, and possibly also the earth fill of the dromos. The latter activity would
require considerable effort, making the opening a joint project between several people. For
larger tombs, removal of the stomion blocking wall would also be quite an effort, and likely to
have been undertaken by severalpeople.
Evidence for incomplete removal of the fill of the dromos or the incomplete taking down of the
blocking wall is often mentioned in excavation reports. Such evidence comprises the
stratigraphy of the dromos, or the stratigraphy of the blocking wall (often two or more layers of
177
differing construction style or material suggestevents where the wall has been partially
removed).This evidenceoften seemsmost likely to relateto late useof the tomb, whetherIn
the late Mycenaeanperiod or in post-bronzeage times. There are no clear-cutcaseswhere
Incompleteremovalof the fill of the dromosof the blockingwall relatesto the period under
discussion
in this section.
The act of openingthe graveis highly symbolicallycharged.The pattern that is establishedIn

this thesisof regularinterferencewith the deadin what becomesa traditionalmannershowsthat
usersof thesetombs maintainedan ongoingconcernfor the dead within the tombs, both as
individualhumanbeingsand as the corporatebody of the ancestors.The architectureof the
tombs allows for control of accessto the content of the tombs. This control is established
through the separationof the deadfrom the living in an undergroundchamberthat is cut off
from the world by the walledup entranceand perhapsby the filled in dromos.
The act of openingthe stomionis thereforeone of changingthe circumstances

of the world:
before openingthe stomion,one'sapproachto the tomb is madesafeby the fact of the blank
facade,againstwhich one might makesomesmallact of recognitiontoward thosewithin. Once
open, however,one approachingmust be ready to face the bonesof the ancestorslaid bare
before her, and all the social myth, history, power and meaningthat they might seem to
represent.By openingthe tomb, requirementsin behaviourand in interpretationare changed
and heightened;it is the preludeto contactwith the deadwithin.
Closing the grave
The evidence for closure of the stomion In the form of a drystone wall at almost all tombs Is
so
overwhelming and well-known that there Is no need to mention each Instancewithin the present
sample. This does not obviate the question of the circumstancesunder which such a wall might
be constructed: was the blocking wall built and rebuilt after every moment of entry Into the
tomb?
The short answeris obviouslythat one cannot prove that it was. Moreover, many late (LHIII
and beyond) Instancesof entry Into tombs seemto Involve only the partial removal of the
blocking wall and its not being rebuilt afterward. These instancesoccur under changed
conditions,the irruption being more opportunisticthan specificallyknowledgeable- In other
words, the interestof thoseInvolvedwasnot so much In actingin a mannerthat recoveredand
reaffirmed perceivedrelationshipswith the tomb and the particular, known, perhapsnamed

deadwithin, but ratherwasa more generalInterestIn comingInto contactwith the distantpast:
an explanationthat would accommodateboth Instancesof tomb cult, hero worship, ancestor
worship,aswell asactivitiesprimarilyconcernedwith the procurementand removalof material
from the tomb.
To turn the questionaroundsomewhat,howwould it be if the tomb were left unblocked?There

is no overwhelmingreasonthat a tomb need be blocked.The decompositionof the corpse
would suggest(particularlyto cleanwesternminds)that the tomb would needto be blockedfor
sometime after interment.In most cases,though,the evidencefor nearbysettlementis scanty,
posea healthrisk, and our
and so an unblockedtomb with rotting corpsemight not necessarily
notions of the pollution of the corpseneed not be projected into the past. The occasional
instancesof smalljars that might be usedfor perfumedoil with which to anoint the corpse,as
discussed in chapterseven(and in the LHII-111period, the numerousInstancesof alabastraand
then stirrup jars: Cavanagh1998,106), do howeversuggesta concern that the odour of
putrefactionbe minimised.This Is one observationthat tendsto makethe blockingof the door
eachtime likely.
Another is that, asidefrom the symbolicsignificanceof the entrance,practical measuresto

protect the content of the tomb would Inevitablyhave been necessary.I am not thinking of
humanswho, if intent on gainingentry againstthe wishesof those who had carried out the
funeral,would not be stoppedby a stonewall or even filling In the dromos:suchpeoplecould
only be preventedfrom gainingentry by forciblerestraint1B.
Animals, on the other hand,could
be expectedto take advantageof an open door to enter the tomb, Interferewith the content
and feed from the corpseand perhapsany older bonesand other organicmaterial (remainsof
funeraryfeasts,for example)within. Thiswould seemasgood a reasonasany to closethe tomb
whennot directly beingused.
' This point should perhaps be laboured, since a need to protect the remains of the dead and most
particularly the precious materials buried with them is often regarded as the main point of the blocking
wall and filled in dromos. The filling in of the dromos would not hide the location of the tomb, which
would be well known to any possible 'robber' in any case: if archaeologists can achieve such successin
locating them 3500 years later, what difficulty would the determined robber of the time have faced,
when local knowledge and the freshly turned earth would reveal the dromos? Moreover entry to a tomb,
once located, need Involve excavatingonly a small portion of the dromos and the first few layers of stones
of the blocking wall: a feat well within the ability of two or three people in a couple of hours. Once
inside, the robbery of remains on the floor requires a few seconds.While this sort of thing may have gone
on in a small way, it was quite clearly not a major problem, for if it had been a problem, either a meansof
dealing with it, or some alternative means of burying the dead, would have been found. The reason for It
not having been a problem presumably rests with the nature of society and the lack of the sort of
Infrastructure that would have been required to convert stolen goods Into personal gain. Where such
events do seem to have taken place, they often seem related to later periods when the Infrastructure
necessaryto deal with objects from ancient tombs might have been in existence.

It is most likely, however,that the closingof the entrancewould have been understoodin
primarily symbolic terms by those usingthe tomb: the blocked route from outside to inside
the
symbolising incorporationof the dead the and
among ancestors, the of
separation the dead
from the living.
The questionof the filling in of the dromosis somewhatdifferent.The orthodox view is that the
dromol of chamberand tholostombswere completelyfilled in after everyuse,a viewpointthat
can be traced back at leastas far as Tsondas'observationson chambertombs at Mycenae
(Tsountas8t Manatt 1897,139), and repeatedby Pelon(1976,293). This is the opinion of
most excavatorsof chambertombs,suchasWace(1932,127-128), Biegen(1937,236) and
Persson(1931,26; 1942,154). In the vast majority of excavations,no record has been
in the dromos,andwhereobservations
publishedof stratigraphicobservations are publishedthey
are usuallyinterpreted as the result of the diggingout and filling in of the dromos for each
burial. In the exampleof the slightly later tomb of Kato Englians(24:Englian6stholos 111)
Taylourdescribesthe excavationof the dromosin two halves,so asto examinethe stratigraphy.
Four layerswere identified,eachseparatedby an ashlayer,suggestingthat fire formed a part of
the ritual either after openingor beforefilling in the dromos.Tayour'ssuggestionthat the tomb
had beenopenedfour timesdoesnot in fact provideany informationasto how long it wasopen
on eachoccasion,nor doesit accountfor the possibilitythat one or more excavationIn the past
might have been as thorough as Taylour's, thus removing from the centre of the fill earlier
stratigraphictraces.
at the sidesof dromol might elucidateusableInformationon the

Only very carefulobservations
numberof times a dromoshasbeenopenedand closed,but even here the very fact that the
sameearth is likely to havebeenput backin as wastaken out would make such observations
extremely difficult. Archaeologicalevidenceshowsthat dromol were regularly filled In with
earth, and there is clearevidencefrom a reasonable
numberof tombsthat this earth might well
be excavatedand filled in againon a numberof occasions.But theseobservationsalonedo not
provethat the dromoswasnormallyfilled in after eachentry to the tomb.
The factorsthat madethe blockingof the stomionlikely after eachentry do not apply In the
caseof the filling in of the stomion.Any perceivedneed,whether'practical' or 'symbolic', to
close the chamber,would be adequatelyfulfilled by the device of the blocking wall. But the
presenceof the tomb In the landscape,particularlyin the caseof chambertombs dug into a
hillside,or underground,asIn the caseof wholly undergroundtholol, wasexplicitlysignalledby
the samearchitecturalfeaturesthat were essentialto the functioningof the tomb. The presence
Chapter Six Architecture, graveconstruction and modification 180

of the ancestors in the chamber and in the landscapewas clearly indicated by that passageway
leading down and into the earth; and the liminal point, the transition between light and life and
darknessand death, was firmly stated in architecture by the closed facade of the tomb.
It is certainly possible to suggestreasonswhy the dromos might be left open. There may, for
example, have been traditions (differing within different cemeteries, communities, families or
other groups) that the dromos be left open for a certain period after interment to allow for
activities related to the recently dead. Given widespread evidence for disarticulation of
skeletons,it is possiblethat the dromos was left open for a period of a few years until that could
be done. These are fairly random suggestions:the point is that since we do not know whether
the dromos was filled in immediately, it is at least possible to imagine reasonswhy it might not
be.
On the other hand, chamber and tholos tombs are not found where the dromos had not
eventually been filled in. This is a strong argument for the position that, even if the dromos
were not filled in after every act in the tomb, certainly by the late Mycenaean period, traditions
existed that ensured dromoi were eventually filled in (for example at Kalkni, Mycenae: Wace
1932,127-128). This problem is insoluble on the present evidence, and much more careful
excavation of tholos and chamber tomb dromoi is called for in future.
Stomia and dromoi occasionally are found to contain material that might relate to acts of
closure. This evidence is summarisedby site below.
Site Tomb Evidence Comment

17 Voidhokiil Voldhokili kylix, Vafid cup and LMI pot
fragments in stomion
23 Volimldhia many tombs kylix fragmentsagainst facades mainly post-LHI?
24 Englians tholos IV kylix and Vafl cup sherds in stomion many other Items In
dromos, stomion and
blocking wall came
from chamber
27 Rotsl tholos 2 fragments of six large Vaflb cups and
bronze double-axe against doorway
39 Psrl tholos 1 Vafld cup fragments in dromos
Table 6.6. Evidencefor 'toasting' ceremoniesrelated to the closure of tholos and chamber tombs.
In a few casesthere is therefore clear evidence for drinking ceremonies in the dromos, ending
with cups smashedagainstthe blocked facade, as is common in LHIII chamber tomb cemeteries
(Wace 1932,131; Biegen 1937,237-238).
181
There are a few instanceswhere closure of the tomb Involved unorthodox methods. At
IO:Gouvalrltomb 10 In moundA wasclosedby a largepieceof slate,In a similarmannerto
the closingof pithol whosemouthsrest on built stonesupports.The entranceto the tholos In
mound B wasnot blockedby stones.At 39:PsrlMetslklthe stomionwasblockedby two walls,
one at eachend; moreover,the peribolosof the moundcrossedthe end of the dromosto form
a third blockingwall, althoughobviouslymuch lower. On 62:Kfthlra it appearsthat normal
practice was to block the stomion but not to block the entrancesto side chambersoff the
centralchamber,althoughlater interferencemakesthis point unclear.
Finally thought should be given to a more permanent form of closure. The vast majority of
tholos tombs are found to be in a more or lesscollapsed state when excavated. Natural causes
In the form of earthquake and collapse brought about through the cumulative effect of
Imperfections In the architecture are the most likely explanations,but In a few casesthere might
be a suspicion of human Intervention. One such case must be tholos 3 at 35: Peristerl,where
the evidence suggeststhat the floor of the chamber was fairly thoroughly cleared and some of
the content placed in the pit, while other material found In the stomion Is also likely to have
been redeposited from the chamber. The tholos collapsed, or was thoroughly destroyed, shortly
after these events, and the so called `circle', a massivecurving wall of unknown function, was
built of the spoil shortly thereafter. The destruction of tholos 3 may well have been part of a
programme that began with the clearing of the chamber and the deposition of material In the
pit.
THE LHI-IIA, LHIIA AND LHIIB PERIODS (TABLES 1.12-1.15, PAGE 34-35)
Preparation of constrict/on materials
The largertombsof this periodwould haverequiredgreatervolumesof stoneto be procuredor

quarriedand In somecasesdressed.Thesetombsoften usestoneblocksrather than stoneslabs,
and the stonesusedin stomlacan be quite well worked:examplesare the facadesof tholos I at
35: PeristeriJ,with somesawnblocks, and tholos 1 at 18:Tragina.It Is obviousthat for all of
theseundertakings,especiallythe largerand better appointedtombs, a largeand co-ordinated
body of labourwasinvolved.
Chapter Six Architecture, grave construction and modification 182

wasbuilt at the very beginningof the LHIIA period in an area

Tholostomb I at 35:Peristeri
previouslyoccupied by `houses'of unknown character(the `east house', Al . J5.51). The
pottery from thesehouses Includes
materialjudged by Ldlos as coming from the final yearsof
the LHI style (1985,540). Thesebuildings,if not actuallyoccupied,must have beenknown
about, visible,and perhapsstill standingwhen the decisionto build tholos tomb I wastaken. It
is possiblethat their destructionin advanceof tholos constructionwas part of a planned
organisationof the hillside,separatingthe funeraryspherefrom other architecturalzones.The
tholoi at 18:Tragnaand possiblythat at 19:Soiinriwere both set in earlier remains:EH stone
working is noted in the former case,and MH settlementIn the latter. The buildersof these
tombswould havecomeinto contactwith this material;they may haveknownof Its existenceIn
advance,and haveactedIn someway to clearor otherwiseengagewith remains.
New constructionsto be consideredIn this sectionare tholos tombs of varyingdimensionsand

architecture,with chambertombsat 52:Pellna,24: Englian6s and 60:SikEa.
The chambertomb phenomenon,which becamewidespreadelsewherein this period, Is almost

absentfrom the area under study. That there are only three new sites (one tomb each), plus
continuingconstructionand useat 23:Vol1m1dh1a,58:Epldhavros Umfra,and perhaps62:Klthira,
showshow unusualthe chambertomb form remainedin LHII. The 60:SikEatomb (Al . 60.1),
whosechronology in any caseIs far from certain, Is of 'standard' type, that is to say with
rectangularchamber of dimensionscomparableto contemporary examplesin the Argolid.
60:Sikeais located in easternLakonfa,and even if an early date Is correct it representsan
easternPeloponnesian tradition. The 24:Englian6s chambertomb (Al. 24.39.40) is the first of
a handfulto be built in the vicinity of the later palace.Its oval shapemay owe somethingto the
nearby23: Vo1imidhia tradition, but it does not exhibit the architecturalpeculiaritiesof those
tombs. Again, this tomb seemsrather exceptional,and even in LHIII chambertombs were not
numerousaroundthe palace.
The chambertomb at 52:Pellna(A1.52.7-10) is peculiaron two counts: it Is Immense,at

10.05m diameterthe largestknown chambertomb; and it is exceptionallywell carved,with
rounded chamber and triangular stomlon. The tomb belongsconceptuallywith the large tholos
tombs built at this time, rather than with the chambertombsof (say) the Argolid; the obvious

architectural similaritieswith the 23:Vo1imldhiatombs Implies some connection with that
cemetery.
The averagediameterof chambersIn tholos tombs constructedIn LHII Is about 7.2m (table
6.7 below); for the MHIII-LHI tholol listed In table 6.2, the corresponding average Is about
4.2m. Even removing the small tholol In multiple mounds (three or more tholoi), the average
for the earlier tombs is only 5.57m. All of the largest tombs of this period (those over 8m In
diameter), and other tholol with architectural refinements such as 18:Tragina 1, are LHIIA
constructions, and follow Immediately from the late LHI constructions such as 24: EngliandsIV,
39: Psr1tholos 1, and the 51: Anlipsis tholos, built either late LHI or LHIIA. There Is every
reason to expect that the unexcavatedbut monumental tholos tomb at Epla Anthefa (appendix
two; A2.2-5) Is also an LHIIA construction. In later periods there are no examples within the
study area (appendix two), and few elsewhere, of the construction of large tholoi32. Therefore
both within the study area and elsewhere(at Mycenae, where six large tholos tombs are built In
LHIIA: Dickinson 1977,62-63) the construction of large and refined tholoi In LHIIA Is one
culmination of the long series of building projects begun at the end of the middle helladic
period. Tholos tombs continue In use and continue to be constructed (though In the study area
not at the most monumental level) Into the LHIII period, but It seems likely that the
construction of the largest tholol occurred during a relatively short chronological horizon, no
more than 100 years, and perhaps much shorter. The construction of these large tholol
representsa special manifestation of the tholos-building phenomenon, where not only were the
relevant skills available, but tholos builders were able to command a substantial workforce for
some time, In the quarrying, working and transport of raw material, and In the building of the
tomb. Meanwhile the construction of medium sized tholol continued, as Indeed it did In the
following period.
32Largeor architecturallyrefinedtholol thought to havebeenconstructedIn LHIII are: at Mycenae,the

tombs of Atreus, Klytemnaestraand the Genii; at Orhomends,the Treasuryof Minyas. The Menidhl
tholos tomb in northernAthens, at 8.35m diameter,and the two thoiol from Dhimini, diameters8.5m
and 8.3m, just aboutqualifyfor this list.

1 Site Identification Diameter Setting Masonry
11 Koukounra Aknes 1 6.2m Mound Flat stones

11 Koukounra Aknes 2 5.4m Underground? Flat stones
12 Koukounra Livadhiti 4.62m Mound Flat stones
12 Koukounra Fities 1 6n Mound Flat stones
12 Koukounra Fities 2 5.9m Underground Flat stones
18 Tragna Trag3na I 7.25m Mound/natural Flat stones, dressedin
ridge? stomion
18 Trag3na Tragna 2 7.15m Mound/natural Flat stones, dressedin
ridge? stomion
19 Solin3rl Solin3ri 5.1 m Mound Flat stones
24 Englians EngliandsIII 7.69m Natural slope Flat/irregular stones
25 Kaplni Kaplni 1 5m Unknown Flat stones
25 Kaplni KaplLni 2 about 5m Unknown Flat stones
26 Halklas Aellas HalkiasAelias I 3.95m Unknown Unknown
26 Halklas Aelias HalkiasAelias 2 3.95m Unknown Unknown
31 Dhra Frma Dh3ra Frama 6.75m Unknown Unknown
34 K3mbos Kmbos about 8m Natural low Partly dressedblocks
ridge
35 Peristeri3 Tholos I 12.03m Mound Partly dressedblocks,
sawn block facade
35 Peristerl Tholos II 10.6m Mound Flat stones, partly
dressedblocks in
stomion
35 Peristeri Tholos V Unknown Unknown Unknown
36 Kopan3ki 'Mound A' 5.35m Mound Flat stones
(excavated
tholos)
38 Vasllikb Vasilikd 6.5m Underground/ Flatstones
mound?
40 Filiatr Ayos Filiatr Ayos Unknown Unknown Unknown
Hristforos Hristdforos
43 Kak6vatos Kak6vatosA 12.12m Natural slope Flat stones
43 Kak6vatos Kak6vatos B about 9m Natural slope Flat stones, paved
chamber floor
43 Kak6vatos Kak6vatos C 10.25m Natural slope Flat stones
51 Anlipsis Large tholos 8.65m Mound Flat stones
54 Vafib Vafi 10.25m Natural slope Partly dressedblocks
Table 6.7. Variability in tholos tomb architecture.
These large tholoi are widely distributed, suggestingthat the communities of different areas at
this time sought to build these large tombs. Particularly where there is no MHIII-LHI tradition of
tholos building, as at 44: Kak6vatos,54: Va(16or 34: Kmbos, it seemsalmost certain that those
constructing the tombs would be non-local specialists. At 44: Kak6vatos, for example, these
specialistseither stayed or returned in order to construct three large tombs. It is possible that
different groups of people, differently specialised,might have been involved in the construction
of tombs at different scales.In the central Messenianregion, for example, the number of tholoi
makes it reasonableto believe that tholos building was a locally maintained skill, even if a skill
restricted to a few people; elsewhere, in the Soulima Valley such a tradition developed in the
LHI-II period, while elsewhereagain no such tradition existed and tholoi remain chronologically
and topographically isolated phenomena.
185
Further details of architecture are given in table 6.7 above. Comparing this table to the
corresponding table 6.2 for earlier tholoi, it is clear that there is greater variability in the
architectural setting, some tholoi making use of natural features such as ridges or hills, which
was almost unknown in the previous period, and in the type of masonry, although in this last
casetholoi using masonry other than flat stonescan be equated with the larger tombs.
site Tomb
11 KoukounJra Akdnes 1 Pit
11 KoukounJra Akdnes 2 Small pits (unknown number)
12 Koukoun3ra Livadhiti Two niches in chamber either side of entrance
12 KoukounJra Fities 1 One elongated pit
12 KoukounJra Fities 2 No feature
18 Tragna Tragna I Four peripheral pits; two furrows running from
entrance to chamber
18 Tragna Tragtna 2 Three or four pits; stomion floor level lower than
chamber and continues thus into chamber forming a
pit
19 Solinri Solin3ri Three pits
24 Englians EngliandsIII Two pits
24 Englians Chamber tomb E8 Two pits, one niche, two large niches in dromos
25 Kaplnl Kaplni 1 At least one pit
25 Kaplni Kapltni 2 Unknown
26 HalkfasAellas Halkias Aelias 1 Unknown
26 Halkas Aellas HalkiasAelias 2 Unknown
31 Dhra Frma Dhira Frama Unknown
34 Kmbos K3mbos Unknown
35 Peristeri3 Tholos No feature
35 Peristeri3 Tholos II Drain in stomion and dromos
35 Peristeri3 Tholos V Unknown
36 Kopankl 'Mound A' Drain in stomion and dromos; 'bench' In chamber
(excavated tholos)
38 VasIIik6 Vasilikd Niche in wall above floor level; large pit (probably not
Mycenaean in date)
40 FiiIatr3 Ayos FiIiatr3 Ayos Unknown
Hristdforos Hristdforos
44 Kak6vatos Kak6vatos A Pit with probable slab covering
44 Kak6vatos Kak6vatos B Chamber floor paved with irregular limestone slabs
44 Kak6vatos Kak6vatosC Pit
51 Anlipsis Large tholos Two pits
52 PellSna Pellna2 No feature
54 Vafl6 Vafi Pit in stomion; Gistin chamber
60 Sikea Sikea Sevennits. one niche
Table 6.8. Secondary architectural features such as pits, cists, and niches.
The architecture of graves within the tombs. As with the tholoi and chamber tombs of the
previous period, so the new tombs contain a number of secondary architectural features, often
impossible to date (table 6.8 above). Notwithstanding the chronological difficulties, the features
listed below mirror fairly closely those found in the tholoi presented In the previous chapter and
any analysisof LHIII tombs would no doubt find similar features.
186
Acts at the end of the constivctloe phase
Both tholoi at 18:Tragnaexhibit furrows or pits In the stomion and chamber (Al. /8.4,
Al. f8.7-8, A1.18.14), as noted in relation to 10:Gouvalrl,27:Rotsl and 35:Peristerl3
tholos 3 above(page 163). In tholos 1 theseconsistof two parallelfurrowsrunningfrom just
outside the dromos to 50cm Into the chamber.Two depositsmight have been foundation
deposits:In the northern furrow, there wasa footed vessel,a bowl, a ewer, a knife, two razors
and a flat vessel,all bronze;in the dromos,just in front of the stomion,there wasanotherhoard
of (perhapsdeliberately)crushedlargeand smallbronzeItems.No date hasbeensuggestedfor
theseItems,and they may easilynot havebeenfoundationdeposits,just asthe furrowsmay not
be part of the primary tholos architecture.In tholos 2 the stomionItself Is lower than the level
of the chamberfloor, and the stomion floor level continuesas a pit 3.5m Into the chamber.
Again, this featureneednot necessarily
relateto the end of the constructionphase.
Opening the grave
The acts involved In openingthe graveIn respectof the larger tombs differ from the smaller
ones once more In terms of scale,which Impactson the relationshipbetweenthe people
involvedand the monument.While a relativelysmallteam might open the dromosand blocking
wall of a chambertomb or averagetholos tomb In a reasonablyshort time, the sameteam
would labour much longerto open a tomb like 35:Peristeritomb I or 54:Vafi6. It would seem
likely, aswith construction,that a largernumberof peoplewould havebeenInvolved.
Closing the grave
The blockingwallsof largetholol are rarely elaborate,but like other examplescontinueto be

roughstoneconstructions,in contrastto the wallingof the facade.Tholos2 at 35:Peristerihad
remainsof two periodsof blockingwall, one noted as beingwell built; this tomb alsohad a wall
running acrossthe end of the dromos, either a closing wall or perhapsassociatedwith a
peribolos.The stomionof tholos 1 at 35:Peristeriwasblockedat both endsby a rough wall,
with rubble filling the spacein between(Al.. 35..66). This wasa very substantialbarrier, which
on at leastone occasionwasopenedonly partiallyand then built up again(this Inner and outer
blockingis alsofound at 19:Solinrl(Al. /P. 4), and at 39:PsJrl,which also had the end of the
dromosblockedby a periboloswall). The blockingwall of 44:Kak6vatos A, of roundedpebbles,
wasalsosubstantial,going2.75m deepInto the stomion,more than half Its depth.
andmodification 187
At 35:Peristeritholos II a seriesof finds running up to 1.5m Into the dromos from the
chamberwassuggested to representthe flow of materialout of the chamberdue to the action
of mud. This materialwas found below the level of the earlierphasesof the stomionblocking
wall. Not only had the tomb beenIn usefor sometime, or at leastIntensively,judgingby the
amountand variety of the material,but moreoverIf Its depositionIn the dromoswasreallythe
resultof mud flow, either the blockingwall had not beenconstructedat that time, or that it was
completely removed and rebuilt at this point. Further, mud flow into the dromos also
demonstratesthat the dromoshad not beenfilled in. So this tomb providessomeevidencethat
there could be periodsof time whenthe tomb might be left open.
To the questionof the closureof the grave one important point is added by the carefully
constructedstomiaof (generally)the largertombsunder considerationhere. Whenthe tomb Is
open, the bright facadeframesthe darknessof the chamberand directsthe gazewithin. When
the tomb is closed,the door blockedby a roughstonewall, the more ornate facadestandsout,
perhapsmademore prominentby ephemeraldevicesnow lost. Evenmore so with thesetholol,
then, the closedtomb with opendromosformsa substantialfeaturein the landscape.
andmodification 188
189
Chapter Seven
Preparation:acts outsidethe grave

.
Prep. ratlos ofmaterI Is
The preparationof artefactsof any descriptionto be usedin the funeraryceremonycanonly be

evidencedwherethe artefacts,or sometrace of them, survive.Most of the gravesin this sample
were found without any artefacts.About one third of gravesat 57:Ayos Stefanoscontained
artefacts (listed In tables 7.1 8t 8.1), six graves at 37:Mlthl, and one grave each at
53:Menelaionand 55:Amikleon.
Few of these objects can have been made for a specificfuneral. The objects from 57:Ayos
Stefanosincludemetal objectssuchasjewelleryor knives,which can hardly havebeenmadeIn
anticipationof a particularceremony,stone items such as obsidianarrowheadsand carnelian
beads,and pottery. The obsidianmight have been preparedat the graveside:analysisof the
objectsthemselvescould show If this were the case(for exampleCarter 1998,63-65). It is
possiblethat smallbeadsof simpleshapeand without perforationscould be made for a specific
funeral (in a few hours) if raw material were to hand (conversationwith Dina StamatAtou);
howeverit seemsmuch more likely that thesebeadswere taken from another context, either
from a ready-madesupplyor from a contextof everydayuse.The examplesof jewelleryare so
few (one grave) that the explanationinvolvesnot objects prepared for a funeral, but the
opportunisticuseof objectsIntendedfor the living on the dead. In this one casethe jewellery
might havebeenhabituallyworn by the deadwhen alive; the lack of JewelleryIn other graves
190
meansthat the mournerschoseto deviatefrom customwith this grave.The few weaponsare
alsolikely to havebeentakenout of more routinecontextsfor depositionIn the grave.
The pottery used in the gravesis not often different from that discoveredIn settlement
contexts:the Vafib cup in grave D14, for example,is common in settlementcontexts,and
moreover is regularlyfound In more monumentalburial settings.Certain pottery Items were
howevernoted by their excavatorasbeingunusualand not paralleledfrom settlementcontexts.
A smalltwo-handledjar in graveAl, for example,is unusualin form and may havebeenmade
by an unskilledor semi-skilledpotter; a jar and cup from graveA23 (Al. S7..7) were unusually
decoratedwith incisions,the cup piercedwith holesasIf to allow for suspension;two smallcups
in graveA31 were of unusualshapeand size.While theseItemscould not havebeenmadefor a
specificfuneral,their unusualshapesor forms suggestthat they were taken from some other
unusual,non-everydaycontext, or perhapsthat they were made in advanceand held in
readiness.
The materialfrom thesegravesthereforeentailsthe followingtransformations:
" the pottery was usually taken from domesticcontextsto be usedIn the funeral;its deposition
indicatedthat its usein the funeralmadeIts return to the domesticsphereInappropriate;
" metal objectssuchasknives,

pinsand jewellery,rare In the graves,were not normallyusedin
burial customs;where used, their transformationin meaningrelatesdirectly to the act of
adorningthe corpse,and In the funeralthey becomepart of the fabric of the corpse;
" other materialusedin adorningthe corpsechangedIn meaningIn the sameway.
Nonetheless,the lack of materialIn two thirds of 57:AyosStefanosgraves,and in most of the

other simpler gravesunder study, indicatesthat the use of material culture, or rather Its
with the grave,waspossiblebut not essentialIn the burial
transformationInto an Item associated
practiceshereevidenced.
Of the 37:Mlthl graves,one containeda largenumberof pottery Items,Includingan unusual

doublejug (Al.. T7.8). In a cemeterywherea very largeproportion of gravesseemto haveno
associatedartefacts,this graveis markedby Its contents.The double jug in particularIndicates
were Invokedin preparingthe material.
that specificritual associations
Chapter Seven Preparation:actsoutside the grave 191

F, p ratio, of the corpse
Sitesthat are unexcavated

or whereexcavationis barelyreportedcan offer no informationasto
these questions: hence only 35:Peristeri3,37:Mlthl, 41:Filiatr Stomion, 53:Menetaion,
55:Amikleon,and 57:AyosStefanosare consideredhere.
35:Peristeri:the nine child cist burialscontainedno artefacts.The skeletonsare not described,

savethat the childrenare agedbetweentwo and sevenyearsold. Thus no particularevidence
hasbeenfound or reportedthat shedslight on the treatmentof the corpse,savethat the corpse
doesnot appearto havebeenadornedwith any materialthat might survivein the archaeological
context.
37:Mlthi: of the six gravescontainingmaterial related to the dead, In grave 23 there were
three beadsfound near the neck of the dead and thus probablyrepresentinga necklace.The
pottery of grave23 is mainly relatedto drinking rather than preparationof the corpse,aswas
that of grave24 and grave 1. In grave5a 'spindle whorl' was found underneaththe corpse,
perhapsoriginallyadheringto clothing,and in grave 10 a beadof blue glasswas found at the
headof the corpse.It thereforeseemsreasonable to statethat, with thesefew exceptions,it was
not normalat 37:Mlthito decoratethe body with materialsthat are preservedarchaeologically.
This rules out neither direct body modificationsuch as painting or scarring,nor the use of
organicmaterialssuchas cloth. The fact that the majority of burialsare of childrenand Infants
may havea bearingon the lack of preservedevidencefor artefactsof adornment:graves5 8t
10 were both adult.
As to the positionsof the bodiesat 37:M thl, extended,contractedand disarticulatedskeletons

are present.Among the seventeenadults,there are three contracted,elevendisarticulatedand
three extendedburials.The disarticulatlonis clearly a product of post-IntermentInterference
rather than primary interment: graves37 8t 38 representredeposition,and grave 15 was
perhapsdamagedby later buildingwork. In the casesof the contractedburials,where the legs
seemto be at an angleof 90 to 100 to the body, It is possiblethat the legshad beenbound
beforeburial.
Among the children and Infants,twelve Individualsfrom nine graveswere contracted,at least
eighteenIndividualsfrom nine graveswere disarticulatedand nineteenIndividualsfrom fourteen
graveswere extendedInhumations.Suchwide variationcombinedwith the lack of chronological
ChapterSeven Preparation: 192

actsoutsidethegrave
data meansthat no safeconclusions
may be drawnfrom the skeletonsabout the preparationof
thesechildren'scorpsesfor burial.
41:Fi1iatr3
Stomion:there were no artefactswith the burial. The skeletonwas contracted,with
the kneespositionedat about 45 to the trunk (Al. 41.2): It Is possiblethat the body was
preparedby bindingthe legs,bent at the knee,but it Is againnot essentialto supposethis.
53:MenelaJon:eachof the six burialsherewascontracted,againraisingthe possibilityof binding

the legsbefore interment. The burial in the shaft graveoffers some possibleinsightsinto the
treatment of the corpse.A textile impressionon the skeletonimplies the use of a shroud or
cloak,or perhapsthat the corpsewaslaid on (carriedin?) a cloth. Two itemsmay havefurther
adornedthe corpse:a fragmentof gold, thoughthis hasnot beendescribedor illustrated,and a
terracottaspindlewhorl. This last categoryis extremelycommon In the sitesdiscussedIn this
thesis,and is likely to representsomepart of the clothingof the corpse(lakovidis1977).
55:Amikleon:a knife in the third burial may havebeenpart of the dressof the corpse.
57:AyosStefanos:aboutone third of the gravesat 57:AyosStefanoscontainedartefacts.Of the

pottery, most are open shapesand cannot be associatedwith preparatoryacts on the corpse
with any certainty. Of the other objects,a terracotta'button', in fact almosttubular (Taylour
1972, plate 42c2), from graveA19, may have been sewn or fixed to the clothing of the
corpse;an unillustratedcarnelianbead from A21 was also pierced by a hole and presumably
affixedto clothing;a brokenbronzepin from A22,7cm in lengthwhen whole, may havebeen
usedon clothing either to hold a shroudor cloak In place, or decoratively(or both); a bone
'toggle pin' (seediscussionbelow) and terracottabutton from A31 were likely either sewnon
the clothingof the deador usedto fastenIt, a bronzeknife found under the skeletonIn D4 may
havebeenworn.

actsoutsidethegrave
A19 cist I adult female? MH? terracotta 'button'
A21 3 Infant MH? Carnelian bead
A22 pit I adult MH? Bronze pin in two fragments
A23 clst I adult female? MH bronze pin, ear-rings, ring, and
bracelet; 14 carnellan beads;one
bone needle
A28 clst 2 mixed male? MH/LH bronze dagger, tweezers;bone pin
& toggle pin
A31 cist 2 adult MH bone toggle pin; terracotta button
D4 I adult male LHI bronze knife
D12 pit/stone 1 adult female LHI? Miniature bronze 'chisel'
surround
Table 7.1. Graves at 57: Ayos Stefanos,showing only artefacts perhaps relating to the adornment of the
corpse.
Three graves deserve special mention. In grave D 12 a 'miniature bronze chisel' was found just
above the skull, in the fill. Its find spot suggestsit was not attached to the dress of the corpse,
but rather placed or cast into the grave after the interment of the corpse. The item is
unfortunately not illustrated, but is described as a 'very small and narrow tool, tapering to each
end and sharpened to a chisel edge at both ends' (Taylour 1972,225). It is 3cm long, with
maximum width and thickness 0.2cm. Such an object may admittedly have been used for
intricate working on artefacts, but it may equally have had some role in the funerary rite: for
example in modification of the body of the dead (or of the mourners), perhaps depilation.
The other two graves, A23 and A28, contained a number of artefacts. In A23 (Al. S79) a
bronze pin found at the back of the skull, pointing to the right shoulder, almost certainly relates
to the fastening of the corpse' clothing; the corpse was wearing bronze ear-rings on both ears, a
bronze ring on a finger of the left hand, and probably a bronze bracelet on the upper left arm.
A necklace of 14 carnelian beadswas found in the chest area, and a bone pin was also found,
presumably associatedwith clothing. A 'spool', 5.9cm high, may also have been attached to
it
clothing, although was recovered near the corpse' feet. We can therefore reconstruct some of
the stagesof preparation of this corpse for burial: it was dressed in a garment fastened at the
shoulder by a bronze pin, and was further embellished with ear-rings, a finger ring and a
necklace.
In A28 a dagger found toward the middle of the skeleton may have been attached to the
corpse or its clothing. A 'toggle pin' of bone, very well worked, may have been purely
decorative and attached to clothing, but it may also have been used to bind and hold clothing in
position, as suggestedby the name given to it by its excavator, and its position near the neck.
194
Most InterestingIn this grave,however,Is a miniaturebronze tweezers(3cm to 4cm long),
found In or nearthe right handof the skeleton.Thesemay havebeenusedfor depilation.
In summary,althoughit is difficult to associatethe pottery with preparatoryactson the corpse,

almostall of the other itemsIn thesegraveseither certainlywere or could havebeen.Most clear
Is the evidencefor the dressingof the corpseshownIn many of thesegraves;lesscertainIs the
tentative Identificationof objectsperhapsusedIn the alterationof the body of the corpse(or
the mourners).It Is significantthat, althoughthere are roughlyequalnumbersof adult and child
burialsIn the 57:AyosStefanossampleunder discussion,of the burialslisted here with possible
evidencefor the preparationof the corpsesevenare adult and only one is a child (an Infant,
associatedwith a carnelian bead). This backs up the tentative similar observation from
37:Mlth).
This evidencefor dressingor modificationof the corpseis clear In only eight of the 67 burials
underdiscussion.Thereare three possibleexplanationsfor this:
" dressingthe corpsewasan unusualbut not unknownritual during the period of use of the
cemetery;
" dressingthe corpsewasnormalduring one particularphaseof the cemetery;

" dressingthe corpsewasnormalthroughoutthe useof the cemetery,but normallyonly cloth
wasusedand thesegraveswith other materialresult from the sameritual In an embellished
form.
Two of the gravesare dated LHI, one MH/LHI, the others MH: the dating Is In any casetoo
uncertain to determine whether the second Interpretation is possible.Closer chronological
control would help to settle thesequestions,althoughobviouslythe third possibilitycan never
be proven.
The ratio of extended: contracted: disarticulatedburialsat 57:AyosStefanosIs 19:20: 23, with

five unknown.In areaA the ratio is 8: 11:5, while amongthose burialsshowingevidencefor
preparatoryactson the corpseIn areaA the ratio Is 3: 3:0. There is thereforeslight evidence
that extendedburialsare more likely to be accompaniedby materialculture usedIn adorningor
alteringthe corpse(becauseproportionatelymore extendedthan contractedInhumationswere
found with such material). If valid, this observationmakessenseIn as much as an extended
corpseprovidesmore areafor displaythan a contractedcorpse:the Mycenaeshaft graveburials
are goodexamplesof this.
ChapterSeven Preparation:
actsoutsidethegrave 195
As for the possibilitythat skeletonsmight be arrangedin someway before Interment,someof
the contractedskeletonsmaywell havebeenbound, althoughfew of theseburialsappearto be
strongly contracted.One skeletonin particular, that In grave D23 (Al. S7.14), had been
bound hand and foot, the handsbeing bound at the wrists behind the back. Taylour (1972,
226) Interpretsthis as evidencefor execution:in other words, that the Individualdied at the
handsof others In a prepared,ritual manner.No evidencefor the causeof death was noted.
Historical parallels (Britain In the twentieth century, not least) would suggestthat often
executionvictims are not burled in the vicinity of the rest of society, althoughthis is not the
casehere. Other explanationsare possible:the individualmay havebeena sacrificialvictim, for
example(althoughexecutioncanbe arguedto be a form of sacrifice).
The Mediterraneanclimate demandsswift burial If the corpse Is to be Interred before

putrefaction becomesnoticeable(although it Is possiblethat this would not have been a
within about 36 hoursof death,and
concern).Burialin modernGreeceis usuallyaccomplished
In the Islamiccountriesof the MediterraneancoastIt Is usualto Inter on the sameday asdeath.
Rigormortisbeginsabout three hoursafter death,peakingat around 12 hoursand lastingup to
36 hours.The contractedpositionsin which many 'simpler' burialsare found suggestthat the
arrangementof the body In the positionthat it was eventuallyto maintainIn the gravewould
havebeenachievedfairly shortly after death, either by bindingthe legs,and perhapsthe hands
(often found crossedover the pelvic region), or by wrapping tightly in a shroud.That these
preparatoryacts could be carried out so quickly after the possiblyunexpected,and usually
deeply upsetting,event of death, suggeststhat the practical responsesto death were highly
socialisedand so structured.It Is at leastpossiblethat the generalchangefrom contractedto
extendedinhumationthat occursIn the MHIII-LHI period can be related In part to a slightly
longer preparatoryphaseon the corpse,where the anointingand dressingmight occur during
the effectsof rigor mortis.
and are consideredin connectionwith 17:Voldhokili

Pithosburialsrequirespecialarrangements
and 14:Ayos lo3nnisPapodllain the next section.GravesD 18 and D- at 57:Ayos Stefanos,and
graves21 and 30 at 37:Mlthlare of this type.
Other acts outside the grave
No evidence.

actsoutsidethegrave
THE MHI-II PERIOD (TABLE 1 7, PAGE 33)
.
Preparatloa of materials
The pithol usedin Messenlantumull are large (generally1.4m to 2.2m In height) with wide
bodies(more than a metre In diameterIs common),sometimeswith somewhatnarrowernecks
wideningslightly at the rim (Al. /4.20-23, Al. /7.12-14, A1.27.4-5, A1.318). There
are rare examplesof smallerpithol usedfor children'sburials(14:Ayos 1oJnn1s

Papodia, pithoi
23 & 24: Al. /4.25.28). The fabric Is generallyred and coarse,and decorationIs limited to
rope decorationat the neck or rim. Thesepots are howeverby no meansmassproducedand
there is considerable
scopefor typologicalvariation.
The useof pithol for burial is knownfrom few sitesbeforethe middle helladicperiod. The best
known exampleIs that of the Lefk3dhatumuli (DSrpfeld 1927), where there were 22 pithos
burialsIn 14 of the tumult. Thesepithol were used for both adult and child burials,but the
largestwasonly 1.22m tall (Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1990,32). Smallpithol were however
usedfor infant or child burialthroughoutthe bronzeage:for example,there are four amongthe
gravesof 37:Mlthl and 57:Ayos Stefanos.Monumentalexamplessuchas thosewith which we
are concernedare comparativelyrare and are generallyassociatedwith MH-early LH burial
customs. Examplesoutside the study area Include those from the 'tumuli' of Argos and
Dhendhr3(Protonotiriou-Dheilki1980). They are howevermost numerouson the Islandof
Crete.
Cretan funerarypithol are first found in late EMIll contextsand continue in useInto LMI and
beyond;their widespreaduse (from Hani3to Sitefa)is an MM phenomenon.They are known
from upwardof thirty siteson the Island,Interredin Cretan-styletholos tombs,chambertombs,
caves, `ossuaries'
(rectangular buildings)and necropoleis (Pins 1968,11.13). They are rarely
largerthan 1m tall, and are often set upright rather than laid on their side. Both adult and child
pathosburialsare known.
The recently publishedsite of Arh3nes Fourni (Sakellarakisex Sapouna-Sakellaraki

1997,
especially466-469), an unusuallylarge and long-usedcomplex, containeda correspondingly

large number of burial pithol. At least 65 burial pithol were recoveredfrom the site, from
various different buildings, with few found on their own (three mortuary constructions
containedrespectively24,14 and 11 pithoi). Various different types of pithol were usedfor
Interment(A4.26), rangingfrom 38cm to 85cm In height.The pithol were generallyupright
actsoutsidethe grave 197
and usuallycontaineda singlecontractedskeleton,althoughmultiple intermentwasfound, with
up to five IndividualspresentIn one example.
The Introduction of pithoi into the Minoan funerary repertoire, along with the synchronous
Introductionof clay coffinsor 'larnakes'(A4.27), hasbeentaken as a practiceattemptingto
maintainthe Individualityof the dead or of particular burials in funerary contextsotherwise
regardedas communal,where Individualidentity is lost (Branigan1993,65-67; Dickinson
1994,215). As Braniganpoints out, however,if this was the Intention It was at leastpartly
subvertedby the reuseof the pithoi.
The Minoan pithoi were In generalsmallerthan the helladicexamplesunder considerationIn this

chapter;they were alsoof quite different shape.They are well known from domesticcontexts.
They are found in different kindsof funerarysitesthan the helladicexamplesand generallyare
set upright rather than horizontally,as the helladic examplesare. The Influenceof Crete on
Messinfais thereforenon-specific,and Indeedmay not havebeenpresent.Moreover, the non-
adoption of larnaxburial arguesvery strongly that any Imitation of Cretan practiceIs at best
very generalised.
The techniquesand skillsrequiredfor pithos production differ from those required for smaller
Those
scaleceramics. requiredfor nineteenthand twentiethcentury productionof pitharlaIn the
area around Kordni In Messinla have been outlined by Blitzer (1990). She describesthe
following stagesin pithos production: gatheringand preparationof the clay, building the pot,
and firing the pot. The clay need be mined and collected from the chosen source and
transportedto the pottery workshop:Blitzer reports that to make four to six 1m tall pltharla
required about 35 donkey trips betweensource and workshop over a two-day period. Then
seven to 15 days were required to transform the clay Into usableraw material, removing
impuritiesand mixingwith water. The pithoswasmadeby creatinga disc of clay as a baseand
then buildingthe pot by addingindividualringsof clay. A ring wasfirst set on the pot and then
drawnup severalhourslater. One or at mosttwo ringscould be addedper day: so from 5cm to
at most 20cm per day. The potters under study achieved of
economies scale by manufacturing
severalpithol at once. Once the construction of the vessel
wascomplete,ten days' drying time
Indoorsand a further ten days' outsidewere required.The kilns usedby the Messenianpotters
were not built for each firing, but were monumentaltholos tomb-like structuresbuilt of
mudbrick, up to 5m In diameter.Only up to six pltharlamight be fired at once. The firing
required up to 1,800 bundlesof fuel (often vine or olive cuttings, or gatheredfrom wild
sources)and lasted12 to 14 hours,with a further five daysto cool. Three to four peoplewere
needed to lift a pitharl up to 1.3m tall; these could also be rolled by two people (Koroneika
pitharia were strengthenedby ribbing for this purpose).
It is curious that the Messenlanproduction of pitharia Is one of the best parallels from modem
traditional pottery for the Messenlanbronze age pithol under consideration here. Other relevant
potting traditions (]ones 1986 chapter 9) Include that at Thrpsano in Crete, where large jars
seem to have been made somewhat more quickly than the equivalent Messenianpitharia (but
were not of the samequality), and the pithos wine jars made by potters from 'Phini' In Cyprus.
In both these casesItinerant potters would travel from village to village and spend greater or
lesser periods satisfying local demand; this contrasts with the Messenlansedentary tradition:
Koroneika were traded on by merchants.
While there may well have been many specific differencesbetween the middle helladic
productionof pithol and the nineteenthto twentiethcentury productionof pitharia,the data
providedby BlitzerhavesignificantImplicationsas to how we shouldview the pithol found In
tumuli and tholol. Perhapsmost significantis Blitzer'sobservationthat, despitethe continuing
productionof smallpitharia,'the lastpotter who knewhow to manufacturevessels on the scale
of Type I died between1910 and 1915. In 1935 ... the potter who made[Type 2] pitharia...
ceasedto work. Until around 1955 potterswere able to manufacturepithariaholdingabout
100 to 150 okades'.The clear implicationis that productionof pots on sucha scalerequires
specialskills,transmittedfrom potter to potter by apprenticeship,
and that oncelost theseskills
cannotbe easilyregained.
The maintenanceof such skills ought therefore to be visible in the archaeologicalrecord in terms
of pithos remains and kiln sites. In fact relatively few kiln sites are known, partly becausethey
are regarded as having been relatively Insubstantialconstructions unlikely to survive the passing
of time (]ones 1986,874-875), although those Illustrated by Blitzer, made of mud brick, were
nonethelessof considerabledimensionsand often associatedwith numerous sherds: something
that would be quite visible in excavation and ought also to be picked up in intensive surveys.
Hope Simpson 8t Dickinson (1979) Include only one EH kiln site at Lake Vouliagmeni near
Perah6ra,one MH at Marathon Plasi,and four LH: Mycenae, Tfrinthos, Englianbsand Berb3ti.
The Marath6n site has not been described;that at Pilos Is early Mycenaeanbut is small and was
used for small pots. The Berb3ti kiln (Akerstrm 1968) also looks to be rather small (lessthan
2m Interior diameter). We therefore have no specific evidencefor pithos production.
Chapter Seven Preparation:actsoutsidethe grave 199

In terms of remains, the Pylos RegionalArchaeologicalProject report pithos fragments from a
number of sites, although the report is not detailed (Davis et all! 1997,437,441). Howell
(1992, passim) reports on pithos sherds at Nih6ria in all phasesof MH. It is unclear whether
these pithoi were of a similar scaleas those found in the contexts of the tumuli under discussion
in this section, but in any case it seems,despite a lack of suitable kiln sites, that the ability to
produce such vesselswas widespread at this time. Examplesof large storage jars from Cretan
contextsof this periodarewell known.
Therefore, although the evidence indicates quite widespread use of pithoi, there is little in the
record that can be related to their production. The information gained from Blitzer's study of
the traditional potters of Messinfasuggeststhat pithos production was a specialisedskill likely to
be diffused among relatively few potters. Without an in-depth stylistic analysisof pithos typology
of the middle helladic period, one can only suggest (on the basisthat it is easierto move potters
than enormous pithoi) that MH pithos makers are likely to have been summer itinerants setting
up temporary workshops to cater for relatively small scale demand. The product of their
labours, however, is likely to have been regardedas a relatively valuableitem.
Thislaststatementoughtto be emphasised, the
since coarsenature of pithoi hasled more than
one excavatorin the past to take their presenceas an Indicatorof the poverty of thosewho
usedthem.The productionof a pithosrequires
"a specialistwho knows how to chooseand mix clay, form the and
vessel fire it;
" labour in the form of mining and transporting

the clay, processing the clay, buildingthe pot,
buildingthe kiln (if not reusinga permanentkiln), firing the pot and transportingthe final
product;
" time: using Blitzer's estimates,a kiln-foil of pithoi 2m tall (up to six pithoi) would require at
least45' daysandat most832 daysto produce.
Evena minimum estimateof a singlepotter working for 45 daysto produce six pithol makesthe
pithos a valuable item in terms of the labour and time invested'. This should be contrasted with
' Clay extraction and transport, 2 days; clay preparation, 7 days; pathosbuilding at 20cm per day, 10
days; drying time, 20 days; firing and cooling, 6 days.
2 Clay extraction and transport, 2 days; clay preparation, fifteen days; pathosbuilding at 5cm per day,
forty days; drying time, 20 days; firing and cooling, 6 days.
3 It should be noted that the times Involved In the production of prehistoric pithoi may well have varied
considerablyat each stage, for technological and Indeed traditional reasons.Moreover, If the potter had
one or two others working with him or her, carrying out such tasks as clay mining and preparation, a
larger number of pithol could have been under production, with different stagesIn production evident at
any one time: the main limitation is the kiln, although more than one may have been In use. Note,
Chapter Seven Preparation:actsoutsidethe grave 200

the firing in the samekiln of up to 800 small vessels(Blitzer 1990,696). A potter may
therefore have been kept busy for an entire seasonat a single settlement, dependingon
demand.
The value of pithol Is further underlinedby the lead sometimesfound to have been usedto
mend cracksand breaksIn the jar (for example,14:Ayos loannisPapoulia,pathos4; In a similar
vein, a palacestyle jar - pit 3, Vayenstholos, 24:Englian6s - was repairedwith lead rivets').
Giventhe circumstances of productionI havejust outlined, It would be Impossibleto replacea
brokenpithos quickly,and It may havebeenImpracticalto do so If no specialistwere available
(and, although'economic'circumstancesare unknown,It may havebeenvery 'expensive'to do
so).
It therefore seemsvery unlikely that funerary pithol were regardedas throwaway objects,
convenientlyreused In the burial context. Rather, the pithos Is an object of some value
deliberatelydepositedIn the graveasa consciouselaborationof the funeral.
It remainsto be consideredwhether pithol were made especiallyfor funerary practices.The
pithol in theseand other tend

graves to have bases
that would not have allowedthe pot to stand
but this In Itself Is not conclusivesince the pithol might have been
safelywithout support,
beddedIn the ground In a domesticcontext (as some of the MH pithol preservedin situ at
Lema). They were clearly not very mobile, however,and so were not Intendedto be moved
from place to place (this conclusionboth from the lack of a supportingbaseand from the
to
numberof peopleneeded carry an emptypithos; they alsolack the handles
found on Minoan
examples). The signsof repair on a few pithol are sure Indicatorsthat thesepithoi at least are
likely to havehad a pastlife as domesticequipment.It shouldbe noted that considerableeffort
be to
would required convert such a domestic pithos to funeraryuse: if bedded In a floor, that
floor would haveto be excavatedand after the pithoswasremovedpresumablyrelaid.
On the other hand, if one were to suggestthat pithoi were made for the funerary context,
taking into account the amount of time required for production, and especiallyif death
occurred duringwinter, generallyregardedasan unsuitable
seasonfor pithos production (Blitzer
1990), one needbelievethat pithol werestockpiledin caseof need.
however,the greaterlabour requiredfor sucheconomiesof scale.The point Is simplythat, whateverthe

details,the pithol took a long time and much effort to produce.
' Leadjoins from pathos3 at 17:Voidhokill3Is IllustratedIn A1.17.16; this pithos comesfrom the EHII
storeroom on the eastsideof the mound.
It seemslikely to me therefore that burial pithoi were in most, though not necessarilyall, cases
reused from other contexts. Those other contexts provide a life history for the vessel, one
which presumably relates either to the dead or to those engaged in conducting the funeral. The
routines of life, manifested in agricultural storage, production and consumption, were mobilised
as referents when the jar was taken out of those routines and placed elsewhere as funerary
monument. In transforming the meaning of the pithos, funerary and domestic contexts could
seem to make constant reference to each other, just as the place of the monument in the
human landscapemade contact between funerary and everyday contexts. Perhapsa human life
story, worked through in those material and structural conditions, could in some sense be
adequately symbolised by such a valuable element of that life.
Beyond the pithoi themselves,very few artefacts have been found in these monuments. These
are listed in the following table:
14 Ayos Io3nnis pathos3 unknown unknown clay spindle

Papodlia
14 Ayos Ionnls cast14 unknown unknown grey minyan pot fragments
Papodlia
14 Ayos Ionnis pithos 19 two adult kantharos and jug
Papolia
14 Ayos lonnis pithos 23 or one or more infant Ewer
Papolia 24
17 Voldhokili pithos I unknown unknown kantharos and one other pot
17 VoTdhokIIIJ pithos 4 two adult early minyan sherd
17 Voldhokili pithos 5 one adult kantharos, flask, knife with silver
pins
17 VoTdhokili pithos 7 one adult kantharos, other pot, bronze
knife, silver hair ring, bronze pin
17 VoYdhokili pithos 10 unknown unknown kantharos and two other pots
17 Voldhokili pithos I1 one adult Kantharos
17 Voidhokill pithos 13 unknown unknown early minyan sherds
17 Voldhokili southern cist one adult silver hair ring, two adriatic ware
pots
17 VoTdhokili easterncist two adult one pot
27 Rotsi central none - double cup, cup, strainer
Kaloveroaolou construction
Table 7.2. MHI-II gravescontaining artefacts other than pithoi. Some of the items from 14:Ayos Ioinnis
Papoliamay in fact date to MHIII. Pithos 15 at 14:Ayos Ioinnis Papoliais not included in this list because
the obsidian arrow found in the chest of the corpse was the cause of death and not an item deposited at
the time of the funeral.
The grey minyan kantharos is found in a number of graves. There is no particular reason to
assumethat these pots were made for funerary purposes, as they are found in domestic deposits
(Howell 1992); however, the clear preference for the use of the kantharos in rituals at 14:Ayos
202
lonnisPapodis and 17:Vo1-dhoki1i that a secondmeaningassociatedwith burial might
suggests
havebeeninherentin how thoseusingthesetwo siteswould haveunderstoodkantharol.Metal
prototypesfor kantharolare representedby thosefound at 35:Peristeri3(Al .. 35..21).
Preparitfoa of the corpse
Items associatedwith the adornmentof the corpseare few: pathos5,17: VoTdhokili, where a
knife with silver rivetswasfound next to the corpseand so presumablyformed part of its dress;
pithos 7 of the samesite, wherethe dressof the corpseincludeda bronzeknife, a bronzepin,
and a silver hair ring; the corpseIn the cist grave within the mound at 17:Voidhok1113was
wearinga silverhair ring; anda clayspindlefound in pathos3,14: Ayosloinnis Papolia
may well
be associated
with the dressof the corpse(table 7.2 above).
There Is equallymeagreevidencefrom the skeletonsthemselves.Leavingasidethoseskeletons
clearlyInterferedwith In a post-burialcontext,thoseIn burial pithol are In a contractedposition,

which Is clearlythe resultof the act of insertionInto the pithos, rather than somepre-Insertion
activity. Certainof the Inhumationsin the (possiblylate) castgravesof 14:Ayos loJnnisPapoulia
were extended.
In generalit is possibleto say,at leastfor the better known sites(14:Ayos lonnisPapoliaand

17:Voidhokili)that preparatoryactson the corpseare little evidencedin the materialremains.
While this may meanthat very little effort was investedin preparingthe corpseitself for the
funeral,we must equallyremainopen to the likelihood that organicmaterials,in the form of
clothingand paints,and other formsof body modificationsuchas depilation,may haveformed
part of theseacts. What little evidencethere is indicatesmore attention paid to the corpseIn
Papodlia.
than at 14:Ayos1onnis
gravesat 17:Vo1"dhokili
The useof funerarypithol at all of thesesites,and at someof thoseto be consideredin the next
chapter, opensup the possibilitythat the insertion of the corpse into the pathosmay have
happenedbeforereachingthe grave.Both pithosand corpseneedbe transportedto the grave,
and we haveno way of knowingwhetherthey were transportedseparatelyor together.

actsoutsidethegrave
If the corpsewere insertedin the pithos awayfrom the grave,suchan act would representa
culminationof all of the activity surroundingthe corpseup to that point: Its preparationfor
insertioninto the pithos. The funeralwould therefore consistof two clear phases,that away
from the grave and that at the grave,separatedin time and space,and each ending in an
'interment'.
Most of the excavatedpithol seemto have been positionedin the mound so as to facilitate
activity at the mouth (chapter8). This presumablyrelatesto the first interment as well as any
future interments.If, on the other hand,the insertionof the corpseprecededthe intermentof
the pithos,the pithoswith the body alreadyinsidecould easilyhavebeenplacedmore deeplyor
in a different position in the grave.The positioningof the pithoi therefore not only facilitates
but
reuse also facilitatesthe insertionof the first and
corpse, this that
suggests in most casesthe
Insertionof the corpsehappenedat the grave.
Preparation of materials
Many of thesemoundsare suggestedto have containedpathosburials:the commentsin the

previoussectionapplyequallyhere.
Preparation of the corpse
One of the pithoi from 8:Kiss6swas investigated,and found to contain an adult skeleton
compressed(apparently without into
disarticulation) a pot only 70cm tall. The feet and skull
boneswere found together.The corpsemust havebeenvery tightly bound In preparationfor
Insertioninto the pithos;perhapsit wasevendissected.
No information.

actsoutsidethegrave
THE MHIII-LHI PERIOD (TABLES I 11, PAGES 33-34)
.8&I.
With the possibleexceptionof Kokor3kouat 35:Peristeri,all sites discussedas MHI-II (table

1.7, page33) continuedto be usedin this period, and 8:Kiss6swasalsoprobablyIn use.
Preparation of materials
The precedingremarkson the useof pithol for burialsapply alsoto thosepithol usedfor burial
at 13:Kamfnia,Vayen(24:Englian6s)and 35:Peristerisouth tomb 1; thesepithol do however
seemsmallerthan thoseusedin the earlierburial mounds.
The motivationfor makingand usingthe Cretanstyle spoutedjar usedfor burial In the Vayen
tholos at 24:Englian6s(Al. 21.31-32), along with the deep cup found within It, which also
imitatesa Cretantype, is difficult to explainwithout a greatdealof speculation.The ImitationIs
clearly deliberate,Inasmuchas two items are involved, suggestingthat the Intention In using
thesematerialswasto Invokeor evokethe traditionsof anotherplace.Theseartefactsmust also
have been taken from some other context to be IncorporatedIn the grave. In the funerary
context their use may have strategicallyemployedpeople'sInferenceof meaning,perhapsin
terms of symbolisingrelationshipsof the dead, the mourners,and the wider community, by
evokingboth the distantplacethat inspiredtheir productionand the more recentcontext from
which they had beentaken.The useof theseartefactsmay representaspirationto association
with Crete, perhapsthe samesort of aspirationthat brought LHI-stylepottery into existence
aboutthis time.
A wide range and large amount of material culture has been recovered from the graves
discussed
In this section:not just materialrelatedto the adornmentof the corpse,but alsomuch
materialpresumablyusedin gravesiderituals - predominantlypottery in drinking and pouring
shapes,but alsoother artefactssuchasgold and silvercupsand other vessels,obsidianand other
stone arrowheads,various stone or bronze tools, bronze vesselssuch as cups, pans and
cauldrons,and stoneItemsparticularlyfrom the Kastrf(62:KIthira)tombs. SomeItemssuchas
obsidianarrowheadsmight easilyhave been made for the grave, and in some casesthere is
evidenceof this (chaptereight); and althoughgold and silver vesselscould hardly be madefor
individualfunerals,their meaningcan never havebeendomestic,and so any transformationof
meaninginvolvedIn depositionin the gravemust havebeenrather different from that Involved
In the depositionof domesticpottery. Not all materialpresentIn thesetombs
needbe relatedto
somespecialcontext: commonlyfound ItemssuchasVafd cupsand other pottery havea place
Chapter Seven Preparation:acts outsidethe grave 205

in the domesticrepertoire.This Indicatesthat In choice of material for funerary purposes,it
remainspossibleand normalthat objectsfrom the routine of life may be calledupon to become
a part of the funeral.
The gold and silver vesselsform an adjunct to a wider category of material, that of dress
adornmentsfor the corpsemade of gold or other rare materials.TheseItems occur In large
amounts at 24:Englian6sVayensand tholos IV, 30:Nih6ria Nikltopodlou 5,35: Peristeri
MH/LH graveand tholos 3 (all describedIn the next section)and In smalleramountsat other
sites.Much of the gold materialIs basedon gold foil cutoutswith repoussddecoration,perhaps
materialthat could be producedquickly by a skilledcraftspersongiven raw material.The gold
foil at leastmust havebeen held In readiness:the implicationbeing that a rare resourcewas
maintainedreadyfor use.The mass-produced natureof the foil Items (for example,A1.30.30
or A1.35.18) doessuggestmanufactureon a relativelylargescale:just astholostombsprovide
for the burial of many persons,so perhapsthe productionof the materialfound within graves,
particularlythe gold material,may not have been linked with any specificperson,but might
form a resourcesomehowcalledupon when deathmadethat necessary. The ability and desire
to call on resourcesof gold and other preciousmaterial,althoughoccasionallyevidencedIn the
previousperiod, seemsa newfeatureof the funerarycustomsof MHIII-LHI.
Preparatloa of the corpse
The investigationof theseactivitiesand other aspectsof funerary behaviouris hamperedIn

almostall contextsby the reuseof tombs. It is rare to find a context that representsthe stateof
the materialat the end of an interment, and that material not thereafter interferedwith and
employedin later acts;when sucha context Is found, it often dateslater than the limit of this
study. Whereastheselater actsof interferencein gravecontextsare of great interestelsewhere
in this thesis,they underminethe studyof the preparationof the corpsefor the funeral.
Evidencerelevantto the preparationof the corpseis presentedin the followingtable:

ti
1
COMM Findsrelated p
repara
on 1
corpse
7 Dhidhia Dhidhia None Razor, three knives and four pins
10 Gouvalri Tholos I None Gold leaf, boars' tusks, sealstonesand beads
10 Gouvalri Tholos 2 None Boars' tusks, bronze tools, weapons with gold
rivets
10 Gouvalri Al None Bronze knife
10 Gouvalri A2 None Bronze knife, crystal bead
10 Gouvalri A10 None Bronze knife and razor (or knife), other knives
(A1.10.33)
10 Gouvalri B Pit Two clay spindles
13 Kamfnia I None Bronzeknife, tweezersand bead
13 Kamfnia 4 Burial Bronze tweezers
13 Kamfnia 4 Pit Clay spindle
17 Voidhokili Tholos None Gold foil; beadsof sard, amber, amethyst;
spindlesor buttons of clay and steatite
17 Voidhokili Tholos Child's Four gold bands
skull
23 Volimfdhia Kefaldvriso 3 Niche Two knives, two grindstones & two pestles
23 Vollmidhia Kefalvriso 3 Niche Knife
23 Volimfdhia Kefalvriso 5 Deposit Serpentine axe (AI. 2J.. 14)
on floor
23 Volimfdhia Kefal6vriso 6 None Bronze pin (A1.2J. 17)
23 Volimfdhia Angelopolou 5 None Miniature bronze double axe, amber, other
bronze objects
23 Volimfdhia Koronfou 6 Side 'Artisan's toolkit' (Al 1148)
.
chamber
24 Englians - Seetext description
27 Rotsi Tholos I Niche Type-A sword, silver fragments, gold pin, bronze
crown or head-covering.
27 Rotsl Tholos 2 Pit 2, Gold leaf, gold beads, other beads, gold ring,
lower gold and silver pin with amethyst head, with
section bones
30 Nihria Veves None Two gold papyrus cutouts, other small
decorative elements, sealstones,small gold finds,
seventeensteatite spindles, bronze disc
30 Nlhbrla Nikitopolou 4 Pit Bronze pin
30 Nihria Nikitopolou 4 Floor Clay spindle, bronze ring, twelve beads
30 Nihbria Nlkitopolou 5 Single Gold foil discs, other gold foil, miniature silver
context double axe, biconical silver beads, sard beads
(Al 30.30)
.
30 Nih6ria Aknes Tomb I Type-A sword, dagger, seven beads, five spindles
30 Nih6ria Aknes Tomb 3 Two bronze tweezers, knife fragment
35 Peristeri Seetext description
43 Kato Samik6 Mound A Burial A Bronze knife fragments
Kiidhf
43 Kto Samik6 Mound A None Spindles
Kiidhi
43 Kato Samik6 Mound 2 Grave 10 Bronze knife and clay spindles
Kiidhf
43 Kto Samik6 Tholos None Tweezers,bronze wire, knife fragments, card
Klidhf beads,clay and stone spindles.
43 Kato Samik6 Tholos Pit Boars'tusk fragments
Kildhi
46 Makrisia Tholos/mound Pit Bronze knife and clay spindle
46 Makrfsia None None Three bronze knives, two bronze pins, several
spindles
207
58 Ep(dhavros Ayla Tri3hda Pits Buttons, bronze knife, spearhead
Limir tomb B
62 Kithira Tomb H Grave 3 Bone pin
62 Kithira Tomb ] None Clay weight and button
62 Kithira Recent None Bronze blade fragment
excavation
Table 7.3. Material from possible MHIII-LHI contexts that can plausibly be interpreted as relating to the
preparation of the corpse for burial. Many contexts are poorly recorded and may not date to MHIII-LHI:
reference should be made to catalogue entries for information on under-represented sites such as
23: Volimidhia, where many contexts are undated.
The material recorded in table 7.3 is a minimal list, excluding much of doubtful context or
probable post-LHI date. It falls into several distinct categories: objects thought to relate to the
clothing of the corpse (various clay and stone spindles, forming decorative weights for the
shroud - lakovidis 1977, and bronze and bone pins, used to keep the shroud in place),
jewellery worn by the corpse (stone and metal beads, gold foil and gold cutouts, gold and
bronze rings), objects related to the apparel or general presentation of the corpse (bronze
knives and swords), and objects perhaps used in the direct bodily modification of the corpse
(tweezersand razors).
The information about preparation available from the disposition of the corpse is also minimal.
The majority of bones in these contexts has undergone secondary deposition and disarticulation.
Moreover, small pottery items that might be considered as having contained perfumed oil or
other organic susbstancefor preparation purposesare also rare, although not unknown.
At 23: Volimidhia, for example, known finds are limited to just the few objects listed in table
7.3: the evidence for the preparation of the corpse from the numerous dead of 34 tombs Is
rather disappointing. Artefacts that might have been part of the adornment of the corpse are
relatively few; most skeletal material is disarticulated and therefore tells us little of its treatment
before interment; and no objects that might have been directly related to the treatment of the
corpse can be isolated. Much of this is due to the long use of the tombs, and the site is poorly
recorded and published; it is also possible that traditions concerning the adornment of the
corpse in the MHIII-LHI period may have been less elaborate at 23: Volimidhia in comparison
with some of the other sites described here. Something similar may be observed at IO: GouvalJri
mound A and at 13:Kaminia.
At 24: Englian6sthe Vayen tholos contained a number of fairly intact contexts, and so material
can often be clearly related to individual dead. In pit I (Al. Z4.23) a single corpse (which
may or may not have been articulated) was found within a pithos. Also in the pithos were four
208
silver half-diadems(Al. 24.36) and variousother gold or silver fragmentsthat might have
relatedto the clothingor adornmentof the corpse,two or three Ivory pins, perhapsassociated
with the clothingof the corpse,andan ivory plaque,thoughtto come from a swordhandle,and
so perhapsassociated with the dressof the corpse(but see below, pages249-251, on burial
practicesat this site). The rapier, knife and cauldronfound outsidethe pathosare not directly
with the corpsein the pithos, althoughthey may havebeen originally.The contents
associated
of pit two as excavatedrelateto a late phaseof useof the tomb, and so are Irrelevantto this
discussion.Within the areacalled'pit 3', part of which certainly post-datesthe period under
discussionhere (the upright palacestyle jar), a pithos of likely MHI11date (Al. 2425) and a
Cretan-stylespoutedjar of MMIII-LMIA style (so of MHI11-LHIdate; A1.24.31-32) were
each found to contain a singleburial. No items related to the treatment of the corpsewere
found in the spoutedjar, althoughbent rapiersand other weaponsdepositedbesideand under
the jar might haveoriginallybeenassociated with the apparel of the corpse(Al. 24.26). In the
pithos there were a knife, four bronzepinsand a boars'tusk that had beenpierced:all plausibly
to be associatedwith the dressof the corpse.Outsidethe pithos wasa numberof artefactsat
varying distances;the presenceof two further fragmentarypierced boars' tusksamongthese
items makesit possiblethat all were originally used In the sameact, althoughthey were not
necessarily
all useddirectly on the corpse.In pit 4 (Al. 24.34), wherethe remainsof several
Individualshad beendepositedin a disarticulatedcondition, findsIncludedsix knivesor daggers,
which againmay havebeenpart of the dressof a corpse,and a gold diadem,presumablyplaced
aroundthe headof a corpse.Elsewhere, in disturbedfloor deposits,a knife, a pin, severalseals
and numerousbuttons and beadswere found. Of the early pottery found on the floor, only one
Item, an askos(Biegenet alli 1973, figure234.19), reckonedby Lobs asprobablyLHI in date,
might conceivablyrelateto actionsupon the corpse:It is very small (height 6.8cm) and so held
liquid requiredin only smallquantities(so probablynot for drinking), possiblyoil (Ldlos 1985,
327) or anothersubstance
with whichto anointthe corpse,or perhapscolouringmaterial.
The relatively intact contextsof the Vayen3 tholos do not present a single corpse In the
condition of Its original burial (burialsIn jars seemto have been disarticulated,and the jars
themselvesmay havebeenset In their final positionsIn LHIIB): most of the Intact contextsare
the contextsof secondaryInterment.Nonetheless,the state of the corpsein these burialsis
hinted at quite stronglyby someof the finds. All of them might haveother uses:any of these
artefactsmight havebeenworn or usedby the mournersrather than the dead. But the repeated
discoveryof these Items In the context of depositionmakesit very likely that some at least
formed part of the raiment of the corpse. For some at least of the early burialsin Vayen,
therefore,we canspeculatethat the corpsehad beenpreviouslylaid out and transportedto the
gravewearinga shroud,usuallysome Item of weaponry,most likely a bead necklace,and In
somecasesgold or silver leaf adornmentssuchas diademsor a boar's tusk. In every casethe

actionsof the mournersas they go through the acts of Interment would affect theseItems,as
would later taking
actspresumably place after the dissolutionof the flesh.
Problemsof context in tholos IV havebeen describedIn the catalogueentry. No Intact burial

contextswere found. However an Impressive
amountof materialwas found in the tomb and is
listed and describedin the excavationreport (Biegenet all! 1973,110.134; A1.24.18). In
the stomionwere found a golf foil rosetteand a gold foil butterfly eachwith holesfor attaching
to clothing, part of a dagger,two amber beads and a glasspaste button. On or within the
blockingwall of the stomionwere found three gold foil rosettes,two of them with attachment
holes,a steatitebutton, and a bonepin, all likely originallypart of the clothingof a corpseor of
the mourners. Within the chambernumerous Items, all gold, were noted by the excavatoras
'personaladornment':two rings,a sealbead, figure of eight shieldpendant,two other oblong
fourteen
'spacerbeads',two tubeswith attachedwire spirals, beads, six eight
pendants, biconical
beadsrestoredas beingpart of a necklace,two earrings(one a cylinder with coils and one a

rosette), one 'bead mounting' and one 'pin mounting', four cutout (repousse) owls with
attachment holes,two owls of foil, fragment of another possiblebird In twelve

repousse, plate
fragments,foil butterfly with attachmentholes and fragmentsof other similar items, nine
holes, 176 discswith attachment holes; another 115 were found
rosetteswith attachment
without attachment holes, along with 52 rosettes without attachment holes, and thesewere
Interpretedby the excavatorasrelatedto the adornmentof furniture rather than clothing,along
other fragments of foil. Other Items, non-gold, likely to have formed part of
with miscellaneous
dressInclude a silver ring, a bronze ring, fragments of bronze pins, variousbronze
clothing or
beadsand studs,numerousrivets that may havebelongedto swordsor daggers,a blade of a
knife dagger hilt, four 246 beads presumably from
sword or dagger,a or sealstones, amethyst
three carnelianand various other beads,two buttons, four small steatite discs,two
necklaces,
pommels, an axe head in serpentine, 355 amber beads and two 'spacer beads', again
presumablyfrom necklaces,some pieces of Ivory that might relate to clothing (but are much
more likely to relateto furniture), a 'bone spacer',three whole and 18 bone
fragmentary pins,
elevenfaiencebeads,and 27 pastebeads.
This vast catalogueof material,none coming from a recognisablecontext, may representthe

burial activitiesof one or more chronologicalhorizonswithin the LHI-111Aperiod of usefor the
tomb. Thereis goodreasonto believethat someor most of the materialrelatesto earlierrather
than later periods,sincemuch of It has counterpartsat other early sitessuch as 35:Perlsterii
tholos 3 or the Mycenaeshaftgraves.It Is clear that at somepoint In the history of useof the
tomb it happened,indeed It was perhaps normal, that certain acts occurred involving
considerableadornment of corpse, mourners or officiating persons,or all of them, using
materialsthat we would considerto be unusualand precious,suchas gold and silver, Ivory and
amethyst,which in somecasesat leasthadprobablybeenmadefor funerarypurposes.Although
much evidenceis presentedin this chapter for traditions concerningthe adornmentof the
of that tradition are evidencedIn this tomb (and
corpse,quite extraordinaryembellishments
35:Peristeribelow); but they remain embellishmentsof an existing tradition, not different
practices,just as the mode of burial in a tholos tomb is part of a wider tradition, evenIf this Is
one the largesttombsof this period.
At 35:Peristeri3the 'MH/LH grave' containeda number of discretereinterred bone groups,

eachgroup representingone or more Individuals,
as well as groupsof Itemsor IndividualItems
on the floor of the tomb. In many casesItemsare clearlyassociatedwith specific bone groups;
but sinceall of theseintermentsare secondary,none of the ItemsIs now directly relatedto the
condition of any given corpse at burial. The artefacts all point to ostentatiousclothing,
presumably for the corpse: the group
earliest Includedeight gold foil circleswith papyrus-shaped
pendantsections (Al. 35..18), eachattached ato tube that probably allowed for them to be
to
affixed clothing (their secondarytreatmenthad resultedIn their being gatheredIn a goblet),
with a type-A sword (whichhad later beenburnedand bent: AI.. TS.19). Another bone group
was associatedwith the following Items:22 gold discs,a bone pin, six gold foil bands,three
more gold discs,a clay spindle, four more gold bands.Further Items related to other bone
groupsIncludea gold band,a bronzeknife, a bronzechisel,a gold bead,and other fragmentsof
gold silverand bronze,Includingthe scatteredelementsof a gold necklace.
In completecontrast,despitemostly againcontainingsecondarydisarticulatedbone deposits,

SouthTholos 1 containedvirtually no artefactsbeyondpottery items.Of these,earlyshapesare
with drinking(Al .. J5..31).
all associated
Aside from the pit In tholos tomb 3, finds thought to haveoriginally come from the chamber
Includefragmentsof gold leaf, a rivet Indicatingthe presenceof a weaponsuchas a swordor a
knife, and an amberbead.TheseprobablyIndicatefuneraryceremoniesInvolvingthe useof this
materialon the corpse.The pit Itself containeda largequantity of gold leaf, althoughperhaps
much of that wasusedto line the pit rather than as part of the dressof the corpse.Other finds
Includeda gold band and numerousgold ImpressedItems such as tritons, birds, rosettesand
Insects,gold wire and gold tubes,and beadsof amethystand other material(Al.. M..49-50).
In eachcaseexaminedaboveit is possiblethat artefactswere not usedIn the adornmentof the
corpse; Items assumedto have been attached to clothing, for example, might have been
associatedwith the clothing of the living rather than the dead. Weaponry, assumedto be
depositedwith the deadas part of the apparelof the corpse,might equallyhavebeenusedin
someother mannerand depositedaspart of someother act. Smallpot artefactsthat might have
beenusedto hold perfumedoil might havehad someother purpose.However,the amountof
material,the repetitionof forms,and its repeatedrecoveryfrom different contexts,tombsand
sitessuggeststhat Its usewas reproducedtime and again.Specificexamplesfrom elsewhere,
especiallythe contemporaryshaftgravesat Mycenae,makeit clearthat this materialwasusedas
an almostformulaic'set' that went with the corpse:a shrouddecoratedwith gold foil artefacts,
and an accompanimentof weaponry.The shaft gravesrepresentthis material in a (relatively)
undisturbedcontext, and provide a model for Its use In the gravesunder discussionhere.
Occasionaldiscoveriesof materialstill In Its originalassociationwith the corpseprovide strong
backingfor this: the gold bandsassociated with the child skull in 17:Voidhok111J;
Itemsfound In
the pithos burials of the Vayentholos (24:Englian6s);or from later sites discussedbelow,
artefactsin the cist at 54:Vafi6and artefactsassociated
with the intact burialsof 27:Rots1
tomb
2.
Evidencefor preparationof the corpsein the excavatedsitesof the precedingMHI-II period is

weak;only a few casesof artefactsfoundwith the deadwere noted: this doesseemto changein
the MHIII-LHI period. However the practice of adorning the corpse almost certainly was
practisedat leastoccasionallyIn earlierperiods,as evidencedby the few artefactsof table 7.2
(page 202), and perhapsby someof the simpler graves(table 7.1, page 194). The earliest
tombs under discussionin this section,such as some of the tholol in 10:Gouvalrlmound A,
someor all of the 13:Kamfniatholol, the 16:Korifsiotholos, someof the 23:Vo!imldhiatombs
and someof the 30:Nih6riatombs presentlittle evidenceIn regard to the preparationof the
corpse.This does not follow for all early tombs: MH contextsin the Vayen3 (24:Englian6s)
tholos and probable MH contexts In the MH/LH grave at 35:Perlsterido provide much
evidencein this respect. Nonethelessthe material suggestsa situation where early on the
preparatoryactson the corpsewere quite minimal;at somepoint there Is a suddenincreaseIn
theseactivities,perhapsbestseenasparallelingthe alreadynoted quite suddenIncreaseof tholos
tombs In numbersand dimensions.The socialconditionsthat allowedfor the InvestmentIn the
architectureof tholos tombsalsoallowedfor investmentIn the preparationof the corpsewith
materialsuchas gold, with bronzeweaponry,with semi-preciousstone necklaces,and possibly
with other rare organicmaterialsuch as perfumedoil. In both cases(the proliferation of the

actsoutsidethegrave
tholos form and the dazzlingembellishment
of the corpse)pre-existingtraditionalpracticeswere
reworkedIn the practicesthat we are discussing
here. The adornmentof the corpsewasnot a
and the will to deploy thoseresourcesIn this arenawas
new practice,but the availableresources
new.
These practicesentailed in some (perhapsrelatively few) casesquite spectacularlaying out

ceremonies,with the corpseclothed in raiment of gold discs, foil or other shapes,wearing
necklacesand braceletsof semi-preciousstone,the headcrownedwith a diadem,and at his or
her sidea swordor a dagger.This would clearlyhavea public impact: even if only a selectfew
were presentat the layingout ceremony,it is possiblethat othersmight be allowedto seethe
corpselater, or seeit as it waslater taken to the grave.Theseeventsmust havebeenspecial:
not just to the mourners, to whom the event would be special with or without the
accompanimentof preciousmaterial, but to the entire community, perhapsto quite a wide
community.The investmentof materialsuch as this in the corpsecan only havebeenintended
asa public event.
The materialusedIn adorningthe corpsefalls Into two basiccategories:the purely decorative,

Most is purely decorative:all the gold, semi-precious
and the decorative-with-function. stones,
and other jewellery. The shroud, functional in the senseof covering the corpse (perhaps
it
wrapping tightly), might also be intricately decorated,and forms the backgroundfor the
The armingof the
jewellery.The weaponryfalls Into the categoryof decorative-with-function.
is
corpse a powerful image, although exactly what that Image was Intended to convey is not
A
obvious. number of explanations is possible: weaponry might be a rank or statussymbol; it
a
might symbolise warrior aristocracy;it might symbolisean ideal of human life; or It might be
related to hunting Although

activities. weaponryis quite common, other Itemssuchastools are
rare (thoughnot unknown);the preferencefor weaponryaboveother objectsIs clear.
There are few Intact skeletons,and descriptionsof the state of the skeletonare often brief or
it
non-existent,so seems impossibleto comment on the actual treatment of the body (as
opposedto Its adornment).Although it is often assumedthat the corpsewasgenerallyInterred

In a supineposition, and this would makesensein terms of It wearinga shroud and carrying
weaponry,it may be that not all corpseswere treatedIn this way; thoseburied In the pithol of
souththolos 1 and24:Englian6s
35:Peristeri Vayen3were presumablycontracted.
Other as outside the grave
No Information.
THE LHI-11A, LHIIA AND LHIIB PERIODS (TABLES 1.12-1.15. PAGE 34-35)
Preparation ofmwteria/s
This may be an appropriatepoint to considerthe phenomenonof LHIIA 'palacestyle' pottery,

and in particularthe palacestylejars found In manytombs,sometimesin considerablequantity.
Palacestylejars havelong beena markerof the LHIIA period for tomb assemblages,and have
beenfound at manysites:the largetholol at 10:Gouvalri(A1.10.46-48), 12:Fities2, tholos
1 at 18:Tragna,tholol IV 81V (Al. 24.30) at 24:Englian6s, 27:Rodtsitholos 2 (Al. 27.22
right) and probably also tholos 1, tholol I (Al. 76) a II at 35: 38:
Peristeri, Vasilik6
-7S.
(Al. all three tholol at 44:Kak6vatos (Al. 44.11-12), 51:An311psislarge tholos
-T8.6),
(Al. S>.4), the largechambertomb at 52:Pellna,and 54:Vafi6.This list Includesalmostall of
the largertombs in the studyarea,and would generallyequate to thoseregardedas the 'richer'
tombs; giventhe problemsof differentialsurvivalof artefacts,the matter may not be so clear

cut, but In palace
general stylejars form part of the tradition and custom evidenced In the larger
scaleand more lavishceremonies; there are no reported palacestyle jars at 23: Volimfdhia for
example,or In the smalltholol at 10:Gouvalrlor 13:Kam1nla.
In Crete such artefactshave been recoveredfrom palatial contexts (Betancourt 1985,155-

158; Niemeier 1985). Evansderivedboth the basicform and the function of the vesselsfrom
the greatmiddle Minoanstoragepithoi of the palacemagazines(Evans1928,426). At Knosds
they were found both In the palaceand surroundingstructures,and In funerarycontexts(for
example,the Ispata'Royal Tomb': A4.28). Mainland exampleswere mostly or exclusively
three Imported exampleson stylistic grounds:
made on the mainland(Niemeier distinguishes
1984), however,and seemalmostexclusivelyto derive from funerarycontexts(somesherds
were noted at the Menelaion:Catling1977,29).
While the typology, derivation and decoration of the jars have all been carefully studied
(Niemeier 1985), there are few commentson their function in general,or on their role In
MycenaeanfuneralsIn particular.Storagewould seeman obviousfunction, as noted by Evans,
but It Is equallyclear that thesewere hardly everydayvessels.They were made by specialist
potters, In the caseof the mainlandvery clearlyIn Imitation of Cretan examples.In emulating
the form the potters were not only reproducingfor their patrons the Item Itself, but were
creatingartefactualreferentsto a particularcontext: Minoan Crete, and more closelythe palace
of KnossItself. In Investingtime and effort in the creation of thesevessels,the potters and
their patronsseemto havebeenInterestedin creatinga symboliclink to featuresof the Minoan
socialsystem.Thiswould appearto be the motivationfor the creationof thesevessels,and must
form part of the motivationfor their disposalin the tomb in the public contextof a funeral.
The jars are large (up to a metre or more in height) and finely painted: they requireskill and
knowledgeboth in potting and painting.On the analogyof the pithosjars mentionedIn chapter
seven,jars would havetakenten to twenty daysto create.That so few mainlandexamplesare
knownindicatesthat relativelyfew peoplehad the knowledgeto producethesevessels,and that
productionwasalwayssmallscaleto the
answer needsof a limited numberof people.
The function of the vesselsIs most likely storage.The rims are not well suited for pouring,but
ladlesor cupsmay havebeenused,and so the storageof liquidssuchas water, wine or oil Is
quite likely; they may alsohavebeen usedfor the storageof dry goods.The contextof storage
would hardly be the they
everyday: were not used to store the annualharvest.Instead,they
must havebeen for in

used storage a specialcontext: holding the olive oil (for example)used
for feasts,or dedicatedto a god, or In any other way set asidefrom the ordinary. The lack of
settlementsites with examplesof such jars In situ even makes It possiblethat they were
constructedprimarily with a usein the tomb in mind (but not for a specificburial, bearingin
mind the minimumamountof time requiredfor their construction).
I would suggestthereforethat thesevesselsat the time of a funeralwould havebeenregardedin

much the same light asother difficult to procure Their
vessels. role in the funeralmay well have
beento hold somethinglike wine, a smallamountof which could havebeen drunk during the
ceremony.It is alsopossiblethat they may havebeenusedto storethe blood of sacrificeaspart
of the funeraryritual (the is
vessel not quite as open-shaped
aswould be Idealfor this). In some
casesthey may have beenset within the tomb and thought of as permanentadditionsto the
architectureand resourceswithin, to be called upon at each ceremonyor reopeningof the
tomb. Perhapsthe principal role of the artefact and Its content was as symbol of the social
structuresinhabitedby the mournersand mastersof the ceremony.
Preparation of the corpse
In the cist at 54:Vaff6Tsondasfound an intact depositthat he took to be the remainsof a

singleextendedinhumation.The anthropologicalmaterialhad apparentlycompletelydecayedIn
the ground,but the findswereso arrangedthat Tsondaswasableto suggestthe exactposition
of someitems In relationto the corpse.Thus, as far as Itemsconcernedwith the dressof the
corpseare concerned,some80 amethystbeadswere recoveredfrom the assumedareaof the
neck of the corpse, and were thought to have formed a necklaceof two rows, with two
sealstonesthat possiblyformed the centrepieceof each row; a gold inlaid daggerwas placed
perhapsat or below the left shoulderof the dead,with someother small gold objects.At the
positionof eachhandwere placedsimilarobjects,Includinglittle piles of sealstones
that might
conceivablyhaveformed bracelets,and there were three rings, one of gold, one of silver, and
one of iron the gold ring came from the left hand. A sword and six bronze knives are also
-
mentioned.The many other objectsseemto have beenplacedIn the gravewith or after the
corpse(selectionof objects:Al. 54.13-14).
The Intact depositsof 27:Rodtsitholos 2 seem mostly to be of LHIIA date (see catalogue
entry): there are three more or less Intact burial contexts. In one pit, which had been used
before for burial, a skeletonwaslaid. At somelater time the lower half was removed,but the
upper half and its context survivedintact. Relevantmaterial Includestwo Inlaid gold daggers
(A1.27.23), one found near the shoulderjust as the 54:Vafi6 example, the other on a
'platform' at the skeleton'sleft hand,with thirteen gold buttons (Al. 27.21). Piecesof amber
formed a necklace.Another dagger,bronzebut decoratedwith gold, was found near the left
hand.A secondpit (Al. 27.18) containedan articulatedskeletonwith a necklace,and a glass
beadat the right arm, perhapspart of a braceletor armlet. A burial on the floor, perhapslaid
on its side,had piled up by its sideten swordsand daggersaswell asvariousbeads(A1.27.19-
20).
Thesecontextssuggestthat there Is little changebetweenLHI and LHIIA In terms of the kinds

of materialsthat might be usedto adorn the corpse:beads(around neck or arm), weaponry,
and jewelleryIn the form of rings, might often be a part of the raiment of the corpse;other
contexts elsewhere (particularly 35: PeristeriJ tholos II, Al.. 35..59-60, and 44: Kak6vatosA)
show that gold foil and gold Impressed Items were also used, as In the Immediately preceding
period.
Chambertomb E8 at 24:Englian6scontainedtwo pits (A1.24.39): in one, an extended
with two beadsand a terracottawhorl. This contextwasIntact,so In this
skeletonwasassociated
casethe adornmentof the corpseseemsto havebeenmuch lesslavish:the solitarywhorl can
hardly have been usedon its own as a clothing weight, and so was perhapsdisplayedon the
shroudof the dead;the two beadswere presumablyusedas jewellery.Of three pottery items,
one wasan alabastron,possiblya containerfor perfumedoil that anointedthe corpse.A second
pit containedredepositedmaterial,again dated LHII: savepottery, the material presentwas
limited to a bronzeknife and a terracottabutton; at leastfour peoplewere representedIn the
contentsof the pit. In thesecasesit is clear that similarIdeasgovernedthe treatment of the
corpse,but that the amountand 'value' of the materialemployedwasmuch less.
In souththolos 1 at 35:Peristeri(Al. 35..25) the final three Inhumationswere extendedon the

floor and date to LHII (perhapsall three date to LHIIB). Eachwasassociated
with a singlepot,
In two casesan alabastron(the third pot is not described);no other finds are mentioned.In
thesecases,then, there Is little evidencefor the adornmentof the corpse,perhapsa significant
observation,In that this widespread practicemight not be Having
universal. said that, I suspect
that fundamentalelementin the adornmentof the corpsewasthe shroud,which beingorganic
would not have survived;moreover the presenceof the alabastrawould suggestthe use of
perfumedoils. Hencetheseburialsmay not be completelyanomalous.
35:Peristeri
south tholos 1 doeshoweverallow anotherpossibility:
sinceevidenceIs lackingfor
preparationof the corpsein all of Its contexts,It is possiblethat slightly different traditions
concerningtreatmentof the deadwere maintainedthrough different tombs, even at the same
site; moreover,the unusualpresenceof funerarypithoi in south tholos 1 also providesa link
with the tumuli of the middle helladicperiod, representedby the nearbyKokorkoumound.
In general,wheredisturbedcontextsIncludematerialof LHII date, the kindsof Itemsfound with

thesecontextsdoesnot differ greatlyfrom that observedIn Intact contexts,or In LHI contexts.
The generalconclusionfrom the evidenceIs therefore that the acts of preparationon the
corpse,and the preparationof materialsto be usedIn this way, do not differ substantiallyfrom
that observedIn the previousperiod, and that, as observedfor the previousperiod, while the
actsmay differ in quantity and quality of materialused,the samebasicpreceptsare presentIn
canbe made.
all contextswhereobservations

No information.
219
Chapter Eight
Acts at and within the grave

.
Movement
By definition, the simplergravesunder considerationhere are non-monumental(somesizesfor

gravesat 37: Mlthi are givenin table 6.1). They were not designedto permit the entry of the
living: their designis basedon the corpse.They are generallylargeenoughto containa corpse,
and rarely are they mademuch largerthan required.Although it is possiblethat one or two of
the mournersduringa funeralmight get into a castor pit to order to assistto interringthe body,
asthe body could easilybe manoeuvredin from above;In any case,
this would not be necessary
many of these gravesare very shallow, making the presenceof someoneinside to help
redundant.
The architectureof simpler gravestherefore constitutesa structuring element of funerary

practices:their designenforcescertain basic modes of action. These are that the mourners
shouldgatherat or nearthe grave(chapterfive, page 108) as opposedto in it, and that most
or all funerary activity should occur outside the grave, the involvementof the grave being
limited to receivingthe corpseand other artefactsasthey are loweredfrom above.
Engagement with the mater/a/past
There is someevidencefor the discovery,intentionalor otherwise,of earlier funerary

remains,
and how thesecould be dealt with. The most strikingexampleis that of graveA31 at 57:Ayos
220
Stefans which containedtwo skeletons,one earlier than the other (Al. S7..7). The bonesof
the earlierskeletonhadbeendisarticulated,presumablyat the time of the secondburial,and the
skull removed.The earlier skeletonwas meaningfulto those arrangingthe later burial: they
might after all have simply left It In place and Interred the new corpse besideor above it.
Insteadthey involved themselveswith the bones,disarticulatingthem (to what extent Is not
reported) and takingawaythe skull.Whetheror not they deliberatelysoughtto reusea graveIs
unclear,and the meaningof their action on the first skeletonIs alsounknown:If the skull were
of the presenceof the dead,Its removalmight havebeeneither
seenassomehowrepresentative
to exploit that presenceelsewhere,or to protect the current ceremonyor the recently dead
from that presence.The meaningof theseacts Is not availableto us: but we can be sure that
they were meaningful.
of eventsis unclear.The coverslabswere found out of

After the secondintermentthe sequence
with the secondintermentor with the acts carried out next to

place,which may be associated
the grave - these seem to have involved burning and perhaps sacrifice. The excavator
interpretedthe evidenceas indicatinga feastwhile the tomb wasopen and then further 'burnt
offerings'whenthe tomb wasshut. This graveoffers a unique(for this sampleof sites)instance
of post-intermentritual acts.
Other gravesshowedevidencethat the remainsof the past had been interferedwith. Despite
relativelyfew multiple burials,as many as 22 skeletonsat 57:Ayos Stefanoswere disarticulated
when found. A few of theseare suggested to be the result of modern disturbance,but In most
casesthe excavatorpostulatesthat thesesecondaryburialsresult from gravereuse.If this Is the
case,then it is clearthat it wasnot unusualto either deliberatelyor accidentallyopen an older
grave and remove some or all of the content, reburying close nearby. This suggeststhat
encounterswith the remainsof previousburialswere a fairly normalpart of the buryingtradition
at 57:Ayos Stefanos,and may have been to some extent anticipated. This strengthens
madein chapterfive aboutthe locationof graves.
observations
It also suggestsquestionsconcerningpeople's understandingsof the material remains of

humanity.The removalof bonesand reburyingperhapsIndicatesa perceiveddifferencebetween
the fleshedand defleshedcorpse,a sensethat It Is somehowacceptable,or proper, to remove,
disarticulateand rebury bones,sometimeswith other artefactspresumablyfrom the original
burial. The physicaltransformationof the corpse from flesh to bones may mirror a social
transformationfrom recently dead to ancestral.This would explain why, on digging in the
cemeteryand discoveringa previousburial, It wasacceptableto continuedigging,and prioritise
ChapterEight Actsat andwithinthe grave 221

the recentlydeadby removingthe older bones:burial In a defined gravewas important while
the boneswere fleshed,but after decompositionof the flesh bones could be gatheredand
reburiedIn a smallerpit, andmight havebeenconceivednot asan individualbut asa part of the
community of ancestorsknown to be scatteredthroughout that particular area. It Is even
conceivablethat, as In modem Greece, gravesmay have been reopened following custom
specificallyto removeand treat the bones,endingIn a reburial:not all burialswere treatedthis
way, however.
At 37:Mlthi there is also considerableevidencefor the disarticulationof earlier burials. Six

graves(6,15,20,21,22,28: A1.. 77.3-7), all of children, containedsingledisarticulated
skeletons.The excavatoroffered no possibleexplanationsfor the conditionsof the skeletons,
which in most casesweresmashed aswell asdisarticulated.One might suspectthat later building
or even cultivation might be responsibletheir condition. Similar explanationsmay apply to
graves25 and 40, where in eachcasetwo child skeletonswere found in a disarticulatedand
broken up condition. Grave 36 similarly containedtwo child burials, perhapsin this case
interferedwith deliberatelyafter the secondburial. Grave 32 was a casttomb containingthe
remainsof at leastsevenchildren,all mixed up. As Valmin recognised(1938,230), this tomb
wasusedfor the redepositionof materialbroughtfrom elsewhere.Similarly,grave37 contained
the mixed remainsof three adults(or two adultsand one child), In this casepossiblyassociated
with remainsof burning.Grave38 similarlywasa pit with the mixed remainsof eight Individuals
alongwith animalbonesand evidenceof burning.Again herethere Is perhapsslightevidencefor
a secondaryburialcustomassuggestedfor 57:AyosStefanosabove.
In summary,at 37:Mlthiasat 57:AyosStefanoswhile the majority of burialsare placedIn new

gravesand not interferedwith after deposition,there is evidenceIn a minority of casesfor the
reopeningof graves,disarticulationof remains,secondburials in graves,the collection and
reburialof remains,and (once)feastingat the graveside.
Acts Invo/vlagmater/a/s brought to the grave
At 57:AyosStefans artefacts(other than thosealreadydiscussedin relation to the adornment

of the corpse:chapterseven,table 7.1, page 194) are depositedIn eighteengraves.In the
following table, derived from table A1.57.1, artefactsalready discussedin relation to the
adornmentof the corpsehavebeenremoved:

Al pit 1 child male MH 2 MH pots
A2 I infant MH 2 fragmentary MH pots
A7 pit I child MH MH fragments not definitely
associated
A19 cist 1 adult female? MH? Pot (MH? )
A23 cist 1 adult female? MH 5 MH pots
A28 cist 2 mixed male? MH/LH 35 obsidian blades8t one flint
A29 cist I adult MH/LH? Shells
A31 cist 2 adult MH 3 MH pots
A33 1 infant MH MH pot
B6 pit/stone I adult MH 2 MH pots; 2 obsidian
surround arrowheads, one flint saw
B11 cist? I infant MH 2 MH pots
D4 I adult male LHI LHI pot
D7 cist I adult female MH 2 pots (Minoan?)
D13 pit/stone I adult male LHI? flint saw above burial
surround
D14 pit/stone 1 adult LHI ? LHI pot (vaflo cup)
surround
D22 I infant LHI? Sheepor goat bones
TT7-3 cist I adult female MH MH sherds: lead strip
Table 8.1. Graves at 57: Ayos Srefanos, showing only artefacts not directly related to the adornment of the
corpse.
The range of artefacts is limited: predominantly pottery with odd examples of shells, animal
bones or worked stone. This, and the fact that these graves are only a small proportion of the
total, shows that deposition of artefacts in the grave was relatively rare, and so funerary rites
involving artefacts might also have been rare. The artefacts and burials are not well enough
dated to be able to suggestthat artefacts were more used in one or other period.
The pottery artefacts are listed in the following table:
111.
Al two handled jar (9.4cm); large open shape like bowl or goblet
A2 small pithos; jar
A7 bowl (not securely associated)
A19 jar (10.5cm)
A23 minyan goblet (12.5cm high 12.3cm wide); cylindrical cup (6.1 cm); biconical jar; one
handled cup (7.3cm)
A31 spouted cup (3.4cm); one-handled cup (7cm); two-handled deep cup (8.9cm)
A33 one handled cup (8cm)
B6 cup (7.6cm); jar (18.5cm)
B11 fragments including pithos
D4 LHI cup (4.2cm)
D7 Minoan jug and cup
D14 Vafi cup
TT7-3 Sherds
Table 8.2. Pottery finds in graves at 57: Ayos Stefanos. Dimensions in brackets indicate heights
except
where stated.
223
Of these 23 Items, at least 10 are cups, there are six jars or jugs, three bowls or goblets, two
pithol, and two unidentified. The pithoi are likely to be burial vessels.The implication of the
other items is that pottery artefacts were used In pouring or drinking rituals at the graveside:the
jars and jugs may have held liquid poured into cups or as libation, and the cups, bowls and
gobletsmay havebeenusedfor consumingthe liquids.The drinking shapesvary in size:larger

examplesmay havebeenpassedfrom personto personto sharein the toast.
It may be objectedthat the depositionof theseitemsIn the gravewasnot as a consequence of

their usein funeraryrituals,but that they might representeither the property of the deador be
'funeral gifts' or 'offerings'. If the mournersinterpretedthe objectsIn this way, there would be
no functionalnecessityfor objectsrelatedto pouringand drinking liquidsto be chosento fulfil
this aspectof the funeral;but the unity of theme In theseobjectscomesfrom their function,
which suggestsstronglythat they representnot a collectionof offeringsor the property of the
dead, but rather the meansof carryingout a particularritual Involvingpouring and drinking
liquids.
regardingthe useof artefactsfound in the 57:AyosStefanosgravesare that

Conclusions
" certaingravesshow for

evidence pouringor drinkingceremonies;
" In other such
cases ceremoniesmay have takenplacewithout the objectsusedbeinggivenup
to the grave- perhapstheseceremoniesmight take place before the burial, or after the
closureof the grave;
" very few gravesshow any evidence for artefacts that are neither related to the adornment of
the corpse nor pouring and drinking ceremonies.
with artefacts.In grave4 there Is a 'sword

At 37:Mlthfonly six graveswere clearlyassociated
pommel of ivory', which looks less impressivethan it sounds (Al.. 37..9): about 4cm in
diameter,and asValmin suggests (1938,361) perhapsattachedto a stick rather than a sword.
In grave1a feedingbottle (possiblyLHIIIA in date) wasplacednext to the headof an infant. If
this item was used as its name suggests,then Its Inclusion In the grave may perhapsbe
Interpreted as an emotionallysignificantburial with the child of an object very Intimately
with It In the routinesof everydaylife. The Item might howeverrepresentonceagain
associated
a pouringshape,perhaps(sinceit Is 'small') of a liquid suchasscentedoil.
Chapter Eight Acts at and within the grave 224

I
Grave 24 at 37:Mlthi was the extendedburial of a child in a stone-surroundedpit or clst.
Another feedingbottle' and a goblet were found here (Al. 37.8). Again the feedingbottle
might havebeenassociated with the child In life, or it may be that It held liquids usedin the
funeral,andthe gobletis againa drinkingshape.
Grave 23 at 37: Mlthi contained more pottery than any other (Al.. 77.8). There were three
goblets of similar size and shape to that in grave 24, a smaller cup, and a very unusual double
jug (described by Valmin: 1938,314-315 and by L61os:1985,363-364). There Is no exact
parallel for the double jug, which makes it possible that It was made specifically for funerary or
other unusual contexts. Its shapewould allow for one to hold It aloft, as long as it was not too
full, then turn it through almost 180 to pour Into one of the goblets or the cup.
At 55:Amikfeontwo of the three gravesexcavatedby Tsondascontainedpottery. The first

grave, a slate-builtcist, containedtwo middle helladic cups; the other containedtwo early
Mycenaeancups.Althoughno further informationIs available,againherethe emphasisIs clearly
on drinking utensils.
Therefore, althoughevidenceis lackingfrom most graves,where artefacts(other than those

related to the adornmentof the corpse)are found in the grave,very often theseare pottery
itemsassociated
with pouringand drinkingceremonies.In those few caseswhereother artefacts
havebeen found (suchas obsidianblades,or perhapsthe feedingbottles at 37M31thi),special
interpretationsrelatedto that particularinstanceof burial must be sought.
Deposition of nmate ria / and corpse
Data from 57:Ayos StEfanosand 37:M31thi can again be examined to determine the
of
circumstances depositionfor the materialfound in the graves'.The following table setsout
the data for 57:AyosStefanos:
Lbloscallsit a 'small basket-handled

bowl suppliedwith an obliqueside-spoutof tubular form' (1985,
151).
2 The consequential deposition of material associatedwith the adornment of the corpse has been discussed
in chapter seven and Is not repeated In this chapter.

AI Two-handled jar Near head of contracted skeleton of child
Al Bowl or goblet Unknown
A2 Jar Below skeletal remains
A7 Bowl 50cm from skull, not securely associated
A19 Jar Besidepelvis of contracted adult female skeleton
A23 Minyan goblet Left knee of extended adult skeleton; set on base but slightly tilted
A23 Cylindrical cup Inside left elbow of extended adult skeleton; lying on Its side, facing
away from elbow3; facing and touching biconical jar
A23 Biconical jar Inside left elbow of extended adult skeleton, perhaps originally on
trunk of skeleton
A23 One-handled cup Outside left elbow of extended adult skeleton
A28 Obsidian flakes Southwestcorner of grave
A28 Flint scraper Southwestcorner of grave
A28 Bone pin Southwestcorner of grave
A29 Shells Near skull
A31 Spouted cup Left wrist of articulated skeleton
A31 One-handled cup South end of grave
A31 Two-handled deep cup Under pelvis of articulated skeleton
A31 Obsidian blades Unknown
A33 One-handled cup Associated with disarticulated bones
B6 Cup Unknown
B6 Jar Unknown
B6 Flint saw Unknown
B6 Obsidian Unknown
D4 LHI cup Associated with disarticulated bones
D7 Jug Right hand of contracted adult female skeleton
D7 Cup Right hand of contracted adult female skeleton
D14 Vafi6 cup Betweenright elbow and trunk of extended adult male skeleton
D22 Sheepor goat bones Near infant skull (no other bones preserved)
TT7-3 Sherds Unknown
TT7-3 Lead strip Under extended skeleton of adult female
Table 8.3. Locations and associationsof artefacts from graveslisted in table 8.1.
The detailed recording of the 57: Ayos Stefanos graves shows that artefacts were generally
carefully placed in the grave, and often in relation to the corpse (so after the interment of the
corpse). In many ways the deposition of this material forms a clear prelude to the closure of the
grave. The interment over, those items that had been used to structure the acts of the mourners
were themselves interred. The best example is grave A23 (Al S7.9), where three of the
pottery items were placed close to each other and at the left elbow of the corpse. The pattern
of deposition here suggeststhat the objects were placed in contact with each other and perhaps
resting on organic matter that later decayed. The skeleton was to one side in the grave, while
the artefacts were to the other, indicating that in the act of interring the corpse, thought was
given also to the deposition of the pottery. It is possible that all of the items were placed
upright, each being turned over to some extent in the passageof time or at the moment earth
was thrown into the grave. It may be that the items were placed in the grave by persons
standing on the west long side, although this is not essential.The larger pot is separate from the
I Hence not tied to the elbow (this cup was perforated), but perhaps tied to clothing.
226
smaller ones, perhaps deposited by people standing at different places over the grave. This may
have related to different groups using different items, or perhaps to different rituals associated
with different items.
GraveA33 was a disarticulatedburial associatedwith a one-handledcup. The cup may have

beenplacedwith the skeletonin its originalgraveand movedwith the bonesat a later date, or
the cup may have been depositedwhen the boneswere moved. Similarly grave D4 was the
disarticulatedremainsof an adult skeletonassociated
with a small cup. As with A33 the cup
may havebeenplacedwith the corpsewhen first buried or as part of the act of moving it to
anotherspot.
Objects other than pottery also betray some of the circumstancesof their deposition.The
obsidiancachein graveA28, alongwith a flint scraperand bone pin, were all found in one
corner of the grave.They had presumablybeen depositedin a bag of leather or someother
organicwhich later decayed.Their role may havebeendeliberatedeposition.
At 37:MJlthi, grave4, the ivory 'pommel' wasfound at the head of the child; In grave 1 the
feedingbottle wassimilarlyplacednext to the headof the infant; In grave24 the feedingbottle
was placedat the left kneeof the skeleton,while a goblet was placedat the other side: both
seemedto havebeenplacedupright. In grave23, containingtwo extendedchild skeletons,the
pots were placedin the cornersof the graveand the doublejug was placedright of the legs.
The pots seemto havebeenplacedin the graveafter the burial of the secondchild, or moved
duringthat burial,to judgefrom their positionsin the cornerawayfrom the skeleton.
To summarisethe evidence,In most gravesthat containeddeliberatelyor transformationally

depositedartefacts,the corpseseemsto have been depositedfirst, and the artefactsplaced
within the graveIn relation to the corpse.Instancesof deliberatedestructionof artefactsare
few, and in somecaseswheredisturbedbonesare relocated,objectswere carefullydepositedor
redepositedwith them.
The deposition of the corpse in these gravesis potentially the most significant act of the funeral,
and certainly forms the main intended outcome of the performance. In itself, stripped of all the
other actions described elsewhere,the act of deposition is a simple one: the body would in most
casessimply have been lowered into the grave. Some arrangement of the corpse would have
taken place if not completely covered by a funeral shroud; In some casesthe arrangement of the
corpse will have been principally carried out In the preparatory phase.

THE MHI-II PERIOD (TABLE 1.7, PAGE 33)
Movement
A mound or tumulus is by definition raised above the surrounding landscape. Its edge, whether
defined by a peribolos (35: Perister!J Kokor3kou, 17:Voidhokili, and possibly 14:Ayos loinnis
Papodia) or simply by the change In slope, Is the liminal point between tomb and wider
landscape.It Is in effect a platform, onto which participants must climb In order to take part In
activities. Thus the mound allows for a division In funerary practices: those taking part or closely
involved gathered on the mound, those merely watching scattered around and below (the open
nature of the architecture allows for free passage between the two zones, so one should be wary
of suggestinga strict division In funeral participants). The architecture raises up the actions of
those Involved so as to make them more prominent, accessibleand open to recognition and
observation.
The actual graves,althoughraisedup abovethe landscape,remain holesin the ground: pits,

The
burials. latter is
case admittedly rather more complex(and
cists,or most commonlypithos
below),
is considered but the
ultimately actionof burial remains the lowering of the corpseinto
the gravewhile the mournersgatheraroundabove.The effect of the mound is to raisefocusof

the and
actionabove surroundings divide the mournersinto groups.
Engagementwith the material past
In approachinga moundintendingto inter the newly deadwithin, thoseinvolvedacknowledged

the older deadalreadyinterredwithin and, in reusingthe mound, reproducedand transformed
with
traditionsof practiceassociated it. The use of an existingmound for a funeralis therefore
in itself an act of engagement with the past.Overall numbers of burial acts with
associated these
however relatively small: at Ayos
14: IonnisPapolia for example, about 20
mounds are
Individualsare representedamongthe MH burials'. That engagementwith the past was not
thereforean essentialpart of the disposalof a corpsefor thesecommunities:other corpsesmust
havebeenlocatedelsewhere.
' Excludingthoseburialsregardedby the excavatorsas post-bronzeage. EvenIncludingthose,however,

the total would probablynot rise aboveabout 35 (exactnumbersare Impossibledue to the recordingof
the material).

At a more specific level, at times people decided not only to reuse the mound, but also
occasionally to reopen and reuse existing graveswithin the mound. In most casesthis is clearly
with the intermentof a corpse,but in a few casesmay be associated

associated with someother
activity, asdetailedbelow.
At 14:Ayos lonnisPapolia,pithos 19 containedthe remainsof two individuals(Al. /4.22).

The original Interment in the pithos had been disarticulated at the time of the insertion of the
second corpse. In this case, then, we can say that the mourners chose a particular pithos,
opened it up, interfered with the remainswithin, Inserted the corpse, and then closed the pithos
again. They may have dug out and reburied the pithos as part of this activity: unlike most of the
pithoi at 14:Ayos lonnis Papolia,found set radially high in the mound, this pithos was buried
rather deeply In It. If this was its original position, then at the time it was reused those who used
it must have somehow known its position in the mound, since it would neither have been
to
obvious nor easy relocate, as the others would have been. Therefore it may well be the case
that, when It was reused it was moved from some point higher In the mound (or indeed from
another mound) and placed in this deeper spot.
Slightlydifferent evidenceis presentedwith pithos 5 of the samemound, which containedan

articulated,contracted skeleton,at the knees of which was a second,smallerskull. This skull
may representeither the of
remains an originalburial, interferedwith to facilitateintermentof a
secondburial,or it may representan item introducedinto the pithosat the time of intermentor
later. The latter possibilityimpliesthat at times it might be acceptableto open gravesand
interferewith the remainsin an act not directly relatedto a new interment.
None of the other pithoi of this moundis specificallyrecordedasshowingevidencefor useafter

the initial interment;however,the recordingof the 1950s excavationsis non-specific,and so it
may be that others were so used. Further evidence Is provided by the other gravesof the
mound,which are problematicin that their chronologiesare not well determined. However, one
of the cist gravesis noted ascontaininga numberof skulls.It Is at leastpossiblethat theseskulls
were gatheredfrom the other gravesof the mound, although the period of this event Is
unknown.Others of the cists (6,9 st 10) containeddisarticulatedbones,and one of them
(number22) containedclearevidencefor two separateevents:one articulatedburial post-dates
a disarticulatedburial. The uncertaintyover the chronologyof these gravesmeansthat they
cannotbe takenasclearevidencefor middle heliadicpractice.

At 17:Voidhokili two of the pithol showed clear evidence of reuse. Pithos 4 (Al. 17..18.19)
containedtwo burials,one contractedand one disarticulated, that

suggesting the disarticulation
of the bonesformed part of the interment of the secondindividual. Pithos 6 (Al. 17..21)
containeda layer of pebblesto form a burial floor. This was laid as part of the original
interment. The secondIntermentbrought about both the disarticulationof the first, and the
disturbanceof this pebble floor. Finally, pithos 11 containeda grey minyan kantharosthat
seemedto be at a higherlevelthan the burial, so perhapsindicatingsomepost-intermentevent.
However,giventhat theseitemsseemto be a regularpart of the rituals at this site, perhapsit
waspresentwith the graveoriginallyand later disturbed.
It is possiblethat there may havebeenan intention, expectationor allowancefor the possibility

of the reuseof pithoi. It has alreadybeen noted that the funerary pithol are large, and it is
that
perhapssignificant they are much largerthan those usedin Crete - therefore
suggesting that
they are somewhat larger for

than necessary an inhumation.This might however be partly
if
explained their dimensions were dictated by to
someuse which they were put in a previous
domestic context. More significantIs the location of the pithos in the mound and the
architectureof the mound itself. At14: Ayos lomnnis for
Papolia, example,the secondand third
layersof stoneseemdesignedfor the insertionof pithol in sucha way that their mouthswould
face outward and in a prominent position (Al. /4.19-20). A similar situation exists at
17:Vo"dhokili,
while the one pithos described at 27: Rotsl was equipped with a drystone
to
construction support its neck (Al. 27..4-5), suggestingthat In this casealsothe mouth wasat
leastpartly abovethe levelof the mound. It Is the way that the pithoi were set in thesemounds
that suggeststhat accessto the Interior and reuse for further intermentswas, if not always
intended,at leastprovidedfor.
In summary,the evidenceIndicatesfirst, that the burial moundsthemselveswere designedto

allow for burial to take placeIn a context of previous funeraryacts;and second,that there was
occasional direct Interferencewith existinggraves, often related to the Interment of a second
Individual.Although the placementof funerarypithol high In the mound with mouthsoutward
and prominent may have facilitated to
access the grave, the partial evidenceIndicatesthat
secondburialsare ratherrare, and no pithosIs noted as containing more than two It
Individuals.
be
may that access to the pithoswasprimarily aimed at activitiesother than new burial, suchas
facilitating a return to the grave after the dissolutionof the flesh; both articulated and
disarticulatedburialsare, however,presentIn the graves.The evidenceIs thereforeInconclusive,
and there Is moreovera suspicionthat someInterferenceactivitiesmight date to a later period
(perhapsMHII1, below).

Acts involving materials brought to the grave
As with the simpler graves,it seemsthat most burial ceremonies in these mounds did not result
in much deposition of artefacts. There is evidence, however, for variation in practice between
the different sites, especially between the two best known, 14:Ayos Ioinnis Papoilia and
I7: Voidhokilii. Table 8.4 below lists the evidence, most of which conies from 17:VoIdhokili.
14 Ayos Ionnis Papotilia Cist 14 Pottery fragments forming minyan pot of open shape
14 Ayos lonnis Papolla Pithos 19 Minyan kantharos and jug
14 Ayos lonnis Papolia Pithos 23/24 Ewer
17 Vidhokili Pithos 1 kantharosand another pot (open shape)
17 Voidhokili3 Pithos 4 one sherd
17 Voldhokili Pithos 5 grey minyan kantharos and black burnished flask
17 Voidhokili Pithos 7 grey minyan kantharos and adriatic spherical jug
17 Voidhokili Pithos 10 grey minyan kantharos, cup and spherical pot
17 Voidhokili Pithos 11 grey minyan kantharos (possibly post-interment)
17 Voidhokili Pithos 13 grey minyan sherds
17 Vidhokili South cist two small pots, one spherical
17 VoIdhokili3 Eastcist jug
17 Voidhokili Non-grave double cup
27 Rotsi Central pit double cup and two other pots
35 Kokorkou Non-grave Minyan krater
Table 8.4. Artefacts deposited with the dead, other than those adorning the corpse.
One other object, not included in the table, is an obsidian arrowhead, discovered embedded in
the chest of the corpse in pithos 15 of I4: Ayos Ioinnis Papolia.
Although objects were not necessarilya part of the funeral rite at 17:Voidhokili, where present
they seem to form a definite set: a kantharos with a second pot for holding liquids. This
indicates a drinking ceremony as a regular part of the interment ceremony at the site (unlessthe
kantharoi were regularly inserted as part of later ceremonies). These are dated to MHI, and the
14:Ayos loinnis Papoliaburials are likely to be MHII or even MHIII in date; this may clarify the
difference in apparent burial customs between the sites. 17:Voidhokilii however was carefully
excavated in the 1970s, while most pithoi at 14:Ayos loinnis Papotilia were excavated in the
1950s, with much less information available on their content: this may also explain the
apparent difference in practices.
I7: Voidhokili exhibits evolving tradition in burial practices in three areas: in using a communal
mound, in node of burial (pithos), and in a drinking ceremony involving Minyan kantharoi and
jugs.
231
A double cup was found at 17:Voidhokili (Al. 17.14, Al. 17.25), and one at 27: Rotsl
Kaloyeropolou. At the latter site It was one of three pots placed outside the central pit near its
'entrance'; at 17:Vo7dhokiiiIt was an Isolated find In the mound (and probably dated MHIII).
Possiblefunctions for this unusualshape are not obvious, and the findspots suggesta ritual role.
It may be that the double cup held two different liquids mixed In libations over a grave or the
mound.
Deposition of material and corpse
Depositionis complexin the caseof pithosburials.As wasnoted in chapterfive, the corpsemay

havebeeninsertedinto the pithos before the pithoswasembeddedIn the mound. The act of
depositingthe pithos would haveinvolvedat leastfour people loweringit into the cavity that
had been prepared for it. In some casesa drystonefacadewas built around the mouth to
support it, and the pithosmight then havebeenpartly coveredby stone or earth, so that only
the mouth wasvisibleand the pithos becamea part of the mound. At this point, if the body
were not alreadywithin the pithos,it might be inserted,but equallythe body could havebeen
placedwithin the pithosat anyearliertime.
Wherearticulatedskeletonswere preserved,they were alwaysIn a contractedposition,with the

headtoward the baseof the pithos,indicatingthat at the momentthe body wasplacedwithin, it
was Insertedhead-first.Dependingon the sizeof the mouth, It might have been necessary to
bind the legsto the torso (or wrap the body tightly In a shroud) in order to achieveInsertion,
and so this may partly explainthe contractedposition. Arranging the body within the pithos
would haverequiredreachingin with one arm, and with the taller pithol an arm's lengthwould
not have beensufficientto arrangethe body. Moreover only one personat once could have
beeninvolvedin suchan act. It seemsvery probablethereforethat the corpsewould havebeen
bound or enshroudedbefore insertion.In somecasesthe bottoms of the pithoi were pierced,
perhapsasan outlet for the productsof the decayprocess.
Someof the artefactsseemcarefullyplaced:the kantharosof 14:Ayos1oinnisPapoliapithos 19

was placed next to the face of the articulatedskeleton,the jug at its knees(Al. /4.22); in
pithos 5 at 17:Voidhokilithe flaskwasat the kneesof the corpse,the kantharosat the pelvis;
other pithol at 17:Voidhokili3were disturbedwhen moved during LHI. In thesetwo casesand
presumablyin others, the corpsewas insertedfirst, and then the pottery Items were placed
inside.In the two 17:Voidhok111J
cist graves(Al. 17.25-29), the pottery seemsequallyto have
beenplacedafter the corpsewasplacedin the grave:in the easterncastoutsidethe mound,the

jug was placed behind the skull of one of the corpses; In the southern cist within the mound, the
pots were placed next to the face of the corpse.
Movement
These mounds, generally rounded structures rising to a maximum of about 4m above the
surrounding landscape, possessthe same general architectural properties alluded to in the
previoussectionin connectionwith the excavatedmoundsdiscussed

there.
Engagement with the materia/past
As noted above,the reuseof thesemoundsis in Itself an engagementwith the past.As these

moundsare mostly unexcavated,however,there Is little specific evidenceto treat here. At
49:Myeiraone of the few availabledetailsIs that a kylix, possiblyLHIII, was locatedwithin a
that the pathoswasopenedand Interferedwith at that
pithos, possiblyMH In date, suggesting
late date. At 8:Kiss6s,the four 'graveperibolol' were clearlyreusedover a long period of time,
and may well have been Intendedto be so reused.There Is evidenceof the disarticulation,
collectionand breakingof bonematerialIn three of the four structures,while In the fourth there
was no bone, althoughthere were artefacts,suggestingthat bone materialmight havebeenat
somepoint removed.
A number of artefactswas recoveredfrom the stone structuresat 8:Kiss6s.The only remains

perhapsrelatingto a funeralwerea cup and a ewerrelatedwith the partialremainsof a skeleton
in structure r: again, a drinking and pouring set (Al. 8.13.15). Other remainsseemingly
relate to post-depositionpractice, especiallythe pottery lined up againstthe side of stone
structureA (A1.8.16-18).
Of the unexcavatedsitesidentified through survey,pithos fragmentsand MH sherdsare the

most commonlynoted finds.The MH sherdsseemneverto havebeenabundant,and modern
surveys,as well as visits made in preparationfor this thesis,rarely provide an abundanceof

finds. This suggeststhat, as with the sites discussedin the previous section, burial practices at
these mounds did not require the deposition of large amounts of material culture.
Deposition of material and corpse
Pithoi feature at the excavatedsites 8:Kiss6s(A1.8.19-21), 25:Dhivrl and 49:MJyeira

(Al 49.1), and are reported from 2: Evangelism6s,6: Pl7a,I5: PlJtanos,20: Tragina Kapoureika,
.
21: Lefki, 22: Pirgos5,29: V/ta, and 33: Mili6ti. Their deposition will have been subject to the
considerationsmentioned in the previous section.
THE MHIII-LHI PERIOD (TABLES I II, PAGES 33-34)

.8&I.
With the possibleexceptionof Kokorkouat 35:Peristeri,all sites discussedas MHI-11(table

wasalsoprobablyIn use.
1.7, page33) continuedto be usedIn this period, and 8:K1ss6s
Movement
The most importantaspectof the architectureof tholosand chambertombs,as far asIts Impact
on the natureof funeraryrites Is Is
concerned, the possibilityfor reuseof the tomb, an aspect
clearlya fundamental part of the design of the tomb. An entranceto the tomb was a design
featurefrom the first6,and an essentialpart of the design.The entranceis part of a wider series
of designfeaturesthat clearlymarkthe tholostomb (and the followingremarksapply equallyto
the chambertomb) asdifferentfrom previousmodesof burial In one crucialrespect:the tholos
tomb is designednot so much for the needsof the dead body, as for the needsof the living
body; the architecture of the tholos tomb specificallyfacilitates the presenceof human
individuals.
in appendixthree.
The Identificationof MH pottery at this site is discussed
6 One or two small tholos tombs might have lacked an entrance, but on closer examination this usually
seems not to have been the case. The three tholol of 10:Gouva13r1 mound 2 might have been in this
category, but the excavation publication is so slight as to preclude any conclusion. Of the two tholol
apparently without entrances in 10:Gouvaljri mound A, tholos 8 seems In any case likely a post-LHI
construction, and tholos 9 contains multiple burial layers of different periods: It seems more difficult to
believe that repeated depositionswere made through the roof than to believe simply that the entrance has
not been located. Tholos 5 at 13:Kaminia might also not have an entrance, although again this seems
unlikely; the 'little circle' at 30: Nih6ria and some of the Nikltopodlou tombs at the same site might also
fall Into this category. Note that in no case is it certain that there was no entrance. If a tholos without
entrance is suggested,one must supposethat burial took place from above, before the completion of the
tholos dome. Seealso 10:Gouvalirl, note 2.

Other forms of burial, such as pits or casts,are very much sized and created for the corpse.
They are open in form, the opening suitable for the lowering of a corpse into the pit or cast,
along with a usually minimal number of objects. They can only form a closed space when the
grave itself is closed, at which time entry is thus prevented. Pithol are slightly different, in that
they present a closed space with an opening, but only in the largest pithol might it have been
possiblefor those involvedin the funeralto enter the pithos, and there is no direct evidence
that they did. Instead the aperture of the pithos allowed for the Introduction of the corpse Into
a relatively closed space.
The form of the tholos tomb similarlycreatesa closedspace,accessedby a relativelynarrow

opening.In this case,however,the scaleof the tomb Is very much fitted to the needsof the
living body. Only In the very smallesttombs, for examplethe 1.55m diameter tholos 3 In
Mound A at 10:Gouvalri,would It be difficult or impossiblefor an adult to standup, and tholol
of thesedimensionsare very rare. The averagediameterof the Mound A tholol at 10:Gouva13r1
is 3.18m, suggestingan averageheight of perhaps2.5m: certainly above 2m. One or two
adultscould freely move aroundin most of thesebuildings,and severalmore could enter at a
push.
This is a crucial observation, since from the first it appears that the Interior of the tomb became
a focus for activity: not merely the disposal of the dead, but the digging of graves, activities
involving various items, and Interference in the detritus of previous acts. Those acts were not
specifically made possible by the tholos architecture: after all, they could have been conducted
in an open space over a grave. Instead, the tholos enablessuch activities to take place within an
enclosed environment. The tholos tomb creates a secret area, entry into which is normally
blocked and might be controlled or regulated according to the combined and conflicting wills of
those involved. This secret area, used both as a place of decomposition for the corpse and a
storehouseof ancestral material, can be understood as a liminal locale: as much as it is the place
where the dead are transformed from recognisablecorpse to part of the ancestralmass,it Is also
a place where the living might go to stand on the edge of the world, at the Interface between
the living and the dead, to confront through the remains their beliefs about death and, if any,
the afterworld.
The importanceof the scalingof the tholos tomb to the living body cannot be emphasised
enough.It is this scaling,alongwith the provisionof an entrance,that marksthe tholosclearlyas
an architecturalspacedesignedfor the movementIn and out of the agent, and her activity
within. It is possiblethat In bringingthe first tholos tomb Into being, Its designerdid not fully

appreciate or intend these consequences:especially If one accept that the smallest tholol were
the first to be built, it is possiblethat the architect was simply thinking of a grander burial space
within a mound which might be used again, without Imagining ever-larger tholol and a
consequent change of burial practice. Nonetheless, such was the result of the perfection of the
construction technique. The sudden appearanceof so many tholol, and then IncreasesIn scaleso
that by LHII the construction of 6m to 8m diameter tholol was normal, can only be explained
in terms of a change in funerary practice facilitated and brought about by these tholol, but In
traditional terms so that such changescame to be seen as natural and themselvestraditional.
The tholos consistsof two or three principal features:the chamber,a loweredand narrowed
entrancewayor entrancepassage (the 'stomion'), and usuallyan approachway (the 'dromos')
wider than the stomion and open at the top. If a group of people approachthe tomb, their
approach through open land is unconstrained by their surroundings.They may or may not
to
choose adopt a specificorientation and ordering, conditioned (during funerals) by the
carryingof the corpse,and perhapsthrough the roles being acted out, but on arrival at the
tomb their movementis from that point constrainedby Its architecture.Dependingon the
dimensionsof the chamber,stomion and dromos, and the number of people involved, It Is
usuallydifficult for a largenumberof peopleto approachand enter the tomb at once. In fact,
the effect of the dromosis to createa narrow entranceway, and the stomion In most cases
would have forced entry in single file. Moreover, the dimensionsof the chamber, not to
mentionany remainson the floor, would haveconstrainedthe numberof Individualsthat might
be presentwithin the tomb at anyone time.
The effect of the dromosand stomionextendsbeyondthe mode of entry to the tomb; it also
creates a unitary line of focus for an otherwise circular monument. This Is a significant
development,in that it createsfront and back spaceIn a monumentthat might otherwisebe
viewed as homogeneousin its architecture.The tholos createsmultiple spacesIn the locale.
There Is the secretInner spaceof the chamber,there Is the front spaceof the facadeof the
tomb, and there Is the backspaceat the end of the dromoswhereonlookers(thosenot at that
point enteringthe monument)might havestood. Another kind of backspaceIs formed by the
mounditself, now no longerthe objectof focus.
Tholosarchitectureis not merelyconstraining,however.The word 'constraint' Is valueladen,In

that it impliesthat people are forced Into acting in a mannerthat they might otherwisenot
have.However,giventhat tholostombswere built and usedIn numbersand over a long period,
it is a reasonableobservationthat these tombs were felt to serve well specificneedsin the

funerary sphere. Therefore, constraint In the manner of approach, In the number of Individuals
within, can be thought of as acceptable to those using the tomb, and moreover as enabling:
enabling the creation of an Inner space, enabling certain acts to take place at the facade,
enabling a group of people to break into sub-groups,each occupying different areasand moving
around at different times. In other words, the architecture enabled the kinds of funerary
performances thought of as appropriate and 'good' by those Involved; the constraint that only a
certain number of individuals may occupy the chamber, for example, In fact enablesthe conduct
of certain acts in a closed off spaceby those few Individuals.
The act of moving through or down the dromos gradually cuts one approaching off from the
world, as the sides of the dromos rise around her and her focus is directed to the darknessof
the chamber through the stomion. The liminal point is the stomion itself. Face the chamber In
the stomion, and one's focus is on the world of the dead; face the dromos, and one's focus Is
drawn along and up the dromos to the outside world. The stomlon Is the point of contact
between the two, the point where the body is most controlled: it Is the narrowest point of the
construction, it is often too low to stand, and in some casesone Is required to crawl through.
Once through, within the chamber one may once again move and turn relatively freely: within
the world of the dead. The outside world Is represented only by the light filtering through the
stomion, which must be negotiated once again In order to leave. Therefore, the stomion Is the
point where the body is most constrained, and the point of transfer between the outer world
and the chamber of the dead. This Is therefore symbolically a point that those controlling access
to the tomb would seekto control.
Having gained entry to the tomb, perhaps burdened with a corpse and with other
accoutrements of the performance, the participants would be free to carry out whatever acts
they Intended In relation to the material In the tomb and any new burial. Their numbers would
be limited by the size of the tomb and by the constraint on freedom of movement created by
any remains on the floor. It Is possible that others would have crowded in, and filled stomion
and dromos; alternatively, those outside the chamber may have kept distance, perhaps standing
at the upper end of the dromos. The architecture allows passagebetween regions: someone
inside might leave, someone outside might enter; it is even possible that a continuous stream of
people could be entering and leaving, especially at the larger tombs. Tholos architecture does
not fix the possibilitiesof movement, but it does structure them.

Engagement with the mater.? /past
The re-useof a mound,tomb or gravecutting is a consciousact of involvementIn the stuff of

earlierburialsand ceremonies.Moreover,the architectureof most of the sitesunder discussion
in this sectionboth encouragesre-useand remainsa prominent and permanentreminderand
localein the landscape.That the architectureallowsfor reusedoesnot show in itself that such
repeatedvisits in fact took place; rather it is in the remainsfound within tombs that the
evidencefor multiple eventsin the tomb's historyis to be found.
The problemsof interpretingtheseeventsare acute, and have tended in the past to be side-
steppedby underplayingtheir significance,throughthe underlyingnotion that tombsshouldbe
related to a specificinitial event and that later eventsare secondaryIn every sense(chapter
four). If howeverit is acceptedthat the useof the tomb beyondthe Initial burial wasIn most
casesan intended consequence of their architecturalform, then the Importanceof any first
and interpretationmustinvolvethe wholehistoryof the tomb.
eventIs lessened
The most difficult problemis not in recognisingeventsthat havetakenplacebut In placingthem

chronologically.Few contextsare recordedand reported In sufficient detail to approachthis
problem.Therefore,not only is the evidencein most casesa mix of earlierand later activities,
but It is more difficult to pick out eventsclearly pertainingto the very early period under
discussionhere (MHIII-LHI). Fewof the tombsunder discussionhere can be saidto havegone
out of useduringthis period;thesefew are at 10:Gouval3ri,perhapsthe thoiosIn mound B, and
perhapstholos 17 in mound A; from 13:Kam1nia,perhapstholos 4; the MH/LHI grave at
35:Peristeri,possiblytholosIII at 35:PeristeriJ,the 62:Kithiratombs. In additionthere are cases
whereindividualcontextsare Identifiedasbelongingto this period.
The followinganalysisof the evidenceaimsto examinethe waysthat peoplemight havedealt

with the tangibleremainsof previouseventsand livesin this period, and to test the hypothesis
that, througha rangeof differentpossiblereactions,the Involvementof peoplewith the detritus
of previousactsin the MHIII-LHI period developedinto a tradition that continuedunchanged
to the end of LHII and In all probabilityto the end of the Mycenaeanpalaceperiod (LH11IB2)
and perhapsbeyond.
I However with 'submycenaean' interference in upper levels.

At 1O:Gouvalrithe single tholos in mound B (Al. /0.36) was of diameter between 3m and
4m approximately, and was almost certainly constructed In the MHIII period. The description
of the content of the tomb is not detailed, but finds were grouped In three areas: In the central-
eastern part of the chamber, a group of bones was noted, associatedwith three stone objects
Identified as whetstones (Al. /0.37 right), a pin, and three arrowheads. The bones were
disarticulated and likely belonged to one Individual. In the south part of the chamber there was
a second collection of disarticulated bones, again likely belonging to a single Individual. Sherds
found belonged to an MH vessel(some sort of jug) and an LHI Vafib cup, and a neolithic (or
neolithic-type) axe (Al. /0.37 left) was found in the same area. In the west part of the
chamber was a pit containing the articulated skeleton of a woman about 35 years old at death.
The pit also contained a small pot and two clay spindles.
The lack of stratigraphicevidenceobviouslyprecludessecureinterpretationof theseremains.

The excavatorsuggested that the two groupsof bonesand artefactswere the remainsof earlier
burialsoriginallyplacedin the pit, eachdisinterredand placedelsewhereat the time of a later
burial. The third burial thereforerepresentsthe final act within the tomb. Other explanations
are howeverpossible.Factorsto be consideredinclude:
" The two disarticulatedburials might have been Interred at any time and subsequently
disarticulated.Thereis no specificpublishedevidencelinkingthem with the pit;
" Disarticulation
Is clearlya process,
secondary only carriedout after the fleshhasdecayed.As
such, artefactsfound with disarticulatedbonesneed not relate to the original context of
depositionof the bones:mixing of contextsmay have occurred, or they may have been
depositedaspart of the act of disarticulatlon;
" Material (includingbones)may havebeenbroughtfrom elsewhereat any time and deposited
in the tomb;
" Materialmay havebeencompletelyremovedfrom the tomb at any time;

" The natureof the ceramicof the period fine
precludes between
judgements MHIlI and LHI.
In particular,the stoneartefactsfound with one of the bonecollectionsare specificallynoted as

lying abovethe bones.This seemsto Indicatedeliberatedepositionat the time of disarticulation
and secondaryinterment, perhapsdepositionon top of a thin layer of earth placedover the
bones, or perhapson top of a garment placed over the bones.Thesestone artefactswere
therefore manipulatedas part of that act; they may have been part of the original burial
context, or they may havebeenintroducedfrom elsewhereat this time.

The pottery found with the other collectionof bonesrelatesto a drinkingand a pouringvessel.
Their descriptionas LHI and MH respectivelymight suggestthat they first enteredthe tomb at
different times, but the MH vesselmight well have been in use at the sametime as the LHI
Vafi6 cup (chapterone, pages26-27).
The Identifiableacts within the tomb are therefore limited to the digging of the pit, the
disarticulationsof the two skeletonsand their collection and deposition along with other
artefacts,and the depositionof the Intact skeletonIn the pit alongwith a few artefacts.While
the previous history of the dead representedby the disarticulatedskeletonscannot be
decipheredon the basisof the evidence,the fact of their disarticulationand depositionclearly
showsa concernto work throughcertainactsusingthe materialof the ancestors,with a concern
to transformthoseremainsfrom the articulatedskeletonsof perhapsIdentifiableIndividualsto
heapsof bonesof the ancestors.While all the evidencesuggeststhat this act or these acts
occurredin the LHI period, this Is not a certainty; the lack of later materialsupportsan LHI
date for theseacts.
Tholos 1 in mound A at 10:Gouval3ri(A1.10.2) is describedIn lessdetail: twelve separate

depositsof humanboneswere recordedwithin a tholos of diameter2.9m, of which only one
wasan articulatedskeleton.Somewere at higherlevelsthan othersIn the fill, suggesting
the use
of earth to cover Individualdeposits.Recoveredartefactswere not recordedin association
with
thesecollectionsof bones,perhapsIndicatingthat they were found separately.
The interpretationof the contentsof the tomb must be seenin the light of the constraints
suggestedfor the previoustomb. Interestingin this exampleIs the likelihood that various
artefacts were found not in associationwith individual Interments, indicating either the
separationof theseartefactsfrom the bonesof some primary context of inhumation,or that
they were brought Into the tomb and depositedduring acts not specificallyrelated to the
deposition of bones. Nonetheless,the main evidencefrom this tomb again suggeststhat
secondaryinterment after disarticulationwas a common and eventuallytraditional practiceIn
thesetombs.
Tholos4 at 13:Kaminia(Al. fa24-25) Is 2.7m In diameterand Its excavatorregardsIt asthe

earliestof the mound, constructedIn the MHIII period and useduntil Its collapsein the second
half of the LHI period. ExcavationIs Incomplete,but revealeda singleextendedarticulated
skeletoncentral In the chamberand at a relatively high level In the fill: the skull had been
removed,and there wasno other associatedmaterial.The final depositof materialwasjudged

to be four pottery items found In the northeast part of the tomb. These consisted of drinking
and pouring shapesand are the result of an act unconnected with burial (as recognised by the
excavator). The area under the articulated burial is unexcavated, but excavations In the
peripheral areas of the tomb revealed two bone collections and an Isolated skull near the
entrance, while at the back of the tomb an area extending below the foundations and Initially
interpreted as a pit contained six other disarticulated burials; scattered Individual bones were
noted throughout. Among other finds, sherds of at least five Vaf16 cups were collected
(Al. /J. 27), sometimes from among certain bone piles. Near the centre there were the bones
of an animal (or animals).
Detailsare sketchybecauseof the incompletenatureof the excavation:In particularthere is no

information on the original floor of the tomb. However,again there is an emphasison the
disarticulationof bones:of nine individuals,eight were disarticulated,the ninth decapitated
(presumablypost-mortemand post-decomposition). The final depositof pottery In the tomb Is
not related to any burial, and hints at non-intermentacts within the tomb. The presenceof
Vafi6 cups, for example,might be associatedwith drinking or toastingceremonies.A pit was
dug around the walls at the back of the tholos and most of the bone materialwas deposited
it
within at somepoint. The finds of scatteredIndividualbonesalso tendsto reinforcethe Idea
that the disarticulatedboneswere seen to lose their individuality and become part of the
ancestralmass.Finallythe presenceof animalbonessuggestssacrifice;this is unusualin suchan
earlycontext, however,and perhapscompleteexcavationwill provideanotherexplanation.
After such examples,the finds of the MH/LH grave at 35:Peristeri3seem lessunusual.This

consistsof a large, pit
shallow,stone-lined about 2.5m x 2.5m (Al. 35.10-16) that wasfound
to contain a number of discretedepositsof humanbone and other material, as well as many
Individualbonesand artefactsover its floor; there wasno intact inhumations,and little evidence
that there might ever havebeenone. The exactform of this graveis unclear,perhapsdamaged
by the creationof the nearbymassiveperibolosfor tholos I in LHIIA: it is thereforedifficult to
judgehow peoplemight haveusedor movedin the tomb. The remains,however,can only be
Interpretedas the resultof actswherepeopleengagedwith earlierburialsand reorderedthem,
perhapsevenbringingthem from anothertomb to this tomb.
The distribution and condition of 'precious' items is of particular importance in this tomb. It Is
clear in this instance that during these acts of secondary Interference and redeposition people
8 Saveone above the covering slabs (AI. 35.13), associatedby the excavator with events surrounding the
LHIIA construction of the nearby peribolos for tholos 1.

were not particularlyconcernedto remove'precious'materialfrom the tomb for useelsewhere;
with theseitems that resultedin forms
in fact there are somepeculiarinstancesof engagement
of depositionthat soughtto imposea limit to the possiblemeaningsof the objects. So for
example,within a clay kantharosset upright on the floor were four gold bandsand a gold vessel
like a kantharos(Al .. TS.20-21). The gold vesseland the gold bandshad been deformedin
order to fit them within the clay kantharos.Theseare presumablyto be associatedwith the
group of boneslying nearby.The five gold itemshad beenselectedand carefullymadeto fit In
the kantharos,perhapstransportedthus from their original context of deposition,then set
upright with the bonesand someother artefacts.The deformationof the items, particularlythe
gold vessel,is an indicationthat the vessel,perhapsusedfor drinkingduring the originalburial,
wasno longerto be usedin that way; Its property of beingableto containthingswasno longer
required, and its meaningwas primarily derived from its context in the grave, perhapsin
particularwith the nearbybones.
Thereare similarInstances within this tomb. With the earliestburial (includingthe remainsof at
leasttwo individuals;Al. 3S. 17) wasfound a swordthat had beenburnedand bent, Its handle
tip
and missing (Al. 35..19); It Is of courseImpossible
to tell whetherthis action on the sword
was carried out at the initial interment or at the time of disarticulationand redeposition
(Astrm 1987 listssimilarcontextsfor Cyprusand other parts of the EasternMediterranean).
The Interpretationof the action Is howeverthe sameas that with the gold Items above.The
meaningto be Inferred from the sword no longer resulted from Its being a sword, but rather
comesfrom Its contextas an Item depositedwith a burial and now part of the grave.As such,
the burning,bendingand breaking(assuming that the lossof tip and handleare not due to post-
depositionalfactors)transformthe sword'sphysicalappearance and mark it out as a swordthat
belongsin the grave.Also with this group of artefactswasa clay goblet, in the middle areaof
the burial, set upright (at 70 or 7511to the floor) and containingeight gold foil circleswith
papyrus-shaped pendants and a linear tube (Al. 35..18). The gold foil items almost certainly
were originallypart of the raimentof a corpse,and their contextindicatesthat when reordering
and redepositionof the bonestook placethey were either removed from the garmentor had
of decay.Their meaning,however,remainedbound up with

alreadyfallen off in the processes
the funerarycontextand so they were gatheredand redepositedwith the bones.
The conclusion that I reach from these instancesis that, however 'precious' gold items may have
been at the time, once deposited in the grave their significancewas as artefacts used in the ritual
of interment. Later, when people came into contact with them on entering the tomb again, they
were not removed but stayed in their contexts. As bones were reordered or perhaps deposited

elsewhere,theseitems could also be moved, and at such times might be gatheredand even
deformed,the lastpracticeemphasisingthe changednatureof the items: not a sword,or a gold
vessel,but artefactsbelongingin the tomb.
Another tomb with 'precious' artefactsIs tholos Ili at 35:Peristeri3.Thesewere found without
associatedbones In the pit running from the entrance to the centre of the chamber
(Al.. TS.43-50). The nature of the material, mostly gold leaf, but Including many gold
artefactslikely originallysewnonto clothing, and some other artefacts,makes it likely to have
resultedfrom a gathering together of the materialspecificallyfor depositionIn the pit. Three

large gold cupswere found deformed,althoughIn this caseit Is perhapsmore likely that the
agencyof deformationwasthe act of burialor the collapseof the tholosabove.
In conclusion,therefore,an examinationof IntactMHIII-LHI contextsconfirmsthe following:
" tombs were reusedfrom the earliestperiod;

" in some or many instancesof reuse, people came Into contact with the detritus of earlier
acts. In some casesthis was the aim of the reuse: people entered the tombs with the
Intentionof manipulatingthe artefactualand anthropologicalmaterialwithin. In other cases,
for
perhaps new Inhumations,contact with material In the tomb was not the main aim of
entry, but developed
strategies
nonetheless for copingwith suchsituations;
" from the earlieststageIntact were
skeletons disarticulated
and burial contextswere interfered
with. In part this interferenceseemsaimed at the creation of a new context where

disarticulatedbonesand artefactsassociated with the burial could be piled up or buried. At
other timesthis leads
interference to the disintegrationof the originalcontext, materialbeing
spreadwidely over the tomb. In all casesthe result is the lossof the Identifiablepristine
Inhumationon the floor.
" in the instancesexaminedartefacts,rather than being removed from the tomb, are also
redeposited.This appliesto 'precious'aswell asother items.It Is suggested
that the meaning
Inferred from suchartefactswastightly bound to the funerarycontext, so that rather than
Interpretan articleas,say,'a gold cup', It is rather Interpretedas'the gold cup usedto drink
the final toastin the burial ceremony'.Thuslinkedto the burial, it is unlikelyto be removed
from that context.
It is of course very likely that artefacts were removed from tombs from time to time: there must
have been occasions where those entering a tomb felt (for whatever reason) that an object
should be moved out of the tomb. The point, however, is that those using these tombs did not

merely Interpret preciousItems as somethingto be owned, as the westernmind immediately
assumes.The removalof such artefactswould be sanctionedby the usesto which the might
legitimatelybe put: for example,an artefactmight be removedto be usedIn sucha way as to
constantlymakereferenceto Its originalfuneraryrole, and thus becomesymbolicof an ancestor
or of the ancestors.Just as the meaningof an artefact must be transformedin Its use and
depositionin a mortuary context, so Its removaltherefrom entailsa further transformationIn
broughtaboutthroughaction.
meaning- transformations
Havingestablished
thesegeneralprinciplesconcerningthe reuseof tombsand the waysIn which
peoplereactedto the materialthey discoveredwithin throughanalysisof the few Intact MHIII-
LHI contextsavailable,interpretationof contextswherechronologicalcontrol Is Inexactbecomes
lessproblematic.This study suggests that where disarticulationand redepositionhaveoccurred
but cannotbe dated, there Is no reasonto suggestthat theseInstancesmust relate to post-LHI
activities,althoughof coursethey may relate to post-LHI activities.As will be shownIn the
followingsection,there is no significantchangein funerarycustomsIn this regardIn LHII.
Thus In the chambertombsof 23:Volimldh1a, for example,someor all of the many pits In the
floor and the floor levelwall nichesmay well date to the LHI period. At this particularsite the
funerarycustomsseemto havebeenasstandardised as the architecture:an inhumation,placed
on the floor (for example,A1.2.7.40), waslater accordingto customdisarticulatedand placed
In a nicheor pit, or piled In an areaof the floor (for example,Al. 2.7.26), alongwith the few
artefactsthat might alsohavebeendeposited.The suggestionhereIs that there might havebeen
a specifictime of secondentry and disarticulation(asIn modernGreekpractice),maintainedas
a local custom by the users of these tombs In the same way that they maintainedthe
architecturalknowledgenecessary
to constructtombsIn their (relatively)uniqueway.
Acts Involving materials brought to the grave
Exceptingmateriallikely to be associated
with the dressand arrangementof the corpseor the
mourners(chapter seven),the generalcategoriesof other finds are few: principally pottery
vesselsin drinkingand pouringshapes,and flint, obsidianor bronzearrowheads.Examplesof the
arrowheadsare found in almostevery tomb, and are found in contextssecurelyof MHIII-LHI
date. Sometimesthey are found gatheredtogether,indicatingeither depositionin a bag or In a
quiver, attached to hafts long since decayed. In some casesthese may belong to the
arrangementof the corpse,and with the other weaponrysymbolisesocialIdealsexpressedIn the
ritual of hunting. In most cases,however,they are found scattered:Marin3tos(1957c, 100;

Korres 1976a, 262 note 1) suggested that a volley of arrowsmight be shot In honour of the
corpse,but the sizeof the tombs, the locationsof the arrowheads,and their lack of impact
damagefrom the tomb wallsall makethis an unlikelyto havebeenstandardpractice,althoughit
may havehappenedon occasion.
Much of the MHIII-LHI pottery under discussionhere Is illustrated and describedby L61os
(1985: description,chapter II and throughout; Illustrations,volume II figures 180-627). It
consistsof drinkingshapes(most commonlythe Vafi6 or 'Keftiu' cup, and alsoshallowcups),
pouringshapessuchas ewers,and largeopen shapessuchas kraters.The cupsare mostly fine
decorated,but much of the other pottery is rather plain; a few examples(suchasa LHI pithold
jar from 35:Peristeritholos III) are precursorsof the large painted vesselsof the succeeding
period. There Is alsoa numberof smallpouring vessels,suchas askol, which have alreadybeen
associated
with preparationof the corpse(chapterseven).
the usesto whichthesevesselswere put In the funerarycontext Is not easy.The

Reconstructing
cupsseemclearlyfor drinking:they might be found In any context, in the stomion (seebelow),
on the chamberfloor, or in pits and niches;they are common In settlementsites,and should

not be regardedas special.Three large gold vesselsfrom 35: Peristeri3
tholos III are cups
(Al.. 35..44-46). It seemslikely that a substancesuchaswine wasbrought into the tomb and
then poured from a jug into cups held by participants.At other times, at the closingof the
tomb or at particulartimeswhenthe tomb wasclosed,a similarceremonywasrepeatedin the
dromos,this time smashing the cupsagainstthe blockedentrance.
The evidencefor animal (or human)sacrificeat early MycenaeanfuneralsIs weak. If animals

were sacrificed,their boneswere not commonlybrought Into the tomb. However,someof the
materialfound in tombsmay relateto this activity. Largeropen vessels,for example,although
they might be interpretedas Intendedto hold wine, might equallyhavebeenusedto catchand
hold the blood of a sacrificedanimal (as shown on the much later sarcophagusfrom Ayia
Tridhain Crete). In the samevein, it is possiblethat someof the knivesfound In tombs,rather
than simply forming part of the corpse' garb, might havebeen usedto cut sacrificialanimal's
throats.Perhapsthe huntingsymbolismon a numberof the highly decoratedInlaid knivesfound
at Mycenaeand 27:Rotsl (perhapsLHIIA) can be directly related to the act of funerary
sacrifice.'Neolithic' stoneaxe headsfound in a numberof tombs might alsohavebeenusedto
administerthe stunningblow prior to cutting the throat. The lackof animalbonesin most tombs
might be explainedby the carryingout of the feastresultingfrom the sacrificeelsewhere;In any

case animal bones are not unknown, and at Mycenae are found In the upper shafts of the
contemporary shaft graves.
Much pottery found in Mycenaeantombs is smashed.This breakagemay haveoccurredat the

time of deposition,or may haveoccurredas a result of later Interference.In either case,the
meaningof the act of smashinga cup or jug is clear: it signifiesthe end of the act with which
that item wasassociated, and in a largersensesignifiesthe end of that phaseof the ritual and
most likely the end of the life of the deceased.Brokenpottery doesnot Indicatedisrespectfor
the ancestors,as is often stated;rather It is part of a profoundly respectfulsentiment,that the
Itemsusedin a particularceremony,and thereforeboundup so much in the act of grievingfor
one who hasdied, shouldnot be usedagainIn anothercontext. Wherepottery Is not smashed,
placingIt in a nicheor buryingIt in a pit fulfils muchthe samefunction.
One unusualgraveIs the maingraveat Kefaldvrlso1 at 23:Volim(dhia.Very little or noneof the

largenumberof artefactsfound In the gravecan be relatedto the adornmentof the corpse-a
very unusualcircumstanceamonggravescontainingartefacts.The graveis fully describedIn the
catalogueentry. The grave containedsix double cups (A1.2.24) along with other unusual
items,suchasa bowl containingfour smallcupsattachedto the wall of the pot (A1.225); the
other pottery includedjugs,bowlsand cups.The graveevidencesan emphasison the ritualsof
burial which presumablyInvolvedthis pottery collection,but very little emphasison the corpse
itself. There Is no comparableburial In the surveyareaat any time; the funeraryritual Involves
and so is not unconnectedwith other sitesIn the area.Thereis
artefactsknownfrom elsewhere,
a kantharos, for example, used at nearby tumulus sites (14:Ayos lo3nnis Papoliaand
17:Voidhokili),and the doublecup Is known from 27:Rotsl, 17:Voidhokili3and 3:Nisakolf.
This grave (well dated to MHIII) further emphasises
that middle helladicburial customscould
draw on a variety of widely understoodtraditions, but those traditions might be differently
emphasised and deployedat neighbouringsites (and there Is a possibilitythat this graveonce
formed part of a mound,further linkingIt with thosementionedabove).
Deposition of materiaiand corpse
For the primary intermentof the corpse,few intact examplesoffer detailsand so one mustInfer
from the architectureand the artefactsthe possibleproceduresof interment. It would seemthat
In most casesin tholos and chambertombsthe corpsewaslaid on the floor of the tomb; there
are a few examplesof pit burialsbelongingto this period (for example,the burial In a pit of a
woman in the small tholos in 10:Gouva13r1mound B), but none of burialson benches,In the

dromosor stomion,or direct evidencefor burial in wooden coffins. Larnaxburial is unknown,
includingthe 62:19thiratombs,but there are somecontinuingexamplesof jar burial, principally
In pithol, although In all casesthese seem smaller than the enormous pithol known from
monumentsdiscussed In chapterseven.
The evidencefor depositionof materialas part of the original funeral in this period is almost
non-existent,on accountof the lack of pristine contextsand poor recording and reporting.
Circumstantialevidenceindicatesthat objectsmight be placedcloseto the corpse,or might be
smashedon the floor. The depositionof materialas part of the secondarytreatmentof burial
groups is discussedabove.
THE LHI-IIA, LHIIA AND LHIIB PERIODS (TABLES (. 12-1.15, PAGE 34-35)
Movement
The larger tholos tombs to some extent undermine the analysisof the scale of tholos
architecturein relation to their human users given above. The suggestionthat tholos and
chambertombswere specificallydesignedwith the activeadult humanframe In mind becomes
lesstenablein consideringtholol (and the largechambertomb at 52:Pell3na)of 8m, 10m or
even 12m chamberdiameter(andother dimensionsconsequentlyenlarged);In reality a tomb of
12m diameter(in the studyarea,only 35:PeristeriI and 44:Kak6vatos
A are of this size)dwarfs
evenan 8m tomb. Thereis someother logic at work in the designof thesetombs:they are not
scaledin accordancewith the humanframe,they overwhelmit.
Taking the examplesof the two largest tombs, 35:Peristerl3I has a chamber of 12.03m
diameterand restoredheight of 8.5m, which is probablylower than the antiquereality. The
facadewas formed by a S.1m high stomion with sawn blocks and other possibledecorative
features('mason'smarks')which fronted a 5m deep entranceway;the dromoswas28m long,
goinginto a massivemound retainedby a proportionatelyscaledperiboloswall. The tomb must
surely have formed the largestsingle feature on the upper hillside, and Its Importancewas
perhapsmarkedby the demolitionof the easthouseIn order to accommodateit.
44:Kak6vatosA has a chamber 12.12m In diameter, original height unknown, presumably

about 10m; it was approachedthrough a stomion slightly shorter than that at 35:Perister!
i I
(4.85m deep); the original height of the stomion Is unknown.The dromos, 8m In length, Is

hardlycomparableto that at 35:Peristeri,althoughthe reasonIs clear: the Peristerl3tholoswas
tholos had to conform to the requirementsof
set In an artificialmound,while the 44:Kak6vatos
the slopeinto whichit wasbuilt.
With thesetwo tombsthe conclusionmust be that the architecturewas designedto undermine

the 'presence'that any one personmight havesoughtto put forth in Its setting;that ratherthan
the monumentsuitingthe sizeof severalindividuals,the Individualswould be lost In the sizeof
it, and that, in theory If not In practice,a very largenumberof peoplemight be activeIn the
chamber',entranceand approachwhenever the monumentwas open. In part the sizemay have
beendesignedto allow for largernumbersof peopleto approachthe entrancewhen that was
closed,and be involvedin ceremoniesrelatedto the deadwithin. Ultimately, the high facades
andvastchambersmusthavebeendesignedto impressone who enters.
One canthereforeassumethat the relativelysmallscalefuneraryceremonieslikely to havetaken

in
place most tholos tombsand chamber tombs were sometimes writ largein the largest
tombs.
This meansthat the numberof peoplewho seemto havean InterestIn the tomb or activities
there is larger: be
this may relatedto the locationsof thesetombs, often awayfrom the original
in
core area central That
Messinfa. the desire to build ever-largertholos tombs Is evidenced
away from Is
this core an Indicationthat the adoption of the tholos form elsewhere did not
necessarilyentail the adoptionof all of the Ideasassociated with its use. At some locations,
therefore,the meaningof the tholos tomb was articulatedthrough Its use by a relativelylarge
number of people, whereas elsewhere larger numbers of smaller tombs were availableto
differentcommunitiesor groupswithin society,usingthem in an alreadytraditionalway.
Engagement with the materia/past
Thereis no significantchangeIn evidencefor how peopleapproachedthe detritusof the pastin

this period. TombsA st B at 44:Kak6vatos to
seem represent relativelyclosedLHIIA contexts
(later interferencewas only noted higher In the fill). Despitethe early date of excavation,
Drpfeld was careful about observingand recordingthe stratigraphy.Hencein both tombs a
layerof 'sand' about 15cm thick coveredthe floor levelsof the tombs,and all of the findswere
found in this layer. These finds, much more numerousin tomb A, were scatteredand
Allowing a generous 1ml floor space per person, the numbers of people filling chambers of diameter
3m, 6m, 9m, and 12m are, respectively, 7,28,64 and 113 (read off from table 6.3). These figures are
simply meant to Illustrate how different sizes of tomb relate to the human form, not to suggest that
ceremonies might normally Involve such these numbers.

destroyed. The most likely explanationis that the tombs collapsed relatively soon after
construction,andwere not later interferedwith.
It is difficult on the basisof the evidencethat we haveto determineto what extentthe scattered
and damagednatureof the content of the tomb derivesfrom its collapseand to what extent
from the activitiesof people.Findswere describedas beingrelativelyevenlyscatteredover the
floor. The most obviousinterpretation,giventhis evenscatterand the sheeramountof material
involved,Is that the tomb wasusedon a numberof occasions,eachburial contributingto the
eventualcontentof the tomb. However,one significantpieceof evidenceis that anthropological
materialwasrare, and It is possiblethat the total materialfound representedonly a singleadult
(other bonematerialwasanimal,perhapsrepresentingsacrifice).It Is thereforepossiblethat the
entire content of the tomb wasthe result of a singleact, a burial involvinga hugeamountof
material and a sacrifice.The lack of later InterferenceIn the tomb could be explainedby Its
rapid collapse.If the latter explanationis correct, then the unusualscaleof the ceremony
correspondswith the largescaleof the tomb itself, representingperhapsthe 'over adoption' of
funerarypracticesderivedfrom the south.
Tholos V at 24:Englian6sis publishedin some detail and it therefore seemsreasonableto

to
attempt reconstructsomeat leastof the history of useof the tomb. Its early date is assured
by a numberof deposits:in particular,three jar burialsare of MHIII-LHI date. However,the
internalarrangementof the tomb clearlydatesto a later period. The latestpottery Is of LHIIIA
date,but a numberof contextsmayhavereachedtheir final statebeforethen.
To take pit 3 asan example,it is describedas irregularlyshapedand seemsto havebeenabout

2.7m x 2.4m x 0.5m, on the basisof publishedillustrations(A1.24.19, A1.24.21). Partof
the pit, an area about 1.5m x 1.1m, was at least another 0.5m deeper (bottom left of
Al 24.20). The largerpit waspossiblynot intendedto be filled with earth to the level of the
.
floor, sincethe materialfound in it seemsclearlyto havebeenarranged,perhapsfor display.
Briefly, the pit containeda Minoan or Minoan style jar on its side in the northwestcorner, a
palacestyle jar set upright in the north central part, a group or two groupsof boneson the
west, and in the deeperpit a pithos with variousbronzeartefacts.The pithos, spoutedjar and
palacestylejar eachcontaineda burial.
The palacestylejar can be clearlydated LHIIA, while the pithosand Minoan jar are LHI Items.
Other artefactsfound In the pit Includea cup within the spoutedjar also dated LHI, and a
shallowcup nearthe palacestylejar. Besideand underneaththe Minoan jar were three 'rapiers'
Chapter Eight Acts at and within the brave 249

(all bladesbent, two to 901), a knife and a dagger(Al. 24.33); In the deeperpart of the pit
were a bronze cauldronbesidethe pithos, and underneathIt a knife, whetstone,and three
daggers(Al 24.26). Betweenthe pithos and the cauldronwere four 'rapiers'; nearbywere
.
Ivory pommels,boars' tusksand Ivory, obsidianand amber fragments.The rapierswere all of
Type A, henceearlyMycenaean.
The pit and the arrangementof Its contentsmight have been createdIn LHI or In LHIIA. If
createdin LHI, then the palacestylejar and Its burialwasa later addition. However,the rather
that it wasplannedasa unity. At somepoint In the LHII
carefularrangementof the pit suggests
period the remainsof numerousburialswere gatheredand reinterredIn pit 3. The bonesof up
to ten Individuals(Al. 24.29) were placedin the west side of the pit, while two of the Jar
burialswere carefullypositionedat the north end. The deeperpart of the pit may havealready
existed,or wascreatedto accommodate the upright pithos.The objectsfound nearthe Minoan
jar were placedon the ground before the jar was laid on Its side; the objectsIn the deeper
section were similarly carefully laid. Small objects such as beadsseem not to have been
reinterredin this pit, andmost of the pottery that might havegonewith theseburialsIs similarly
missing.On the other hand,the cup foundwithin the Minoanjar might havebeenplacedwithin
it at this point.
Nothing In pit 3 can be datedlater than LHIIA: thereforethe pit attainedIts final form by the
end of that period, andwasnot interferedwith again.
Pit 4 (Al. 24.34), near the north part of the tomb, containedthe mixed remainsof five
individuals.The finds suggesta specificact of interment: at the bottom of the pit wasa knife,
abovewhichwere the bones,and abovetheseagainwere five further knives,a whetstone,and a
gold diadem,brokenand placedat different endsof the pit. Selectionhasclearlytakenplaceas
to what Items to inter in the pit, and care has been taken first to mix the bones of the
individualsand then to mix the artefactsabovethem, evenbreakingand scatteringthe diadem.
Theseartefactsdo not representall the artefactsthat we might presumehad originally been
interred with theseindividuals.The content of this pit and the date of its formation might be
LHI or LHII.
Very little pottery of the LHIII phaseIs definitely presentIn the tomb, and it seemslikely that
the tomb went out of use at the LHII-111 transition.At some point, above pit 4, a group of
pottery, mainlyalabastra,wasdeposited.Someof theseare LHI In date, most LHIIA, and one
definite LHIIIAI Item was present.This would seemto representone of the last acts In the

tomb, a gathering and deposition of Items from a number of different funerals In this area,
probably without knowledgeablereference to the pit below (the Items are by no meanscentred
over the pit).
The Vayenstholos therefore representsone of the most Instructiveexamplesof how the

remainsof earlier actswere dealt with In later periods.The tomb dates from the MHIII-LHI
period, but the arrangementsof its contents is most probably the result of a number of
interventionsin the LHIIA-IIIA1 periods. In this casepeople were concernedto gather the
remainsof burialsand depositthem In variouspits so that noneremainedon the floor; only the
burialsIn jars were not removedfrom their contexts,althoughthe jars themselveswere. Only
two intermentscanbe specificallydatedto the LHII phase:that in the palacestyleJar,of LHIIA
date', and that in pit 2, of LHIIB or LHIIIAI date. But the numberof artefactsfound on the
floor datingto LHII showsthat the tomb continuedto be visitedand usedIn this period.
The smalltholostombsof 13:Kamfniaand 10:Gouva1Jricontinuedto be usedin the LHII period,

and indeed one or two may even have been built at that time. Their ongoinguse, and the
similarity of burial customswith the larger monuments,shows that they continued to be
understoodas monumentswithin the tholos and chambertomb 'idea' at this time. Tomb 5
(Al. 1.1.30-33) in the Kamfniamound,for example,wasbuilt at the beginningof LHI, but in
LHIIA its contentswere radicallyrearranged:three skullswere found againstthe chamberwall,
while a singlearticulatedskeleton,missingthe skull, waslaid out in the centreof the tomb, and
one collectionof bones,alongwith a coupleof other displacedsinglebones,were found on the
floor. The skullswere at a slightlyhigherlevel than the articulatedskeleton,suggesting
that this
arrangementwasone of the final actsin the tomb. Aside from bones,pottery Itemswere few:
one smallcup wasplacedwith the intermentof the articulatedskeleton,but other items,mainly
cups,were found on the floor unassociated with any skeletalmaterial.The final arrangementof
the tomb wasnot associatedwith an act of interment;it may be that someof the pottery found
on the floor wasusedfor toastingaspart of a ritual that involvedre-orderingthe materialwithin
the tomb.
The meaningof the glitteringarrayof materialculture found In the 54:Vafi6castmay havebeen

mainly Investedin its deposition (below, pages252-253); however, the items themselves
10The jar wasrepairedwith leadrivets,so It may havein fact beendepositeda little later.
Chapter Eight Acts at and within the brave 251

consistof a number of drinking (Al. S4.8-13) and pouring Items, along with many other
objectsof lessobviousapplication,such as numerouslead and bronzedisks(perhapsweights:
Kilian-Dirlmeier1987), different smallbronzeand silver tools, and many weaponsof all types
(Al. S4.13-14). This unusuallylargeamountof materialmay be accountedfor If one Imagines
a number of different people responsiblefor, or InvolvedIn giving up material for the grave
context. This might have been organisedthrough different corporate groups Involvedin the
funeral: for example, representativesof different communities,or different groups within
society; In other words, the suggestionIs that this funeral had a very wide reach In terms of
numbersof peopleinvolved.
In pit 1 in chambertomb E8 at 24:Engfian6s(chapter seven;Al. 24.39), apart from the

alabastronthere were two other pottery Items:one a squatjug, the other a goblet.The obvious
interpretationis that the former held a liquid that could be poured Into the latter for a simple
toast. All three pots wereplacedat the feet of the corpseafter use.Despitethe greatdifference
In the quantity and perceivedvalueof the artefactsplacedIn this pit and In the 54:Vafi6 cast,
actscarriedout usingthe materialare the same.
recognisable
The pottery depositedwith LHII burialsIn generalcomprisescups,pouringvessels,palacestyle

jars, and smallerItemssuchas alabastra.All of theseare often finely decorated(althoughthe
tendency In excavationreports Is to describeand Illustrate decoratedbut not undecorated
material). The alabastraare to be linked with the preparationof the corpse; the cups and
smallervesselswith pouringand drinkingceremonies;and the questionof the palacestyle jars
hasbeendiscussed(chapterseven).Silver,gold and bronzeversionsof thesepottery Itemsare
also found In a numberof tombs,and presumablyfulfilled the samefunctionsIn the funerary
ceremony.
Deposition of mat eria/ and corpse
The positionsof manyof the artefactsin the 54:Vaff6castwere carefullyrecorded,and most of

them seemto have been placed in relation to the corpse.At each hand, near the piles of
that likely formed bracelets,were two cups:one gold at each hand, and one silver.
sealstones
The gold cupsare the well knownVafi cups (Davis1977; A1. S4.8-9), with repoussE
scenes
depictingthe capture of bulls; the silver cups are also Vafid cups (Al. S4.10-11). A silver
ewerwasplacedat the left hand,and a shallowsilver cup with gold rim was found in the same
generalarea (Al. S4.12). There were many other Itemsin the cist, someof which may have
been depositedbefore the corpse: Tsondasrefers to some Items forming a pillow for the

corpse", but perhaps these should be assumedto have been placed In the area of the head.
These included four pottery items, two of which are goblets, the others not described.
Terracotta and stone lamps may well have been used as the light source for the Interment.
Other Items seem to have been found near the hands (including two silver tools described as a
ladle and an earpick) and at the feet (a knife, two axes and four lead discs). The positions of
some of this material are shown In Kilian-Dirlmeier's figure 2 (1987).
The amountof material(and perhapsthe valueof it) depositedIn the 54:Vafi6cist wasclearly
unusual,and the burialtraditionscanbe linkedwith similarearliercontexts(suchas24:Englian6s
or 35: Peristeriabove) and the Mycenae shaft graves.This uniquely undisturbed context is
particularlyinstructivein terms of This

deposition. thesishasargued for a pre-intermentphaseat
many of these burials, where the is
corpse preparedin some way, including in most cases
In
covering or wrapping a shroud, and sometimes adornment with jewellery or weapons
In
attachedto clothing. the caseof the 54:Vafi6 cist, the depositionphase seemsto have been
the
an elaborationof the tradition of preparing corpse for display.Without detractingfrom the
potential usesof objectsin pre-depositionritual (mentionedabove), the carefulpositioningof

In
artefacts,aswell asclearselection what to deposit(evidenced
by the balancedsettingof gold
and silver Vafib cupsat left and right hand), that
suggests the depositionphase of the funeral
was a culminationof display in respect of the corpse: the Intention was to create an image
representativeof the whole funeral.The numbers of certain artefacts,such as knives (at least
nine examples)or discsof lead or bronze (at least21 examples) suggest that these items were
perhaps individuallygiven to the corpse,arranged In the grave by the mourners as they filed
past (many other bronzetools and small gold and silver items have not been mentioned).The
scaleof the 54:Vafi6 tomb would allow for many people to take part in the funeral: one can
evenimaginethat after interment,the castand tomb might havebeenleft open for sometime
In all its splendourbeforeclosure.
to allow peopleto view the graveensemble
The evidencefrom 54:Vafi6 is balancedby that from 27:Rotsltholos 2, where the burial on
the floor had ten swords and daggersarranged on Its right side, among other material
on, but it may be that In this period
(Al27.19). Two examplesare too few to baseconclusions
for someburials,more emphasiswasplacedon the final arrangementof the corpsewithin the
tomb than at the laying out ceremony.Quantitiesof weaponrymight be complementedby
" It Is not clear which Items he Is referring to: 'all these' ',raUTa a&vta' could refer to the sherds of a
-
broken lamp, or any number of other Items referred to In the previous sentence: two bits of bronze, a
sword, three gold rivets, six bronze knives, a bronze tube, a bronze ladle, knives or tools, two points of
bronze spears, a bronze disc probably a mirror, ten bronze discs, five lead disks, two stone Items, two
alabastra,a silver ladle, two bits of a small silver vessel,four pots and three bits of a terracotta lamp.

other material, some of it relevant to activities in the chamber, but others not obviously so (for
example bronze mirrors, present In both the burials mentioned here). The number of weapons
with these burials is noteworthy, although the evidence from other sites does not bear out a
general trend to place large numbers of weapons in the graves. These graves however resemble
the last of the shaft graves in more ways than this, and perhaps also the so-called 'warrior
graves' on Crete (Rehak 8t Younger 1998,152-153 and references In note 425; Driessenat
Macdonald note that few of the Knosdswarrior gravesactually date to LMII, most being LMIII:
1984,65).
Another examplecomesfrom a well-preservedburial context In tholos 2 at 12:Fi6es:material

arrangedaroundan extendedintermenton the floor of the tholos includeda palacestylejar, at
the feet a kylix, alabastronand silverspoon,anotheralabastronand kylix to the right, to the left
a bronzemirror, at the left handtwo ivory-handledbronzeknives(A1.12.14) and a pin, and
two scalepans,one at the headand one near the feet. While this exampledoesnot approach
the precedingtwo in termsof quantityof material,It againseemsto exhibit a concernfor the
arrangementof the corpse and its materials within the tomb. In the same vein, the
rearrangementof material and burials In the Vayen3 (24:Englian6s)
tholos tomb, described
is
above, one of the bestexamplesof the deliberatearrangementof the contentsof a tomb for
display.
The bulk of the evidence,however, indicatesbroad continuity in depositionpractices.An

exampleIs tholos 5 at 13:Kaminia,describedabove:the articulated(but headless)skeletonlaid
in with a singlecup placed
out the centreof the tomb wasassociated at its left thigh. A similar
chambertomb E8, describedabove.
exampleis providedby 24:Englian6s
It seemslikely that in this period most burialscontinuedto take placeon the floors of tombs,
but there are someexamplesof burial in pits. There are no examplesof Intact burialsIn any
other context: pithos burialsare not found from this period. Most seem
skeletons to have been
laid on their backs, a factor that tends to enlargethe area used by the corpse and Its
accompanying material.Where evidenceIs it
available, Is usuallythe casethat the corpseIs laid
first, followedby any other material,indicatingperhapsthat the corpsewaslaid down asa first
act on entering the tomb with the corpse,and then any other actsmight havebeencarriedout,
for most periods.An exampleis the burial in 12:Fitiesdescribedabove.
ashasbeensuggested

11
.0. - ,., - --
255
ChapterNine
Summaryand conclusions:mortuary practice in a

historicalframework
HUMAN ACTION IN THE MORTUARY SPHERE
This concludingchapterbeginswith a recapitulationof the evidencefor humanaction in the

in
mortuaryspherepresented chapters five to eight. Detailedstudy of the available
evidencehas
shownthat a wealth of evidenceconcerninghumanpracticeIs available.The task In this final

chapteris to makesenseof thesepracticesand to set them in a historicalframework.
'Simpler' graves
Despitethe disparatenatureof the evidenceand problemsof chronologynotwithstanding,real

Insight Into burial practiceshas been gained. Many potential stagesof the funerary process
outlined In chapter four are evidencedin thesegraves,Indicatingcomplexpracticesbelied by
the 'simple' natureof the graves.
It was suggestedthat 'intramural' graveswere in fact often located In disusedparts of

settlement,and in terms of constructionthis allowed for the gravesto be built out of the
detritus of previoussettlement,or into vestigialfeaturesof that settlement,such as walls or
floors. Where the cemeterylocale containednumerousunmarkedgraves,new burials might
often encounterremainsof previousburials,an event dealt with by the reburial of the older
bones.The cemeterylocalewasnot viewedas a collectionof individualgravesbut rather as an
ancestralareaof the site, containingtracesof pastlivesboth In the form of humanremainsand
in the form of uninhabitedor collapsedbuildings.
256
Almost all graveswere constructedwith the inhumationof a singleIndividualIn mind, in that
their sizeis matchedto the humanframe; evenmore elaborategraves(like the shaft gravesat
53:Menelaionand 57:AyosStefans) were found to containonly one dead. In the few Instances
of multiple interments,there is rarely reasonto suspectthat the gravewasconstructedwith the
intermentof more than one personin mind. Somegravecuttingswere outlined at groundlevel
with a line of stone,perhapsusedto retain a low moundover the grave;cover slabsmight also
havebeenvisibleafter the end of the funeral;thesetwo factorssuggestthe possibilityof a desire
in somegravesto leavea visiblemarkerafter the ceremony-a representationof the individual
in oppositionto his or her subsumptionin the massof the ancestorsnoted above.
The evidencefor preparatoryactson the corpseis often ambiguous,but in generalit seemsthat

the corpsewas often preparedby dressingor wrappingin a shroud. Evidencefor contracted
burial, by no meansuniversal,might on occasionsuggestbinding of the legs,althoughin fact
wherecontracted burialsare noted they tend not to be strongly The
contracted. effectsof rigor
mortis (peakingaround 12 hoursafter death, and lastingup to 36 hours)would demandthat
this particularform of preparationtake placevery shortly after death.Other adornmentson the
corpse,althoughrare, indicatethat objectstakenfrom everydaylife (rather than specialobjects)
could be usedin dressingthe corpse.
The evidencefor practicesat the funeralitself showsthat the deadwasalwayslaid with care in
the grave;the funeral involveda small number of people clusteredaround the grave,others
havingto stand further backand consequentlylessinvolved;the corpsewas usuallyprimary in
the depositionsequence:the other objectsoccasionallyfound in gravesare found placed in
relation to the corpse; where objects are found In the grave, they can almost alwaysbe
with drinkingor pouringceremonies.
associated
Burial mounds
Although the majority of burial moundsare unexcavated,the evidencesuggeststhat all or

almostall of them were constructedIn the MH period, althoughtheir usemay continueInto the
LH period. No burialmoundcancertainlybe shownto havebeenconstructedlater than MHIII.
Although the knowndistributionof moundsmaywell be affectedby samplebias,there is a clear

preferencefor prominent location: the majority are positioned on hill tops or ridge tops.
Moreoveranalysisof locationsuggested
that the majority were placedat marginalpoints in the
landscape,at the interfacebetweencoastand Inlandplateau,or betweenvalley and mountain.
ChapterNine Conclusions 257

Location was not contingent on any one determinant, and different factors such as visibility,
marginal location, and location on routes through the landscapeor on the everyday paths of life,
could have been employed in the location of mounds. Moreover, some mounds at least were
situated amid the detritus of earlier settlement.
In its architecture,a burialmoundis independentof any singlegraveor burial, but rather forms
a matrix within whichnumerousburialsmay be placed.Eachnew intermentin sucha monument
would add to its history and meaning,and this was often signifiedby usingburial forms that
constitutedmore or lesspermanent additions
architectural to the monument: pithos burials,
often set so that they partly projected from the mound, perhapswith drystoneconstructions
built up around their mouths; or castburials,with cover slabsperhapsleft visible after the
funeral. Nonetheless,aside from the mound itself, burial architecture remained essentially
simple,individual a
with single
gravesusuallyassociated dead. Where multiple burialsare found,
they may date to a late phaseof useof the mound.
Pithosburials,found in most excavatedmoundsand evidencedthroughsherdmaterialat many

unexcavatedmounds,are an elaborationof ritual involving considerable effort and `worth'.
Pithoi were madeby specialists
and required long investment of time for their creation,and so
were unlikelyto be regardedas throwaway items. They were probably taken from a domestic
context to be in
used the funeral,so their use involved a transformation of meaning from the
domestic to the funerary sphere: a transformationsignified in their transportation from
to
settlement cemeterycontext, exactly as the corpseand probably done at the same time In
the form of a funeralprocession.
Little evidencefor the preparationof the corpse is found In excavatedburial mounds.The

positioningof the corpsewithin the pithos may well have been seenas the principal act of
preparationfor the funeral.
Rites at the funeral Itself indicate again that drinking and pouring activities form the only
recognisableact beyondthe Inhumationof the corpse.As with 'simpler' graves,theseactivities
are likely to have taken place after the depositionof corpse (and pathos,where relevant),
artefacts being In
carefully placed relation to the corpse. Where recovered In excavations,
artefactsseemto form a drinking
recognisable and pouringset Involvingkantharol
and jugs.
The use of large pithoi, and their placementin the mound such that their mouths projected
abovethe surface,allow for the possibilitythat it was intended that post-intermentactivities

might take place.Somepithosburials,but certainlynot all, were disartlculated,and somepithol
containedsecondinterments.In the caseof 14:Ayos loinnls Papolia,some of the collected
bonesIn castsmay have been removed from pithol when those pithoi were reusedfor later
Interments.
Tho%sand chamber tombs
The first tholos tombsare locatedIn centralMessinfaand their distributioncloselymirrors that

of burial mounds:smallertholos tombs were set within multiple burial mounds,while larger
tombs were normally set In their own mound, although some exceptions were built
underground.Tombswere locatedwithin local and regionalnexusof funerarymonuments,and
few early tombs seemto have been IsolatedIn the landscape.There Is broad continuity and
developmentof burial customsin this area, of which the first use of tholos tombs forms one
part.
It hasbeen suggested that many of the numeroussmall tholos tombs belongto the very first
phaseof tholos but
construction, also that the ability to build tombs up to about 6m diameter
was very quickly achieved.During most of the LHI period tholos tombs of this size were
constructed,but at the end of that period and into LHIIA a number of larger (8m to 12m
diameter) tholos tombs was constructed.This burst of larger tomb construction broadly
of the tholosform outsidethe distributionareaof MH tumuli.
coincideswith the appearance
Tholostombswere first constructedasburial placeswithin multiple burial monuments.They are

formallysimilarto largeburialpithol andthe motivationfor their constructionmay havebeento
facilitate reuse.Very quickly, however,the form underwenta secondaryadaptation,through
which tholol cameto be seenas larger-scaleconstructionsto be built within their own mounds;
in fact, the Importanceof the moundwasreduced,and the architecturalfocusof the monument
was redirectedto the entranceof the tomb, which was elaboratedby the formation of the
dromos.
The construction of tholol as small tombs in larger monuments all but precludestheir
Introductionto Messinfafrom Crete as an adaptationof the Mesar3-typetholos tomb. Minoan
influence,however'influence'shouldbe conceptualised,washoweverpresentin Messinfaat this
time, and so the generalconcept of a round building containingnumerousburials may have
beenknownand may haveformedsomesmallpart of the Impetusfor the secondaryadaptation
of the tholostomb.

The few chambertomb sitesIncludedIn the studyareado not form a unitary phenomenon.The
chambertombson 62:Kithiraform part of a tradition of burial practiceprimarily evidencedin
the Knosdsvalley on Crete, while the 23:Volimfdhiatombs, while perhapsbuilt with some
knowledgeof Knosslanor Kithiran chamber tombs, are most easily understoodsimply as
differently constructedtholos tombs. The 58:Epfdhavros
Umlr cemetery Is the least easy to
understand,located far from the centre of emergingtholos-typeburial traditions. Its genesis
may be more generallyrelatedto north-southlinesof communicationbetweenCrete, Kithira,
easternLakonfaand the Argolid, althoughthis observationdoes not explain Its appearance.
Threenewchambertomb sitesin LHII accountfor only one tomb each.
Tholos tomb constructionwas the work of specialistsor specialistgroups, active within the
central Messenianarea and occasionallyelsewhere.In LHIIA, while constructionof smaller
tholol continuedasbefore,a group of architects,conceivablyworkingasa unit, wasresponsible
for the constructionof the largesttombs. Chambertomb constructionwasa locally-maintained
knowledge,and equallyspecialistIn Its own way (whichwasnot the caseIn LHIII): the cemetery
at Pellnamay havebeenconstructedunderthe supervisionof a Messenlan architect.
Concomitantwith the secondaryadaptationof the tholos tomb wasconsiderableelaborationin

adornmentof the corpse,so that by the end of LHI and Into LHIIA certain burialsInvolved
huge amounts of material culture. This adornment Involved a formulaic 'set' comprising
decoration for the shroud made of gold foil, jewellery in the form of bead necklaces,and
weaponry,usuallyknives,worn by the corpse.Displaywas enhancedby layingthe corpsein a
supineposition.
that one arenafor displaywould be

The preparationof the corpsein this manneralsosuggests
the procession:the architectureof tholos and chambertombs allows for an approachto a
monumentwith a specific focus (along the dromos to the entrance),while entry Into the
monumentwould involve selectionamongthe participantsand an order of walking. Funerary
rites usuallyinvolvedrelativelyfew peoplein the chamberat any givenmoment,exceptperhaps
for the largesttombs. Inhumationwas directly on the floor, or occasionallyIn pits, castsor
pithol. Materialculture remainsfound with corpsessuggesta continuedemphasison drinkingor
pouringceremoniesthat took placeimmediatelyafter the depositionof the corpse.
Tholosand chambertomb architecturewasdesignedto be reused:tombsusuallyshowevidence

for numerousfunerals.After the dissolutionof the fleshit becamenormal to disarticulatethe
bones,and often deposit them In a niche or pit. The thoios and chambertomb form was
Chapter Nine Conclusions 260

thereforecommunal(in the sensethat a specificgroup waslikely seento be associated with it)
andthe disarticulationof the bonessignifiedthe incorporationof the deadamongthe ancestors.
THE CREATION, MAINTENANCE AND TRANSFORMATION OF TRADITION
The analysespresentedso far In this thesishavesoughtto distinguishIndividualaction In the

evidence- momentsin time instantiatedin materialremains.Havingthus
massof archaeological
transformedthe evidencefrom pottery, bonesand tombs into postulatedand reconstructed
praxis,the evidencemustbe transformedoncemore Into historicalnarrative.
What brings about the reproductionof practice through time? In reproducingpractice, the
locale, the humanunderstandingof place, is itself reproduced:locale has a chronic aspect,a
situationin time as well as space.The repeatedinstancesof practicenoted In this thesisare

boundup with the arenasIn whichthey were performed.
It followsthat localeis essentialnot only to the maintenanceof tradition, but alsoto its coming
into being,and its transformation.It wasnoted in chapterthree that it is Impossibleto cometo
an understandingof action without also understandingthe setting of that action - where and
how it takesplace.The historicalnarrative,therefore,must be an accountof situatedaction,the
localeprovidingtemporaland spatialfixity for action, and thus providing for the possibilityof
the institutionalisation
of practice- the creationand maintenanceof tradition.
Continuity
Thereare two main themesin the historyof burial practicesand placesin the spaceand time of
this study: on the one hand the creationand transformationof a monumentalburial tradition,
and on the other a continuity of tradition. The latter Is perhapslessobvious,and so will be
consideredfirst. Longterm continuityIs evidentin certainaspectsof funerarycustoms.First Is a
concernwith the incorporationof the dead among the ancestors.By 'incorporation' here I
Intend to signify not simply the physicaltransformationof death and the placingof the dead
amongthe ancestors,but more preciselya tradition, maintainedthroughoutthe time and space
of this study, that on deaththe individualleavesthe communityand joins the numberlessmass
of the ancestors.This is evidencedon two counts: first, not only Is there little evidencethat
burial architecturewasdesignedto presencethe Individualdead amongthe living, but further,
studyof burial architectureand locale(including'simpler' graves)hasshownthat the deadwere
ChapterNine Conclusions
261
consistentlyplacedamongthe ancestorsand came to be seen as an anonymouspart of that
group. All of the monumentalburial traditions- tumuli, tholol and chambertombs - presence
the dead as a group In the landscapewithout any precedencefor the Individual;moreover,lt
hasbeenshownthat wheneverthe living came into direct contact with the dead,whetherby
accidentor by design,the consistentreaction was to de-emphasise the Individual (through
of the pristineburial context) and to Incorporatethe
disarticulationof bonesand disassembly
Individualanonymouslyamongthe ancestors(by mixing of contexts).As for 'simpler' burials,
much of the evidenceshowsthe dead buried In settled areasfallen out of use (in ancestral
settlement),usually(althoughnot always)with no caretakento makethe gravevisiblefor any
lengthof time. Encounterswith earlier deadIn thesecontextsseemto have followeda similar
pattern as with monumentalburials - disarticulationof the bones and, through unmarked
reburial,the Incorporationof the boneswith the ancestors.
Yet the analysismust be more complex than this. What of those Instanceswhere Individual
gravesare marked out in the cemetery?And what of the immenseInvestmentIn display-
heapedon the individualdead,not the massof ancestors- evidencedin someburial ceremonies?
In this we identify a tensionbetweentradition and the individualmoment of action. Whereas
the evidencesustainsthe view that the dominantideologysurroundingdeathwould depersonify
the ancestors,yet at the momentof the funeral,the reality of deathnewlypresentand the dead
only newly absent,the core tensionlies betweenthe unavoidablenecessityof letting the dead
take their leave, and a desirethat they not go. Elaborateactivitieson the fading corporeal
vestigeof the dead, or smallactsat the gravesideto manifestthe dead In memoriam,signify
attemptsto maintainthe presenceof the dead in the community. In eventuallycreatingthe
tholos and chambertomb form, an architecturewas brought into being that allowed for the
living to take care of the Incorporationof the dead amongthe ancestorsover a much longer
period of mourning: the immediateneed not to let go of the dead could be catered for by
allowingtheir depositionon the floor of the tomb, their fadingpresenceemphasised by all the
finery that thosetakingcare for the funeralcould muster;much later, grief havingsubsidedand
families,groupsand the community havingrealignedto account for the dead'sabsence,the
mournerscould return to the tomb to carry out those acts on the dead that physicallyand
symbolically,finally, placedthem amongthe ancestors.This transformationof existingtradition
paralleledand partly motivatedthe architecturaltransformationin the secondaryadaptationof
the tholostomb.
Other threadsof continuityconcernthe treatmentof the dead,and modesof Interment.In the

former there is no radical changethroughout this long period: preparationof the dead for

burial,whetherelaborateor simple,wasa tradition that could be mobilisedby mournersIn short
term oppositionto the imminentlossof the deadto the ancestors.All the evidence,as far asit
goes,Indicatesthat the deadwent through unchangedforms of treatmentbefore burial for the
entire period of this study.The highlyelaboratedressings
of the deadin the LHI-IIA period can
simplybe viewedas'more so' - the sametradition enactedwith recourseto a materialresource
stockpileunavailableat other times. This observationIs Important becauseIt showsthat the
understandingof how to go about dealing with death, at the most basic level, remained
unchangedthroughoutthe period: first the mournersengageddirectly with the corpse,and then
the funeral was carried out. It is likely that the processionto the grave, carrying the dead
physicallyand symbolicallyaway from the living community to the burial site, took place
betweenthesetwo phases.On only a few occasionslate in the period, it appearspossiblethat
the corpsewent through a secondaryphaseof embellishmentafter deposition,with mourners
filing past the gravewithin the tomb, some of them adding to the array of objectsalready
present.
Modes of interment similarlyremainedunchangedthroughout the period. At the most basic

levelthe deadwasinterredin a holein the ground.The corpsewaslaid on Its backor on Its side
In a gravedug or built to the scaleof the humanframe. BurialsIn moundstook placeIn pithol,
In
aswell as pits or casts;although monumental pithol did alter the of
circumstances Interment,
they retained the featureof being a burial spacescaledto the human body. In tholos and
chambertombs, the dominantmode of depositionwas simply on the floor, but there were
nonethelessnumerousInstances of InhumationIn pits or, lessregularly,clstsor pithol; and the
secondaryactivitieson the dead in thesetombs regularlyended with the depositionof bones
and other materialin pits or (in the caseof chambertombs) niches.Although the tradition of
burial on the floor In tholosand chambertombswould appearto be slightlydifferent from what
went before, it originatedin the placementof the corpseon the floor of smallertholos tombs
(and perhapsultimately in the placementof the corpse within pithol), and In any caseIt
remainedan Inhumation In the sensethat tholos tombs were always underground (under
mound) places.
Simpleritualsat the momentof inhumationalsoseemto havebeenmaintainedthroughoutthe

period. There may have been numerouscomplicatedrituals that left no material trace, and
thesemay havechangedmuch in time; but on basisof the evidencethat remains,where any
activity is recorded,that activity is very often relatedto drinking and pouring activity. In the
later period the sameactionswere extendedto the momentof openingor closingthe tomb. At
certain times or places, the material culture associatedwith these actions became highly

formalised(the kantharolof the MH burial mounds,the Vafd cupsIn someLHI-IIA tholol, and
the ubiquitouskylikesof the LHII-III period), representingthe formalisednatureof the actions
within burialcustoms.
Change
Having sketchedthis backgroundof continuity, It Is now possibleto considerthe creation,

maintenanceand transformationof the more obvioustraditionsthat form the history of burial
practicesin this time and space.The principalact of creationin this period wasthe creationof
the monumentalmultiple burial mound. This wasmotivatedby the desireto take a communal
resource(the ancestors),alreadyan establishedpart of tradition, and situateit visiblyand solidly
in the encuituredlandscape:this motivation remainedconstantthrough changesin monument
form or landscapelocation. Everyaspectof designand depositionin all of thesemonuments
that this wasan underlyingstructuringprinciple.
suggests
The middle helladic mounds at their most basic simply took the Idea of the cemetery,
dissociatedIt from current settlement(but In at leastsome casesexplicitly associatedIt with
ancestralsettlementsites), and raisedIt up in monumentalform. Pithosburialsrepresenteda
specificelaborationof tradition, on the one hand in the 'value' of the pathosItself, and the
transformationof a domesticobject Into a part of the funeraryassemblage,and on the other In
that its defined point of entry (its mouth) allowed for Interferencewith burialsand for new
burialsIn the samespace.The prevalenceof this tradition Is by no meansclear (due to the
numberof unexcavatedmounds),but the practiceappearsto havequickly becomewidespread,
concomitantwith the tumulusform Itself. The Idea of a burial spacewith a defined point of
entry, as realisedby the pithol, was redefined In the constructionof small tholos tombs In
multiple burial mounds,and then redefinedagain In the secondaryadaptationof the tholos
tomb, when the tomb became the sole burial space of the mound, now conceptually
subordinateto It. In all of these transformationsof architecture the underlying tradition
concernsthe ancestralburial mound and its presenceIn the landscape:changesin architecture
and burial practicesrepresentthe maintenanceand transformationof that tradition through
time.
The creation of the tholos form had the furthest-reachingconsequences of any of these
transformations,but it is argued in this thesis that the proliferation of the tholos was an
unintendedconsequence of architectural experimentation.Whatever the Inspiration for the
roundedform of the tholos (most likely an attempt to build a stone pithos), Its first architects

were attemptingto create new kinds of burial spaceswithin multiple burial monuments:they
were working within the existing tradition, they did not set out explicitly to completely
transform mortuary architecture. The perfection of the technique made possible the
constructionof largertombs,in turn bringingabout a transformationIn tradition. Theseactsof
constructioncreated a monumentwith a single burial space,but one exploited for a large
numberof burials,thus retainingcontinuity of tradition In ancestralmonuments.Theseactsof
constructionwere brought about by and made InevitablechangesIn funerary ritual: changes
welcomedby those usingthe tombs, as Is shownby their rapid and widespreadacceptance.
There Is a symbiosisof architectureand ritual: changein one Is structurallyInterwovenwith
changein the other.
As outlined in chaptereight, tholos and chambertomb architecture

What were thosechanges?
is specificallyenablingand constrainingon the human form, entailing an architecturalspace
within which a restrictednumberof peoplecan act on or over the corpseIn ritual hiddenfrom
those outside; the samepropertiesallow for non-funeraryactions Involving engagementwith

ancestralremainsin a this hidden, restrictedspace.The architecturemoreover allows for an
ordered movement in and out of the tomb, and possibly for hierarchisationin position,
inasmuchassomemight be in the chamber,othersin the stomion,and still othersin the dromos
or completelyoutsidethe monument.
A descriptionof what changestook placedoes not, however,explainwhy they occurred.The

secondaryadaptationof the tholos tomb form and its proliferation came about becausethe
propertiesof the tomb were found to be appositeby those Involvedin tomb construction.In
the caseof a 2m to 3m diametertholos tomb In a multiple burial mound, very few of the
mournersmight enter at any one time, and so althoughthe structurewasradicalIn allowingone
to enter, the restrictedsize meant that only a very small group might perform the rites of
deposition.The constructionof Sm to 7m diametertholos tombsallowedfor larger groupsto
be InvolvedIn the ceremony,and perhapsfor the further developmentof hierarchiesamongthe
mourners.This hints at differencesIn how control over accessto tholos and chambertombs
might be exercised:fewer, larger tombs servinga wider community, rather than numerous
smallertombs with multiple claimsof control. This seemsto be the way tholos tomb usehad
developedin someareasby the end of LHIIA.

Tradition and soda! diffe rent is don
Thesethoughtsbring us to the questionof the placeof monumentaltombs in manipulatingand

maintainingsocialdifferentiation.It hasbeenarguedIn this thesisthat the architectureof any
givenmonumenthasno direct bearingon whetherany or all of the deadwithin canbe regarded
as either 'rich' or of elevatedsocialstatus.A more satisfyingquestionconcernsthe rolessuch
monumentsor individual funeralsmay have been made to play In social strategies:in other
words, not whether monuments and burials reflect social stratification, but how the
opportunitiesand resourcesof the funeral,the monumentor the ancestorsmay havebeenused
In the creation,maintenance
or transformationof socialdifferentiation.
On one side of the argument, it might be observedthat MH multiple burial mounds are
communalin everysenseand there is no needor reasonto supposethat they representa select
group of the sociallyadvantaged;on the other, observationssuch as the ability to harness
labour, aswell as the considerable'riches' depositedwith someof the dead, might lead to the
suggestionthat the dead of tholos tombs representthe elite of society. Neither suggestion
a
represents analysis
satisfying of the The
evidence. crucialobservationis that the structuresof
the socialworld that are created,reproducedand transformedIn funeraryceremonies,or that
arewrit largein publicmonuments,neednot relateIn a simpleway to the dead:In other words,
that social structure need not be so personifiedIn Individualsthat their treatment In death
mirrors the power they wielded In life (chapter two). Social structures are created and
manipulatedby the living in action:so in recognisingInstancesof action in the mortuarysphere,
one ought to be ableto approachsomethingof the structuresinstantiatedby the living in those
actions.
It followsthat MH burial mounds,alongwith all of the burial structuresdiscussed

in this thesis,
certainly were bound up in the reproduction of the social order; the important question
surroundsnot who was being buried in thesemounds,but rather who (what groups)acted in
sucha way asto allow or causea mound to be createdor a funeralto take place.Moreover,in
a world where domesticarchitectureseemsto havebeenephemeraland settlementdispersed,
pottery and burial customsare the only phenomenasuggesting
any notion of widespreadsocial
cohesion,howeverslight.
In order to analysethe reproductionof socialorder, we must developan adequatetheory of

power. Shanks& Tilley (1987,73) point out that 'power is that aspectof humanpractices
which bringsabout effects' and that It is a 'positive and not just a repressivefeature of the

social'.Poweris not thereforean abstractresource,lt rather describesthe ability of the agentto
act, or to influencethe action of others: it is power to. Resourcesand accessto them are a
componentof the power to act, and tradition forms a resourceempoweringthe actionsmost
deeplyinvolvedin the reproductionof socialorder:
of Importanceto the engenderingof power Is the storageof authoritative

essential
...
resources... In oral cultures human memory Is virtually the sole repository of
Informationstorage.However memory (or recall) is to be understoodnot only In
... Inhering In
relation to the psychologicalqualitiesof Individual agentsbut also as the
recursiveness of institutionalreproduction storagepresumes media of Information
...
representation,modes of information retrieval or recall and, as with all power
resources,modesof its dissemination.
Giddens1984,261: emphases in original.
In the presentdiscussionthe mediaof informationrepresentationare the tomb and the material

culture of burial practice; the modes of information retrieval are the enactmentof ritual
following tradition; and the modes of its disseminationare memory, talk and the physical
presenceof monuments in the landscape.
The role of monumentalburial in the articulationof socialpower is basicallydual: within groups

or communities, and between groupsor communities.One can discernvertical linesof power
(within groups or communities)brought Into play at each funeral or mortuary act, and
horizontallines of power (betweengroupsor communities)In the articulationof widespread
socialstructures through burial monuments. Yet such a superficialanalysis'does not confront
the full diversityof our data' (Barrett 1988b, 32). How could power seemto be Investedin
monumentalburial practices,and what of the complexityof the data - the unevendistribution
of theseresourcesthroughspaceand time?
To begin with the individual moment of the funeral, potentially conflicting resourcescan be
identified. Beyondmemory and knowledge,these resourcesare the material embodimentof
tradition - the monumental burial structure, and a resource demanding fairly Immediate
mobilisation- the corpse.That which Is to be accomplishedIs the Incorporationof one within
the other; the power to act thereforedependson the power both to act upon the corpseand
the power act at the burial place.Tradition, memory and knowledgeare availableto be called
upon In structuring the funeral, and the material reality of both tomb and corpse further
structureaction. So the questionof the reproductionof socialorder concernsthe ability both of
the mournersto gain accessto the tomb In order to achieveinterment, but alsothe ability of
thosecontrollingaccessto the tomb to bring it about that IntermentIs carriedout in the tomb.
Although this momentis beingpresentedhereasa potentialsourceof conflict, It neednot beso,

and in fact the widespreadreproductionof practice,and Its longevity,points to the stabilityof
the tradition, and thereforeto the existenceof established
mechanisms wherebyInterestgroups'
needsare consistentlysatisfiedIn the mortuary sphere.In other words, the transientpower to
mobilisethe corpseas a resourcewas consistentlyand satisfactorilysubordinatedto a power
over the mortuarylocalemanifestedin the reproductionof tradition.
Powerover the mortuary localeneedneitherhaveseemedto be controversialnor in someway

separatedfrom the arrangementfor the funeral.It seemslikely that thoseableto gainaccessto
that locale would have been closely involved In all aspectsof the funeral. The unequal
oppositionset up here betweenmobilisationof the corpseand tradition in the mortuarysphere
merelyshows how the latter was confirmed
consistently by the former. Nevertheless,the ability
for peopleto act otherwise- for thingsto havebeendifferent - is allowedfor in this analysis.
Duringthe funeral,control over the corpseis subordinatedto accessto the mortuary locale,but
the mournerscould have actedotherwise,and used their power to subvert that by
represented
the mortuarylocale,by disposing
of the corpseelsewhere. Moreover, the importanceof control
over the mortuary localeIs shownby the fact that someburialsdid not take placethere (given
that the numberof burial mounds,chambertombs or tholos tombs, evenallowingfor attrition

through time, cannot representthe burial placesof the whole population, especiallyclear in
such
regions as Lakonfa):powerover accessto the mortuary localeat leastsometimesincludeda
degreeof discretion,and for thosetaking care of the funeral,there may havebeena choiceof
viableburial Furthermore,
locales. the pastreality wasone of multiple funerarylocalesin many
areas:the dialecticbetweenthe individualburial and the maintenanceof tradition wastherefore
diffuse,not a single,simplepowerrelation.
Thesetwo power bases,control over the mortuary localeand control over the corpse,and their
interfacein the momentof interment,were employedin the reproductionof tradition over the
very long period this study. However,the scopeof the socialorder implied in this analysisneed
not have extendedbeyond the funerarysphereitself and, moreover,the nature of that social
order, even though employingthesesamepower bases,will havechangedover time. What, If
any, are the wider socialramifications- how is the socialorder reproducedIn burial practices
relatedto the reproductionof relationsof powerIn the wider community?
In chapterthree it wasnoted that the reproductionof socialstructuresIs primarily a functionof

the routine ('everyday repetition creates social structure', page 57). Prevailing power
...
relationsIn societyare also therefore reproducedIn the routine. In the face of the everyday,
ongoingnatureof sociallife, with Its embeddedpowerrelations,socialorder and differentiation,

it would be ludicrousto suggestthat an artefact as non-routine as a burial monumentwas
fundamentalto the ongoingreproductionof society.The questionthereforeconcernsthe roles
that burial monumentsmight be madeto play In thosepowerrelations.
What is the link betweenpower relationsembeddedin the routine, and power relationsmade
manifestin traditional action in the mortuary sphere?One approachto this question,beyond
the scopeof this thesis,is to considerthe natureof routine practice as evidencedin house,
settlement, farmsteadand workshop.An alternativeapproachis to considerthe nature of
horizontalrelationsof power evident in the monuments,the relationshipsbetweenaction and
tradition at differenttimesand places.
This approachis related to the questionposedabove:what Is the explanationfor the uneven

distribution of burial monumentsthrough space and time? There are two closely related
elementsthat must be worked Into an answer:first, that the widespreaddistributionof such
monumentsIndicatesthat the traditionsworkedthroughthem, and in particularthe powerbases
noted above, could be found applicable,appositeor useful in (widely) separatedgroups;and
secondthat the specific local social conditions, in which these monumentswere situated,
differed,asIs shownby specific,local variationsIn location,architectureand mortuarypractice.
Havingelucidatedwhat local variationmight mean,the relationshipbetweenthe distributionof
the monumentsand the reproductionof widely spacedsocialstructureswill becomeclearer.
The creation and use of a burial mound has been linked with a specific Ideology that of
-
locating the mass of the ancestorsvisibly In the Inhabited landscape.This Ideology was
comprehensibleto communities throughout the area where tumuli are found, but the
opportunityto build moundswasunevenlytakenup. In centralMessinlaa greatnumberof such
moundswere constructed,but elsewhere(southernMessinla,northern Messinfa,southernilia),
only a few isolatedexamplesare known, and largeregionshavenone (unlikelyto be a resultof
samplebias:chapterone). In centralMessinfa,certainspecificexplanationsfor the largenumber
of neighbouringmoundsmay be offered: that individualmoundsrelate to small groupsrather
than largecommunities;that moundsmay be locatedcloseto eachother In a pattern unrelated
to settlement distribution becauselocation was primarily a function of understandingsof
landscapepaths and localeswhose cultural Importanceexisted before the constructionof a
mound; that the construction of mounds In marginal areas presencedthe ancestors,as
representinggroups or communities, in the landscapeas moved through. All of these
explanationsmay be apposite,with more or less Importance, In explaininghow what we
perceiveas the centralMessenlandistributionof burial moundscameInto being;the Important

point for the current discussion,however,Is that suchexplanationswill not sufficeIn regardto
Instancesof tumuli such as that at 35:Peristeri,or the group at 43:K3to SamikbKlidhf. The
groupsusingthesetombswere involvedin buildingand usingrelativelyisolatedmonuments;no
part of the reproduction of tradition was bound up with similar nearby traditions. These
monumentsand the traditions associatedwith them must have been differently bound up in
local socialstructures,In comparisonwith examplesin centralMessinfa:either as very marginal
to the socialorder, or much more central to it. In either case,althoughwe cannotdetermine
the importanceof the monumentin reproductionof the socialorder, we can determinethat Its
placewas different in different therefore
areas: the cannot
monument be madeto representthe
pan-helladicreproductionof a uniformsocialstructure.
Similarconditionspertain even within the central Messenianarea. Differencesin architecture,

differencesIn specificburial traditions,locationsof proximity to or distancefrom other mounds
or features,
landscape and not leastdifferingperiodsof use,showthat the positionof 'the burial
mound' in society was highly variable through time and space and between different
communities,groupsand organisations.The specific nature of power relationsmanifestedIn

Individualmoundsare thereforerelated to societyat large In a complexway: socialstructure
cannotbe directly 'read off from theseartefacts.
Nonetheless,all of thesemoundswere rooted in a common ideologyand exhibit fundamental

in
similarities tradition, on top of which rest more superficialdifferences.Thesedifferences
result from the way that thosebuildingand usingmoundssoughtto situatetheir practicewithin
a complexnexusof tradition and other, more temporalconcerns.This Is the crux of the matter:
burial moundsdo not reflectwidespreadsocialstructures,but they werebuilt In a complexhaze
of ever recedingresonances partly constitutedof the relationshipbetweensimilar institutions.
The extent to which this nexusextendedbeyond groupingsInvolvedwith burial moundsto
routine power relations Is unknowable,but small differencesin location, architectureand
mortuary practicesuggestthat thesetraditionswere mobilisedIn local socialstructuresIn slightly
differing ways, for the reasonthat there were significantdifferences(as well as similarities)in
thoselocal socialstructures.
In askingthe samequestionof tholos and chambertombs ('What Is the link betweenpower

relationsembeddedin the routine and power relationsmademanifestin traditionalaction in the
mortuarysphere? '), the sameanswermust be given:tholosand chambertombscould be built in
different areasbecausethey drew on commontraditionalresources,thus positioningthem In a
broad nexusof power relations,but they were differentlysituatedin local socialstructures,asIs

shownby differencesin locationand locale,architectureand mortuary practices.The tumulus,
tholos, or chambertomb do not representunitary phenomena:they do not standas metaphor
for an entire culture.Any tomb wasbuilt within localand specificcircumstances,
and Its usewas
equallylocal and specific.Much asthis studyhassoughtto defineclearlywhat sharedIdeologies
and traditionswere mobilisedand maintainedat thesetombs,the conclusionmustbe that tombs
and traditions carry no meaning of themselves:meaning is to be found in how people
within their communities.
understoodand usedtheseresources
FUNERARY CUSTOMS AND THE INCEPTION OF 'MYCENAEAN CIVILISATION'
One other widely sharedmaterial elementof societythrough the whole period of study, as
of tholostombsand chambertombsIs traditionally
alludedto above,Is pottery. The appearance
associatedwith the appearanceof a new kind of pottery throughout the helladicworld, and
thesetwo phenomenatogether havebeentaken as the principalIndicatorsof the Inceptionof
'Mycenaeancivilisation' (chapter two). This section briefly considerswhat meaningcan be
drawnfrom thesephenomenaIn the light of the conclusionsnoted above.
It was noted in chapter one that the appearanceof Mycenaean pottery is by no meansa unitary
phenomenon: not only does it typically make up a small percentage of LHI assemblages
dominated by continuing MH styles, but moreover its adoption occurs at different rates and at
different moments at different sites. An understanding of the adoption of Mycenaean pottery
styles would entail at one level a study of their Introduction into the routines of life at individual
sites - in other words, what role this material was made to play in the everyday reproduction of
social structure; and at another level a study of differential adoption and use of these styles at
different sites and In different areas within sites. Without presupposing a study yet to be
conducted, the parameters outlined here would allow for the understanding of an apparently
widespread phenomenon as the strategic employment of widely comprehensible symbols within
local power structures.
That the introduction and developmentof Mycenaeanpottery is not a unitary phenomenon

parallelsthe conclusionof this thesis that mortuary practice Is by no means a unitary
phenomenon;the suggestionthat pottery, representingwidely comprehensiblesymbols,might
becomewidespreadthrough multiple local strategiesof use parallelsthe verdict of this thesis
that the spreadof tholosand chambertombswasthe result of their incorporationIn numerous
local power structures.This observationthat can certainly be extendedto the wider heliadic

world, and probablyInto the LHIII period (below). This hasconsiderableimplicationsfor the
of societyin LHI-II. It was shownIn chaptertwo
ethnic and culture-historicalcharacterisation
that many previousstudiesof 'status' as 'reflected' In mortuary evidenceheld that suchstatus
could be identifiedwith rolesin socialhierarchiesfound whereverMycenaeanmortuarycustoms
could be identified - in other words, that burial practicescarried out in tholos and chamber
tombsusedthosemonumentsIn a recurrentmannerto createand recreatecomparablepower
structuresthroughout the Mycenaeancultural area. This study has shown that the power
relationsinherentin practicesat tholosand chambertombsdid not relateIn a uniform and non-
complex way with the routine reproduction of social structures, and moreover that the
relationshipbetweentraditional action in the mortuary arenaand the reproductionof social
structure was entirely contingenton local and temporal social According
strategies. to this
interpretation, a homogeneouspicture of Mycenaeanculture in LHI-II Greece cannot be
sustainedby referenceto burial practices,or pottery.
The explanationof wide spread phenomenais one of the most interesting questionsin
archaeology. Recourse to culture or ethnicity provides little that is actively I
explanatory:
contendthat the current review hasprovidedexplanationsfor continuity, changeand the active
incorporation of tradition in differing local circumstanceswithout employing ethnicity as
explanation.In assessinganother(much more) widespreadphenomenon,Barrettcameto similar
conclusions:
it was not an adherenceto ethnic identity which defined the subject but their
submissionto forms of authority, such as the lineage,and these forms of authority
createdtheir own histories which could be reinventedto incorporatethe fluctuating
demandsof political affiliation.Thesewere the oral historiesrecountedin the rituals
and legendsof a region and which employed the monumentsthemselvesas their
immediatepointsof reference.
Barrett 1994b, 107.
FUTURE RESEARCH: EXTENDING THE SCOPE CHRONOLOGICALLY AND SPATIALLY
The he//ad/c world /n the NH/-LH//B per/od
The analysespresentedIn this thesishave rarely appealedto the wider helladic world, in a
consciousattempt to Interpret the evidenceIn a localisedfashion and avoid explanations
Involvingthe 'Mycenaeanworld'. Nonetheless,there clearlyexista numberof paralleltraditions
that are Implicatedin thoseobservedwithin the study area.There Is an enormousdatabaseof

simplerburials (Lewartowski1995), there are middle helladicburial moundsIn the Argolid,
Attika, possiblyKorinthia, and one exampleeach In StereaE11Jdha
and on Evia (Cavanagh8t
Mee 1998,38-39); and numeroustholos and chambertombs (Cavanagh8z Mee 1998,58-
60). The temptationto assess
the significanceof thesemonumentswithin the teens of debate
set here is overwhelming:particularlysignificantare the paralleladoptionsof burial moundsin
the MH period in variousareas,perhapsconfirmingthe hypothesisthat, howeverunderstood
within local structures,an underlying understandingof the dead in ancestralterms was a
motivating factor in their constructionwhereverthey are found; In the 'shaft-graveperiod',
however, elaboration of the mortuary arena, primarily architectural In the southwestern
Peloponnese,wasarticulatedthrough ostentatiousdisplayat Mycenae,and tholoi and chamber
tombsonly later adoptedIn thoseareas.
Interestingasthesetheoriesare, however,the contentionof this thesisIs that understandings

on
a regionalscalecanonly be achievedafter closestudy of Individualsites,as hasbeendone here
for Messinfa,Ilia and Lakonia;sucha closestudywould inevitablyproducenew Insightsbeyond
thosenotedabove,whichappearobviousfrom the data ascurrentlyunderstood.
The IN///period within the study area
LHIII burialsiteswithin the studyareaare listedand partly describedIn appendixtwo. Relatively

few new tholos tombs appearto havebeen constructedIn LHIII, and many of those listed In
appendixtwo are poorly understood,makingIt possiblethat evidencefor earlier construction
datesis lost or not yet found. Of tholos tombs built in this period, none fallsinto the category
of largeand well built tombs,unlessthe tomb at EplaAnthta shoulddate to LHIII. ThereIs little
changein the observeddistributionof tholostombs. Superficialanalysisof the evidencesuggests
that mortuary customswere scarcelychangedat thesetombs, althoughfewer burialsseemto
haveInvolvedintensiveappropriationof materialresources.
The situation Is completely different with chamber tombs. New cemeteriesare located
throughoutthe study area,particularlyIn Ilcain thoseareaswhere LHI-II burial structureswere
hardly evidenced,and also In Lakonia; In Messinfa,on the other hand, a number of new
chambertombswasbuilt, but few largecemeteries,and the region remainedcuriouslyreticent
aboutthis ubiquitousLHIII architecturalform. It Is certainlysignificantthat largerchambertomb
cemeteriesIn Messinfaare to be found In the eastof the province (again, EpiaAnthfa, along
with Kalam3ta:appendixtwo), an areascarcelyinvolvedin the reproductionof burial tradition
In earlierperiods.

Obviousresearchquestionswould be: how were tholosand chambertombsusedin LHIII? What
factors brought about the wider distribution of chambertombs? Why are larger cemeteries
found in someareas,individualtombs elsewhere?
What relationshipscan be detectedbetween
mortuary customsand wider society?Specifically,is there any observablerelationshipbetween
palaceor other sitesand funerarysites? Again, only closestudy of the individualsiteswould
leadto the levelof understanding
necessaryto tacklethesequestions.
The LH///period elsewhere
Two concernsare immediatelyclear: first, differential patterns in the adoption, use and
discontinuationof variousburial customswithin the Helladicarea,and secondthe construction
and use of Mycenaeanburial forms outsidethe Helladic area. The frame within which these
concernshasbeenset Is againan ethnic one: closestudy of individualsitesand regionsin the
by
mannersuggested this thesiswould free the debateof such ethnic concernsand allow for
deeper,region-based of the archaeologyof the period.
understandings
A CONCLUSION
The mortuaryarenais a very specialchallengeto archaeology,as it wasto thosewho createdit

and acted within it In the past. Death is the least comprehensiblepart of life; thosewho are
affectedby deathcloseby find their circumstances
radicallyaltered,often In the most distressing
way. How do peoplecome to termswith sucha challenge?The uniquedegreeof preservation
of mortuary contexts above all other contexts in archaeologyoffers us an opportunity to
observeIndividual,identifiableactsfrom the past.We shouldapproachthe mortuary arenawith
the greatesthumility and respectfor the efforts of thosethat went beforeus to come to terms
with death.This appliesnot only to the conductof excavation,but especiallyto interpretation.
The excavationand publicationof tombsmust be primarilyaimedat understandingwhatpeople
did in the past. If any other interpretativegoal is madeprimary, we do not treat with respect
the remainsof thoseindividuallivesthat we are allegedlytrying to understand.

275
275

Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Mortuary Customs in The Southern and Western Peloponnese A

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Mortuary Customs in The Southern and Western Peloponnese A

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Middle helladicand early

Michael John Boyd

The Universityof Edinburgh

Middle helladicand earlyMycenaeanburialcustomsin the southernand

that civilisation (the other being Mycenaeanpottery).

The secondhalf of the thesispresentsan analysisof the evidencein order to answerthe

MsaocX,Xa&tx scat irpwta MUKTIva

Michael John Boyd

LtBa1cTOpua8taiptf3i: Havciwrnjto tou Edinburgh 1999.

H 7rap6aa Statpt 3 atoxsi t va tapouatat tic u tPXOuaESapiupiEg 'yta Tayucl;

Tou p as aTOTornio,tv apxtteictovtk , toy'Atx6 aoXtna6 at tv 7rap&Sornl.Avaititat

THE SCOPE OF THE THESIS 19

POTTERY STYLE AND CHRONOLOGY 2I

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MATERIAL UNDER STUDY 29

CHRONOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE EVIDENCE 32

TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN 35

SITE DISTRIBUTION, SETTLEMENT HISTORY AND THE 38

THE STATUS OF THE DEAD 45

MYCENAEAN CIVILISATION: THE ETHNICITY OF THE DEAD 49

THE AIMS OF THE STUDY 54

BASIC THEORY OF HUMAN ACTION 55

THE ENCULTURED LANDSCAPE 6I

SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORTUARY LOCALE 63

READING EXCAVATION REPORTS 76

ANALYSING MORTUARY BEHAVIOUR 83

THE MHI-II PERIOD 108

BURIAL MOUNDS OF LIKELY MH DATE lie

THE MHIII-LHI 119

THE LHI-IIA, LHIIA AND LHIIB PERIODS 133

SIMPLER GRAVES 140

THE MHI-II PERIOD 144

BURIAL MOUNDS OF LIKELY MH DATE 15

THE MHIII-LHI PERIOD 153

THE MHI-II PERIOD 197

BURIAL MOUNDS OF LIKELY MH DATE 204

THE MHI11-LHI PERIOD 205

SIMPLER GRAVES 220

THE MHHI PERIOD 228

BURIAL MOUNDS OF LIKELY MH DATE 233

THE MHIII-LHI PERIOD 234

THE LHI-IIA, 247

HUMAN ACTION IN THE MORTUARY SPHERE 256

THE CREATION, MAINTENANCE AND TRANSFORMATION 26 1

FUNERARY CUSTOMS AND THE INCEPTION OF 271

FUTURE RESEARCH: EXTENDING THE SCOPE 272

CHRONOLOGICALLY AND SPATIALLY

Contentsof Volume 11 277

Appendix One 280

FORMAT OF CATALOGUE ENTRIES 280

SITE CATALOGUE 282

Appendix Two 788

UNDATED THOLOS 788

THOLOS TOMBS TO DATE TO LHIII OR LATER 79O

MISCELLANEOUS OTHER POSSIBLE FUNERARY SITES 792

LATE MYCENAEAN CHAMBER TOMBS 794

Appendix Four 810

List of plates in volume I

CENTRAL MESSINIA: VIEW SOUTH FROM /3: /(AM/N/A 18

MOUND AT /5: PI. TANGS 43

/7. -VO/OHOK/L/: THOLOS TOMB 75

BAY OF / 7' VO/DHOK/L/ 219

THOLOS TOMB IV AT 24: ENGL/ANS 255

From his first, encouragingresponseto my hopeful letter enquiringabout the possibilityof