This pdf is a digital offprint of your contribution in E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur & J. Weilhartner (eds), Metaphysis. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean (Aegaeum 39), ISBN 978-90-429-3366-8.

The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters Publishers.

As author you are licensed to make printed copies of the pdf or to send the unaltered pdf file to up to 50 relations. You may not publish this pdf on the World Wide Web – including websites such as academia.edu and open-access repositories – until three years after publication. Please ensure that anyone receiving an offprint from you observes these rules as well.

If you wish to publish your article immediately on open- access sites, please contact the publisher with regard to the payment of the article processing fee.

For queries about offprints, copyright and republication of your article, please contact the publisher via [email protected] AEGAEUM 39 Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne

METAPHYSIS RITUAL, MYTH AND SYMBOLISM IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE

Proceedings of the 15th International Aegean Conference, Vienna, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Aegean and Anatolia Department, Austrian Academy of Sciences and Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna, 22-25 April 2014

Edited by Eva ALRAM-STERN, Fritz BLAKOLMER, Sigrid DEGER-JALKOTZY, Robert LAFFINEUR and Jörg WEILHARTNER

PEETERS LEUVEN - LIEGE 2016

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 1 25/03/16 08:06

CONTENTS

Obituaries ix Preface xiii Abbreviations xv

KEYNOTE LECTURE

Nanno MARINATOS Myth, Ritual, Symbolism and the Solar Goddess in Thera 3

A. FIGURINES

Eva ALRAM-STERN Men with Caps: Chalcolithic Figurines from Aegina-Kolonna and their Ritual Use 15

Florence GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN The Lady of the House: Trying to Define the Meaning and Role of Ritual Figures with Upraised Arms in Late Minoan III 21

Reinhard JUNG and Marco PACCIARELLI A Minoan Statuette from Punta di Zambrone in Southern Calabria (Italy) 29

Melissa VETTERS All the Same yet not Identical? Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines in Context 37

Eleni KONSOLAKI-YANNOPOULOU The Symbolic Significance of the Terracottas from the Mycenaean Sanctuary at Ayios Konstantinos, Methana 49

B. HYBRID AND MYTHICAL CREATURES

Fritz BLAKOLMER Hierarchy and Symbolism of Animals and Mythical Creatures in the Aegean Bronze Age: A Statistical and Contextual Approach 61

Karen Polinger FOSTER Animal Hybrids, Masks, and Masques in Aegean Ritual 69

Maria ANASTASIADOU Wings, Heads, Tails: Small Puzzles at LM I Zakros 77

C. SYMBOLISM

Janice L. CROWLEY In the Air Here or from the World Beyond? Enigmatic Symbols of the Late Bronze Age Aegean 89

Marianna NIKOLAIDOU Materialised Myth and Ritualised Realities: Religious Symbolism on Minoan Pottery 97

Helène WHITTAKER Horns and Axes 109

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 3 25/03/16 08:06 iv CONTENTS

Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA Warding off Evil: Apotropaic Practice and Imagery in Minoan Crete 115

Emilia BANOU and Brent DAVIS The Symbolism of the Scorpion in : A Cosmological Approach on the Basis of Votive Offerings from the Peak Sanctuary at Ayios Yeoryios Sto Vouno, Kythera 123

Nancy R. THOMAS “Hair Stars” and “Sun Disks” on Bulls and Lions. A Reality Check on Movements of Aegean Symbolic Motifs to Egypt, with Special Reference to the Palace at Malkata 129

Malcolm H. WIENER Aegean Warfare at the Opening of the Late Bronze Age in Image and Reality 139

D. SPACE / LANDSCAPE

Santo PRIVITERA The Tomb, the House, and the Double Axes: Late Minoan IIIA2 Hagia Triada as a Ritual and ‘Mythical’ Place 149

Sam CROOKS, Caroline J. TULLY and Louise A. HITCHCOCK Numinous Tree and Stone: Re-Animating the Minoan Landscape 157

Barbara MONTECCHI The Labyrinth: Building, Myth, and Symbol 165

Birgitta EDER Ideology in Space: Mycenaean Symbols in Action 175

Lyvia MORGAN The Transformative Power of Mural Art: Ritual Space, Symbolism, and the Mythic Imagination 187

E. FUNERALS

Luca GIRELLA Aspects of Ritual and Changes in Funerary Practices Between MM II and LM I on Crete 201

Anna Lucia D’AGATA and Sara DE ANGELIS Funerals of Late Minoan III Crete: Ritual Acts, Special Vessels and Political Affiliations in the 14th and 13th Centuries BC 213

Ann-Louise SCHALLIN The Liminal Zone – The Evidence from the Late Bronze Age Dendra Cemetery 223

Mary K. DABNEY Mycenaean Funerary Processions as Shared Ritual Experiences 229

Michael LINDBLOM and Gunnel EKROTH Heroes, Ancestors or Just any Old Bones? Contextualizing the Consecration of Human Remains from the Mycenaean Shaft Graves at in the Argolid 235

F. RELIGION / DEITIES

Jeffrey S. SOLES Hero, Goddess, Priestess: New Evidence for Minoan Religion and Social Organization 247

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 4 25/03/16 08:06 CONTENTS v

Ute GÜNKEL-MASCHEK Establishing the Minoan ‘Enthroned Goddess’ in the Neopalatial Period: Images, Architecture, and Elitist Ambition 255

Veronika DUBCOVÁ Divine Power from Abroad. Some New Thoughts about the Foreign Influences on the Aegean Bronze Age Religious Iconography 263

Cynthia W. SHELMERDINE Poseidon, pa-ki-ja-na and Horse-Taming Nestor 275

Irene SERRANO LAGUNA di-u-ja 285

G. SANCTUARIES

Mercourios GEORGIADIS Metaphysical Beliefs and Leska 295

Wolf-Dietrich NIEMEIER Ritual in the Mycenaean Sanctuary at Abai (Kalapodi) 303

Olga PSYCHOYOS and Yannis KARATZIKOS The Mycenaean Sanctuary at Prophitis Ilias on Mount Arachnaio within the Religious Context of the 2nd Millennium B.C. 311

H. RITUALS / OFFERINGS

Barbara HOREJS and Alfred GALIK Hunting the Beast. A Reconstructed Ritual in an EBA Metal Production Centre in Western Anatolia 323

Philip P. BETANCOURT, Thomas M. BROGAN and Vili APOSTOLAKOU Rituals at Pefka 329

Alessandro SANAVIA and Judith WEINGARTEN The Transformation of Tritons: Some Decorated Middle Minoan Triton Shells and an Anatolian Counterpart 335

Artemis KARNAVA On Sacred Vocabulary and Religious Dedications: The Minoan ‘Libation Formula’ 345

Monica NILSSON Minoan Stairs as Ritual Scenes. The Monumental Staircases of Phaistos “66” and “Theatral Area” under the Magnifying Glass 357

Bernice R. JONES A New Reading of the Fresco Program and the Ritual in Xeste 3, Thera 365

Andreas G. VLACHOPOULOS Images of Physis or Perceptions of Metaphysis? Some Thoughts on the Iconography of the Xeste 3 Building at Akrotiri, Thera 375

Fanouria DAKORONIA Sacrifice on Board 387

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 5 25/03/16 08:06 vi CONTENTS

Jörg WEILHARTNER Textual Evidence for Burnt Animal Sacrifice and Other Rituals Involving the Use of Fire in Mycenaean 393

Chrysanthi GALLOU Mycenaean Skulls: “ἀμενηνά κάρηνα” or Social Actors in Late Helladic Metaphysics and Society? 405

Assaf YASUR-LANDAU The Baetyl and the Stele: Contact and Tradition in Levantine and Aegean Cult 415

I. MYTH / HEROES / ANCESTORS

Magda PIENIĄŻEK and Carolyn C. ASLAN Heroic Past, Memory and Ritual at Troy 423

John G. YOUNGER Identifying Myth in Minoan Art 433

Joanne M.A. MURPHY The Power of the Ancestors at Pylos 439

Elisabetta BORGNA and Andreas G. VORDOS Construction of Memory and the Making of a Ritual Landscape: the Role of Gods and Ancestors at the Trapeza of Aigion, Achaea, at the LBA-EIA Transition 447

Anne P. CHAPIN Mycenaean Mythologies in the Making: the Frescoes of Pylos Hall 64 and the Mycenae Megaron 459

J. METAPHYSIS

Robert B. KOEHL The Ambiguity of the Minoan Mind 469

Thomas G. PALAIMA The Metaphysical Mind in Mycenaean Times and in Homer 479

Alan PEATFIELD A Metaphysical History of Minoan Religion 485

POSTERS

Eva ALRAM-STERN A New Mycenaean Female Figure from Kynos, Locris 497

Katrin BERNHARDT Absent Mycenaeans? On Mycenaean Figurines and their Imitations on Crete in LM IIIA–IIIB 501

Tina BOLOTI A “Knot”-Bearing (?) Minoan Genius from Pylos. Contribution to the Cloth/Clothing Offering Imagery of the Aegean Late Bronze Age 505

Dora CONSTANTINIDIS Proximity Analysis of Metaphysical Aegean Ritual Spaces During the Bronze Age 511

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 6 25/03/16 08:06 CONTENTS vii

Stefanos GIMATZIDIS The Tree of Life: The Materiality of a Ritual Symbol in Space and Time 515

Louise A. HITCHCOCK, Aren M. MAEIR and Amit DAGAN Entangling Aegean Ritual in Philistine Culture 519

Petros KOUNOUKLAS Griffin at Kynos. How, Why, and When? 527

Tobias KRAPF Symbolic Value and Magical Power: Examples of Prehistoric Objects Reused in Later Contexts in Euboea 531

Susan LUPACK pu-ro, pa-ki-ja-ne, and the Worship of an Ancestral Wana x 537

Madelaine MILLER The Boat – A Sacred Border-Crosser in Between Land and the Sea 543

Sylvie MÜLLER CELKA Caring for the Dead in Minoan Crete: a Reassessment of the Evidence from Anemospilia 547

Marcia NUGENT Portals to the Other: Stepping through a Botanic Door 557

Marco PIETROVITO Beyond the Earthly Shell: the Minoan Pitcher Bearers. Anthropomorphic Rhyta of the Pre- and Protopalatial Periods (Differentiating the Sacred from the Divine) 563

Jörg RAMBACH Early Helladic Romanos/Messenia: Filling a Well 567

Caroline THURSTON New Approaches to Mycenaean Figurines in LH IIIC 571

Michaela ZAVADIL Souvenirs from Afar – Star Disk Pendants Reconsidered 575

ENDNOTE

Joseph MARAN Towards an Anthropology of Religion in Minoan and 581

TO CONCLUDE …

Thomas G. PALAIMA WI Fc 2014: When is an Inscribed Cigar Just a Cigar? 595

98738_Aegaeum 39 vwk.indd 7 25/03/16 08:06

MYCENAEAN SKULLS: “   ” OR SOCIAL ACTORS IN LATE HELLADIC METAPHYSICS AND SOCIETY?*

“Everlasting be your memory, O Chris Mee, who are worthy of blessedness and eternal memory.”

Bodily fragmentation with particular focus to the ceremonial removal and re-deposition of the skull, has formed part of a complex system of post-mortem rites and ancestor cults since prehistory; “a powerful statement that surfaces in the iconography, mortuary practices, and political agendas of many cultures”.1 The Aegean archaeological record has provided numerous examples for post- funerary treatment and ritual re-deposition of skulls from the Mesolithic onwards and various studies have put the practice in the proscenium of Aegean ritual with particular focus on the Neolithic and Minoan periods.2 On the other hand, less research has focused on headless skeletons and bodiless skulls in the Mycenaean mortuary record. This study aims to investigate the preferential selection of the skull in Late Helladic post-funerary contexts, and to offer insights into how second funeral rites and the manipulation and display of the cranium might have been employed to serve and preserve community cohesion, ancestral ties and memory in Mycenaean society.

Skully affairs in Mycenaean Greece: the evidence3

In his discussion of post-funerary ritual in the chamber tombs at Mycenae Wace proposed “that the removal of the bones and other remains of early interments to the alcove [of Tomb 516] may not have been due merely to a desire to clear the chamber for newcomers. It is just possible that the living members of the family at stated times entered the family sepulchre, and by the performance of due rites and ceremonies, perhaps including a memorial feast, held some kind of communion with the dead”.4 Several decades later and through systematic statistical analysis of the available evidence, Cavanagh reconstructed a series of post-funerary rites that were associated with a second funeral (or secondary burial) custom.5 This kind of post-funerary ritual ceremony would have been living-centric and would have involved acts of re-entering the tomb and ritually interfering with the relics of the

* Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Eva Alram-Stern, Fritz Blakolmer, Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Robert Laffineur and Jörg Weilhartner for inviting me to the METAPHYSIS conference and for all their kindness and help through unforeseen difficulties with the presentation of my communication in Vienna. This study has immensely benefited from the constructive comments of Professor Bill Cavanagh. Of course, the responsibility for any omissions or mistakes in interpretation remains entirely with the author. 1 L.E. TALALAY, “Heady Business: Skulls, Heads, and Decapitation in Neolithic Anatolia and Greece,” JMA 17.2 (2004) 139. 2 For the most recent studies, TALALAY (supra no 1); J.S. SOLES, “Evidence for ancestor worship in Minoan Crete: new finds from Mochlos,” in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (2010) 331-338; J.S. SOLES, “The Goddess and the Ancestors,” BICS 55 (2012) 127-128; J. DRIESSEN, “The goddess and the skull: some observations on group identity in Prepalatial Crete,” in O. KRZYSZKOWSKA (ed.), Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (2010) 107-117. 3 Due to the restrictions imposed on the length of the present study, only a summary of the findings with few selected examples (mostly from the main palatial period) are presented here. A detailed analysis and discussion of the topic is included in my forthcoming monograph on the chamber tombs at Epidaurus Limera and the mortuary tradition in Mycenaean . 4 A.J.B. WACE, “Chamber tombs at Mycenae,” Archaeologia 82 (1932) 136ff. 5 W.G. CAVANAGH, Attic Burial Customs ca. 2000-700 BC (PhD thesis, University of London, 1977) 170- 177; W.G. CAVANAGH, “A Mycenaean Second Burial Custom?,” BICS 25 (1978) 171-172; W.G. CAVANAGH and C.B. MEE, A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece (1998) 76, 116; C. GALLOU, The Mycenaean Cult of the Dead (2005) 113-114. 406 Chrysanthi GALLOU deceased, with emphasis placed mostly either on the skull alone or on the skull and long bones.6 This post-funerary ceremony was not necessarily associated with the need for space for new burials, but was rather connected to the desire of the living community to get in actual physical contact with, curate and ritually interfere with the remains of the deceased, in the context of the integration of the individual dead into the ancestral corps.7 Charles was the first to attribute the perforations observed on two skulls from Argos to a post mortem rite in the context of a cult of the skull, following the decapitation of the body or the complete decomposition of the corpse.8 In 1977 Cavanagh called attention to “a few cases which suggest that the skull received special attention” [my emphasis] and urged for further examination of the question.9 Ritual interference with the skeletal remains, in particular the skull, has been found to be instrumental in the performance of the Mycenaean second funeral custom and ancestor worship.10 A brief analysis of the available evidence suggests that at the end of the appropriate rites of the second funeral custom, only the skull and/or the skull and the long bones and/or the disarticulated skeleton with or without the skull were re-deposited – either singly, in pairs/groups or in bone heaps, in a final resting place. Local and regional variations are attested in the (re)deposition of burial offerings. The following patterns of skull and disiecta membra re-deposition are usually attested in the Mycenaean mortuary record:  directly on the floor or the earth filling of the dromos. The re-deposition of the skull(s) with or without the rest of the disiecta membra directly on the floor of the passageway points to a local Argolic tradition, as in chamber tombs 505, 515, 519, 520, 517 and Verdelis’ Tomb  at Mycenae, I, IV and XIII at Prosymna and I:2 at Asine.11 Interestingly, two single skulls were placed cheek by jowl directly outside the entrance of tomb IV at Prosymna, with practically no trace of other skeletal remains or offerings.12  in pits-ossuaries in the dromos, e.g. tombs 514 and 517 at Mycenae.13  in niche(s)-ossuary(ies) in the dromos, e.g. tomb 2 at Alyki and tomb C at Stravokefalo-Trypes at Elis.14 In the latter case the unblocked niche was occupied by one skull surrounded only by its offerings and covered by a heap of stones.  in side-chamber(s) in the dromos. Instructive are the examples from Epidaurus Limera. Thus, in the side chamber of tomb 1 in the Vamvakia cluster a single skull was deposited next to the side-chamber’s entrance, with a small skyphos and a two-handled cup placed on its right side and a bronze dagger and four potsherds on its left. Similarly, the side chamber in tomb 6 in the Agia Triada cluster was exclusively reserved for the display of a skull furnished with a LH IIIC middle stirrup jar and a bronze dagger.  directly above the entrance of the tomb as in tombs 15, 24, 29 and 49 at Mycenae.15 The presence of

6 For proposed reconstructions of the various stages of the custom, see CAVANAGH 1978 (supra n. 5); GALLOU (supra n. 5) 113-114, 120. It should also be mentioned that selected individual or groups of “custodians”, in all probability professional mourners, priests or the elderly women of the community, would have been tasked with the ceremonial retrieval of the decomposed remains and the performance of the second funeral rites. No doubt, the disarticulation of the body indicates a certain degree of specialisation and knowledge. It would be interesting to examine whether such “skeleton dismemberment specialisation” might have provided these “specialists” any special social standing within the community. 7 CAVANAGH and MEE (supra n. 5) 116; GALLOU (supra n. 5) 113-114. 8 R.P. CHARLES, Étude anthropologique des nécropoles d’Argos (1963) 67ff. See, though, CAVANAGH 1977 (supra n. 5) 176 footnote 87. 9 CAVANAGH 1977 (supra n. 5) 176-177. 10 GALLOU (supra n. 5) 113-123. 11 GALLOU (supra n. 5) 114. 12 C.W. BLEGEN, Prosymna: the Helladic settlement preceding the Argive Heraeum (1937) 191, 235. 13 WACE (supra n. 4) 68. 14 I. PAPADIMITRIOU, +" %ï"&4 *1,&! #+"3( #+,1( (1954) 77; S. PAPADOPOULOS, Mycenaean chamber tombs: construction and burial customs (unpublished PhD thesis, University of London, 1975) 381. 15 C. TSOUNTAS, “   $ !   # ,” AE (1888) 142, 148, 154. MYCENAEAN SKULLS IN LATE HELLADIC METAPHYSICS AND SOCIETY? 407 bovid bones and horns alongside the skulls and disarticulated remains of six individuals above the entrance of tomb 15 may provide further valuable information on the conduct of the associated post- funerary rites.  directly on the floor or in the fill of the chamber. This is a widespread pattern attested in a large number of cemeteries throughout the Mycenaean world. Preference is frequently shown towards the positioning of the skull either in the middle of disarticulated remains or on the top of a bone heap, or towards the neat deposition of the disiecta membra beside the skull, with or without offerings. There are also occasions where the skulls are separated from the rest of the skeletal remains and re-deposited singly, in pairs or in groups with other skulls. For example, a cranium was placed to the east side wall of chamber tomb 7 in the Agia Triada cluster at Epidaurus Limera, accompanied by two inverted vases [the type(s) of the vases were not recorded in the excavation logbook], one on each side of the skull. In the centre of the chamber another cranium was placed directly on the floor surrounded by a LH IIIC middle clay ladle and fragments of large vessels (yet unidentified in the storerooms of the Archaeological Museum at Sparta). 16 Two more skulls were re-deposited directly on the floor furnished with two steatite whorls and two carnelian beads respectively. The discovery of the whorls and the beads may suggest that the skulls were wrapped in cloth or a shroud at the time of their re- deposition in their final resting place. This may be further corroborated by the discovery of one terracotta spindle whorl near the cheek of a skull in tomb 521 at Mycenae.17 In the upper fill of the main chamber of chamber tomb 1 in the Vamvakia cluster at Epidaurus Limera three skulls furnished with few potsherds were retained and displayed.18 At a depth of 0.10m below the three skulls a fragmentary LH IIIA1 jug and fragments of several other (unidentified) vases were deposited. It is likely that the jug and the potsherds were deliberately placed there, then covered by a layer of earth and topped with the skulls. A similar arrangement as in the side chamber of tomb 7 has been noticed in chamber tomb 5 in the Palaiokastro cluster in which case a skull lay directly on the floor, in the centre of the main burial chamber, furnished with a bronze dagger and three intact vases (no further information on the vase types was included in the excavation report). Similar examples have been identified in Messenian funerary contexts. For example, on the floor of Koroniou tomb 2 at Volimidia a series of disarticulated burials was uncovered with the skulls separated and placed around the periphery of the chamber.19 Many isolated skulls were found on the floor of tomb 5 at Kephalovryso at the same site furnished with few Early Mycenaean vases.20 Of particular interest is one group that consisted of one skull beside which lay two whetstones, five boars’ tusks (not sliced for use in helmets) and a simple serpentine axe head.21  in pits/cists-ossuaries in the chamber, e.g. tomb XXIX at Prosymna, tombs I and II at Berbati, tomb III at Mycenae: Gortsoulia, pit 3 in Vorias tomb 3 at Volimidia.22 Interestingly, a cist in the so- called Royal Tomb at Megalo Kastelli in Thebes contained only a single skull furnished with an ivory pyxis of magnificent craftsmanship.23  in niches in the chamber as, for example, the niche that contained a skull furnished with a simple, undecorated vase in tomb 27 at Mycenae and the five skulls in the niches of Voria tomb 4 at

16 The burials and the associated offerings from the site are fully presented in my forthcoming monograph on the Mycenaean chambers tombs at Epidaurus Limera and the Mycenaean burial tradition in Laconia. 17 WACE (supra n. 4) 28. Also, for the suggestion of the use of cloth or shrouds for the wrapping of the disiecta membra, GALLOU (supra n. 5) 120. 18 Note also the re-deposition and display of a skull in the tomb’s side chamber. 19 Sp. MARINATOS, “   $  & ,” PAE (1952) 475. 20 Sp. MARINATOS, “   $  & ,” PAE (1965) 104. 21 MARINATOS (supra n. 20) 104-105. The axe head was probably a heirloom. 22 BLEGEN (supra n. 12) 84-85; G. SÄFLUND, Excavations at Berbati 1936-1937 (1965) 19-22, 29-31; K.S. SHELTON, “Four chamber tomb cemeteries at Mycenae,” AE 139 (2000) 38; Sp. MARINATOS, “   $  & ,” PAE (1954) 301. 23 Th. SPYROPOULOS, “ $ - ',” AD 27 Chr. (1973) 310. 408 Chrysanthi GALLOU

Volimidia.24 The re-deposition of skulls alongside primary burials is also attested, as in the niche of tomb 5 at the Theban Ismenion.25  on benches in the chamber, e.g. the skulls of at least two adult burials lay on a bench in chamber tomb 3 at the Ismenion cemetery at Thebes, accompanied by burial gifts.26  in low stone enclosures in the dromos or in the chamber, e.g. in the dromos of tomb 7 at Tiryns, in the chamber of tomb 517 at Mycenae and of tomb 7 in the Agia Triada cluster at Epidaurus Limera.27  in terracotta sarcophagi. This pattern is attested so far only at Tanagra.28 In particular, four skulls were meticulously arranged at the bottom of a larnax in tomb 115 (one of the wealthiest tombs in the cemetery) accompanied by other skeletal remains, figurines and an askos.29 This custom is reminiscent of the Minoan practice of the re-deposition of skulls in earlier Minoan clay larnakes. 30 The eschatological importance attached to the skull by the Tanagran community may be also reflected by the presence of several goat skulls in the tombs at the site.31 Occasionally, excavators have reported the discovery of heaps of disarticulated remains without any other trace of the associated skulls as, for example, in chamber tomb I at Berbati, in the dromos and the chamber of Tomb XIII at Prosymna and tomb 1 at Mycenae: Palaeogalaro East (Kapsala).32 In some other cases, archaeologists have suggested that the low number of assembled disiecta membra in bone pits as well as the fact that many skeletons lacked their long bones and skulls, e.g. at Perati33, may be the result of irreverent discard outside the chamber. Alternatively, however, this lack may well be explained by the fact that skulls and long bones were assembled and subsequently selectively removed and ritually re-deposited elsewhere. Even more intriguing are the cases where complete removal of the skull was carried out while the rest of the skeleton was left in an orderly position in the original burial position with its burial furnishings in situ. Occurrences of headless skeletons are attested since the Early Mycenaean period; instructive examples of the practice have been excavated, among others, in tholos tomb 5 at Kaminia, tholos tomb 10 and the tholos at Polla Dendra at Koukounara, and possibly tomb 532 at Mycenae.34 Occasionally, child burials had also their skulls ceremoniously removed. Thus, the cranium of the penultimate burial, that of a child of ten years or less, in the chamber of tomb XLII at Prosymna was detached from the rest of the body and re-deposited nearby furnished with a one-

24 TSOUNTAS (supra n. 15), 147; MARINATOS (supra n. 22) 302. 25 A.D. KERAMOPOULLOS, “   $  # ,” AD 3 (1917) 95. 26 KERAMOPOULLOS (supra n. 25). 27 CAVANAGH and MEE (supra n. 5) 72; WACE (supra n. 4) 69, 137, fig. 17. 28 The content of the terracotta larnax from the chamber tomb at Vraserka in the Argolid was heavily disturbed to allow any comparisons (cf. K. DEMAKOPOULOU, “#   # !  %   "  $ ,” in !# 4% . 5$&( !$ *!"5( ! *&% "  *3 . #1*.% [1987] 70-71). 29 According to the excavator, the larnax was used as an ossuary in the same way as other clay sarcophagi elsewhere in the cemetery (Th. SPYROPOULOS, “  #  ï# !  ,” PAE [1979] 35). 30 Note though, the plausible objections already expressed against the alleged Minoanising character of the Tanagra sarcophagi; cf. DEMAKOPOULOU (supra n. 28). 31 It would be plausible to suggest that the goat skulls and the depiction of what appears to be a ceremonial hunt and/or goat sacrifice on a larnax from tomb 22 could be identified as evidence of post-funerary rites and ancestor worship at the site (GALLOU [supra n. 5] 99-100). For the importance of hunting imagery in prehistoric Greece and elsewhere, see B. BURKE, “Mycenaean Memory and Bronze Age Lament,” in A. SUTTER (ed.), Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond (2008) 72. 32 SÄFLUND (supra n. 22) 19-22; BLEGEN (supra n. 12) 193-194; Sp. MARINATOS, “   $ &,” PAE (1961) 170. The example from Mycenae involves a child burial whose complete removal of the skull has been attributed simply to “disturbance” (SHELTON [supra n. 22] 45). 33 Sp. IAKOVIDES, '*3, *& "'&*,4&% Vol. B (1970) 70ff. 34 For descriptions and further references, see M.J. BOYD, Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Mortuary Practices in the Southern and Western (2002) 111, 118; BLEGEN (supra n. 12) 194, 195. The excavator was not “able to explain this peculiar state of affairs” at Prosymna (BLEGEN op.cit. 194); WACE (supra n. 4) 110. MYCENAEAN SKULLS IN LATE HELLADIC METAPHYSICS AND SOCIETY? 409 handled shallow cup and part of a miniature alabastron.35 The skull of child burial Beta 19 at Agios Stephanos was removed and was replaced by the lower half of a positioned upright; there is no evidence for the relocation of the cranium elsewhere in the grave or its surroundings; a jaw bone was found just to the north of the pithos. The pithos was filled with a schist slab, a polisher and human skeletal remains namely an arm bone and part of a pelvis that presumably belonged to the child.36 Intriguing is the ritual association of human skulls with animal skulls or with headless animal carcases in post-funerary contexts. For example, shaft grave 8 at Deiras was found to contain two human skulls furnished with a LH IIIA2-B jug and a headless horse skeleton, pit 2 in the tholos tomb at Dendra contained the skull of a dog along with human bones, in the tholos tomb at Polla Dendra at Koukounara a headless skeleton was unearthed partially covered with a slab upon which the skull of a dog had been deposited, in tomb I:1 at Asine a dog skull was placed on a bench in the middle of the chamber, “the skulls of a dog, a pig and a horse(?)” accompanied the remains of two disarticulated(?) skeletons in the dromos of tomb 505 at Mycenae, whereas goat skulls alongside disiecta membra have been reported from in several chamber tombs at Tanagra.37 Collective post-funerary rituals such as the second funeral rites and skull caching or removal would have - on occasions - entailed large-scale cleaning of the tombs and complete removal of all primary burials and of disiecta membra from the burial chamber as, for example, at Prosymna, Mycenae and other cemeteries in the Argolid where no skeletons have been found in situ.38 Several tombs had been used exclusively as ossuaries, e.g. grave X in tumulus 2 at Samikon, tomb 5 at Galatas: Apatheia and at Tzanatta. There are also cases where tombs have been excavated with the stomion packing and the burial gifts in situ but entirely empty of skeletal remains, e.g. the tholos tomb at Kokla, the Tomb with the Ivory Pyxides (Tomb 1) in the Athenian Agora, tomb 2 at Dendra, tomb 528 at Mycenae, tombs II and II at Mycenae: Kapsala, tomb M.T. 23 and Charitonidis’s pit-cave at Nauplion, tomb XX III in the Deiras at Argos, tomb XLVII at Prosymna and tomb 56 at Tanagra.39

Discussion and Concluding Remarks

The present analysis suggests that Mycenaean communities had adopted varying attitudes towards the ceremonial treatment of the skull, not always independently of localised eschatological and cultural perceptions. The gold masks that covered the faces of some of the elite members buried in Grave Circle A at Mycenae could be taken as clear indication of the importance attached to the head by the Mycenaeans.40 However, the significance attached to the skull in prehistoric Aegean ritual dates

35 BLEGEN (supra n. 12) 149-150. 36 W.D. TAYLOUR, “Excavations at Ayios Stephanos,” BSA 67 (1972) 235; W.D. TAYLOUR and R. JANKO, “The Bronze Age burials,” in W.D. TAYLOUR and R. JANKO (eds), Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval settlement in southern Laconia (2008) 127. 37 J. DESHAYES, Argos. Les fouilles de la Deiras (1966) 69-70; A.W. PERSSON, The royal tombs at Dendra near Midea (1931) 69; MARINATOS (supra n. 32) 174; O. FRÖDIN and A.W. PERSSON, Asine. Results of the Swedish excavations 1922-1930 (1938) 358; WACE (supra n. 4) 116; BOYD (supra n. 32) 111; Th. SPYROPOULOS, “  #  ï# !  ,” PAE (1974) 22; GALLOU (supra n. 5) 103-104. 38 CAVANAGH 1978 (supra n. 5); CAVANAGH and MEE (supra n. 5) 72; B. WELLS, “Death at Dendra: On mortuary practices in a Mycenaean community,” in R. HÄGG and G.C. NORDQUIST (eds), Celebrations of death and divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid (1990) 135-136. 39 GALLOU (supra n. 5) 115-116 for a description of the tombs and their contents. 40 Cf. R. LAFFINEUR, “For a cosmology of the Aegean Bronze Age,” in KOSMOS, 12. Interestingly, death masks covered the faces not only of selected adult elite members but also of their offspring. One may not also exclude the possible use of death masks made of some other perishable material such as leather, in contemporary and later funerary contexts (for recent relevant work, see L. PAPAZOGLOU- MANIOUDAKI, A. NAFPLIOTI, J.H. MUSGRAVE and A.J.N.W. PRAG, “Mycenae Revisited, Part 3. The Human Remains from Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Behind the Masks: A Study of the Bones of Study Graves I-V,” BSA 105 (2010) 157-224; O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, L. PAPAZOGLOU- MANIOUDAKI, A. NAFPLIOTI and A.J.N.W. PRAG, “Mycenae revisited, Part 4: Assessing the new 410 Chrysanthi GALLOU as early as the Mesolithic period as suggested by corresponding evidence from the Franchthi cave.41 Skulls were removed and ceremoniously re-deposited in several Neolithic mortuary contexts including in domestic spaces and cave sites.42 Noteworthy is the neat arrangement of skulls in Ossuary II in the Alepotrypa Cave; all fourteen skulls were positioned upright, one next to the other. Two of the crania were encircled by stones whereas another one was re-deposited inside the wide base of a plain polished container.43 During the Early Bronze Age the second funeral custom became more widespread with preferential care shown for the retention, re-deposition and/or display either exclusively of the skull and/or of the skull and long bones, e.g. graves 2, 6, 10 and 36 at Marathon Tsepi.44 Skulls were relocated and displayed in family graves and in ossuaries. 45 Complete removal of the skull is occasionally attested, e.g. in grave 3 at Tsepi Marathon where beneath a layer with skeletons in complete disorder, two articulated skeletons were uncovered in situ but with both skulls removed.46 The skull preserved its eschatological meaning in Middle Helladic post-funerary practices and rites, especially during the later phase of the period when multiple burial became the preferred mode of interment again.47 Available evidence suggests that care was taken for the respectful deposition and display of skulls on grave covers or paving slabs at Agios Stephanos, grave 23 at Eutresis and grave II in Tumulus  at Argos.48

data,” BSA 107 (2012) 161-188. This may also offer an additional explanation to the occurrence of pins, “buttons”, beads and lead wire in association with the skull in addition to their use as attachments to the shroud and/or as headdress accessories. Note also the electrum funerary mask which furnished a male burial in Shaft Grave Gamma in Grave Circle B at Mycenae (G.E. MYLONAS, O *,!"5( 6"#&(  *.% +" %7% [1973] 47, 76, 339-340, pl. 60 ). 41 T. CULLEN, “Scattered Human Bones at Franchthi Cave: Remnants of Ritual or Refuse?,” in MELETEMATA, 168. For an analysis of the evidence from Mesolithic and Neolithic post-funerary contexts in the Aegean, see TALALAY (supra n. 1) 139-163. 42 According to Talalay’s analysis, the preferential selection of the skull in these contexts may be associated with enchainment practices rather than with acts of violence (TALALAY [supra n. 1] 140). Briefly mentioned here are the re-deposition of eleven human skulls (from which the mandibles were probably deliberately separated) beneath one of the houses in the EN settlement at Prodromos in western Thessaly and the evidence from cave sites such as Alepotrypa in Laconia, Skoteini Tharrounia on Euboea (child burial) and Kalythies on Rhodes [for descriptions and further references, see CAVANAGH and MEE (supra n. 5) 9-10; TALALAY (supra n. 1); E. STRAVOPODI, “"    & &   !   #   % ,” in A. SAMPSON (ed.), #&'5'+) . 0%( &!"!)$5( * ( '7!$ ( "! 2) ( -#"&"'*4( )* 6## * ( 6&!( (1993) 161-162; . GEORGIADIS, “Child Burials in Mesolithic and Neolithic Southern Greece: A Synthesis,” Childhood in the Past: An International Journal 4.1 (2011) 37. 43 Personal communication with Dr Stella Katsarou-Tzeveleki. According to the reconstruction of the post- funerary ritual performed at the site, the deceased had been exposed or temporarily buried in some other location, and then transported to the cave for re-burial. Cranial bones represent at least twice the number of individuals than postcranial remains, and all skulls lacked mandibles. It appears, therefore, that preference was given to the careful and purposeful re-deposition of skulls (CAVANAGH and MEE [supra n. 5] 120; A. PAPATHANASIOU, “Mortuary behaviour in Alepotrypa Cave: assessments from the study of the human osteological material”, in W.G. CAVANAGH, C. GALLOU and M. GEORGIADIS (eds), Sparta and Laconia: From Prehistory to Pre-Modern [2009] 23). 44 M. PANTELIDOU GKOFA, )2 ! ' 7%&(. & '.*&##!"5 %"'&*,4& (2005) 31, 61, 81-82. 45 EBA ossuaries have been excavated at Pavlopetri, Zygouries, Vouliagmeni and Avlonari, to mention but a few; CAVANAGH and MEE (supra n. 5) 18ff; GALLOU (supra n. 5) 113; C. GALLOU and J. HENDERSON, “Pavlopetri, an Early Bronze Age harbour town in south-east Laconia,” in C. MEE and M. PRENT (eds), Early Helladic Laconia (Pharos XVIII.I, 2011-2012) 86; E. ZAVVOU, “Early Helladic Laconia after the time of H. Waterhouse and R. Hope Simpson”, in C. MEE and M. PRENT (eds), Early Helladic Laconia (Pharos XVIII.I, 2011-2012) 23. 46 PANTELIDOU GKOFA (supra n. 44) 38. 47 CAVANAGH and Mee (supra n. 5) 116. 48 TAYLOUR and JANKO (supra n. 36) 142; H. GOLDMAN, Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia (1931) 226; E. PROTONOTARIOU-DEILAKI, ! *6$&! *&+ /'&+( (1980) 33. MYCENAEAN SKULLS IN LATE HELLADIC METAPHYSICS AND SOCIETY? 411

If “the archaeological remains of the body are the culmination of rites of passage which serve to separate the dead from the living and install them within another dimension of human understanding”49, then the manipulation and arrangement of the disiecta membra, in particular of the detached skull, in Late Helladic tombs could reveal a great deal about the Mycenaean deferential attitude towards death. The contextual evaluation of the available evidence suggests that the dead enjoyed a privileged position within the cosmological and eschatological beliefs of the Mycenaean communities 50 , and may shed light on past attitudes and understandings including cultural constitution, e.g. “we” as distinct from the “other”. Thus, although local communities often aimed at presenting themselves as part of a Mycenaean cultural koine, at the same time they declared their cultural distinctiveness via the adoption of varying patterns of ritual expression; the ceremonial handling and manipulation of ancestral remains was adopted as a universal eschatological idea and practice, but differentiation in matters of detail is evident, e.g. in the use of benches, pits, cists, niches or side chambers as bone repositories, in the choice of various depositional patterns for the skull either in relation to other skulls or to the rest of the disiecta membra (singled out, in pairs, in rows, in the middle or on top of assembled long bones or accumulated skeletal remains) or in relation to the burial facility (such as relocation in or outside the main chamber, in auxiliary spaces, or on top of the entrance).51 As Talalay has correctly pointed out, “deciding how to curate the crania, where to house them, whether to situate them in groups, pairs, or singly helps (re)define the skulls’ roles, allowing them to mediate between the living and the dead”.52 The choice and relocation of burial furnishings may also reflect local and regional patterns and customs. In the majority of cases, the burial offerings that originally accompanied the primary burial, were re-assembled and were either relocated alongside the disarticulated remains, or were placed separately in annexe spaces within or outside the burial chamber, or were symmetrically arranged in carefully selected areas of the chamber or the dromos (e.g. by the rear wall of the chamber, on either side of the entrance, etc.), or reused or broken in the dromos, or discarded altogether. Ritual destruction is also attested.53 A preference is also shown towards the deposition of alabastra, drinking vases (mostly cups) serving (mostly jugs and bowls) and storing vessels (amphorae). These vases might have been used during the second funeral rites for the ritual treatment (cleansing and anointing) of the skeletal remains, for the customary purification, toasting, drinking and libation rites, and for the practical use of those performing the rites. Their symbolic deposition may also reflect Late Helladic eschatological beliefs, in particular the identification of the ancestors with the semi-divine class of the dipsioi.54 Beads, “buttons”, pins and lead wire might have been used as attachment and adornment accessories for the cloth or shroud used for the handling, cleaning and wrapping of the disarticulated remains. The (re)deposition of daggers, rapiers or tools with skulls might have been carried out in remembrance or in honour of the hunting and warrior status or of the profession of the skull’s owner during their lifetime. Of note is the furnishing of crania and disiecta membra with inverted vessels (mainly cups, alabastra, bowls and squat jugs) as in chamber tomb 7 (as many as seven vases) in the Agia Triada cluster at Epidaurus Limera and chamber tomb 5 at Peristeri, both in Laconia. 55 A similar

49 . PARKER PEARSON, The Archaeology of Death and Burial (1999) 71. 50 GALLOU (supra n. 5) 119. 51 Ibid. 52 TALALAY (supra n. 1) 156. 53 GALLOU (supra n. 5) 122-123. 54 GALLOU (supra n. 5) 97-98. 55 Interestingly, the practice is also reminiscent of burial Alpha10 at Agios Stephanos where the neck of an amphora (of unspecified type, most probably of Mycenaean date) was placed inverted by the ankles of an adult primary burial (TAYLOUR [supra n. 36] 211). A large palatial jar was placed upside down on the covering slabs of pit 2 in tholos 2 at Routsi, which had initially been use for the relocation of three or four disarticulated burials; on top a later burial was laid whose lower half was disarticulated (along with the burial offerings) at some stage but its upper half was oddly left intact (M.J. BOYD, “The materiality of 412 Chrysanthi GALLOU arrangement is attested in prepalatial and protopalatial contexts in Crete, in particular primary burials, with relocated skulls during the secondary treatment of the deceased, and on tomb altars and/or on the ground in rooms and/or courtyards of some cemeteries.56 Researchers have suggested that vessels (mainly cups, plates and bowls) were inverted as “to fix the liquid offering directly into the earth” or for toasting ceremonies57 on the occasion of rituals connected with the secondary treatment of the skeletons removed from the burial rooms58, or as votive offerings, possibly containing token food or liquids.59 Caloi has recently interpreted these inverted vases as “offerings devoted to the ancestors of the community, rather than secondary offerings dedicated to an individual identity, and to represent the results of drink consumption performed in honour of ancestors” in different and several stages of the secondary treatment of the skulls60; such symbolic offerings would have aimed at “honouring and … gaining favour with ancestors, in order to obtain continuity and prosperity for the community burying and living in the same territory of its ancestors”.61 There is reason to suggest that a similar purpose might have been fulfilled by the deposition of inverted vases along retained skulls and disiecta membra in Mycenaean tombs. The final resting place of the retained skulls would have carried symbolic connotations too, e.g. the prominent positioning and display of skulls on benches or on slabs, in niches above the entrance or in side chambers in the dromos of the tomb, in the centre of the chamber or near the entrance, encircled by rows of stones or on top of bone piles. In such cases, selected skulls might have served as ancestral attention-focusing devices to which rituals (libation or offering rites) might have been addressed. Any further analysis of this desire for “skull display” on the part of the living community, would benefit from more specific information in excavation reports and recordings on the exact positioning and direction of the retained and displayed skulls. Symbolic meanings might also have been conveyed by the rearrangement of skulls in an odd upside down position as in the case of skull no viii on the floor of the chamber of tomb 533 at Mycenae. Could this be interpreted as an apotropaic act or maybe as evidence that the skull might have served as a receptacle for liquid offerings during post-funerary rites associated with fertility and ancestor worship? Corroborating evidence for the above may be sought in the association of human skulls with animal skulls or headless animal carcases (dog, goat, horse, pig) in post-funerary contexts. Thus, although such occurrences have been traditionally connected with sacrificial rituals at the time of the burial or as representing the hunting ethos in Mycenaean society62, it appears that they may have had

performance in Mycenaean funerary practices,” World Archaeology 46.2 [2014] 199). For the chamber tomb 5 at Peristeri, see A. THEMOS, “ '    $ ,” in Acts of the 7th International Congress of Peloponnesian Studies Vol. B (2007) 460-461; oddly, Themos does not mention the inverted vases that accompanied the secondary burial in the report despite the fact that they are illustrated in fig. 7. 56 I. CALOI, “Minoan inverted vases in funerary contexts: offerings to dead or to ancestors?,” ASAtene 89 (2011) 142-143. 57 C. MAGGIDIS, Burial Building 19 at : a study of Prepalatial and early Protopalatial funerary architecture and ritual (PhD Diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1994) 86-88. 58 CALOI (supra n. 56) 139. 59 Y. PAPADATOS, Tholos Tomb Gamma: A prepalatial tholos at Phourni, Archanes (2005) 60; D. LEVI, “La tomba a tholos di Kamilari presso a Festòs,” ASAtene 39-40 (1963) 80. 60 CALOI (supra n. 56) 143. 61 CALOI (supra n. 56) 144. 62 An indication of the association of dogs with Mycenaean libation rituals may be provided by the LH IIIB clay dog-headed rhyton, allegedly from Tiryns, now in the Ashmolean Museum (cf. Y. GALANAKIS, The Aegean World: A Guide to the Cycladic, Minoan and Mycenaean Antiquities in the Ashmolean Museum [2013] 67, pl. 118). For a discussion on the deposition of dog bodies in Mycenaean tombs, Y. HAMILAKIS, “A Footnote on the Archaeology of Power: Animal Bones from a Mycenaean Chamber Tomb at Galatas, NE Peloponnese,” BSA 91 (1996) 153-166. For dog burials, dog-meat consumption and the meaning of the practices in ancient Greece, see L. PRESTON DAY, “Dog Burials in the Greek World,” AJA 88.1 (1984) 21-32 and J. ROY, “The consumption of dog-meat in classical Greece,” in C. MEE and J. RENARD (eds), Cooking up the Past: Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean (2007) 342- MYCENAEAN SKULLS IN LATE HELLADIC METAPHYSICS AND SOCIETY? 413 a more profound metaphysical meaning in the context of the second funeral rites, more specifically their association with purification rites, communication with the underworld and the ancestors, and/or fertility magic. Collective post-funerary rituals such as the second funeral rites, skull caching or removal would have served as powerful social regulators in Mycenaean communities, intended to preserve community cohesion and periodically reaffirm social identities and ancestral bonds63; “secondary mortuary rituals are often part of high-profile public ceremonies and can therefore be viewed as spiritual and symbolic acts that have social, political and personal meanings … multistage secondary mortuary practices are planned in advance, are intergenerational, involve multiple households, and require extraordinary community involvement”. 64 For Goldstein and Schroeder, secondary burial often asserts group associations rather than individual ties and is manipulated to characterise and maintain the group.65 Mycenaean post-funerary ceremonial practices such as large-scale re-opening and cleaning of tombs, setting up new repositories for the relocation of the ancestral relics, collection and reverential handling of the disiecta membra, re-deposition of the relics from family graves to communal ossuaries (constructed for a group by a group), and the performance of commemorative ceremonies in honour of the ancestors, were meaningful, part of well-organised strategies that would have extended beyond family limits and would have involved the entire living community. It is within this ongoing engagement with the ancestral relics that the second funeral custom is often manipulated to characterise and maintain genealogy, descent, ancestry and remembrance.66 During the performance of the associated rites, “participants literally and symbolically dismember and memorialize people”.67 The ceremonial manipulation and retention of skulls and long bones is often “a means of material representation” which transforms “the inert dead into viable ancestral beings”68; no- one becomes an ancestor just by dying.69 In Mycenaean society, the transformation of the individual dead into ancestors might have been achieved in stages roughly outlined as follows; first, the breaking and de-emphasising of the individuality of the human form through the dismemberment of the skeleton and the detachment of the skull, and then the de-contextualisation of the skull (with or without the rest of the skeletal remains) from its own singular context (i.e. the place of its deposition at the time of the burial) and its integration into specially reserved spaces within the tomb or in the dromos or in tombs-communal ossuaries, either singly or paired/grouped with other skulls (and/or other disiecta membra).70 At the time of the primary burial and during the transition stage, the body was most probably viewed as an object or a human formerly associated with a particular individual or household; it was, however, during the re-aggregation stage and the associated set of ritual actions and eschatological beliefs that the transformation of the individual dead into a meaningful ancestral collectivity was achieved. In societies characterised by strong patrilineal principles of descent like the Mycenaeans, ancestors possess an elevated status; they are considered spiritual entities linked to

353. 63 Cf. TALALAY (supra n. 1) 153. 64 I. KUIJT, “The Regeneration of Life: Neolithic Structures of Symbolic Remembering and Forgetting,” Current Anthropology 49.2 (2008) 175. 65 L. GOLDSTEIN, “Mississippian ritual as viewed through the practice of secondary disposal of the dead,” in St.R. AHLER (ed.), Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in honor of Melvin L. Fowler (2000) 193-205; S. SCHROEDER, “Secondary disposal of the dead: Cross(cultural codes,” World Cultures 12.1 (2001) 79-93. 66 In the case of forgetting, the lethe may act as the means of re-organisation of sociability and social relations and of the establishment and reconstruction of the identity of the living members of the community (G. HOLST-WARHAFT, Dangerous Voices. Women’s Laments and Greek Literature [1992]; PARKER PEARSON [supra n. 49] 26). See also KUIJT (supra n. 64) 186. 67 KUIJT (supra n. 64) 175. 68 M. HELMS, Access to origins: Affines, ancestors, and aristocrats (1998) 50; M. FORTES, “An Introductory Commentary,” in W.H. NEWELL (ed.), Ancestors (1976) 7. 69 FORTES (supra n. 68) 7. 70 According to Hertz, “it is only when this process is completed that the society, its peace recovered, can triumph over death” (R. HERTZ, Death and the Right Hand [1960] 86). 414 Chrysanthi GALLOU present generations through lineage and ancestry and projecting them into the future, capable to provide benevolence and mediation for the whole community. The spectacle and the realities created through the second funeral rites and the manipulation of the skull would have created the ideal setting not just for the dead to be brought again into the orbit of the living in a spiritual capacity but, more importantly, for the re-negotiation and re-ordering of kinship and community ties and identities, linked to the specifics of genealogy, descent and ancestry in Mycenaean ideology. In this “theatre” of values, traditions and eschatological beliefs, Mycenaean ancestors (and the “manipulated” skull) would have been the protagonists in the (re)production of social relationships, the creation (or even invention) of memory and identity, and reaffirmation in the world of the living in a metaphysical sense - for the Mycenaeans the skull was a lot more than a place to keep their brains in.

Chrysanthi GALLOU