An Examination of the Funerary Offerings Placed in Mycenaean Chamber Tombs During the Palatial and Postpalatial Periods in the Aegean

Home , Chamber tomb, Dendra

AN EXAMINATION OF THE FUNERARY OFFERINGS PLACED IN MYCENAEAN CHAMBER TOMBS DURING THE PALATIAL AND POSTPALATIAL PERIODS IN THE AEGEAN

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program

May 2014

Abstract

AN EXAMINATION OF THE FUNERARY OFFERINGS PLACED IN MYCENAEAN CHAMBER TOMBS DURING THE PALATIAL AND POSTPALATIAL PERIODS IN THE AEGEAN

Christa Falconer

Mortuary remains comprise a large part of the archaeological record for the Late

Bronze Age in the Aegean. By the Palatial period, chamber tombs became the most common burial type on the Mycenaean Mainland, with their popularity continuing into the Postpalatial period. In addition, a single chamber tomb could be reused for as many as ten generations, resulting in large collections of burials and offerings. On account of the prolific use and reuse of chamber tombs, they provide an abundance of data for studying the mortuary rituals performed by the Mycenaeans during the Palatial and Postpalatial periods. The purpose of this study is three fold: to test the theory that the Mycenaean palatial systems influenced the types of offerings placed in the chamber tombs; to assess the validity of previously stated claims that the offerings placed in the chamber tombs represent funerary rituals, and if so, what type(s) of rituals?; and to establish whether

Mycenaean mortuary archaeology is sufficiently well recorded to support a meaningful analysis of variation in funerary depositional patterning. The results of this study provide insight into the nature of the Mycenaean mortuary rituals for chamber tombs.

Keywords: Mycenaean, Ancient Aegean, Mycenaean Mainland, Palatial Systems,

Palatial Period, Postpalatial Period, Late Helladic IIIA-C, Late Bronze Age, Chamber

Tombs, Mortuary Rituals, Funerary Offerings, Social Structure, Correspondence

Analysis.

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to Cindy Ellen Morgan, Margaret Morgan, and in memory of William “Bill” Morgan (1925-2012).

Words cannot express both the love and gratitude that I feel, so this dedication will have to do.

“Why did you do all this for me?” he asked. “I don’t deserve it. I’ve never done anything for you.” “You have been my friend,” replied Charlotte. “That in itself is a tremendous thing” ~ E. B. White (1899-1985), Charlotte’s Web

“It is not so much our friends' help that helps us, as the confidence of their help.” ~ Epicurus (341-270 B.C.E.)

iii

Acknowledgements

This research brought with it a series of challenges that would not have been overcome without the assistance and support of others. First, I want to thank my supervisor, Dr. Rodney D. Fitzsimons, for his support and patience throughout this process, and for providing valuable feedback on the finished product. In addition, I would like to thank the members of my committee: Dr. James Conolly, for helping me run my statistics, and offering valuable advice and suggestions, Dr. Jocelyn Williams, for her excellent advice and suggestions regarding mortuary archaeology, and Dr. Angus Smith, for acting as my external examiner and providing great feedback. I would also like to thank SSHRC for their generous scholarship and Trent Graduate Studies for the scholarship and bursaries. My research would not have been possible without all of your contributions.

I would also like to take this time to thank a few other people who helped me along the way: Cindy Ellen Morgan, for her unwavering support, generosity, and kindness, which allowed me to stay focused and determined, and for rat cuddles; Mike

Donison, for helping me with “technological errors” (a.k.a. PIBAK – Problem Is Between the Chair And Keyboard), for his advice and moral support, and for simply putting up with me during this process; Kristen Csenkey, for Publican House growlers, cheap barbeque chips, and Disney movies as a means to de-stress, and playing “Pooh sticks” on the London Street bridge; Baisel Collings, for board game nights, drunken D&D, and letting me vent my frustrations over many pints; Kathy Axcell, for her thoughtfulness and for putting me to work over the summer; Kristine Williams, for her wonderful advice and

iv understanding; and finally, my edit minions (Mike Donison, Cindy Ellen Morgan, Robert

Makinson, and Jenn Rocque), for giving me valuable feedback on my thesis;

Thank you for your continual support. I could not have done this without all of you.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iii

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Figures ...... ix

List of Tables ...... xiii

List of Maps ...... xiv

Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1 Research Goals...... 2 Parameters and Definitions ...... 3 Geographical Parameters ...... 4 Chronological Parameters ...... 5 Definitions...... 7 Thesis Outline ...... 11

Chapter Two: The Nature of the Mycenaean Palaces ...... 14 The Role of Exchange ...... 14 The Late Helladic IIIA:1 Period ...... 17 Building Activity ...... 18 Socio-political Change ...... 19 The Late Helladic IIIA:2-IIIB Period ...... 20 Building Activity ...... 21 The Linear B Tablets ...... 22 The Palatial Workshops ...... 25 The Wanax ...... 27 The Palatial Systems ...... 28 Palatial Economies and Political Power ...... 30 Collapse of the Mycenaean Palatial Systems...... 32 The Late Helladic IIIC Period ...... 33 Building Activity………………………………………………………...33 Social Changes ...... 35 Exchange Networks ...... 36 Summary ...... 38

Chapter Three: Theoretical Approaches in Mortuary Archaeology and the Interpretation of Mycenaean Mortuary Remains ...... 39 Theoretical Approaches ...... 39

New Archaeology ...... 40 The Late Helladic I-II Periods ...... 45 Burial Types ...... 45 Multiple Burials ...... 49 Prestige Items ...... 49 Access to Burial Types ...... 50 The Late Helladic IIIA-B Periods ...... 51 Burial Types ...... 51 Multiple Burials ...... 53 Prestige Items ...... 54 Access to Burial Types ...... 55 The Late Helladic IIIC Period ...... 56 Burial Types ...... 57 Multiple Burials ...... 58 Prestige Items ...... 59 Access to Burial Types ...... 60 Status, Wealth, and Prestige and the Importance of Ritual...... 61 The Current Study ...... 64 Summary ...... 64

Chapter Four: Method: Correspondence Analysis and Chi Square Tests ...... 66 The Development of Correspondence Analysis ...... 66 Correspondence Analysis...... 69 The Use of CA for Chronology/Seriation ...... 70 The Use of CA for Chorology ...... 73 The Use of CA for Social Analysis...... 74 Case Studies ...... 75 Late Stone Age Houses near Iversfjord in Finmark, Arctic Norway ...... 76 Early Medieval Period Graves from Gotland, Sweden ...... 77 Frontier Military Post at Fort Snelling, Minnesota ...... 78 Advantages of Using CA on Archaeological Material ...... 80 Chi Square Tests ...... 82 Summary ...... 84

Chapter Five: Methodology and Data Description ...... 86 Data Selection ...... 86 Problems and Solutions...... 87 The Cemeteries ...... 89 Mycenae ...... 89 Prosymna...... 91 Dendra ...... 93 Achaea...... 95 Perati ...... 98 The Data ...... 99 Contexts ...... 100 Variables ...... 101

vii

Summary ...... 108

Chapter Six: Results of the Correspondence Analysis and Chi Square Tests ...... 110 Factor Map – Units ...... 110 Factor Map – Variables ...... 122 Correspondence Analysis Results ...... 125 Hypotheses ...... 128 Chi Square Results ...... 130 Summary ...... 134

Chapter Seven: Discussion and Conclusion ...... 136 CA and Mycenaean Mortuary Remains ...... 136 Evidence for Palatial Influence on Chamber Tomb Offerings ...... 137 Evidence for Funerary Rituals ...... 139 Significance and Future Studies...... 142 Benefits of the Study ...... 142 CA and Future Research on Mycenaean Mortuary Rituals ...... 146 Closing Remarks ...... 148

Bibliography ...... 151

Figures ...... 177

Appendix I ...... 205 Appendix II ...... 209 Appendix III ...... 214 Appendix IV ...... 218

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Map of the Aegean, showing the area of the Mycenaean mainland ...... 177

Figure 2 Map of the Peloponnese and Attika, showing the different regions examined in this thesis ...... 178 Figure 3 Plan of Petsas’ House from Mycenae ...... 179

Figure 4 Plan of the palace at Pylos, showing the LH IIIA:1 remains ...... 179

Figure 5 Plan of the citadel at Tiryns, showing the LH IIIA:1 remains ...... 179

Figure 6 Plan of the palace at Mycenae, showing the LH IIIA:1 remains ...... 180

Figure 7 Plan of the palace at Mycenae, showing the LH IIIB remains ...... 180

Figure 8 Plan of the palace at Pylos, showing the LH IIIB remains ...... 181

Figure 9 Plan of the palace at Tiryns, showing the LH IIIB remains...... 181

Figure 10 The social hierarchy of the Mycenaean palatial systems according to the Linear B tablets ...... 182

Figure 11 Plan of the citadel at Mycenae, showing the LH IIIC remains ...... 182

Figure 12 Plan of the citadel at Tiryns in LH IIIC, showing Building T ...... 182

Figure 13 Plan of the Lower Town of Tiryns, showing the LH IIIC remains...... 182

Figure 14 Tainter’s key diagram of a perfect tree ...... 183

Figure 15 Tainter’s key diagram of a perfect paradigm ...... 183

Figure 16 Plan of shaft grave Γ from Grave Circle B, Mycenae ...... 183

Figure 17 General plan of a Mycenaean tholos tomb ...... 184

Figure 18 General plan of a Mycenaean chamber tomb ...... 184

Figure 19 Plot showing the Correspondence Analysis of seriation, with variable 15 representing the oldest and variable 1 represented the newest ...... 185

Figure 20 Correspondence Analysis of the Late Stone Age houses near Iversfjord in Finmark, Arctic Norway, showing the clusters...... 185

Figure 21 Map of the Argolid, showing the location of the sites examined in this thesis ...... 186

Figure 22 Plan and section of Mycenae Chamber Tomb 502, with remains on the floor and a cist ...... 187

Figure 23 Plan and sections of Mycenae Chamber Tomb 505, with remains in the dromos ...... 187

Figure 24 Plan and sections of Mycenae Chamber Tomb 518, with side chamber, and scattered burials and offerings ...... 188

Figure 25 Plan and section of Mycenae Chamber Tomb 521, with pits ...... 188

Figure 26 Plan of the chamber tomb cemetery at Prosymna ...... 189

Figure 27 Plan and sections of Prosymna Chamber Tomb 1, with remains in the chamber and dromos ...... 189

Figure 28 Plan and sections of Prosymna Chamber Tomb 18 ...... 189

Figure 29 Plan of Prosymna Chamber Tomb 27, with bone heaps and pits ...... 190

Figure 30 Plan and sections of Prosymna Chamber Tomb 37, with a bone heap and scattered remains in the chamber, and a niche in the dromos...... 190

Figure 31 Plan of Prosymna Chamber Tomb 49, with bone heaps in pits and scattered throughout the chamber ...... 190

Figure 32 Plan of the cemetery at Dendra ...... 191

Figure 33 Plan and section from Dendra Chamber Tomb 1 ...... 191

Figure 34 Plan and section of Dendra Chamber Tomb 7, with pits, including a warrior burial...... 192

Figure 35 Plan of Dendra Chamber Tomb 12, the Cuirass Tomb ...... 192

Figure 36 Map of Achaea, showing the location of the sites examined in this thesis ...... 193

Figure 37 Plan of the cemetery at Aigion...... 194

Figure 38 Plan and sections of Aigion Chamber Tomb 4 ...... 194

Figure 39 Plan and sections of Aigion Chamber Tomb 8 ...... 194

Figure 40 Plan of the cemetery at Perati ...... 195

Figure 41 Plan and section from Perati Chamber Tomb 13, with scattered remains in the chamber ...... 195

Figure 42 Plan of Perati Chamber Tomb 145, with scattered remains in the chamber ...... 195

Figure 43 Map of Attika, showing the location of Perati ...... 196

Figure 44 Mycenaean kylix from Aigion Chamber Tomb 4 ...... 197

Figure 45 Kylix fragments from Mycenae Chamber Tomb 505 ...... 197

Figure 46 Jug from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 33 ...... 197

Figure 47 Pig shaped rhyton from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 11 ...... 197

Figure 48 “Feeding bottle” from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 10 ...... 197

Figure 49 Amphora from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 25 ...... 198

Figure 50 Piriform jar from Dendra Chamber Tomb 7 ...... 198

Figure 51 Stirrup jar from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 10 ...... 198

Figure 52 Alabastron from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 37 ...... 198

Figure 53 Glass and faience beads from Dendra Chamber Tomb 10 ...... 199

Figure 54 Miscellaneous beads from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 33 ...... 199

Figure 55 Bronze sword and dagger from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 25...... 200

Figure 56 Bronze swords from Dendra Chamber Tomb 12 ...... 200

Figure 57 Bronze sword from Klauss Chamber Tomb Θ ...... 200

Figure 58 Spear/javelin heads from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 10 ...... 201

Figure 59 Flint (7 on the left) and obsidian (21 on the right) arrowheads from Dendra Chamber Tomb 8 ...... 201

Figure 60 Bronze knife from Dendra Chamber Tomb 7 ...... 201

Figure 61 Gold rosettes from Dendra Chamber Tomb 10...... 202

Figure 62 Miscellaneous ornaments from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 37, including a fibula and buttons ...... 202

Figure 63 Bronze tweezers from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 42 ...... 203

Figure 64 Bronze tweezers from Klauss Chamber Tomb Θ ...... 203

Figure 65 Terracotta female figurines (Tau type) from Aigion Chamber Tomb 4 ...... 203

Figure 66 Terracotta female figurines (Psi type) from Perati Chamber Tomb 5 ...... 203

Figure 67 Terracotta female figurines (Phi type) from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 33 ...... 203

Figure 68 Terracotta animal figurines from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 19 ...... 204

Figure 69 Terracotta chariot figurine from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 22 ...... 204

Chart II.1 Factor map, showing only the Mycenaean chamber tombs from the Correspondence Analysis ...... 209

Chart II.2 Hierarchical clustering of the Mycenaean chamber tombs ...... 210

Chart II.3 Factor map, showing only the variable group from the Correspondence Analysis...... 211

Chart II.4 CA map, showing both the variables and the tombs ...... 212

Chart II.5 CA map with the clusters ...... 213

xii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 The Archaeological Material from the Helgøy Farm Mound ...... 72

Table 4.2 Artefact Assemblages for Late Stone Age Houses near Iversfjord in Finmark, Arctic Norway ...... 77

Table 4.3 Frontier Military Post at Fort Snelling, Minnesota ...... 79

Table 5.1 Chamber Tombs from Mycenae ...... 90

Table 5.2 Chamber Tombs from Prosymna ...... 93

Table 5.3 Chamber Tomb Contexts ...... 100

Table 5.4 Variable Categories ...... 102

Table 5.5 Weapon Types ...... 105

Table 6.1 Frequency of Variables in the Sample ...... 123

Table 6.2 Observed Values: Combat Weapons and Toiletries ...... 131

Table 6.3 Expected Values: Combat Weapons and Toiletries ...... 131

Table 6.4 Observed Values: Children and Figurines ...... 132

Table 6.5 Expected Values: Children and Figurines...... 132

Table 6.6 Observed and Expected Values: Drinking Vessels and Serving/Food ....134

xiii

List of Maps

Figure 1 Map of the Aegean, showing the area of the Mycenaean mainland ...... 177

Figure 2 Map of the Peloponnese and Attika, showing the different regions examined in this thesis ...... 178

Figure 21 Map of the Argolid, showing the location of the sites examined in this thesis ...... 186

Figure 36 Map of Achaea, showing the location of the sites examined in this thesis ...... 193

Figure 43 Map of Attika, showing the location of Perati ...... 196

xiv

Chapter One

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the research topic and to outline the research goals for this thesis. In addition, the geographical and chronological parameters under which this research falls, as well as some key terminology, are explained. This chapter concludes with a brief outline of the subsequent chapters.

Mortuary material represent one of the most archaeologically recognizable remains from the ancient world. As a result, these remains are one of the most studied aspects of ancient cultures, but their study is not without dangers. Archaeologists often use this material to make inferences about how a society lived, especially in terms of social organization, such as wealth distinctions and status distinctions (Tainter 1975:14;

Pader 1982:53). Although it can be argued that mortuary remains provide some information for social studies, they do not provide an exact reproduction of an ancient society. Rather, mortuary remains can represent an idealized version of the social order

(Leach 1954:16; Hodder 1982:152; Pader 1982:39). In other words, wealth and status cannot always be understood from the mortuary remains, since the meaning behind this material culture is most often misleading.

The Mycenaean mortuary remains, as is the case with many other ancient societies, are often understood in terms of wealth and status, either of the individual buried or of the mourners. The aim of this thesis is to examine the offerings placed within chamber tombs from the periods in the Bronze Age Aegean known as the Palatial period

(or Late Helladic IIIA and Late Helladic IIIB) and Postpalatial period (or Late Helladic

IIIC) (see dates below) to see if these distinctions are adequate. Chamber tombs were the

most common burial type and most of the surviving burial offerings were found in these tombs during these periods, thus providing a considerable amount of data for social analysis.

Research Goals

Since the purpose of this thesis is to find meaningful patterning in the offerings placed in chamber tombs, the analysis is done using an exploratory technique called

Correspondence Analysis (CA). As an exploratory technique, CA is not used to test hypotheses but rather to generate them (Chapter Four). As a result, this thesis does not begin with set hypotheses in mind. It does, however, have three research goals, which are as follows:

1. To test the theory that the Mycenaean palatial systems influenced the types of offerings placed in the chamber tombs;

2. To assess the validity of previously stated claims that the offerings placed in the chamber tombs represent funerary rituals, and if so, what type(s) of rituals?; and

3. To establish whether Mycenaean mortuary archaeology is sufficiently well recorded to support a meaningful analysis of variation in funerary depositional patterning.

The first goal is based on the theory that the offerings placed in chamber tombs represent the wealth and status of the individuals buried in the tombs or those of the mourners. It is thought that the palaces controlled access to certain items of prestige

(Chapter Two), items which are similar, but not necessarily the same as, those found in the chamber tombs (Chapter Three). Whether or not there is a link to such items controlled by the palaces and the types of offerings placed in chamber tombs requires further analysis.

The second goal is the most important because Mycenaean funerary remains

(Chapter Three) are often interpreted in terms of wealth and status; therefore, items which are not considered “valuable” or tombs with fewer offerings/mostly pottery are often ignored or labelled “poor” (Gallou 2005:2). If it can be shown that the items in the chamber tombs served a ritual function, then the data ignored under such labels will be proven valuable. In addition, it could allow Mycenaean mortuary remains to be interpreted as more than just indicators of wealth and status, since the presence of certain offerings is often thought to represent certain rituals. Kylikes, for example, may represent a drinking ritual at the tomb, while female figurines may have been an offering associated with children’s burials (Chapter Five).

The third goal of this thesis stems from the fact that CA has been recognized as a useful tool for understanding mortuary patterns in the archaeological record (Chapter

Four), but it has yet to be applied to Mycenaean mortuary remains. As will be discussed in Chapter Four, CA is useful for very large data sets and there is a large amount of mortuary data for the Mycenaean period. One possible issue with the data from this period, however, is if the quality of the data is sufficient not only to develop hypotheses based on the CA results but also to accomplish the previously stated research goals.

Parameters and Definitions

The purpose of this section is to establish the chronological and geographical parameters of the Mycenaean Mainland, to outline the chronology used in Mycenaean studies, and to define some terms commonly used by Bronze Age Aegean archaeologists as well as other common terms used throughout this thesis.

Geographical Parameters

The Mycenaean Mainland refers to the area of Greece occupied by the

Mycenaeans during the L.B.A. Throughout this thesis, the term “Mycenaean Mainland” will be referred to as “Mainland”, which is distinct from the rest of the Greek mainland.

The geographical parameters of this area are still debated, but the definition supplied by

Rutter (2001:96) is used in this thesis. Therefore, “Mycenaean Mainland” refers to that area of the Greek mainland south of the Spercheios River and the Gulf of Arta and the

Ionian islands from Lefkas south during the L.B.A. (Figure 1).1

This study does not, however, examine the entire Mainland as defined above, but rather focuses on three major regions. Two of the regions which are examined in this thesis are located in the southern area of land known as the Peloponnese (Figure 2), where the majority of Mycenaean remains have been found. These regions are the

Argolid, located in the northeast, and Achaea, located in the northwest. A total of seven sites are included in this study from both areas: Mycenae, Prosymna, and Dendra located in the Argolid, and Klauss, Aigion, Kallithea, and Calandritsa located in Achaea. The third region included in this thesis is Attika (Figure 2), located in Central Greece. Only one cemetery, Perati, from this region is included in the study. The details of these sites and the reasons for their inclusion are discussed in Chapter Five.

1 All figures are located at the end of the thesis, starting on page 177. 4

Chronological Parameters

The term applied to Bronze Age Aegean relative chronology is “Helladic” and this chronology is divided into three main phases (Early, Middle, and Late). Wace and

Blegen (1919) were the first to apply the term “Helladic” to the Bronze Age Aegean in reference to ceramic chronology. As a result of the introduction of this term, the relative chronology for the Bronze Age is most often based on the changes in ceramics. The understanding of ceramic changes has improved since Wace and Blegen introduced the term, so the three main Helladic phases have been sub-divided (I, II, and III), and further sub-divided (A, B, and C) to reflect the newly understood changes (for more information on Mycenaean ceramic changes see: Mountjoy 1986; Mountjoy 1993; Mountjoy 1995;

Mountjoy 1999; Mountjoy 2001).

This thesis focuses on the Late Helladic (LH) III period, so these are the dates which will be discussed in this section (all dates from this period are taken from

Shelmerdine 2001:332). The LH I-II periods are discussed here as well, even though the data from these periods will not be used in the analysis. The reason for this inclusion is that the first chamber tombs appear during LH I.2 Chapter Three includes a discussion of the burial types common in this period so that a comparison to later periods can be made.

Late Helladic I-II. The LH I-II consists of two periods which date to ca. 1680-

1600/1580 B.C.E and ca. 1600/1580-1425/1390 B.C.E. respectively (Rutter 2001:106).

The LH II period is subdivided into two phases: LH IIA (ca. 1600/1580-1520/1480

B.C.E.) and LH IIB (ca. 1520/1480-1425/1390 B.C.E.). These divisions are based on

2 Wright (2008:147) suggests that the earliest chamber tombs appear at Volimidhia, in Messenia, during the Middle Helladic III to Late Helladic I periods, but the majority of the tombs on the Mainland are no earlier than LH I. 5

changes in pottery styles, but the two periods and sub-phases are often grouped together when discussing mortuary remains because the types of tombs and burials did not change significantly from LH I to LH IIA/B.

Late Helladic IIIA:1. This period covers ca. 1425/1390-1390/1370 B.C.E. and is distinct from the LH IIIA:2 period not only in pottery styles (LH IIIA:1 pottery is often, but not always, indistinguishable from LH IIB styles) but also in the architecture which developed at various sites on the Mainland. The buildings at certain sites are thought to have been the first palatial structures, which were dismantled when the new palaces were built in LH IIIA:2, but their exact function is unknown (Chapter Two). In terms of mortuary remains, however, there is no significant change from LH IIIA:1 to LH IIIA:2 so these periods are collectively referred to as LH IIIA in Chapter Three.

Late Helladic IIIA:2. The LH IIIA:2 period dates to ca. 1390/1370-1340/1330

B.C.E. and it is during this period that the monumental buildings, known as the palaces, were built, removing the previous buildings. The LH IIIA:2 and LH IIIB periods make up what is known as the Palatial period and they do not appear to differ much, specifically in terms of the socio-political aspects, from one another, except in pottery styles and modifications to the palaces. Since these periods represent the same socio-political environment, they are discussed together in Chapter Two. In terms of the mortuary remains, there is also no significant difference in the burial types, so the LH IIIA and LH

IIIB periods are also discussed together in Chapter Three.

Late Helladic IIIB. The LH IIIB period dates to ca. 1340/1330-1190/1180 B.C.E. and is considered the height of the Palatial period, mainly because it is the final phase, thus most of the material dates to this period. This material extends beyond pottery, the

palaces, and burials to include Linear B tablets, which provide textual information about the nature of the palaces (Chapter Two). Chamber tombs become the most common burial type during the LH IIIA and LH IIIB periods; therefore, much of the data for this analysis comes from these periods.

Late Helladic IIIC. The LH IIIC period covers ca. 1190/1180-1065/1060 B.C.E. and is often divided into three phases: Early, Middle, and Late. The dates for these phases vary depending on the archaeological site and refer to pottery styles. The mortuary record, however, is rather consistent throughout the period, so these sub-divisions are not used in this thesis. The LH IIIC period is important because it is the period after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces, known as the Postpalatial period (Chapter Two), and although chamber tombs are still the most common burial type, there is a slight decrease in their use at some sites, while there are newly formed cemeteries at others (Chapter

Three).

Definitions

There are a number of terms used in this thesis that are considered Mycenaean jargon, so the purpose of this section is to define some of the main ones. In addition, the definitions of other common terms used in this thesis are provided.

Mycenaean Period. The Mycenaean period refers to the phases of the Late

Helladic periods collectively. The Middle Helladic (MH) III period (ca. 1750/1720-1680

B.C.E. Rutter 2001:106) is also added to this period because of the mortuary evidence

(Chapter Three). The period gets its name from the group of people, called Mycenaeans

by scholars, who inhabited the Mainland from the MH III to the end of the LH IIIC periods.

Mycenaean. “Mycenaean” is a little more difficult to define since there is some division among scholars. Originally, this term was used to describe the inhabitants of

Mycenae after the excavations by Schliemann at the site (Bennet 1999). Since his excavations at Mycenae, however, many other sites with similar features have been discovered, so Wright (2004:14) states that the term became collectively applied to the archaeological culture on the Mainland from the MH III to LH IIIC periods. Feuer

(2011), on the other hand, argues that “Mycenaean” actually refers to the elite members of the society during the L.B.A. since it is their material culture which is most often examined. For the purpose of this thesis, however, the term “Mycenaean” is used in the sense outlined by Wright, since the mortuary data used does not just refer to the upper class.

Elite. The term “elite” in this thesis refers to the people with access to, and often control of, internal and/or external exchange networks, as well as items of prestige and status (Khan 2012:362). They are the people associated with the palaces but they are not necessarily connected with the chamber tombs (Chapter Three).

Palatial Period. The Palatial period refers to the periods of the LH IIIA and LH

IIIB collectively because it is during this time that the monumental structures known as palaces were in operation.

Palace. The definition of the Mycenaean palace is as complicated as the one for

“Mycenaean” in that scholars have yet to fully agree on an exact definition. Shelmerdine defines the palace strictly architecturally as a “large ashlar construction centered on a

megaron unit: a rectangular room with four columns surrounding a hearth, its long walls extending to form a porch and a vestibule” (2001:350). Other definitions add that this building was the residing place of the king and his family (Walcot 1967; Thomas 1976;

Kilian 1988; Dabney and Wright 1990; Wright 1995; Shelmerdine 2001), while others point to its religious function (Lupack 2007) or its role as a workshop (Laffineur and

Betancourt 1997; Lupack 2007). Chapter Two of this thesis explores the function of the

Mycenaean palace as a workshop and as a centre for foreign exchange.

Palatial System: The term “palatial system” is used in this thesis to refer to the economic and political aspects of the Mycenaean palaces. The nature of the Mycenaean palatial systems is explained in Chapter Two and the term can be used interchangeably with the term “palace”.

Postpalatial Period. This term refers to the period, known as LH IIIC, after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces. This period marks the end of the palatial systems but not the end of Mycenaean society.

Polity. According to Renfrew, a polity is an “autonomous… socio-political unit”

(1986:1). In this sense, the individual palaces on the Mainland are thought to be polities since it appears that they were self-governing (Chapter Two).

Peer Polity Interaction. This concept was developed by Renfrew (1986:1) to refer to the various different types of interactions between individual polities, especially those occupying the same geographical local (for example, the Mainland). This concept has been used to explain the interaction between the Mycenaean palaces on the Mainland

(Chapter Two), because the result of peer polity interaction often causes two (or more) polities to share similar characteristics (for example, architecture) (Renfrew 1986:5).

Prestige/Luxury Items. The term “prestige items”, also known as “luxury items”, refers to objects which are ostentatious beyond their functionality (Voutsaki 2001:195;

Schon 2007:143). The acquisition of these items forms the basis for the Mycenaean palatial economy (Nakassis et al. 2010:243) and the term is often applied to the offerings found in Mycenaean tombs (Cavanagh and Mee 1998; Voutsaki 2001). This term is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two.

Burial, Tomb, and Grave. Because these three terms are used throughout this thesis, it is important to define and distinguish between them. “Burial” refers to the actual action of burying the dead or in reference to the physical interment itself. “Grave”, on the other hand, describes only the physical aspect of a burial, such as a pit or hole dug in the ground. The term “grave” is only used in this thesis to refer to pits, cists, or shaft graves, while “burial” is used to refer to the various ways in which the dead may be treated. A

“tomb”, unlike a grave, is a monumental structure which is either built on or cut into the landscape to form a vault or a chamber where the dead are placed.

Ritual. The definition of “ritual” is perhaps the most important since one of the goals of this thesis is to determine if the offerings placed in the chamber tombs can be used to reconstruct funerary rituals. Ritual is not an easy word to define but it is generally agreed that actions which are formulized, repetitive, and reoccurring with very little change are ritualistic, although not necessarily religious (Bloch 1974, 1977; Cohen 1974;

Goody 1977; Pader 1982; Murphy 2010). Leach further suggests that “The structure which is symbolized in ritual is the system of socially approved ‘proper’ relations between individuals and groups” (1954:15). Rituals, therefore, represent ideals which are determined to be acceptable by a society and these ideals are particularly evidenced in the

mortuary record (Goody 1962:80). This topic is explained in greater detail in Chapter

Three.

Thesis Outline

This thesis is divided into seven chapters, with this chapter forming an introduction to the research and a breakdown of the thesis. The other chapters are as follows:

Chapter Two discusses the nature of the Mycenaean palatial systems and the role that exchange had on their development and their collapse. The purpose of this chapter is to outline the socio-political background for the periods under study, since one of the research goals is to understand if the offerings from chamber tombs are influenced by the palatial systems; thus, it is important to outline how these systems functioned. The chapter begins with the effects of exchange on ancient economy and in relation to the

Mycenaean palaces, followed by the development of the palaces starting in LH IIIA:1 to

LH IIIA:2 and LH IIIB. The proposed function of the LH IIIA:2-IIIB palaces is also discussed, followed by their collapse and the subsequent social changes in LH IIIC. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion on how the specialized nature of the palaces led to their decline.

Chapter Three also provides background, but of a mortuary nature. This chapter discusses the theoretical approaches which influence the interpretation of Mycenaean mortuary remains. The structure of this chapter is different from Chapter Two in that it discusses the LH I-II periods as well. As mentioned above, the reason for the inclusion of these earlier periods is that chamber tombs first appear in LH I (Dickinson 1983:60;

Cavanagh and Mee 1998:48). In addition to the chamber tomb, other burial types are discussed, because in order to understand the significance of the changes in chamber tombs, they must be examined alongside changes in other mortuary practices (Voutsaki

1998:43). This chapter is divided chronologically, so that the changes in mortuary forms and how they have been interpreted can be better understood. Chapter Two concludes with a brief discussion of the problems with the theoretical approaches applied to the

Mycenaean tombs and of the importance of ritual when analysing mortuary remains.

Chapter Four outlines the methods used to analyse the data for this thesis. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the development of Correspondence Analysis and its introduction to archaeology. Furthermore, Chapter Four details the different ways in which CA is used to interpret archaeological data and outlines the benefits of this method, especially on mortuary material. This chapter also includes three case studies for the use of CA on archaeological data. Since CA is an exploratory technique which only reveals the underlining structure of the data, it does not explain why such a structure exists. Rather, it is used to generate hypotheses, which must then be tested. As a result, the other method discussed in this chapter is the chi square test, which is used to test the statistical probability of the hypotheses generated from the CA. This chapter concludes with a brief outline of the significance of CA for this study.

Chapter Five details the methodology used in the data selection process and provides a description of the data themselves. This chapter is placed after the method chapter because the process by which the data was chosen was dependent on the method of analysis. CA requires very specific data and much of Chapter Five refers back to information outlined in Chapter Four. Chapter Five discusses the sites used in the

analysis, the problems of and solutions to the data collection process, and the types of the data used in the CA, including how it was organized.

Chapter Six contains the results of the CA and the chi square tests. The outcomes of the CA are discussed in three parts: the unit factor map, the variable factor map, and the CA map. The decision to discuss all three maps rather than just the CA map (which is the two factor maps together in one map) is to show how the CA results were interpreted and how the hypotheses were developed. In addition to the CA results, this chapter presents the three hypotheses generated from the CA and provides the results of the chi square tests. Chapter Six concludes with a brief discussion of the significance of these results.

Chapter Seven includes a discussion of the significance both of the study and results, and how future studies can benefit from this study, including how it might be improved upon. This chapter also includes a discussion of whether or not the research goals outlined in Chapter One were achieved.

Chapter Two

The Nature of the Mycenaean Palatial Systems

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the nature of the Mycenaean palatial systems, with an emphasis on their role in the Mediterranean exchange networks in the

L.B.A. It will begin with a brief discussion on the role of exchange in early states in general and how this role has been approached by archaeologists. The next three sections will discuss the nature of Mycenaean palatial systems themselves during three phases: the

LH IIIA:1, LH IIIA:2-IIIB, and LH IIIC periods. These sections will be followed by a conclusion which will discuss a possible explanation for the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial systems.

The Role of Exchange

The word “exchange” is preferred in this thesis over the word “trade”, as exchange implies forms of interaction beyond simple “movement of goods between hands” (Polanyi 1957:226), such as gift giving and the sharing of technology and ideas

(Burns 2010:291). The terms “trade” and “exchange” are often used interchangeably, but exchange includes all forms of movement, which Needleham (1993:162) calls displacement, from the material to the non-material, while trade is merely a subset of this displacement.3 Displacement of items is significant since it is archaeologically observable and the end result of this displacement is often all that remains for archaeologists to study in an attempt to understand the role of exchange in past societies (Needleham 1993:162).

3 Needleham (1993) used the term “exchange” rather than “trade” in his discussion of displacement, but, as noted, these two terms are often used interchangeably. 14

The engagement in various forms of exchange in antiquity was one of the complex strategies used by elites to exert political, social, and ideological power and to reinforce their status (Helms 1988; Beck and Shennan 1991:138; Renfrew 1993:5, 14-5;

Knapp 2006:50; Thompson 2006:45-6; Cline 2009:164; Schon 2009:214, 219; Burns

2010: 293; Shelton 2010a:143). Other reasons for exchange include redistribution (i.e. exchange allows access to resources not locally available, resources which are redistributed among the community) and the mitigation of resource fluctuations over time

(i.e. surplus items are exchanged for non-local items, or during shortages, valuables are exchanged for needed resources). Prestige items as a medium for exchange is the most widely examined commodity because they are the easiest to see archaeologically and they are often imported across much larger distances than staple or utilitarian objects (Dillian and White 2010:9-11), thus providing information about exchange connections and routes.

The study of ancient exchange is often substantiated by one of two theoretical approaches: the formalist approach and the substantivist approach. According to the formalist approach, “sociopolitical institutions establish constraints in terms of the distribution and value of items. Then, individuals, acting within these institutional constraints, procure and distribute material in a cost-conscious manner” (Earle 1982:2).

Generally, members of the elite class were able to employ this strategy by controlling access to various items of prestige, particularly items of foreign manufacture or material.

From a substantivist point of view, however, exchange and social relations were linked (Sahlins 1972; Earle 1982:2; Mauss 1950 [1990]). Exchange was a social process, which functioned “to provide essential resources, maintain alliances, or establish prestige

and status” (Hodder 1982:200). Exchange networks introduced certain privileged individuals to exotic, prestige items that were used to display status and to reinforce economic stratification. As a result, such control over exchange networks was a powerful political strategy (Thompson 2006:4).

The approach to exchange within Mycenaean palatial economies presented in this chapter is taken from a substantivist perspective since this theory is viewed from the symbolic and ideological perception of prestige items (Hodder 1982:199). It has been suggested that exchange contributed to the development of socioeconomic and political progress in early states (Carneiro 1961:128; Carneiro 1970; Webb 1974:372; Bates and

Lees 1977:825; Thompson 2006:46), an effect that can be clearly seen during the L.B.A., particularly within the Aegean. Exchange networks throughout the Mediterranean intensified in this period, with evidence for the participation of Mainland centres starting to materialize during the LH period, when the Mycenaean polities began to emerge. From

LH IIIA to LH IIIB, the Mycenaean centres began to exhibit much greater complexity in terms of size and social stratification than in the earlier periods (Schon 2009:225) and it is during the LH IIIA:1 period that the first structures known as palaces are thought to have been built (Blegen et al. 1973:32-40; Wright 2006:23; Bennet 2007:34; Voutsaki

2010:605). These buildings were replaced by the later palaces, which are more clearly seen in the archaeological record in LH IIIA:2. In addition, some scholars suggest that it is during the LH IIIA:2 period that Mycenaean elites began to manipulate imported raw materials and items as a political strategy in an attempt to exert their dominance within their polities (Knapp 2006; Schon 2009:214, 226-7; Burns 2010:293; Dickinson

2010:484), polities which Wright (2006:37) suggests began to emerge during the LH

IIIA:2-B periods. By LH IIIB, the leaders of these palatial systems appear to have been in control of the production, distribution, and consumption of specific prestige items

(discussed below) throughout, at least, the Mainland. The ability of the Mycenaean elites to access and acquire foreign resources aided in the further development of the

Mycenaean palatial centres, which operated through a system of wealth finance (Halstead

2007:70, 72; Parkinson 2007:87; Schon 2007:142; Schon 2009:214-5, 226-7, 230;

Nakassis et al. 2010:240), which will be discussed below.

These complex systems, however, disappeared by the beginning of the LH IIIC period, with the destruction of the palaces. In addition, Mediterranean exchange networks were disrupted and Mycenaean involvement in these networks decreased (Deger-Jalkotzy

1996:727-8; Shelton 2010a:146). Disruptions in these exchange networks had serious economic and political consequences for the palatial systems themselves (discussed below).

Understanding this complex system is necessary in order to understand

Mycenaean mortuary practices, since prestige items were often placed within mortuary contexts. As Webb suggests, “a burial mound […] is a major economic mechanism”

(1974:367) and the goals of this thesis are to examine the ritual significance of the offerings placed in chamber tombs and to see if these offerings were as politically charged as is often suggested (Chapter Three).

The Late Helladic IIIA:1 Period

The LH IIIA period subdivided into two phases, LH IIIA:1 and LH IIIA:2, but this section focuses exclusively on the former. The significance of LH IIIA:1 for the

understanding of Mycenaean palaces is found in the building activity at certain centres on the Mainland.

Building Activity

The LH IIIA:1 period is often regarded as a period of economic, social, and political change at certain centres throughout the Mainland (Shelton 2010b:184). The most noticeable changes, however, was the initiation of the various building activities at these centres. At Mycenae, for example, Petsas’ House (Figure 3), which has been interpreted as the first palatial workshop (Wright 2006:23), was constructed in LH IIB to

LH IIIA:1. Based on the finds within the structure, the function of Petsas’ House is now generally believed to have been in the production, storage, and distribution of ceramics, and for private living space until its destruction in LH IIIA:2 (Shelton 2010b:189).

Petsas’ House is significant because it demonstrates some level of elite interest in ceramic production during the LH IIIA:1 period, interest which is emphasised by the presence of LH IIIA:2 Linear B tablets found among its ruins (Shelton 2010b:197-8).

Monumental buildings also began to appear on the citadels at Thebes

(Symeonogleou 1973; Andrikou 1999), Pylos (Blegen 1966) (Figure 4), Tiryns

(Schliemann 1885) (Figure 5), and Mycenae (Wace 1921-1923; Mylonas 1966) (Figure

6). These new buildings are thought to mark the first appearances of palatial construction

(Blegen et al. 1973:32-40; Wright 2006:23; Bennet 2007:34; Voutsaki 2010:605;

Fitzsimons 2011:103), but the exact function of the LH IIIA:1 palaces is not entirely understood since their remains are highly fragmentary (Kilian 1988; Dabney and Wright

1990:47-8; Wright 1995:71; Laffineur 1995:83-4; Shelmerdine 2001:349-55; Fitzsimons

2011:106). Nevertheless, their presence is significant because they provide the first signs of possible palatial systems on the Mainland. It seems that the palatial leaders had removed their political rivals and amalgamated the territories around them, thus becoming the dominant figures within their respective socio-political environments

(Deger-Jalkotzy 1996:724; Wright 2006:23; Schon 2009:227; Shelton 2010a:143;

Fitzsimons 2011:106-7).

Socio-political Change

The inhabitants of the Mainland, known collectively as Mycenaeans, had been participating in the Mediterranean exchange networks since MH III,4 as evidenced by artefacts manufactured using foreign materials in, for example, the Shaft Graves at

Mycenae (Niemeier 1984; Hallager 1993; Cline 1994:9-10; Graziadio 1991; Shelmerdine

2001:353-4; Voutsaki 2001). This involvement in the Mediterranean exchange networks intensified in LH I-II, but it was during the LH IIIA:1 period that Mycenaean items, particularly in the form of transport and storage vessels, began to appear in the eastern

Mediterranean and Egypt (Sherratt and Sherratt 1991:370-3; Shelmerdine 2001:353-4;

Shelton 2010b:184-5), suggesting that the Mycenaeans were more directly involved in exchange networks and not simply the recipients of foreign items. This involvement does not imply that the Mycenaeans were themselves interacting with the Near East, but it does show that their goods were exported beyond the Mainland. Therefore, it is clear from their more direct involvement in these networks that the Mycenaeans had begun to

4 The Mycenaeans were engaging in exchange with the Minoans as early as MH I (Rutter and Zerner 1984), but their involvement beyond the Aegean is not visible archaeologically until MH III. 19

dominate the economic sphere within the Mainland during this period (Shelton

2010a:143).

The LH IIIA:1 period on the Mainland marks the emergence of the Mycenaean palatial system, peer polities (Renfrew 1986:6-7; Wright 2006:37; Shelton 2010a:143;

Nakassis et al. 2010:240), and economic control by individual centres (Schon 2009:227;

Shelton 2010a:143; Fitzsimons 2011:107) such as Mycenae, Pylos, and Tiryns. It also marks the beginning of what would be considered state formation on the Mainland.

Nakassis et al. define states as “complex, centralized institutions and social hierarchies that regulate access to resources and monopolize legitimate force within substantial territories” (2010:239). Although the exact function of the early palaces in the LH IIIA:1 period is not fully understood, it seems clear that they indicate the emergence of the

Mycenaean states that characterize the LH IIIA:2-LH IIIB period.

The Late Helladic IIIA:2-IIIB Period

The LH IIIA:1 palaces were dismantled for reasons unknown and new palatial buildings were constructed in LH IIIA:2, sometimes employing materials from the earlier buildings (for Mycenae see: Wace 1921-23; Wace 1949:69-84; Wace 1956:104-106;

Mylonas 1966:15-35; Iakovides 1983:55-63; Fitzsimons 2007; Fitzsimons 2011; for

Pylos see: Blegen and Rawson 1966; Blegen et al. 1973; Nelson 2001). Over the course of LH IIIA:2 and LH IIIB, these structures underwent modification, resulting in the structures which are now archaeologically visible.

Building Activity

The term “palace”, used to refer to the elaborate buildings uncovered at Mycenae,

Pylos, Tiryns, and possibly Thebes, can be misleading because it does not express the full nature of its function (Chapter One). The Mycenaean palatial structures seem to have had a more practical function as workshops, which created wealth and prestige for the individual at the top of the hierarchy, known as the wanax (discussed below). The development and duration of the Mycenaean palatial systems was short in comparison to their contemporaries, lasting approximately 250 years, indicating that the power associated with them was not as secure.

As already mentioned, LH IIIA:2-B construction on the citadels at Mycenae

(Figure 7), Pylos (Figure 8), and Tiryns (Figure 9) destroyed and partially removed the earlier structures, and paved the way for the final form of palatial architecture (Wright

2006:37-41; Bennet 2007:34; Fitzsimons 2011:107-8). Throughout LH IIIA:2 and LH

IIIB, these structures were modified to include increased workshop space, increased storage space, and increased restriction of access to the palaces themselves (Bennet

2007:34).

At Pylos, workshops and manufacturing facilities were built near the palace proper (Bennet 2007:30). Carl Blegen’s excavations at Pylos unearthed a megaron complex which was surrounded by storage rooms (Blegen and Rawson 1966; Blegen et al. 1973; Lang 1969). These storage rooms were not used for the storage of staple products, but rather those which would be used for exchange, such as perfumed oil and wine (Bennet 2007:29-30). Similar megara and storage facilities have also been discovered at the other palatial centres, such as at Mycenae (Wace 1921-1923), Tiryns

(Schliemann 1885), and Thebes (Symeonogleou 1973), while Walberg (2007) suggests a similar layout for Midea. This layout is considered the standard form of the Mycenaean palace (Kilian 1988), and Wright suggests that it is “in this form, the palace is the focus of political, economic, social, ideological, historic and myth-historic practice and belief”

(2006:37). This statement is particularly clear in the throne room, which was the seat of the wanax and the site of ritual activity. Evidence for ritual activity in the throne room is based on the fresco decorations on the walls leading up to the room and the Linear B tablets, which suggest that the wanax performed certain rituals (Bennet 2007:29). In addition, the surrounding workshops and storage areas attest to palatial involvement in economic activities (Halstead 1992:62), while the palace itself acted as the ultimate prestige item, promoting the status of the wanax (Kilian 1988:299-300; Wright 2006:37-

41; Schon 2007:143).

The Linear B Tablets

The archaeological evidence found at palatial workshops corresponds with the textual evidence found at some of the palaces and in some of the workshops themselves

(Burns 2010:297). Fires from the destruction of the palaces at the end of the thirteenth century baked the clay tablets, on which was written a script labelled Linear B by scholars. As a result, these texts, which were not normally preserved, provide bureaucratic information about the palatial states at the end of their existence (or at least the time leading up to the destructions) and, as Kilian points out, “they may well reflect a long evolution replete with idiosyncrasies incorporated in the system at various stages”

(1988:292). The information which can be gathered from the tablets is limited, but useful nonetheless for understanding at least some aspects of Mycenaean society.

The Linear B tablets found at Pylos, Knossos, and Mycenae provide mostly inventory lists of the materials acquired or distributed for the production of prestige items. According to Shelmerdine (2006:73-4), all of these inventories deal with three main variables:

1. Resources: involves the collection and distribution of raw materials and finished products; 2. Processes: refers to the manufacture, repair, and other treatment of certain commodities; 3. People: comprises the assignment, maintenance, and reimbursement of different kinds of workers.

She then suggests that these variables indicate that the palaces exercised control over five main areas:

1. The control of land, allocated to both districts and individuals; 2. The requisition of goods in the form of regular taxes and other collections; 3. The imposition of military obligation and other forms of services; 4. The control of certain industrial resources, processes, and people; 5. The disbursement of finished goods to both secular and religious recipients (2006:74).

The tablets provide a vast amount of information on the production and distribution of specialized crafts, showing that palatial administration had exercised some control over these sectors of the economy, since the products were used in both foreign and local exchange (Dickinson 2010:485; Voutsaki 2010:606).

The Linear B tablets also provide information on the organization of labour in the workshops, particularly in terms of textile production (Burke 2010:435), since the textiles themselves do not preserve archaeologically. As a result, the Linear B tablets are a significant source of information which suggest that textile production was under the

authority of the palaces, at least at Pylos and Mycenae. The tablets record the raw materials such as wool and flax, which were collected from surrounding territories and distributed to the workers. The tablets also record the specialized craftspeople who made the textiles, including the food rations supplied to these dependent workers (Burke

2010:436). The textile workers include spinners, weavers, and fullers, and many of these workers, who were female (Olsen 1998:383), were given ethnic descriptions which indicate that most of them came from Anatolia, such as ki-ni-di-ja (Knidoes), mi-ra-ti-ja

(Miletus), and ze-pu2-ra3 (Zephyra/Halikarnassis) (Shelmerdine and Bennet 2008:306;

Burke 2010:436).

Textile workers are not the only specialized crafts people mentioned in the tablets.

For example, the tablets record “gold workers” and “blue glass workers” (Shelmerdine and Bennet 2008:296). Interestingly, molten blue glass was found amongst the debris from the palace at Tiryns (Shelmerdine and Bennet 2008:296), adding further evidence for specialized craft production being placed under palatial control. Items made from gold were often placed in mortuary contexts in the form of offerings and may have been the products of palatial gold workers.

Another example of production mentioned in the tablets is the group of eighty tablets from the Northeast Building at Pylos which mention chariot production, suggesting that this building was used as a workshop for the production of chariots, particularly the wheels (Blegen and Rawson 1966; Schon 2007:134; Shelmerdine and

Bennet 2008:296). Schon (2007:139) suggests that chariots enhanced the status and power of members of the elite class, since access to chariots was highly restricted and their production was highly specialized. He states that, “chariots are a composite artefact,

combining the work of craft specialists in wood, leather, metal, and animal husbandry.

The elite nature of this artefact is reflected in the complex organization of its production and in the prestige afforded its possessors” (2007:142). The palatial administration would have been in control of the distribution of such prestige items, and, therefore, in control of the status attached to them.

The Linear B tablets do not mention palatial involvement in international exchange networks directly, but they do mention raw materials which are not available on the Mainland. These materials, such as gold, bronze (copper and tin), ivory, and semiprecious stones such as lapis lazuli, needed to be imported from beyond the

Mainland (Schon 2007:138). Therefore, the fact that these materials are mentioned in the tablets indirectly indicates palatial involvement (direct or indirect) in the vast

Mediterranean exchange networks during, at least, the LH IIIB period.

The Palatial Workshops

Workshops within a state are often classified either as independent (i.e. with artisans who control the production, consumption, and distribution of their products individually), or as attached (i.e. with patrons who work for hire, usually in the production of prestige items) (Brumfiel 1987; Clark 1995). Archaeologically, this connection is determined by a workshop’s proximity to the administrative centre or to elite houses (Stein 1998:21). For example, workshops have been identified directly within the vicinity of the palace at Pylos and the function of the Northeastern Building

(Figure 8) is thought to have been for the manufacture of chariots (Schon 2007:138;

Schon 2011:220). It is uncertain whether the production of ceramics was centralized

under palatial control, but the evidence from Pylos suggests that it was not, at least during the LH IIIB period (Galaty 2007:85). Evidence at Mycenae from Petsas’ House, on the other hand, does suggest palatial interest in the production of ceramics during the LH

IIIA:1-2 periods (Shelton 2010a; Shelton 2010b:193, 198).

Small (2007:48) suggests that the extent of palatial control was rooted in the workshops, since it was the palaces which were supplying them with the needed raw materials for the production of items. Palatial control over the territories was nothing more than the taxation (i.e. collection of materials and items) of materials, which were supplied directly to the workshops (Small 2007:47-8). These materials were mostly non- staple supplies, such as wood and olive oil, used in the production of prestige items. In this sense, Small (2007:47-8) suggests that the Mycenaean palaces were nothing more than expanding estates similar to early Medieval kingdoms. The function of the palaces and the workshops was, however, more complex than suggested by Small’s description because there was a complex flow of resources beyond taxation:

1. Taxation: predominately in the form of raw materials for palatial workshops as well as personnel. 2. Direct Production under palatial control: wheat, olives, figs, grapes, and sheep (wool). 3. Unrecorded Transactions: attested archaeologically: i. Intraregional to the palace: pottery, cereal and pulse grains, and young male sheep; ii. Intraregional from the palace: palatial craft products (jewellery, perfumed oil); iii. Interregional to the palace: exotic raw materials (ivory, semiprecious stones); iv. Interregional from the palace: palatial craft products. (Halstead 1992:59-61; Halstead 2007:67)

Halstead’s breakdown shows that palatial administrations not only controlled the flow of resources and prestige items, but also controlled some of the land which produced the

required materials. Based on evidence from the Linear B tablets, the land under palatial control was highly specialized and used for the cultivation of a limited range of crops for the production of perfumed oil, textiles, and other craft items (Shelton 2010a:145).

Taxation was employed to secure agricultural and pastoral items produced on lands from the surrounding territories (Shelmerdine 2001:358-62; Shelton 2010a:145).

In addition to supplying local materials, the palaces also supplied foreign raw materials, such as gold, bronze, and ivory, to the workshops (Schon 2009:230). The palaces then distributed the finished products through local and international exchange networks. In this respect, palatial influence went beyond supplying workshops with needed materials since the palaces also controlled the distribution of the finished products. The palatial administration determined who would receive the prestige items, and, therefore, who would receive the status that came with such items.

The Wanax

According to the Linear B tablets found at Pylos and Knossos (Ventris and

Chadwick 1973; Walcot 1967), palatial administration was placed predominantly under the control of a single individual at each polity (Panagl 1986:280-2; Kilian 1988:291;

Deger-Jalkotzy 1996:725; Schon 2009:225-6; Shelton 2010a:145). The title given to these individuals on the Linear B tablets was wanax (sg. wanakes – pl.) (Figure 10). This title is often translated by modern scholars as “king” (Kilian 1988; Deger-Jalkotzy 1996;

Shelmerdine and Bennet 2008; Shelmerdine 2001; Shelmerdine 2006; Shelmerdine 2007;

Schon 2011). The tablets themselves, however, do not provide enough information to suggest that he was a king (absolute ruler), but they do provide information regarding his

role within the palatial administration (Kilian 1988:291). The wanax appears to have been in control of some of the religious activity that took place at the palace (Renfrew

1975; Kilian 1984; Bennet 1985:233-7), and held authority over both the surrounding regions, known as the dāmos (Wundsam 1968; Killen 1985), and over all of the palatial craftsmen (Killen 1985; Kilian 1988:293; Shelmerdine 2007:45). As the polity grew in the LH IIIB period, so did the wealth and power of the wanax (Schon 2009:227).

The Palatial Systems

The palatial systems appear to have functioned under what is termed a network- based strategy. This strategy, which emphasizes the desire for external connections for the purpose of obtaining exotic items, characterizes prestige goods economies (Friedman and Rowlands 1978; Stein 1998:6, 23; Junker 1999). Prestige goods economies operate with the control of the production, exchange, and consumption of prestige, control which leads to the development of chiefdoms and states and to the promotion and legitimization of elite status (Stein 1998:18-9). This form of network-based strategy focuses on the individual and dominance over prestige items (Nakassis et al. 2010:243). Stein suggests that elites in early societies “attempt whenever possible to maintain control over the production of prestige or luxury goods such as precious metals, shell ornaments, and semiprecious stones, since they are politically charged commodities essential for the social reproduction of elites” (1998:21). Political leaders who chose to adopt prestige goods economies, therefore, developed a dependency on exchange networks for the procurement of raw materials with which to produce prestige items.

Another term used to describe Mycenaean palatial economies is wealth financed, which, by definition, is the same as prestige goods economies. Wealth financed economies, like prestige goods economies, promote the rule of a single individual and rely on the production, distribution, and consumption of prestige items (Parkinson

2007:87, 97; Schon 2007:142; Halstead 2007: 70, 72; Schon 2009:230; Nakassis et al.

2010:242). The Mycenaean palaces operated under wealth finance by importing various exotic raw materials such as gold, bronze, ivory, semiprecious stones, and glass, and manipulating them into prestige items (Schon 2009:214-5, 230). In addition, raw materials such as wool, wood, and olive oil were collected from palatial territories, either in the form of taxation or exchange (Halstead 2007:70). Finished products exported by the palaces include perfumed oil, textiles, and chariots. Halstead (2007:70) suggests that these items acted as a form of currency for international exchange relations. There is no indication that the palaces managed or redistributed surplus staple goods other than to support dependent craft workers, suggesting that the palatial systems functioned as strictly wealth financed (Parkinson 2007:101).

Prestige items can be best described as objects that are often crafted of exotic or rare materials, require specialized skills to manufacture, and are intricately decorated

(Voutsaki 2001:195; Schon 2007:143). Voutsaki suggests that “prestige items are, therefore, socially exclusive, politically loaded, and ideologically significant” (2001:195).

Earle (2002; 2004; 2010:209) also suggests that the more specialized the craft, the easier it is for political leaders to control since they often have access to the resources required for craft production, including specialized craftsmen. The exchange of these items is a powerful political statement for palatial leaders (Helms 1988; Sherratt and Sherratt 1991;

Helms 1993; Voutsaki 2001:206; Burns 2010:291, 292-3), since the acquisition of foreign materials and the conversion of such materials into prestige items provide these leaders with a means of influence (Burns 2010:292). This practice results in the centralization of wealth (Voutsaki 2001:206) and the specialization of craft production at the state level.

In the Palatial period, palaces became major centres of exchange by obtaining raw materials for the production of prestige items (Voutsaki and Killen 2001; Burns

2010:296; Nakassis et al. 2010:240). Voutsaki proposes that “the palatial system exerted strict control over the circulation of valuable items”, and that “this control was the basis of its political hold over its subjects, the competition with its rivals and even its integration in the wider networks of alliances in the eastern Mediterranean” (2001:195).

By this period, fewer people had access to the prestige items and those who did were often associated in some way with palatial administration (Voutsaki 2001:205).

Mycenaean exchange networks extended throughout the Aegean, Anatolia, Cyprus, the

Near East, and the Balkans, signalling a different form of the political and economic level for Mycenaean palatial society (Voutsaki 2010:606; Shelton 2010b:187). The palaces became far more centralized and specialized by the LH IIIB period, resulting in the elevated status of the wanakes.

Palatial Economies and Political Power

Palatial economies were deeply rooted in the long distance exchange networks of the Mediterranean since their success both necessitated and promoted Mycenaean involvement in these networks (Maran 2006:124; Shelton 2010a:145). Deger-Jalkotzy

(1996:718) suggests that the palatial economies were both ruled and characterized by extreme centralization. The movement of people and materials to and from the palaces not only supported the palatial economies (Shelton 2010a:145), but was also controlled by them.

The industries under the control of the palaces, however, did not just serve an economic function. The production, distribution, and consumption of prestige items also played a role in establishing palatial power by materializing elite ideology (Hodder

1982:1999; Helms 1988; Beck and Shennan 1991:138; Renfrew 1993:9, 14-15; Schon

2007:134; Schon 2011:223; Dakouri-Hild 2012:477). Mycenaean states were premonetary economies, so the manufacture of prestige items served a social and ideological purpose, because these items acted as “markers of affiliation that legitimized and advertised the authority of palatial elites” (Schon 2007:143). The palatial elites were not only in control of who received these symbols of status, but were also in control of what objects would act as status symbols because they dominated all phases of the craft activity (Schon 2009:228-9).

The wanakes were required to import raw materials from all over the

Mediterranean in order to manufacture the prestige items and were likely in control of

Mycenaean foreign exchange networks. Yet, during the LH IIIB period, imports began to appear at non-palatial sites. Schon (2009:233) suggests that the reason for the presence of imported items outside of the palatial centres is probably the result of a decreased concern for the monopolization of possessions by the palatial elite. This decreased concern is likely the result of the fact that the palaces were themselves producing objects of status, and so no longer felt the need to hoard imported objects. The number of

imported objects, however, is still highest at the palatial centres, with Mycenae, Tiryns, and Thebes together accounting for ninety percent of the total imports found throughout the Mainland (Cline 2007:191).

Collapse of the Mycenaean Palatial Systems

Political disorder and economic crises had a clear effect on exchange networks, resulting in widespread disruptions in the networks themselves. The movement of people, warfare, and natural disasters also had an effect on exchange networks, but not to the same degree and definitely not enough to stop them from functioning in the same manner that political unrest might. Once the dust from the political and economic turmoil settled, economic prosperity and political order often resumed if the people still inhabited the area (Thompson 2006:38). The end of the thirteenth century B.C.E. witnessed the disruption of Mediterranean exchange networks (Thompson 2006:43), followed by the collapse of various polities such as the Mycenaean palatial centres, and the continued habitation and reorganization at a number of these centres (Small 2007:50).

The Mycenaean palatial systems were “a rather short lived phenomenon”

(Deger-Jalkotzy 1996:715-6), especially in comparison to their Near Eastern and

Egyptian contemporaries. The reason for this short life can be found in the nature of the palaces themselves. They operated under wealth financed economies, which focused on the centralization of the production of prestige items. There is no indication that the

Mycenaean palaces tried to control the crucial staple financed aspect of the regional economy, meaning that in a time of need, the palaces were unable to control the circulation of staple items (Parkinson 2007:100). The land under palatial control was not

plentiful enough to provide staple goods to the dependent craft workers in such situations

(Deger-Jalkotzy 1996:717), so any disruption in exchange networks, both local and foreign, would have had a tremendous impact on the palatial systems’ ability to function.

Towards the end of the thirteenth century, Mediterranean exchange networks were disrupted and Cline wonders if the battle between the Hittites and the Egyptians at the Battle of Qadesh (ca.1286 B.C.E.) and the repeated attempts by the Hittites to capture

Cyprus throughout the L.B.A. had some role to play in this disruption (2009:174), since both were key trading partners. The palatial systems were dependent on the procurement of foreign raw materials in order to function as wealth financed economies. The function of the palaces was too centralized, too specialized, and too dependent on the

Mediterranean exchange networks and, as a result, any slight disruption would have made recovery difficult and would have caused the entire system to collapse.

The Late Helladic IIIC Period

The LH IIIC period marks the end of the Mycenaean palatial system but it does not mark the end of Mycenaean civilization. The palaces were destroyed and some exchange networks seem to have been disrupted, but habitation continued at many of the palatial and non-palatial centres.

Building Activity

The palaces, with their megara, storage areas, and workshops, were all destroyed by the beginning of LH IIIC (Small 2007:50; Deger-Jalkotzy 2008:403). Nevertheless, at

Mycenae, Tiryns, and, to a lesser extent, Midea, there is evidence for repairs to the

citadels after the collapse (Walberg 1999; Maran 2006:124; Walberg 2007; Deger-

Jalkotzy 2008:396-7; French 2009:108). The fortifications at Tiryns were repaired and some of the buildings, such as the shrine, were restored (Maran 2001:118; Maran

2006:142). In addition, at Mycenae the Cult Centre (Figure 11) continued to be utilized for religious activity in LH IIIC (French 2002:136-8; Maran 2006; Voutsaki 2010:607).

The megara at the palatial centres were, however, not rebuilt.

At some of the palatial centres, there is also evidence for new building activity where the palaces once stood, with the best example coming from the citadel at Tiryns.

Over the megaron, a rectangular building, which included the throne from the earlier building, was constructed (Maran 2001:115-20; Thomatos 2005:78; Maran 2006:124-7;

Mühlenburch 2009). The function of this building, called Building T (Figure 12), is uncertain, but Maran (2001; 2006) believes that it may have functioned as a communal feasting hall, used by the surviving elites at Tiryns to boost their status. The inclusion of the throne in the new building does suggest that the political focus was still on a single individual. Furthermore, next to Building T, the Great Court from the LH IIIB complex had been cleared of debris and a platform-like altar was constructed over the previous round altar, showing that there was still some sort of religious significance to the citadel in the LH IIIC period (Maran 2001:118; Maran 2006:142).

The citadel was not the only area of Tiryns rebuilt in LH IIIC. The Lower Town

(Figure 13) was also redeveloped with new houses, forming a village-like occupation in which the statuses of the individuals are difficult to determine. Maran (2006:127, 142), however, suggests that these houses belonged to the upper class, who came to dominate after the collapse of the palatial system, because of their location next to the citadel. The

new upper class, according to Maran, consisted of the individuals who were once under the domination of the palatial administration but were now free to develop their own status apart from the palatial system.

At Midea, a similar building to Building T was constructed over the old megaron, but less is known about this building than the one at Tiryns (Walberg 1999; Maran

2001:117; Maran 2006:125). There are very few architectural remains from LH IIIC

Midea, but LH IIIB deposit levels reveal that the area was partially rebuilt using the earlier walls (Walberg 1999:157-8). Walberg (1999:159-60) suggests that there was a slight hiatus in habitation from LH IIIB to early LH IIIC, and by mid-LH IIIC, Midea was destroyed once more and not rebuilt.

The continual habitation at some of the palatial centres indicates that people did not abandon the areas after the collapse of the palatial systems, while the rebuilding at

Mycenae, Tiryns, and Midea further suggests that the people were the same as those who were there before the collapse, a suggestion which will become more apparent during the discussion on the mortuary practices throughout the Mainland.

Social Changes

Not all of the areas inhabited in the Palatial period continued to be so in LH IIIC.

Messenia, for example, experienced a dramatic reduction in settlement and monumental building activity after the destruction of the palace at Pylos (Small 2007:50). Areas that did continue to be inhabited were reduced to smaller communities, which were self- contained and economically independent. Deger-Jalkotzy (2008:403) suggests that this shift to autonomous communities was the result of the political shift from the palatial

polity of the wanax to the dāmos of the basileus (gʷasileus in the Linear B tablets). This suggestion is further emphasised by the loss of administrative writing in LH IIIC (Shelton

2010a:146) and Small (2007:51) suggests that the titles used to denote various palatial officials, for example the ko-re-te (district official), disappeared from the Greek language.

Exchange Networks

Mycenaean involvement in the exchange networks from the Palatial period appears to have decreased by the end of LH IIIB, but there is evidence that exchange relations were revived by the beginning of LH IIIC (Deger-Jalkotzy 1996:727-8; Deger-

Jalkotzy 2008:401; Voutsaki 2010:607). Burials containing wealthy offerings from

Arcadia, Achaea, Phocis, and the islands, such as Naxos, indicate that by the mid-LH

IIIC period, economic prosperity returned to the Aegean (Rutter 1992:70; Deger-Jalkotzy

1996:728). It is significant, however, that many of the wealthy LH IIIC areas mentioned above did not have palatial centres in the LH IIIB period. It would appear that the exchange networks that had been strictly controlled by the palatial administration opened up to the rest of the Mycenaean population.

This change in the relationship between exchange networks and state control is not surprising after the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial systems. It has been suggested that when centralized states with low levels of commercialization, as seen throughout the

L.B.A. Aegean, collapse, they are replaced by weaker states with a more commercialized character (Blanton et al. 1993; Hansen 2000; Trigger 2003:342-355). This inverse relationship is indicated by three factors:

1. Economic expansion into an international system 2. Emergent regional diversification of the economy 3. Conversion of prestige items into commodities (Sherratt and Sherratt 1991; Blanton et al. 1993:212-219; Hudson and Levine 1996; Smith and Berdan 2003).

For the LH IIIC Aegean, factors two and three are the most relevant, since economic expansion into an international system is apparent in MH III and continues into LH IIIC, in a more regionally diverse manner. The economic situation in LH IIIC can be compared to the contemporary situation in the Near East, where palace/temple controlled industries were replaced by independent ones (Hudson and Levine 1996; Hudson and Van de

Mieroop 2002).

One of the industries which survived into the LH IIIC period was bronze working.

The bronze items from this period were not debased or high in lead as would be expected if copper or tin had been in short supply, and there is little evidence for reworking

(Kayafa 2006). Kayafa (2006:215) suggests that the decrease in the presence of luxury items in LH IIIC is the result of the decrease in demand for such specialization and not from a decrease in access to bronze. Sherratt (2003) also suggests that there was not a shortage of bronze but rather that the introduction of iron resulted in the devaluation of bronze, which had become more available in LH IIIC.

The control over the exchange networks of the Palatial period must have been restricted to the palatial elites in the LH IIIB, as is evident in the flourishing of previously non-palatial areas in the LH IIIC period, when these networks were more open to the public (Rutter 1992:70; Shelmerdine 2006:84).

Summary

Since the discovery of the first Mycenaean palace at Mycenae, the function of the palatial systems on the Mainland during the L.B.A. has been a major focus of attention for Aegean scholars. Exchange and the desire for control over resources played a key role in the development of the palaces, regardless of the proposed function, which ranges from redistribution centres (Earle 2011), to seats/homes of kings, to the centres of economy. Their role as a redistribution centres has recently been questioned (Nakassis et al. 2011), but their function as centres of the economies (i.e. as workshops) is now generally accepted. With this role, the palaces controlled the production, distribution, and consumption of the specific items manufactured in the palatial workshops. As a result, the palaces operated under wealth financed economies because they imported exotic raw materials for the purpose of producing prestige items for export.

The nature of the palatial economies also meant that they were very centralized and highly specialized. During the Palatial period, these aspects elevated the status of the palatial elites, more specifically the wanakes, but the consequences of this centralization and specialization proved to be more than what the palaces were able to withstand.

Disruptions to exchange networks meant that the palaces were no longer able to maintain their workshops, resulting in their decline and eventual collapse. This collapse did not result in the collapse of Mycenaean people, however, since many of the sites remained occupied by what appear to have been the same people, based on the building activity, and, most importantly for this analysis, the mortuary record in both previously inhabited and newly inhabited sites.

Chapter Three

Theoretical Approaches in Mortuary Archaeology and the Interpretation of

Mycenaean Mortuary Remains

Mortuary contexts make up a significant portion of the archaeological data collected from Mycenaean sites. As a result, much of what is understood about the

Mycenaean people comes from their burials and how these remains are interpreted depends on the theoretical approaches adopted by the researcher. This chapter begins with a historical background of the New Archaeological approaches that have been applied to mortuary analysis, approaches which have influenced the interpretation of

Mycenaean mortuary practices. Next, the nature of Mycenaean mortuary practices from one phase of the Mycenaean period to the next is discussed, and how these practices have been interpreted by scholars is explored. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the problems found in these interpretations as well as how this thesis uses a different approach to understanding the Mycenaean mortuary practices in chamber tombs.

Theoretical Approaches

As mentioned above, mortuary contexts make up a significant amount of the archaeological data available for many ancient sites and tend to be the focus of study for many archaeologists. Another reason for this focus is that it is believed that mortuary remains provide a vast amount of information about the social structure of the society under study (Saxe 1970; Goldstein 1976). Features such as the human remains, burial types, construction materials, offerings, locations, and funerary rituals are frequently used by archaeologists to determine such factors as rank, status, and power amongst the

members of an ancient society. As a result, these factors dominate the theoretical approaches to interpreting mortuary data.

New Archaeology

New Archaeology has had the greatest impact on the interpretations of mortuary data. Role theory and formal analysis are approaches most commonly used by New

Archaeologists who hope to find direct correlations between material culture and the social structure of the society under study.

Role theory, introduced by Goodenough (1965), suggests that human activity is simply the performance of socially defined categories such as teacher, friend, or manager, and that human behaviour is therefore predictable (Tainter 1978; Parker Pearson

1999:73). New Archaeologists believe that this behaviour can be seen in the archaeological record (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971; Tainter 1975; Goldstein 1976).

Goodenough (1965), a sociologist, developed the term social identity to refer to these categories, which are referred to as social status by archaeologists. In addition, Turner

(1988) defines status as a collection of characteristics based on a specific lifestyle and maintained through access to wealth, power, and resources. “When two or more identities engage in a proper social relationship, this is termed an identity relationship…. The composite of several social identities selected as appropriate for a given interaction is termed the individual’s social persona” (Tainter 1978:106). These social personae are determined by the organizational characteristics of the social system (Tainter 1978:106).

Therefore, the sets of social personae will provide information about that particular society (Tainter 1978:106).

According to role theory, there are two types of status, ascribed status and achieved status. Ascribed status is a collection of characteristics that cannot be controlled, such as age, gender, race, and even heredity, while achieved status is a collection of positions “attained […] in life through education or personal advancement”

(Parker Pearson 1999:74). One of the goals for archaeologists studying mortuary remains is to distinguish between these two types of status, which is done by examining vertical differentiation (unequal access to wealth and status) and horizontal differentiation

(affiliation with a society/group or a unilineal decent). Peebles and Kus (1977) suggest two ways in which archaeologists can discern vertical (superordinate) from horizontal

(subordinate) differentiation.

1. Superordinate dimension: “a partial ordering which is based on symbols, energy expenditure, and other variables of mortuary ritual, and which are not simultaneously ordered on the basis of age and sex” (Peebles and Kus 1977:431, emphasis in original). 2. Subordinate dimension: “a partial order based on symbols, energy expenditure and other variables, which generally will be ordered on the basis of age and sex” (Peebles and Kus 1977:431).

The symbols expressed through vertical differentiation are displayed in the form of a pyramid with a few at the top and many at the bottom. The term social stratification suggests a system with social classes which are organized by unequal access to resources

(Parker Pearson 1999:74). In addition, the complexity of a society can be determined by the complexity of its mortuary remains. In other words, non-stratified societies will not have expressions of vertical differentiation in their funerary practices, but rather more evidence for horizontal differentiation. Through examination of the vertical and horizontal differentiations in the mortuary record, archaeologists hope to be able to recognize the social strata of any past society.

Binford (1971) used ideas borrowed from role theory to develop what he called

Middle Range Theory, which uses ethnographic information to develop generalizations about human behaviour and applies them to past societies. His study focused on four subsistence based groups – hunter-gatherers, shifting agriculturalists, settled agriculturalists, and pastoralists – and his goal was to demonstrate the relationship between mortuary variability and social complexity (Parker Pearson 1999:28). Binford concluded that the ability to recognize the dimensions of social personae “vary significantly with the organizational complexity of the society, as measured by different forms of subsistence use” and that the appearance of these dimensions also “varies significantly with the organizational complexity of the society” (1971:23). As a result,

Binford’s study supported role theory by showing that the organizational complexity of a society affected the complexity of the mortuary practices.

Formal analysis, on the other hand, is a technique for studying the degree of redundancy and entropy in categorized organizations in mortuary practices (Tainter

1978:110; Parker Pearson 1999:29) and was pioneered by Brown (1971) in the late 1960s but was not published until 1971 (Tainter 1978:110). Redundancy refers to the options available in the deposition of the body based on such decisions to dispose of the deceased casually or formally, while entropy refers to the degree of randomness in the organization of disposal (Tainter 1978:111-112). If the mortuary remains display high redundancy, then they are thought to be highly organized (i.e. not random) and, therefore, have low entropy (Tainter 1978:112). The goal of this analysis was to convert “folk behaviour and rationale into analytical behaviour and rationale” (Saxe 1970:15) and the results show the combination of mortuary attributes which are displayed as a tree diagram, with a perfect

tree representing high redundancy (Figure 14). In situations of high redundancy, the decision to engage in formal or casual burial will determine the next set of choices. The complete opposite of this perfect tree is the perfect paradigm (Figure 15) which indicates that all the attributes are independent and that there is no redundancy (Tainter 1978:110-

1). Techniques used to determine if a key is a tree or a paradigm come from Saxe’s

(1970) information theory.

In 1970, Arthur Saxe published his PhD dissertation on the social dimensions of mortuary practices, in which he used both role theory and formal analysis to test his eight hypotheses. According to his information theory, non-redundancy is a situation of maximum entropy while high redundancy is a situation of low entropy. Therefore, measuring the entropy in the mortuary record will determine if the key is a paradigm or a tree. Saxe applied this theory to three ethnographic domains, the Ashanti, the Bontoc

Igorot, and the Kapauku Panuans to test his fifth hypothesis, which states:

The More Paradigmatic the Attributes Evidenced in the Key Structure of the Domain, the Less Complex and More Egalitarian the Social Organization. Conversely, the More Tree-Like the Attributes, the More Complex and Less Egalitarian the Social Organization (Saxe 1970:75).

He discovered that the redundancy was high for all three domains under study, suggesting that “Hypothesis #5 stands as a potentially valuable tool to use in measuring social complexity cross-culturally, using both ethnographic and archaeological data”

(Saxe 1970:231).

Saxe’s most cited hypothesis, however, is Hypothesis #8, which states:

To The Degree that Corporate Group Rights to Use and/or Control Crucial but Restricted Resources are Attained and/or Legitimized by Means of Lineal Decent from the Dead (i.e. Lineal Ties to Ancestors). Such Groups Will Maintain Formal Disposal Areas (or for Exclusive Disposal of Their Dead, and Conversely) (Saxe 1970:119).

This hypothesis suggests that social factors may account for some variation in the distribution of burials and that this variation can be used by archaeologists to gain information about past societies. Saxe was able to find support for this hypothesis with the Bontoc Igorot data only but Goldstein (1976:60-1) retested Hypothesis #8 using a much larger sample of thirty ethnographic examples. She was able to determine that corporate groups also use permanent disposal areas (i.e. cemeteries) to legitimize access to resources through ritual activity. The lack of formal practices will not inform archaeologists about the social structure of the society, but their presence does suggest the existence of corporate groups (Goldstein 1976:61).

Tainter (1975; 1977) took Goldstein’s and Saxe’s analyses further with the introduction of energy expenditure. He claims that the social rank of an individual correlates with the amount of energy expended for funerary display. To prove his argument, Tainter examined the concept of redundancy and determines that high redundancy in the mortuary record indicates complex societies while low redundancy indicates the opposite. He concluded that this statement is maintained in 90% of the cases in his study, but stated that it only applies to 5% of the cases when examining the quality of offerings (Tainter 1978:121). Carr (1995) took Tainter’s model and expands on it by retesting his theory on different case studies. He found that in 42% of them, the quality of offerings did correlate with the social rank of the individual buried (Carr 1995:165).

These theoretical approaches are rooted in the Functionalist perspectives regarding archaeological interpretation, a perspective which focuses more on what people did (the function) and less on the meaning behind the behaviour, such as symbolism or ritual. This Functionalist/New Archaeological approach has been used by some

archaeologists examining the mortuary record of Mycenaean Greece. The next few sections examine the Mycenaean mortuary record throughout the L.B.A. and how these remains have been interpreted by scholars.

The Late Helladic I-II Periods

Mycenaean involvement in the expansive Mediterranean exchange networks began to increase in the MH III to LH I-II periods, resulting in the rise of what scholars believe to be an archaeologically recognizable elite class (Dabney and Wright 1990:47-

50; Shelmerdine 2001:342-6, 379; Nordquist 2002:25; Voutsaki 2005). The evidence for these new developments is found in the mortuary record in the form of foreign items placed in graves and in the rise in the use of tombs types such as the tholos tomb and the chamber tomb in LH I-II.

Burial Types

Cist and Pit Graves. During the early Mycenaean period, the burial types most commonly employed are “simple graves” (Lewartowski 1995; 2000). Cists and pits are placed under this label because they are often of simple construction – a rectangular cist lined with stones/mudbrick or a circular pit dug in the ground. Cavanagh and Mee

(1998:27) point out, however, that the distinction between a cist and a pit is not as clear- cut as their definitions suggest simply because archaeologists often use the terms interchangeably.

Simple graves are common before the Mycenaean period (Mylonas 1966:89;

Dickinson 1983; Cavanagh and Mee 1998:26-9, 29, 30-33), but there is a marked

increase in their use by the LH I period (Lewartowski 2000:13). The size and elaboration

(for example, walls with stone slabs and a roof) depends on a number of factors, the first of which is whether the grave is intended for a child or an adult. Cists and pits are sometimes built to fit the size of the individual interred, so smaller graves are expected for children and infants rather than for adults. A second factor is also thought to be the prestige of the individual placed in the grave, with those of higher status receiving more elaborate treatment in the form of built walls and/or a roof or a larger grave in general.

For example, the Lily Bowl grave in Athens is quite large (0.67m²) considering that it contained the remains of a child (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:43). A third factor for the size and shape of the grave is the nature of the soil or landscape itself. Some of these graves are dug into soil while others are dug into bedrock. Softer soils provide an advantage for larger graves, but also increase the likelihood of cave-ins, and therefore require the structural support of walls. The final factor which determines the size of the grave is whether it is meant to be used for single interment or for many interments (Cavanagh and

Mee 1998:26-7). As will be discussed below, the practice of reusing a grave for multiple burials begins to appear in Mycenaean mortuary contexts in the LH I period, resulting in larger cist and pit graves (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:43).

Shaft Graves. The shaft grave is not a common burial type during any period of

Aegean prehistory, but it deserves some mention nevertheless. As the name implies, a shaft grave consists of a shaft dug into the ground, often with walls and a roof surrounding the burial pit (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:43) (Figure 16). The shaft grave, therefore, shares many similarities with the elaborate cist grave, but it is considered its own type due to its larger size, the predominance of reuse, the presence of ostentatious

offerings, the presence of a shaft, and sometimes the presence of a grave marker

(Dickinson 1977:42). These graves are found at a number of locations throughout the

Mainland (for a list of the other locations with citations, see Cavanagh and Mee 1998:29), but the most famous examples come from Mycenae (Graziadio 1991).

There are two groups of shaft grave burials at Mycenae, Grave Circle A and

Grave Circle B (Mylonas 1957; Mylonas 1964; Mylonas 1966; Mylonas 1973). Grave

Circle B is earlier, with graves dating from MH III-LH I, and is located in the Prehistoric

Cemetery, which was used by the non-elite members of the community of Mycenae. Of the twenty-five graves in Grave Circle B, only seventeen are shaft graves, while the other eight are cists/pits (Mylonas 1957). This Grave Circle is located 130 meters west of the later Lion Gate, while Grave Circle A, dating from LH I-II, is located at the base of the acropolis. Grave Circle A contains only six shaft graves, but they are generally bigger than the shaft graves in Grave Circle B (Graziadio 1991:410-1).

These two groups are called grave circles because circular peribolos walls surrounded each, creating a physical distinction or barrier between them and the

Prehistoric Cemetery. Further distinguishing them from the rest of the burials in the area is the presence of grave stelai. Most of these stelai were decorated with sculptural relief and were used as grave markers (Mylonas 1966). The fact that these graves were physically separated from the rest of the community and more lavishly constructed than the cists and pits of the Prehistoric Cemetery has led scholars to suggest that the people buried there distinguished themselves socially in the mortuary realm, which may reflect their social distinction in life (Graziadio 1991; Voutsaki 1999).

Tholos Tombs. The tholos tomb (pl. tholoi) type first appears in Messenia in late

MH III-LH I period but spreads across the Mainland by the LH II period (Lolos 1989;

Cavanagh and Mee 1998:44; Fitzsimons 2007:101). It consists of three parts: the dromos, the stomion, and the thalamos (or chamber), into which the deceased is placed either on the floor or into pits or cists dug into the floor (Fitzsimons 2007:102). The dromos is the long entrance passage leading to the stomion, or doorway, and the chamber is built into a hillside and roofed with a corbel vault (Figure 17). Offerings were placed alongside the deceased or in burial pits, but because most of these tombs have been heavily looted since antiquity, many of them were discovered with very few offerings.

Chamber Tombs. The chamber tomb first appears in the areas of Messenia in MH

III/LH I, and the Argolid, Laconia, and possibly Thebes in LH I (Dickinson 1983:60;

Cavanagh and Mee 1998:48; Boyd 2002; Wright 2008:147) and by LH II, the number of tombs had increased but the use of chamber tombs was still rare. Wright (2008:147) suggests that chamber tombs were intended to be cheaper imitations of the tholos type.

These tombs, like the tholos tombs, consist mainly of three parts: the dromos, the stomion, and the chamber (Figure 18). Unlike the tholos tombs, however, chamber tombs are cut into the rock of a hillside, rather than built (Boyd 2002:58). Burials, which were placed on the floor of the chamber along with various offerings, were often removed and placed in the dromos, either on the floor, in pits, or in a niche (Lewartowski 1995:750), when the tombs were reused in the LH III period. Some of the burials were, however, placed in pits in the chamber and so remained undisturbed in LH III.

Multiple Burials

In the early Mycenaean period, there is an emphasis on single interment, as indicated by the popularity of simple graves, but multiple burials in one tomb or grave do start to appear (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:41). Repetitive use of burials is more common among the larger burial types (i.e. the tholoi, the chamber tombs, and the shaft graves), but it is also found among a few simple graves, particularly cist graves (Lewartowski

2000:20). The increase in the size of burials during the LH I-II period was likely due to the desire for multiple interments, since many of the larger burial types mentioned were built for the intention of reuse. This practice resulted in the secondary treatment of the body, as previous burials were pushed to the side to make way for the new burial.

Secondary treatment is explained in greater detail in the next section.

Prestige Items

The level of wealth found in graves during the early Mycenaean period is exceptional in terms of the quality and quantity of the items, and much of this wealth consists of objects made from gold (funerary mask, diadems, necklaces, pins, earrings), faience (necklaces, vessels), bronze (weapons, armour, vessels, toiletries), and ivory

(Cavanagh and Mee 1998:41, 50-5).

The placement of prestige items in mortuary contexts is not common before the late MH III and LH I-II periods, and the shaft graves at Mycenae provide the earliest evidence for the act of conspicuous consumption as a funerary ritual on the Mainland.

One aspect of conspicuous consumption is the lavish disposal and destruction of prestige items, thus preventing others from obtaining them and removing them from circulation

(Cavanagh and Mee 1998; Voutsaki 2001). This action is thought to be an effective strategy for creating status and emphasising the distinction between the classes (Voutsaki

1999:109), since it shows that certain groups of people had access to scarce resources.

The presence of these objects as offerings indicates that the Mycenaeans began participating in Mediterranean exchange networks and that mortuary contexts became an outlet for the display of wealth and status among the elite (Paschalidis 2012:548).

Access to Burial Types

Based on the wealth and energy required to construct certain burial types, scholars believe that the shaft graves, the tholos tombs, and the chamber tombs belong to the upper classes, while the simple graves belong to average citizens. This distinction is made because the larger tombs and graves require more labour and time to construct than the cist or pit graves (Dickinson 1983:55; Wright 1987:174; Fitzsimons 2007:99). The theory behind this principle is called the energy expenditure model outlined above and is used by archaeologists to determine the cost of labour and material required to produce architecture (Wright 1987; Abrams 1994) and ceramics or other crafts (Feinman et al.

1981). The end goal of energy expenditure studies is to suggest some form of socio- political associations with the construction of monuments, tombs, and prestige items

(Sanders and Santley 1983; Trigger 1990).

By MH III/LH I-II, it is thought that Mycenaean burials were used by the upper classes to display their wealth and status through the act of conspicuous consumption (i.e. constructing large tombs and graves and depositing prestige items within them). Thus, there was a marked increase in energy expenditure for tomb and grave construction and

the resources required to construct them would not have been available to everyone

(Wright 1987; Fitzsimons 2007:106). Furthermore, Voutsaki (1998:48) claims that the number of monumental tomb types was limited during LH I-II and that the wealthiest examples were restricted to areas which would become palatial centres in LH IIIA-B.5

The Late Helladic IIIA-B Periods

Mortuary display appears to change over the course of the LH IIIA-B periods, particularly in terms of the ideological significance of the tombs themselves. This period is one of political change, with the development of palatial administrations at various sites throughout the Mainland. The effects of the new administration on the population of the Aegean can be seen in the many cemeteries which appeared during the Palatial period.

Burial Types

Cist and Pit Burials. There was a decrease in the use of simple graves in the

Palatial period, predominantly among cist graves. This decrease was not the result of a decrease in population, but rather of an increase in the number of chamber tomb cemeteries throughout the Mainland, especially in the Argolid (Dickinson 1983:62;

Lewartowski 2000:13). Pit graves appear alongside chamber tombs, but cist graves on their own (i.e. outside of the tomb structure) are very rarely found in the same cemetery as chamber tombs and are thus found mostly at non-palatial sites (Cavanagh and Mee

1998:103; Lewartowski 2000:18).

5 Vousaki’s claim does not imply that there are no other wealthy tombs outside of the palatial centres, but rather that those tombs from the palatial centres are among the wealthiest. 51

Tholos Tombs. There were only three large tholoi built during LH IIIA-B, two of which are located at Mycenae and the third at Orchomenos. The Tomb of Klytemnestra

(d. 13.4 m) and the Treasury of Atreus (d. 14.5 m) were constructed at Mycenae at in LH

IIIA2 or LH IIIB, but by the end of LH IIIB, the construction of the tholos type was abandoned in the Argolid (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:63; Fitzsimons 2011:101).6 The

Treasury of Minyas (d. 14 m) at Orchomenos is the third large tholos, built in LH IIIB, and it appears to have gone out of use by the end of LH IIIB. Other tholoi built during LH

IIIA-B were modest in size (d. 3-8 m) and overall there was a decrease in the construction of this type (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:63). In addition, most of the LH I-II tholoi were abandoned by the end of LH IIIA (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:64). The abandonment of many tholos tombs and the decrease in their construction at the end of

LH IIIA is significant because this period witnessed the construction of the palatial structures and increased chamber tomb use on the Mainland, suggesting that both architectural types replaced the tholos tombs in terms of ideological significance.

Chamber Tombs. As mentioned above, chamber tombs become the most common form of burial during the LH IIIA-B periods (Dickinson 1983:62; Voutsaki 1995:62;

Cavanagh and Mee 1998:65, 71, 83-4), replacing cist graves (Lewartowski 2000:13, 18) and possibly tholoi at some sites. This popularity is particularly evidenced in the northwestern Peloponnese, where there is not only an increase in the size of chamber tomb cemeteries but also an increase in the number of cemeteries (Cavanagh and Mee

1998:61, 66). During the Early Mycenaean period (MH III-LH I-II), chamber tombs were

6 The Tomb of the Geneii (d. 8.4 m) was also built at Mycenae at the beginning of LH IIIA and abandoned by LH IIIB (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:63). 52

not found outside of the palatial centres, but their use spread to non-palatial centres throughout the LH III period (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:103).

Multiple Burials

Many of the rituals from the Early Mycenaean period were still practiced during the Palatial period, but there is an increased emphasis on multiple burials in tombs. This increase in multiple burials is thought to explain why chamber tombs became more popular and why the use of cist and pit graves declined (Lewartowski 2000:13; Nordquist

2002:29). Chamber tombs were much larger and their design allowed for easy access to the tomb, making them better suited for multiple interments (Figure 18). In addition, they were easier to construct than tholos tombs.

The proliferation of collective burials, or tombs designed to hold multiple interments, also meant that there was an increase in the secondary treatment of bodies.

When a tomb was reopened, the previous burials were often moved to the side, buried in pits in the chamber or dromos, or placed in niches built into the side of the chamber or dromos (Cavanagh and Mee 1978:31; Voutsaki 1998:45). The reason for the secondary treatment may have been simply to make room for the next burial, but there are a number of non-looted chamber tombs with no bodies in situ (Cavanagh 1978). Cavanagh (1978) has suggested three possible reasons for why some tombs lacked primary burials:

1. The final burial(s) have since decayed; 2. The tomb was prepared but a burial did not take place; or 3. The Mycenaeans practiced a second funeral ritual after the initial one.

The first two suggestions do not explain why secondary treatment took place, while the third suggestion is difficult to prove on the basis of the archaeological remains.

Moreover, these suggestions do not explain why multiple burials became so popular during this period. The reason for the increase in multiple burials, and thus of secondary treatment, may have been the result of an increased emphasis on ancestors and kinship groups in Mycenaean society (Voutsaki 1995:60; Voutsaki 1999:114; Nordquist 2002:29; cf. Mee and Cavanagh 1990:234). Cavanagh and Mee (1978:31; 1998:71) propose that many of the chamber tombs from this period were used for six to ten generations, meaning that they were likely family tombs. Wright (2008), on the other hand, suggests that chamber tombs reflect the social change which took place during the LH III period and that their increase in popularity during this period in periphery sites was the result palatial centres “consolidating control over adjacent regions” (2008:149). In other words, non-palatial centres began using the chamber tomb in order to gain status with the palatial centres in LH IIIA2. Wright (2008:150) does suggest, however, that chamber tombs were still family tombs, but that their meaning was deeply rooted in the socio-economic changes of the LH III period.

Prestige Items

Although there is an increase in the size and use of chamber tombs during the

Palatial period, there is a marked decrease in the inclusion of prestige items in the tombs

(Cavanagh and Mee 1998:61, 126). The chamber tombs contain some of the wealthiest burials, but there are a number of chamber tombs with few offerings as well and even the wealthier tombs are humbler in terms of the quality and quantity of offerings than those in the previous period (Kopcke 1995:90; Cavanagh and Mee 1998:61). Voutsaki

(1995:62) suggests that one reason for this decrease is that the chamber tomb was not just

used by people with access to prestige items, the elite class, but by various members of society.

A second explanation argues that access to prestige items was restricted to a much smaller group of people, a group associated specifically with the palaces (Voutsaki

2001:205). This last explanation is supported by the fact that wealthier chamber tombs are found only at palatial centres (Voutsaki 1998:48) and that the palaces engaged in the production, distribution, and consumption of prestige items mentioned in the previous chapter.

The final explanation suggests that there was a change in the ideological nature of competitive display during the Palatial period. Depositing wealth in tombs is replaced with the construction of monumental architecture, more specifically the palaces

(Cavanagh and Mee 1998:78-9). This explanation can be applied only to the palatial centres, but does explain this decrease at non-palatial centres.

Access to Burial Types

During the LH IIIA and LH IIIB periods, there was a decrease in the number of cist graves and tholoi but an increase in the number of chamber tombs, particularly at palatial centres and most notably at Mycenae. This increase in chamber tomb construction has led Cavanagh and Mee (1978:31; 1998:78-9; also see Voutsaki 1995:62;

Dickinson 1983:62-3) to suggest that these tombs were also used by non-elite members of society as family tombs. Furthermore, Nordquist (2002:29) suggests that the lower classes wished to imitate the upper class by building tombs which emphasised family ties since they were large enough to hold many members of the same family. The chamber

tomb was favoured because it allowed for multiple burials, which, as suggested above, became important during the Palatial period possibly because of a growing emphasis on kinship. Tholos tombs were still constructed but they were much smaller and were rarely built outside of palatial centres (Dickinson 1983:125; Voutsaki 1998:48, 51).

Evidence that chamber tombs were used by various members of society arises from the fact that fewer prestige items were being placed in them, especially at non- palatial centres. Prestige items are thought to have been limited to the upper class whose members used them to create status. Therefore, chamber tombs or tholoi with few or no prestige items were built by lower classes, who were burying their dead in cist graves in the Early Mycenaean period (Lewartowski 2000:13, 17). In addition, Cavanagh and Mee

(1990:56) demonstrate that there is a possible correlation between the wealth of the tomb and the size of the tomb (i.e. smaller tombs have fewer to no prestige items, while larger tombs have many). The elite members of society had greater access to labour for the construction of larger tombs and had access to prestige items, allowing for their tombs to be more ostentatious than those of the other members of society. The decision to build chamber tombs by members of society from various social standings is likely the result of the growing increase in emphasis on kinship ties (Kewani 2005:350).

The Late Helladic IIIC Period

By the beginning of LH IIIC, the Mycenaean palatial systems had collapsed, appearing to affect mortuary practices throughout the Mainland. There is a decrease in the number of monumental tombs and a decrease in the offering of prestige items at what

were once palatial centres, while non-palatial centres seem to have benefited from the collapse of the palatial systems, since wealthy tombs begin to appear at these centres.

Burial Types

Cist and Pit Burials. Cist and pit graves still appeared throughout the Mainland, but, as in the previous periods, they were still on the decline. Pits, however, were commonly used in chamber tombs for secondary burials, while cist graves were still not found alongside chamber tomb in cemeteries (Lewartowski 2000:13, 18). Pit and cist graves remained the minority burial form until the Early Iron Age (ca. 1065-700 B.C.E.), when cremation and single interment became common (Dickinson 2006:181, 183-4).

Tholos Tombs. Tholos tombs were still built during LH IIIC, but on a much smaller scale and in areas outside the Mycenaean Mainland such as Thessaly, Crete,

Aetolia, Phocis, Anatolia, and Kephallenia. No new tholoi were built in the Argolid,

Attika, or Messenia and continued use of LH IIIA-B tombs was very rare (Cavanagh and

Mee 1998:92).

Chamber Tombs. Chamber tombs were still the most common form of burial in

LH IIIC and many LH IIIA-B tombs continued to be used with a few new tombs being built, particularly at the previous palatial centres. In addition, new chamber tomb cemeteries appeared at previously uninhabited locations such as Perati and Grotta,7 and these new tombs, like the new tholoi, were much smaller than the ones in the previous periods (Cavanagh and Mee 1978:44; Cavanagh and Mee 1998:92-3, 97).

7 Grotta on Naxos in the Cyclades was inhabited during the Late Neolithic period and during the Early Bronze Age, but habitation ceased during the Mycenaean period (Hadjianastasiou 1988). 57

Cremation, which was seen sporadically in LH IIIA-B in cist and pit graves, starts to appear alongside inhumations in pits dug into the chamber. For example, there were ten tombs (out of 192) from Perati with cremations, representing about eighteen people

(Iakovides 1980:10-5). Cremations still represented the minority, but there was an increase in their use on the Mainland. This increase is significant because cremation becomes the standard method of burial in the Iron Age (Dickinson 2006:183-4).

Multiple Burials

Continual use of a single tomb was still a common practice during LH IIIC, but there is evidence that some of chamber tombs and tholos tombs from LH IIIB were abandoned before being reused again in LH IIIC. The reuse of a tomb is different from a multiple burial practice because “reuse” suggests a period of abandonment before the tomb was used again. Evidence for these gaps is based on pottery sequences, which see a jump from LH IIIB shapes to LH IIIC shapes with no intermediate period shapes

(Cavanagh and Mee 1998:90).

Cavanagh and Mee (1978:31) suggest three reasons to explain why these tombs were abandoned at the end of LH IIIB: the family line which used the tomb died out; the family left the area; or the family had a new tomb built. They (1978:44) also suggest that these tombs were reused in the LH IIIC period because it was an easier alternative to building new ones. The reuse of tombs seems to occur at most sites which were occupied in the LH IIIB period, except in the area of Achaea in the Peloponnese, where tombs witness continual use from LH IIIB to LH IIIC (Papadopoulos 1978).

In LH IIIC, there is also a slight rise in single interment in chamber tombs, particularly at Perati (Iakovides 1969; Cavanagh and Mee 1998:91). This trend might suggest a growing emphasis on the individual, unlike in the previous periods, where kinship ties were expressed through group burials.

Prestige Items

There is a decrease in the quantity of prestige items and in the variety of types of objects deposited in the tombs in LH IIIC. For example, kylikes used for wine decline among chamber tomb assemblages and such vessels are rarely seen in the newly formed chamber tomb cemeteries. The LH kylix is a specific Mycenaean wine cup which is often found in the dromos or near the stomion in the chamber itself during the LH IIIA-B periods, but during the LH I-II and LH IIIC periods, this shape is hardly found at all. The lack of kylikes has been used to suggest that LH IIIC funerary rituals did not involve drinking at the location of the tomb as they had previously (Cavanagh 1998:111;

Cavanagh and Mee 1998:94, 97, 115; for Perati see, Iakovides 1969:68). Another suggestion is that, with the collapse of the palaces, funerary rituals involving wine are no longer seen as important since drinking wine may have been an elite activity which centered around the palaces (Wright 1996).

The fact that LH IIIC prestige items made from bronze, ivory, gold, and faience still appear in chamber tombs from this period suggests that the inhabitants of the

Mainland still engaged in exchange relations (Deger-Jalkotzy 1996; Deger-Jalkotzy

2008; Voutsaki 2010:607). These items, however, were not as restricted to the people located at the once palatial centres, as they had been in the previous period. The newly

formed cemeteries at Perati and at Grotta, for example, contained very wealthy chamber tombs, although the wealth in LH IIIC was modest in terms of the quantity of offerings in comparison to LH IIIA-B. Deger-Jalkotzy (1996:727-8; 2008:401) suggests that without palatial control over prestige items, non-palatial centres were able to participate directly in exchange networks during this period (also see: Voutsaki 2010:607). Exchange still took place between the Mainland and the east, but the west began to play its part with

Italian influenced items, such as the Naue II sword, appearing in Arcadian cemeteries

(Cultraro 2005) or Mycenaean pottery appearing in Italian contexts, such as at Punta

Meliso, Leuca (Benzi and Graziadio 1996:95).

Access to Burial Types

The fact that many of the same cemeteries were reused or continued to be used in

LH IIIC suggests that the same groups of people were living in the post-collapse areas, while new cemeteries suggest population movement. The elite members of society were still choosing to place prestige items with the deceased but these elite were no longer located only at the once palatial centres, since new cemeteries appeared at previously uninhabited sites. For example, Perati contained some of the wealthiest chamber tombs from LH IIIC and, as was the case in the previous period, the size of the tomb often correlated with the wealth of the tomb (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:92-3). When populations moved to new locations, they brought their rituals with them, evidenced by the presence of chamber tombs and their associated rituals.

As in the previous period the elites were not the only people to be placed in chamber tombs or tholos tombs. Poorer tombs appear alongside wealthier ones,

indicating that these tombs were still being used by a variety of different members of society (Dickinson 1983:62-3; Voutsaki 1995:62; Cavanagh and Mee 1978:31; 1998:78-

9).

Status, Wealth, and Prestige, and the Importance of Ritual

Much of the literature on Mycenaean mortuary remains is focused on determining the status of the individual interred and on exploring what this status reveals about the

Mycenaean palatial systems. The changes in mortuary practices which took place throughout the LH periods seem to have been influenced by the socio-political situation on the Mainland. This influence is particularly evident in the LH IIIB period, when the palaces controlled access to prestige items and when wealthy tombs were restricted to the palatial centres. By the Palatial period, tomb architecture becomes more standardized, spreading across the Mainland, and the rituals involved are essentially the same from one region to the next (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:61, 77). The architectural forms and rituals are carried into the Postpalatial period, but on a much smaller scale than in the previous period, which saw an upsurge in chamber tomb use.

By LH I-II and into LH III, graves and tombs become important outlets for the display of elite status, ideology, and competition (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:77, 103-4,

123; Whitley 2002:227; Preston 2004:321; Kewani 2005:341; Fitzsimons 2011:93, 111).

Voutsaki (1995:59-62; 1998:44-5; 1999:109) suggests that the act of conspicuous consumption used in mortuary practices became a strategy for creating status and power for the Mycenaeans. As Dickinson states, “the degree of elaboration of the tombs, and the quantity and value of the goods placed in them, have direct relevance to the status of the

buried persons” (1983:56). Whitley (2002:226-7) also suggests that weapons were placed in burials as a means to display the social order and to show what it meant to be a man, implying that, ideologically, that meant being a warrior, while Kewani states that the funerals themselves “serve as important occasions for negotiating social hierarchies”

(2005:341). These theoretical approaches are taken directly from Saxe (1970), Binford

(1971), and Brown (1971). The assumption that funerary elaboration indicated the status of the deceased or of the members of the society remains constant in the interpretations of

Mycenaean mortuary data (Voutsaki 2001; Nordquest 2002; Voutsaki 2005; Gallou

2005:15; Fitzsimons 2007; Voutsaki 2010; Fitzsimons 2011; Paschalidis 2012:548 also see Boyd 2002:11).

There are some problems with these interpretations, however, as they simply provide generalizations about mortuary practices (Pader 1982:56-7; Parker Pearson

1999:31). Organizing members of past societies into social roles ignores personal agency and reduces human behaviour to very limited categories. In addition, these roles and categories are often based on the assumption that the wealth and elaboration of burials directly relates to the social status of the individual in life (Humphreys 1981:9; Orton and

Hodson 1981:103).

The deposition of prestige items in elaborate tombs, however, does not necessarily reflect the status of the deceased in life but may also represent an idealized version (Leach 1954:16; Hodder 1982:152; Pader 1982:39). This idealized version of social organization is rooted in ideology, which can misrepresent reality (Bloch 1975;

Turner 1967; Williamson 1978). This ideology is not so much that of the deceased but also that of the living, since it was they who placed the objects in the tombs and graves.

As Leach points out, “If graves are in any way an index of social status, it is the status of the funeral organizers as much as the social status of the deceased that is involved”

(1979:122). Furthermore, archaeologists often project modern ideologies associated with status, wealth, and even gender onto past societies (Pader 1982:28-9). The quantity and quality of the offerings, if assumed to be the personal possessions of the deceased, are often regarded as indicators of the individual’s wealth (Dickinson 1994:180; Kewani

2005:341-2; Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009; Paschalidis 2012:548, 554) but there are other possible explanations. For example, Pader (1982:58) suggests that a person with more relatives might receive more offerings than a wealthy person who has fewer relatives to contribute, and because these offerings are often formulized by ritual, one cannot assume that the items represent the personal possessions of the deceased (Whitley

2002:219).

Rather than just seeking wealth, status, and prestige in the mortuary record (i.e. what can the deceased tell us about the structures of past societies), archaeologists should also examine the rituals inherent in funerary activity. Members of a society repeat funerary rituals until they become customary and continue to perform them, with very little variation, even when the society experiences social change (Bloch 1977; Pader

1982:39). This process can be seen in the use of chamber tombs by the Mycenaeans.

Despite the social and political changes which took place at the transition to LH IIIC period, chamber tombs were still the preferred burial type and people continued to place offerings with the deceased. This continuation of practice is rooted in the funerary ritual, and although the reason behind the ritual may have been lost to the participants, many of the details remain the same (Pader 1982:38).

In addition to ritual, archaeologists should also make note of the idiosyncrasies

(i.e. deviations from the norm), since these too will affect how the remains are interpreted. The types of funerary offerings permitted are regulated by the ritual itself

(Pader 1982:58), so idiosyncratic activities can tell archaeologists a lot about the mortuary rituals of the society under study. Deviations from the norm are not arbitrary and so might represent special circumstances.

The Current Study

This thesis will test the assumptions made by archaeologists regarding the nature of Mycenaean mortuary rituals in chamber tombs by creating a visual representation of the data through the use of Correspondence Analysis (CA), which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. CA is an exploratory technique which reveals the underlining structure of the data. Therefore, if the offerings found in the chamber tombs do reflect the social structure, idealized or otherwise, then the results of this analysis should reveal this patterning. In addition, this method will also reveal the offerings which were part of the standard funerary rite in the chamber tombs. Objects which appear most often will represent offerings associated with the funerary ritual, while those that do not appear often will represent idiosyncrasies, which may be associated with special circumstance.

Summary

Role theory and formal analysis are still a common feature in literature on

Mycenaean mortuary remains. Although there is merit to the theory that social status can be found in the burial practices of a society, ancient or otherwise, scholars should also

focus on ritual significance of the offerings placed in burial contexts. Even if the item is believed to be politically charged, it may not necessarily represent the deceased’s role in the politics of his or her society, but rather represent an ideal one. Rituals, regardless of the socio-political situation, do not change much over time, meaning that the political significance of an item may lie in the past (an ideal past) for the society performing the funeral (Bloch 1977; Pader 1982:38-9). The meaning behind the item’s significance may even be lost to the people, but the offering is still placed with the deceased because ritual dictates what is appropriate.

The fact that chamber tombs were still the main burial type after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces and the fact that often similar offerings continued to be placed with the deceased is an indication that they were part of the mortuary ritual. For this reason, the offerings in the chamber tombs need to be examined in terms other than wealth and status and that is what this study proposes to do.

Chapter Four

Method: Correspondence Analysis and Chi-Square Tests

This chapter begins with a brief outline of the development of CA and its introduction into archaeology. Next, it explains how the method works and the specific applications that are often used by archaeologists: chronology/seriation, chorology, and social analysis (Jensen and Nielsen 1997). Presented in this chapter are also three case studies in which CA has been applied to archaeological data to demonstrate how this method works and to illustrate its efficacy. A discussion of the benefits of CA for the study of archaeological data is given, followed by an explanation of chi square tests and how they are applied to test hypotheses.

The Development of Correspondence Analysis

Various methods exist that can be used for the study of ancient mortuary data.

The choice of method depends on what it is the researcher is trying to ascertain from the data, and the type of data being used. Burials, for example, preserve a lot of data for study, even those with little in terms of offerings. As a result of this abundance of data, it can be difficult for the researcher to determine the structure or nature of the data in order to formulate a hypothesis. One method which allows the researcher to accomplish this task is called Correspondence Analysis (CA), which presents the data on a multidimensional subspace. CA belongs to a multivariate group of data reduction methods that includes Principle Components, Principle Coordinates, Factor Analysis, and Multidimensional Scaling (Gnanadesikan 1977; Bølviken et al. 1982:41). CA is a derivative of Principle Component Analysis (PCA), but PCA is not as well suited for

archaeological data because such data often consist of high counts (for example, pottery types) or presence/absence of nominal categories (for example, particular types of offerings) (Shennan 2006:308). PCA does not treat counts equally, resulting in skewed information, and does not deal with presence/absence data. CA, on the other hand, is well suited for the analysis of archaeological data, especially those derived from mortuary contexts, because it is designed to deal with the counts and presence/absence of nominal categories. For this reason, CA was chosen for this study on the offerings from

Mycenaean chamber tombs.

CA is a geometric form (i.e. it consists of visual points on a plot) of earlier mathematical methods developed independently in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1933,

Richardson and Kuder (1933) suggested a non-mathematical principle which looked for correlation between columns and rows. It was in 1935, however, that Hartley, under his

German name (Hirschfeld 1935), published an algebraic formula which allowed for the correlation between columns and rows of a contingency table to be understood mathematically, in what many consider to be the first presentation of the origins of CA.

Horst (1935) independently developed the same non-mathematical principle, which he called method of reciprocal averages, as Richardson and Kuder a few years later. Fisher

(1940) then applied Horst’s principle to data (the eye and hair colours of children) on a contingency table for the purpose of discriminant analysis, and Guttman (1941) independently developed a similar method used on categorical data, which was later used in the development of Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA).8 Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, work continued on the method developed by Guttman and his predecessors,

8 This method will not be discussed in this chapter since it will not be used for the analysis. For more on Multiple Correspondence Analysis see: Le Roux and Rouanet 2010. 67

and although these early techniques produce numerical results, while CA produces visual results on a graph, both methods share the same mathematical theory, a mathematical theory which resulted in the development of CA in the first place (Greenacre 1984:8-9).

CA was developed in the 1960s using the earlier mathematical principles by

Benzécri (1963; 1969), who used this method to examine data in linguistics. For example, the rows were consonants and the columns were the final vocals within the Chinese language (Benzécri 1977). The French word ‘correspondance’ was used to refer to “the system associations” between the rows and columns of the contingency table (Greenacre

1984:9).

It was not until the late 1970s that CA appeared in archaeological literature

(Madsen 1988:16; Baxter 1994:133; Jensen and Nielsen 1997:37), most of which related to material from Scandinavia. Bølviken et al. (1982) is considered the paper which introduced CA to archaeologists (Baxter 1994:101; Baxter and Cool 2010:212), and since the 1980s, it has become popular among Scandinavian archaeologists, especially in

Norway and Denmark. According to Jensen and Nielsen (1997:37), since its introduction

CA has become one of the most widely used multivariate methods in archaeology, while

Orton (1999:32) claims that CA is the most noteworthy statistical method proposed since the 1980s. Archaeologists were initially slow to make use of this method after its introduction, but it has seen a rise in popularity since the mid-1990s.

Before discussing some of the applications of CA in archaeology or providing specific examples, it is necessary to review how this method works.

Correspondence Analysis

CA is slightly different from other statistical methods because its concepts are geometric rather than statistical (Greenacre 1984:8). The point of using CA is to create a graphical display which represents both the columns and rows of a contingency table consisting of non-negative numbers for the purpose of examining the underlining structure of the data (Bølviken et al. 1982:42; Weller and Romney 1990:55; Baxter

1994:100; Greenacre and Blasius 1994:vii; Clouse 1999:97; Baxter and Cool 2010:211).

The rows (units) and columns (variables) are displayed as points on a set of superimposed axes, or individually so that units and/or variables might be compared in terms of their profiles, or sets of relative frequencies (i.e. a row frequency divided by the total of row frequencies) (Greenacre 1984:55). In archaeological terms, the relative frequencies are compared to the relative distribution of artefacts within the units (contexts) or the distribution of units (contexts) among the artefacts (Bølviken et al. 1982:42). The points on one set of axes correspond to the rows of the table, while the points on the other set of axes represent the columns. The row points which are close together represent contexts with similar profiles in terms of their artefact assemblages, while column points which are close together represent artefacts which have a similar distribution across the contexts. These two sets of axes are often superimposed so that the similarities and differences between the units and variables can be seen more clearly (Baxter and Cool

2010:212). In other words, CA “evaluates the correspondence of the columns to the rows in a data table and displays the results in the graph” (Clouse 1999:97).

CA is used for describing the data and for developing ideas about the structure of the data which cannot be seen through simple observation of the table with the goal of

developing testable hypotheses; CA does not, however, examine the statistical significance of this structure (Bølviken et al. 1982:56; Weller and Romney 1990:57;

Blasius 1994:23; Jensen and Nielsen 1997:38). Baxter states, “Away from the origin, row points tend to occupy a similar region of space to the column points identifying variables on which they have high values relative to the average profile” (Baxter 1994:112). In other words, the distances between the points on the graph indicate the degree of relationship, meaning that points which appear close together are more similar than those further apart. This distance does not represent a spatial distance but rather an association of the patterning in the data (Weller and Romney 1990:58; Clause 1999:98). By presenting the data on superimposed sets of axes, the researcher is able to see which units and variables are responsible for the axes (i.e. which units and variables deviate from the norm) (Bølviken et al. 1982:44; Baxter 1994:114). The interpretation of the axes is the responsibility of the researcher, who must draw upon the information already known about the contexts of the data, such as date/time period, location/region, or social structure, among others. How the researcher accomplishes this feat depends on what information he or she hopes to gather from the CA results. Archaeologists using CA often focus on three different applications: chronology/seriation, chorology, or social analysis.

This focus determines not only the type of data selected but how it is organized on the contingency table.

The Use of CA for Chronology/Seriation

The most common use of CA for archaeological studies is for chronology/seriation (Baxter and Cool 2010:212). This use is not surprising since the

chronological sequence of artefacts (i.e. changes over time) at specific sites has obvious archaeological significance. Chronology places societies into specific periods of time and allows the researcher to formulate clearer statements and hypotheses about the culture, customs, and traditions of the people under study.

In order to perform a CA for seriation, the variables must contain style-related characteristics. The purpose of these variable groupings is that continuity and change among artefact types are seen in style (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:30).9 Pottery is the best type of artefact for a chronological analysis, since style-related characteristics might include changes in decoration, shape/size, or fabric. In order to perform a chronological analysis, the date of the artefacts must be represented in the data used for the CA (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:33).

It is, therefore, important to be careful when selecting data for chronological analysis since certain assemblages might cause problems. For example, as Jensen and

Nielsen (1997:33) point out, wealthy graves contain a substantial quantity of material that may belong to more than one person, aside from the person buried, and so might represent heirlooms or imports, which may be much older than the burial unit. These types of artefacts are difficult to analyse chronologically and, therefore, make the CA results difficult to interpret.

Secondly, it is also important to avoid organizing variables by their function- related characteristics (for example, pins, projectiles, fishing equipment, etc.) or choosing

9 Jensen and Nielsen (1997) refer to the variables as “function-related”, but what they are indicating is style. Style is not a well-defined term in that scholars tend to have their own opinion as to what ‘style’ means. Style is often defined as anything which does not have functional value (Dunnel 1978; Sackett 1990). For CA, style related variables are features of a specific artefact type which may be considered decorative, ornamental, or based on shape or size because these features change over time or from region to region. 71

those which are socially determined (for example, ceramic vessels vs. metal vessels).

These characteristics will not display seriation but rather social differentiation (Jensen

and Nielsen 1997:34). The results can look the same, but the interpretation will be false.

The contingency table used for a CA on seriation is, thus, organized with the

rows consisting of artefact assemblages and the columns consisting of style types (Table

4.1) with the goal of producing a graph which displays a chronological pattern within the

assemblages (Baxter 2003:137). Table 4.1 The Archaeological Material from the Helgøy Farm Mound10 Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 01 17 44 0 3 4 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 6 0 02 30 28 2 0 8 0 16 11 2 0 1 0 0 13 1 6 1 10 1 03 34 0 1 1 9 0 7 1 0 1 1 0 0 15 0 1 0 9 0 04 48 3 1 11 21 0 17 1 2 1 0 1 1 16 1 3 0 3 2 05 49 24 0 1 9 7 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 4 0 0 5 1 06 24 1 2 0 3 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1 07 13 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 08 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 09 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 11 3 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 12 23 0 1 0 5 2 10 0 6 1 2 1 3 15 0 2 0 0 0 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 (Bøviken et al. 1982:54)

If the units and variables represent seriation, then the points on the resulting plot will be

arranged in a parabolic curve (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:38) (Figure 19). Perfect seriations

are not always possible, so any outliers should be noted and removed from the analysis.

The purpose of removing outliers and re-running the CA is to see if the result is similar to

the first one. If it is, then these outliers had no significant effect on the result and can be

10 The variables are: 1: Undecorated pottery; 2: Decorated pottery; 3: Stone ware; 4: Glass ware; 5: Boat nails; 6: Fishing hooks; 7:Nails; 8: Window glass; 9: Knives; 10: Whetstones; 11: Other iron objects; 12:Personal ornaments; 13: Other personal objects; 14: Iron fragments; 15: Bronze fragments; 16: Flint fragments; 17: Lead fragments; 18: Clay pipes; 19: Slag (Bøviken et al. 1982:54). 72

removed from the analysis entirely, but if they do, then it may be worth examining why such is the case (Bølviken et al. 1982:56-7; Baxter and Cool 2010:220).

The Use of CA for Chorology

Chorology is the study of causal relations between geographical changes which occur in a particular region. For archaeologists, however, chorology refers to causal relations between local artefacts occurring in a particular region.

The variables used in chorological analysis are mostly found in style-related characteristics, as was the case with chronological analysis, but the CA results do not necessarily result in a parabolic distribution. The structure of the data on the plot may form a sequential change (parabola) or clusters, depending on the social and territorial organizations represented in the data. Social organizations that use material culture as a marker of status are more likely to produce clustered results, with each cluster representing a distinct social group, while a society which lacks a clear hierarchy will produce a more gradual, parabolic change (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:31).

In order to run a chorological analysis successfully, the data used must derive from and actually characterize the region under study, meaning that imports cannot be used. Not using imports for this analysis makes sense because the point is to understand the changing characteristics of artefacts from that particular region. As a result, wealthy burials might also cause problems for this type of analysis since they often contain a number of foreign objects. In some cases, objects such as jewellery, dress accessories, and pottery might be ideal for chorological analysis because they often reflect very

specific regional characteristics (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:34). Burial ritual, burial type, and offering arrangement in the burial are also acceptable variables for the same reason.

The Use of CA for Social Analysis

The purpose of performing a social analysis on archaeological material, especially burial data, is to try to understand the intentions of the members of a past society. In other words, social analysis asks the question: ‘what did they want to express?’ (Jensen and

Nielsen 1997:31, 34). This expression in terms of burial offerings may be the wealth, status, ideology, or ethnicity of the deceased or of the persons engaging in the funeral and burial ritual. Wealthy burials are ideal for this type of analysis since they contain a large amount of material which reflects such expressions.

The variables used in social analysis contain function-related characteristics, rather than style-related ones, resulting in the formation of functional groups, such as

‘drinking vessels’ or ‘clothing.’ These groups, or categories, contain all the drinking vessels or all the clothing from a given unit (for example, a burial or a building). When dealing with very large data sets, this type of organization is ideal because it reduces the amount of noise in the structure on the plot. Noise is created when many units or variables contain similar profiles, resulting in a messy graph which is difficult to read or interpret (Bølviken et al. 1982:46). The results of a well-organized social analysis are more likely to cluster (Figure 20) or form groups than chorology or seriation so it is important to simplify the data into these function-related characteristics (Jensen and

Nielsen 1997:32). Parabolic results are also possible, but are rarer than in the other two applications.

The resulting clusters on the CA plot can often be identified with social groups, meaning that time and style are absent from social analysis (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:31).

Social groups might include gender specific groups, age specific groups, or status specific groups. When using mortuary data, it is important to note whether the offerings belonged to the deceased or to family/friends, if they were created/brought together specifically for the burial ritual, or if they were used in life (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:34). These ideas are important because they help the researcher answer the question of expression, even though it is not always possible to know what the items represent.

The results displayed on the plot reflect the changes in conventions for the arrangement of offerings in the burial, conventions which often reflect the ideological aspects of a society, since changes are intentional (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:32, 34).

Social analysis, however, does not explain why these conventions changed. Determining why is the responsibility of the researcher, who must use what he or she already knows about the society under study.

Case Studies

CA has been used successfully by archaeologists to provide or confirm the underlining structure of their data, as outlined above. This section will examine three specific case studies: Late Stone Age houses near Iversfjord in Finmark, Arctic Norway,

Early Medieval Period graves from Gotland, and the military post of Fort Snelling in

Minnesota. These three case studies have been chosen because, like the analysis in this thesis, they focus on examining the social structure in the different data sets using function-related characteristics.

Late Stone Age Houses near Iversfjord in Finmark, Arctic Norway

The Late Stone Age houses near Iversfjord in Finmark have been interpreted, according to Bølviken et al. (1982), as winter coastal fishing villages. In their article,

Bølviken et al. use CA to test this assumption, with the goal “of determining the amount and kind of variation, if any, in resource utilization/procurement activities which are evidenced at a single coastal locality” (Bølviken et al. 1982:44).

The first analysis was done using a contingency table with variables consisting of thirty-seven lithic types from fourteen house assemblages (Bølviken et al. 1982:45, Table

1), but the results produced too much noise, making the plot difficult to read. To fix this problem, the thirty-seven lithic types were grouped into nine tool categories based on function: points, scraper/burins, core tools, knives, net sinkers, tool manufacture, slag fragments, utilized flakes, and perforated stones (Bølviken et al. 1982:45, Table 1, 46).

CA was performed again, producing similar results to those of the first analysis but these results were much clearer and easier to interpret. Bølviken et al. (1982:47, fig. 3) interpret the horizontal axis of the plot as representing a contrast between maintenance activities

(scrapers/burins and utilized flakes) and active procurement, in this case, fishing (fishing equipment and perforated stones), while the vertical axis contrasts the two different procurement activities attested at the site, hunting (projectile points and worked slag fragments) and fishing (knives and fishing equipment) (Figure 20).

Bølviken et al. conclude that the Late Stone Age houses do not appear to be winter coastal villages, based on the results from of the CA. If the house clusters did represent winter coastal fishing villages, then the results would produce a single cluster

representing this activity. Instead, there is a clear distinction between three different economic activities: fishing, hunting, and maintenance activities (Bølviken et al.

1982:47). Thus, the house site assemblages are organized by the researchers as such:

Table 4.2 Artefact Assemblages for Late Stone Age Houses near Iversfjord in Finmark, Arctic Norway Houses Activity Cluster 1 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14 Maintenance Cluster 2 9, 10, and 11 Hunting Cluster 3 1, 2, and 3 Fishing (Bølviken et al. 1982:47)

The results of the CA provide a much better understanding of the diversity of economic activities and the different types of settlement permanence than had been determined by looking only at the raw data. Rather than one economic activity over a short term, the coastal house sites engaged in more long term diversified activities (Bølviken et al.

1982:47).

Early Medieval Period Graves from Gotland, Sweden

The Early Medieval period graves from Gotland in Sweden date to the sixth and seventh centuries and were originally published by Nerman (1969; 1975). Using this information, Jensen and Nielsen (1997:56, fig. 46) performed a CA, in which the variables consisted of artefacts, divided into different functional types, and the units consisted of the graves themselves. The authors chose to represent the two plots separately to make the results a little clearer. Their results present a series of groups arranged in a rough parabolic-shape that show a clear distinction between male and female burials on the horizontal axis (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:55, fig. 43-44, 58). The female burials are represented by the tight cluster on the right side of the plot, while the

more dispersed clusters to the left represent male burials, which fall into two groups. The first cluster of male burials consists of those containing gaming pieces, glass, and arrows, while the second cluster represents those provided with weapons.

The vertical axis of the plot shows the internal variation in the male and female burials respectively. On the vertical axis, the male burials can be broken down into three different groups which consist of variation over a certain but not clearly distinguished theme:

1. Arrows, glass, and gaming pieces – weaponry less characteristic 2. Weapon burials with rich equipment but no standardized weapon sets 3. Less well equipped weapon burials (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:58)

The female burials, in the same way, can be distinguished into two groups: well- furnished and not so well-furnished. Jensen and Nielsen (1997:58) also note that there is a more gradual increase in the number of artefacts in the female burials than there is in the male burials.

The results of this CA reveal a social structure in which the graves are distinguished between male and female burials with almost exclusive artefact types as well as a clear class structure among the two sexes.

Frontier Military Post at Fort Snelling, Minnesota

A frontier military post was constructed at Fort Snelling, Minnesota in 1820 and continued to operate as such until 1945 (Clouse 1999:90). Clouse (1996; 1999) examined the material from this site and developed what he called “the Military Site Model”, “an analogue model of cultural variability and regularity” (Clouse 1999:94). This model draws upon both historical and archaeological studies for the purpose of developing

generalizations of military contexts, from which hypotheses can be developed for specific applications to the Fort Snelling data. He suggests that Fort Snelling is a “highly- structured, highly regimented organization that changes relatively little over time” and that there is a clear distinction between status and access to resources at the post (Clouse

1999:94; cf. Clouse 1996:14-9). It has been suggested that those with higher status, such as officers, gained greater access to the resources (Johnston 1982).

To test his model, Clouse (1999:94) used CA to compare the presence/absence structural data at Fort Snelling. The data are organized with the unit contexts divided into three different groups: Habitation, Defence, and Support (Clouse 1999:92, Table 1). The artefacts, on the other hand, are divided between fourteen functional groups: Culinary;

Leisure; Personal Hygiene; Health and Medical; Indulgences; Furniture; Armament;

Construction Tools; Sewing Utensils; Writing Utensils; Burden and Transport; Clothing,

Adornment and Footwear; Architectural Materials and Building Hardware; and

Commerce (Clouse 1999:93, Table 2). These contexts and variable groups (Clouse

1999:95, Table 3) were then tested using CA.

Table 4.3 Frontier Military Post at Fort Snelling, Minnesota Habitation Group Artefact Assemblages Cluster 1 Commanding Officer’s Tools, Sewing Utensils, Furniture, Quarters, Officer’s Leisure, Culinary, Clothing, Quarters, ands Officer’s Architectural Materials, and Health and Latrine Medicine Cluster 2 Large Barracks and Short Burden and Transport, Armaments, Barracks Personal Hygiene, Commerce, Writing Utensils, Clothing, and Architectural Materials Cluster 3 Sutler’s Store Latrine, Indulgences Sutler’s Store Living Quarters, and Enlisted Men’s Latrine

The analysis reveals the discrimination of resources among the different status groups, with the majority of resources clustering around the Officer’s Quarters and the

Commanding Officer’s Quarters (Table 4.3). The association of the Leisure, Furniture, and Culinary groups with the Officer’s and Commanding Officer’s Quarters fits with the researcher’s expectations and with what is known about the social structure of the site; that is, a very clear hierarchy with the Officers and Commanding Officers at the top

(Clouse 1999:102). Surprisingly, the Enlisted Men’s Latrine did not cluster with the Long

Barracks and the Short Barracks (cluster 2) as was expected, but rather with the Sutler’s

Store Latrine and Sutler’s Store Living Quarters (cluster 3) (Clouse 1999:101-2). This third cluster reveals a unit which does not fit in the Military Site Model, but belongs instead to a “subculture”, according to Clouse, since these contexts appear to be where the consumption of alcohol and tobacco (Indulgences) took place. Thus, the context units should be divided into four, rather than three, groups, with the fourth being “Non-

Military Context Unit” (Clouse 1999:102-3). This activity was contained in a small sector of the military post at Fort Snelling, and its existence shows that the military structure was able to incorporate cultural norms, such as individualism, not generally found in the military itself (Clouse 1999:104).

Advantages of Using CA on Archaeological Material

As these three case studies show, CA has a number of advantages over other multivariate analyses for the study of archaeological material. CA was designed to handle presence/absence and frequency types (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:26, 38) which comprise much of archaeological data, and its results are not heavily influenced by frequency

counts since its focus is on the relationship between the units and the variables. The ability to deal with frequency type data is important for archaeological studies because there are tendencies for certain variables to occur in very high frequencies while others have very low frequencies. With other forms of analysis, such as PCA, variables with high frequencies tend to dominate the results, but with CA both high and low frequencies are considered equally (Clouse 1999:97-8).

In addition, CA presents the data in such a way that it allows for a clear comparison between variables and units. By examining archaeological data on a CA map, it is much easier to see archaeological effects which are otherwise unobservable in the data itself (Bølviken et al. 1982:43). In other words, CA reveals the underlining structure of the data by plotting the relationship between units and variables via their average correspondence (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:37, 38).

This type of presentation has clear advantages over other methods such as cluster analysis or simple seriation, since results of these analyses often provide a positive result, regardless of whether or not one exists, while scaling methods produce linear results, which look like a positive seriation even when such structure does not exist (Jensen and

Nielsen 1997:37-8). CA does not produce the expected structure but rather produces the structure as it exists in the data. The expectations of the researcher have very little effect on the resulting structure because CA cannot produce what does not exist. The results of a CA on archaeological data must be interpreted by the archaeologist since this method does not offer one (Jensen and Nielsen 1997:38). Once an interpretation is made and the structure of the data is understood, the researcher can then proceed with examining whether or not the structure has archaeological significance.

CA is not usually used on its own since it does not explain the statistical significance of the structure produced on the plot or actually explain why such a structure is produced. CA is an exploratory technique used to examine the nature of large data sets in order to develop workable hypotheses. Bølviken et al. (1982:55) suggest, however, that CA can be useful on its own because it does reveal the nature of the clusters through the relationship between the units and variables, but generally, CA should be used in conjunction with other methods (Baxter 1994:128), such as the chi square statistic. Once a hypothesis is developed using CA, a chi square test (χ²) can be used to test the statistical significance of the hypothesis.

Chi Square Tests

The chi square test is represented by the Greek letter chi and derives its name from the statistic produced (χ2) (Drennan 2010:183). The χ2 is used to measure nominal data (i.e. data classified into categories) for calculating the correspondence between distributions in various situations (Shennan 1988 [1997]:104). This measurement is performed by comparing the observed values with the expected values. The observed values are the actual counts observed in the data while the expected values represent what might be expected if the distribution among the variables is not different. The expected values are obtained by multiplying the row sum with the corresponding column sum and dividing the result from the overall total (Shennan 1988 [1997]:111). Calculating the expected values is essential to the χ2 statistic because the method involves assessing departures from average, which is done by comparing the observed values with the

expected values (Drennan 2010:182). The equation used to determine the χ2 value is as follows:

(푂푖 − 퐸푖)² χ2 = ∑ 퐸푖

Where Oi represents the observed values and Ei represents the expected values (Drennan

2010:184). The degree of freedom is determined by the number of rows minus one and the number of columns minus one, while the significance is usually set to 0.001 or 0.05.

There are two main types of χ2: the 1-sample test and the contingency table for cross-classified data. The 1-sample test is not used by archaeologists as often as the contingency table, but both are used to test the hypotheses generated from the CA in this thesis. The goal of these types of tests is to determine if the difference between observed values and expected values is great enough to suggest that the relationship did not occur by chance (Shennan 1988 [1997]:105-6).

The 1-sample test is used to compare a theorized population with a sample to test the “goodness-to-fit” between these two distributions (Shennan 1988[1997]:104). In other words, this test compares “the distribution of observations across the categories and the distribution to be anticipated under some theoretically derived expectation” (Shennan

1988 [1997]:106). The 1-sample only requires one variable type, for example soil type, to test against a population, such as a site.

The second type of χ2 is used for cross-classified data and presented on a contingency table. For this type of test, χ2 examines data that has been classified under two different criteria, generally in the form of a 2x2 table. This type of test is similar to the 1-sample test in that it the data is obtained from corresponding categories, but the contingency table χ2 asks whether two categories are independent of each other (i.e. the

membership to one category is not related to the membership of another) (Shennan

1988[1997]:109-10). Another difference between this test and the 1-sample test is that it requires two or more variable types, but like the 1-sample test, it also compares the observed values with the expected values.

2 Before using the χ statistic, the null hypothesis (H0) and hypothesis (H1) must be formulated. The H0 suggests that the distribution of column variables across the row variables is not different, while the H1 suggests that the distribution is different. In order to determine that the result of the test is significant, the H0 must be rejected. The rejection of H0, however depends on the level of significance set, which is usually p<0.001 or p<0.05. The decision regarding which level to use depends on the data being tested. The result of the χ2, however, does not inform the researcher about the strength of the relationship, only that there is a probability that the relationship exists (Shennan 1988

[1997]):113). Therefore, the χ2 answers the question ‘is there or is there not a relationship?’ and the result will give the researcher more confidence in answering that question (Shennan 1988 [1997]):113-4).

Summary

Correspondence Analysis has not previously been applied to Mycenaean mortuary data, or any other form of Bronze Age Aegean material, making this study the first of its kind. Mycenaean mortuary remains are well suited for CA because there is a substantial amount of data to utilize, both in terms of the number of available tombs and available artefacts. The present study is limited to one burial type, the chamber tomb, and the artefacts have been organized based on their function, as opposed to style, since the goal

of the CA is social analysis. Chamber tombs alone were chosen for study because of their abundance throughout the Mainland and because they contain the largest variety of artefact types, compared to any other burial type for the LH IIIA-LH IIIC periods. A detailed description of and the process used to collect the data used in this analysis are discussed in Chapter Five.

Chapter Five

Methodology and Data Description

As mentioned in the previous chapter, this study focuses on the presence/absence of mortuary offerings in chamber tombs through the use of CA; therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to discuss the mortuary data collected for the CA, the results of which are discussed in the next chapter. In the first section, the process used to select the data is explained, as well as the problems encountered, and how they were solved. Next, the sites with cemeteries in this sample are examined, together with the excavation histories of each, and why they were chosen for this analysis. Lastly, this chapter outlines the contexts and variables of the data, including how they were organized and why they were organized in such a way.

Data Selection

During the data collection phase of the research, information was gathered on 251 chamber tombs from the eight sites outlined below. Many of these tombs, however, proved to be of little use for the analysis for a number of reasons. First, only tombs that contained five or more variable categories were chosen, since units with fewer than five variables are not robust, resulting in too many outliers. CA is very sensitive to outliers and too many of them can produce disorganised results (Bølviken et al. 1982:56; Baxter and Cool 2010:220). Second, only tombs which had not been heavily looted were included, meaning that each tomb had at least one intact context or retained most of its offerings. Looting can negatively affect the results of a presence/absence analysis, since the absence of a particular artefact group may not be due to actual absence but rather

looting. One of the aims of this thesis is to determine the mortuary rituals in terms of the types of items placed in chamber tombs, but this behaviour can be misrepresented in heavily looted tombs. Finally, only tombs which had been confidently dated to the LH

IIIA, LH IIIB, and/or the LH IIIC periods were chosen. The other aim of this thesis is to see if the types of items being placed in tombs were influenced by the Mycenaean palaces and their subsequent collapse, so tombs which pre-date the appearance of the palaces or tombs which have not been properly dated are not appropriate for the current study. In addition, much of the LH I-II material from the chamber tombs is sparse because this material was often cleared from the chamber, leaving only trace evidence.

Problems and Solutions

Despite this very specific selection process, there are still some problems. The biggest problem is that Mycenaean chamber tombs were continually reopened and used for multiple burials, throughout many generations (Chapter Three). When these tombs were reused, the material from the previous burials was often swept to the side of the chamber. It is possible that the intentional removal of offerings took place during the secondary treatment. The process of intentional secondary manipulation can result in a misrepresentation of the primary mortuary ritual (Kolář 2012:29), especially if certain offerings are removed. Intentional secondary manipulation is defined as a human action which results in the movement of the primary deposit to a secondary deposit (Kolář

2012:30). This action may or may not be a part of the funerary ritual, but it is common in tombs and graves which are used for multiple burials. Related to this problem is the problem of looting, which takes place long after the tomb has gone out of use. Looting is

an intentional secondary manipulation which is not a part of the funerary ritual. When using an exploratory technique based on the presence/absence of artefacts, such as CA, the removal of offerings during secondary burial or looting presents a serious problem for the researcher, since the absence of an artefact in a tomb may not actually mean absence from the ritual.

The problem of missing data is difficult to solve, since it is not clear what types of artefacts might be missing due to the intentional removal of offerings or looting. One possible solution would be to determine which items known to have been placed in tombs were regarded as valuable, in order to determine which items might be missing due to looting. Given the time restraints of this study, such a solution could not be performed.

Therefore, as a solution to the problem of looting, only tombs which either had not been seriously looted or had at least one non-looted deposit were chosen. The latter was only be applied to two tombs in this sample, Perati Σ1 and Perati Σ2, since these tombs were heavily looted but they still contained one non-looted context each. Unfortunately, this solution is unable to accommodate for the intentional removal of offerings during secondary burial but enough tombs have been included in the sample to gain sufficient insight into the behavioural patterns of the Mycenaeans who buried their dead in chamber tombs. In addition, variable categories, which will be discussed below, have been based on assemblages that were common in most of the tombs, to prevent any serious imbalance in the results of the CA.

Another problem with the data used in this study arises from the methods of early excavators. Many of the chamber tomb cemeteries were excavated during the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, when excavation methods were not always ideal.

During these early excavations, pot sherds or items of “little value” were often discarded or simply not recorded. This problem is an unfortunate one since that material is now lost, resulting in the appearance of absence which otherwise might not be true. To avoid this problem, most of the tombs in this sample derive from excavations which did not disregard finds based on modern perceptions of value.

The Cemeteries

The current study focuses on 114 chamber tombs from cemeteries at eight sites on the Mainland, representing three different regions. These sites were chosen because of their diverse position on the Mainland and the amount of material evidence from their tombs. The decision to include some of the tombs from each cemetery, while excluding the others, was based on the very specific selection process discussed above.

Mycenae

Mycenae is located in the Argolid (Figure 21), in the northeast of the

Peloponnese, and is the site of a Mycenaean palace. West of the palace and settlement are the various cemeteries (Mee and Cavanagh 1990:227), including Grave Circle B, the scattered tholos tombs, and the seventeen chamber tomb groups. In total, 142 chamber tombs have been recorded from Mycenae over the span of fifteen seasons of excavations.

The site of Mycenae was included in this analysis because it was a palatial centre during

LH IIIA-IIIB and experienced continual occupation after the collapse of the palatial system. If the palaces influenced the types of items placed in the chamber tombs, then the tombs from Mycenae would most accurately reflect this effect.

Table 5.1 Chamber Tombs from Mycenae Group Excavator Tsountas Mylonas Wace Panagia 8 tombs 3 tombs - Epano 15 tombs - 1 tomb Pegadi/Phournodiaselo Aghios Georgios 13 tomb - 1 tomb Third Kilometer 3 tombs - 3 tombs Kato Phournos 10 tombs - - Asprochoma/Agriosykia 11 tombs - - Asprochoma East 7 tombs - - Asprochoma West 5 tombs - - Asprochoma Southwest 2 tombs - - Souleimoni 9 tombs - - Busioti 3 tombs - - Alepotrypa 14 tombs - 1 tomb Gortsoulia - 4 tombs - Paleogalaro East - 3 tombs - Kapsala North - 2 tombs - The Kalkani (North - - 6 tombs Bank) The Kalkani (South - - 15 tombs Bank) Unknown 3 tombs Total 103 tombs 12 tombs 27 tombs

Over nine excavation campaigns (1887-1888, 1890, 1892-1893, and 1895-1898),

Tsountas discovered and excavated 103 chamber tombs, but only 86 were catalogued

(Tsountas 1888) and the excavation notes from four seasons (1890, 1892, 1893, and

1898) have disappeared (Shelton 1993:187). The Mycenae Survey, under the direction of

French and the supervision of Iakovides, aimed to rediscover Tsountas’ tombs during the

1991-1993 seasons, and succeeded in finding most of his 86 recorded tombs (Shelton

1993:187) (Table 5.1). During this mission, the team discovered three more excavated tombs among the Souleimoni group, where Tsountas had recorded only discovering six.

Since these three tombs had already been excavated, there is very little information about them, including why Tsountas had decided not to record their discovery (Shelton

1993:196-197).

During the excavation seasons of 1920 to 1923, Wace conducted excavations at the groups discovered by Tsountas as well as in two new areas, resulting in the discovery of 27 new chamber tombs (Wace 1932), while from 1964 and 1972 (Figures 22-25),

Mylonas discovered seven new chamber tombs, three of which were found among the

Panagia group excavated by Tsountas (Shelton 2000:27).

Despite the large number of chamber tombs from Mycenae, only 27 tombs were included in the sample, and most of these were discovered during the excavations carried out by Wace and Mylonas.11 The chamber tombs excavated by Tsountas either did not fit the criteria or were not accessible.

Prosymna

Prosymna is also located in the Argolid (Figure 21), with the cemetery itself located to the southwest of the Argive Heraeum, towards Mycenae. The cemetery occupies three ridges, Aspróchoma, West Yerogálaro, and East Yerogálaro, and the

Kephalári Hill (Blegen 1937:4, 229). Prosymna is included in this study because it was not a palatial centre, yet was located close to the palace at Mycenae. In addition, the height of its use was during LH IIIA-B, thus providing information on Mycenaean

11 The data from Mycenae were gathered from: Wace 1932; Kontorli-Papadopoulou 1987; Shelton 1993; Mountjoy 1999; Shelton 2000; Konstantinidi 2001. 91

mortuary ritual at a non-palatial site in close proximity to a palatial site during the

Palatial period.

The earliest excavations at Prosymna were performed at the Argive Heraion, an

Archaic temple to Hera, in 1836 under Gordon and 1854 under Rangabe. Neither of these excavations revealed prehistoric remains and when Schliemann visited the site in 1874, he too failed to turn up anything Mycenaean. The first evidence of Mycenaean activity at

Prosymna was recovered in 1878 by Stamatakis, who discovered a tholos tomb near the temple (Blegen 1937:1). Excavations at Prosymna were placed on hold until 1892, when the American School of Classical Studies, under the direction of Waldstein (later changed to Sir Walston), returned to the site for four seasons (1892-1895). During these excavations, Waldstein discovered some Mycenaean remains, including two chamber tombs. Little attention was paid to the Mycenaean remains, however, since the excavations focused on the Archaic temple (Blegen 1937:1-2).

It was not until 1914 that excavations which focused on the Mycenaean material began at Prosymna under Hoppin, who was a member of the American School during

Waldstein’s excavations. Due to illness, Hoppin was not able to complete his work at

Prosymna and when he died in 1925, the task of excavating the site was given to Blegen, who led excavations during the 1925, 1927, and 1928 seasons (Blegen 1937:3). These excavations revealed fifty chamber tombs (Table 5.2), dating from LH I to LH IIIB

(Blegen 1937:229, 230-232) (Figures 26-31). The chamber tombs discovered by

Waldstein and Blegen represent only a part of what is thought to be the total, but little work has been done at Prosymna since Blegen’s excavations.

Table 5.2 Chamber Tombs from Prosymna Campaign Excavator Waldstein (Walston) Blegen 1892-1895 2 tombs - 1925 - 13 tombs 1927 - 17 tombs 1928 - 20 tombs Total 52 tombs

Of the 52 chamber tombs at Prosymna, only 38 were included in the sample, all of which are from Blegen’s excavations, because the others did not fit the criteria.12 The tombs discovered by Waldstein were not properly recorded and so could not be included in the analysis.

Dendra

The chamber tomb cemetery (Figures 32-35) is located approximately 1 km west of the acropolis at Midea in the Argolid (Figure 21), just outside the modern village of

Dendra, from which the cemetery gets its name (Persson 1942:19). As mentioned in

Chapter Two, Midea may have been a palatial centre (Walberg 2007) during LH IIIA-B and was not abandoned in LH IIIC (Walberg 1999; Maran 2006:124; Walberg 2007;

Deger-Jalkotzy 2008:396-7; French 2009:108), but it is uncertain if the cemetery at

Dendra was used by the people of Midea. Unlike the acropolis, however, the excavated tombs were abandoned after the collapse of the palaces. The cemetery at Dendra was chosen for this analysis because it was used predominately during the Palatial period and because of its close proximity to Midea, a possible palatial centre. In addition, the

12 The data from Prosymna were gathered from: Blegen 1937; Konstantinidi 2001. 93

offerings found at Dendra seem quite different from those found at Mycenae and

Prosymna, and may provide significant insight into the mortuary rituals in the Argolid.

Excavation at Dendra began in 1926 under the supervision of Persson, resulting in the unexpected discovery of a tholos tomb. The nature of the rock in the area did not seem appropriate for a cemetery, but the discovery of this tomb prompted Persson to return to Dendra in 1927 in hopes of discovering more tombs. Persson and his team found three chamber tombs during the 1927 season (Persson 1931:73), while the ephor in

Argolis, Bertos,13 excavated two more chamber tombs during this same season, although he did not publish his findings (Persson 1942:17). Despite the wealth of finds at the site, excavations stopped at Dendra until 1937, when it was discovered that the tombs were being looted by the local inhabitants (Persson 1942:20). Persson returned to Dendra in

1937 to excavate Tomb 6, then again in 1939 to excavate Tombs 7 to 11. The tombs were dug into the hillside but, due to the brittle nature of the rock, many had collapsed in antiquity. Unfortunately, the rock was so brittle that Tomb 10 collapsed during the excavation, resulting in a death (Persson 1942:17).

During the 1939 season, Persson also dug a series of trenches at Dendra, revealing more tombs (Persson 1942:17), which were not excavated until 1960 under Åström,

Verdelis, and Styrenious (Åström 1977:4). Åström and his team excavated Tombs 12-14 during the 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963 seasons, finishing the work started by Persson.

The excavations of Persson and Åström revealed only a small fraction of the tombs from

Dendra, but no work has been conducted at the site since 1963.

13 An ephor is a Greek government official who oversees public works. 94

Of the fourteen tombs discovered at Dendra, ten are included in the sample. The finds from Tombs 4-5 were never published and Tombs 13-14 were so heavily looted that only a few pots remained between them.14

Achaea

The area of Achaea is located in the northwestern Peloponnese, stretching from the Panachaikon Mountains in the west to Aigialeis in the east (Figure 36). Much of the information on Mycenaean Achaea comes from mortuary contexts, since very few settlement remains have been excavated due to modern habitation in the area

(Papadopoulos 1978:43, 49). There are over thirty chamber tomb cemeteries from

Achaea with over 219 known tombs among them (Papadopoulos 1978:51, 189-193).

About 150 of these tombs were excavated by Kyparissis from 1919-1940, but because of

World War II, the loss of a number of the original reports, and the brief nature of the published material, the exact contexts for the finds from these tombs is not known

(Vermeule 1960:4; Papadopoulos and Kontorli-Papadopoulou 1984: 224; Paschalidis and

McGeorge 2009:79). Additional excavations were carried out after the war, resulting in the discovery of new tombs from a number of the cemeteries. Four of these cemeteries have been included in the sample: Klauss, Aigion, Kallithea, and Calandritsa.15 Very little has been published on Calandritsa and Kallithea, and information on only one or two

14 The data from Dendra was gathered from: Persson 1931; Persson 1942; Åström 1977; Mountjoy 1999; Konstantinidi 2001. 15 The data for Klauss were gathered from: Paschalidis and McGeorge 2006. Data for Aigion were gathered from: Papadopoulos 1976. Data from Kallithea and Calandritsa were gathered from: Papadopoulos 1978. Pottery data from Achaea were gathered from: Mountjoy 1999. 95

tombs per cemetery was gathered, and therefore not much can be said about these contexts. The other two cemeteries, however, have been more thoroughly published.

The cemeteries from Achaea have been included in the sample because chamber tombs represent the largest number of any burial types in the region, especially during the

Palatial period (Papadopoulos 1978:51). In addition, the tombs from Achaea were used from LH IIIA to LH IIIC and did not experience a hiatus between LH IIIB and LH IIIC, unlike the tombs at Mycenae.16 There is also no evidence for palaces in Achaea, thus contributing information about the mortuary rituals far outside the sphere of palatial administration.

Klauss. The cemetery at Klauss is located at the base of the Koukoura Hill (Figure

36) and is named after the winery built there by Gustav Klauss (Paschalidis and

McGeorge 2009:79). Kyparissis excavated twelve chamber tombs from this cemetery in the 1930s, and Papadopoulos and Kontorli-Papadopoulou excavated sixteen more tombs from 1988 to 1992. Based on the ceramic evidence from these excavations, the cemetery was in use from the beginning of LH IIIA to the end of the LH IIIC (Paschalidis and

McGeorge 2009:80). Of the 27 tombs excavated at Klauss, only four have been included in the sample. Kyparissis’ finds were excluded because they lacked contexts, while twelve of the tombs excavated by Papadopoulos did not meet the criteria for selection, outlined above. The Klauss cemetery is included in the analysis because of its period of use and because the offerings placed in the tombs are thought to represent a mortuary rituals specific to Achaea.

16 Some tombs date as early as LH IIB, but generally the tombs from Achaea begin in LH IIIA (Papadopoulos 1976:46; Papadopoulos 1978:57). 96

Aigion. This cemetery (Figures 37-39) is located 200 km from the modern city of

Aigion (Figure 36) and was first discovered by Kyparissis in the 1930s. In 1954,

Yialaouris examined one new chamber tomb, while the ephor, Mastrokostas, examined four new tombs in 1967. None of the findings from these early excavations, however, have been published. More chamber tombs were discovered in 1967 under the old high school (Gymnasion) during the construction of a road which ran from Corinth to Patras and, in 1970, Papadopoulos and Kontorli-Papadopoulou excavated eleven additional tombs (Papadopoulos 1976). By the 1970s, about fifteen other tombs had been seriously plundered (Papadopoulos 1978:34). Based on the material found during the 1970 excavation, the cemetery appears to have been in use from LH IIB to LH IIIC, but extensive use took place during LH IIIA to LH IIIB (Papadopoulos 1976:46). Only four of the eleven tombs excavated in 1970 have been included in the sample, since one was found empty (Papadopoulos 1976:36) and the other six did not meet the selection criteria.

The cemetery at Aigion was chosen for this analysis because the tombs excavated in 1970 were well published and the offerings date to the Palatial and Postpalatial periods.

Kallithea. The cemetery at Kallithea (Spenzes) is located 9 km south from the modern city of Patras (Figure 36) and was excavated by Yialaouris in the 1950s. A total of eight tombs were discovered, but only two have been fully published (Papadopoulos

1978:27; Papadopoulos 1999:268). As a result, only these two tombs have been included in the sample. These two tombs from Kallithea are included because they are often cited as typical Achaean tombs (Papadopoulos 1999:268) and they were in use from the LH

IIIA to LH IIIC period only.

Calandritsa. Only one tomb from Calandritsa (Figure 36) is included in this analysis since it was mentioned, along with its offerings, by Papadopoulos (1979). There is no mention of which tomb it is, so it is referred to as the Calandritsa tomb. This tomb dates to the LH IIIB period (Papadopoulos 1979:25, 57) and is included because of this date, putting the number of chamber tombs from Achaea to eleven in total.

Perati

The cemetery (Figures 40-42) at Perati is located on the east coast of Attika, between Sounion and Marathon (Figure 43). Its existence has been known since the mid-

1800s, but it did not receive attention until 1892 when Steiria cleared out some of the tombs. By 1952, a total of sixty tombs had been robbed, making it necessary for archaeologists to intervene. The Archaeological Society at Athens, under Iakovides, conducted excavations at the site from 1953-1963, a total of 11 seasons, and uncovered

219 burials (Iakovides 1980:1). Of these burials, 192 were chamber tombs, including the sixty robbed tombs, which are labeled Σ1-Σ60 so that they could be distinguished from the other tombs (Iakovides 1980:1, 4). Of the 192 chamber tombs from Perati, only 28 were included in the analysis, including two robbed tombs. All of these tombs were included because they met the criteria outlined above.17

The chamber tombs were dug into the soft bedrock at Perati, causing many of them to collapse while the cemetery was still in use. As a result, many of the tombs were used for a short period of time and many new tombs were built to replace the collapsed tombs. In some case, the collapsed tombs were re-entered at a later time and re-used,

17 Data from Perati were gathered from: Iakovides 1966; Iakovides 1969; Iakovides 1980; Kontorli- Papadopoulou 1987; Mountjoy 1999; Konstantinidi 2001. 98

resulting in large gaps between uses that allowed archaeologists to establish a much clearer chronological framework (Iakovides 1980:100). In other cemeteries where the tombs have been consistently used, the offerings of earlier burials were often pushed to the side or into the dromos, making it difficult for archaeologists to determine which offerings belonged to which burial. Although there were instances of burials being pushed to the side at Perati, it was easier to distinguish between the earlier burials and the later burials in most of the tombs.

Another significant difference between the cemetery at Perati and many of the other chamber tomb cemeteries on the Mainland (and in this sample) is that it was used from the very end of the LH IIIB to the Late LH IIIC, after the collapse of the palatial systems (Iakovides 1980:107-8). It is for this reason that Perati is included in the sample.

The Data

Once the method of data selection was determined, the criteria were applied to the tomb data gathered from the selected cemeteries. During this process, a large number of tombs which were not robust were removed from the sample, thus reducing the amount of noise and outliers from the results. The data are organized in a table in which the contexts are represented by individual tombs (not burials: see Chapter Two) and the variables are represented by artefacts organized into functional categories (Appendix I).

The variables themselves consist of presence/absence values represented by either a “1”, indicating presence, or a “0”, indicating absence in that particular category.

Contexts

The data used in this study were drawn from 114 chamber tomb contexts from the eight sites mentioned above (Table 5.3). Chamber tomb contexts were chosen not only because they were the most numerous burial type on the Mainland from the LH IIIA to

LH IIIC periods (Chapter Two), but also because most of the surviving burial offerings from these periods were found in chamber tombs. This last point is important since this study examines the types of offerings placed in mortuary contexts. Thus, contexts with the largest quantity of offerings make the most sense for this study. In addition, by narrowing the analysis to one burial type, the study is more focused and better suited to making clearer statements about a more specific Mycenaean mortuary ritual.

Table 5.3 Chamber Tomb Contexts Cemetery site Tombs in sample Total number of tombs Mycenae 27 tombs 142 tombs Prosymna 38 tombs 52 tombs Dendra 10 tombs 14 tombs Klauss 4 tombs 27 tombs Aigion 4 tombs 16 tombs Kallithea 2 tombs 8 tombs Calandritsa 1 tomb 4 tombs Perati 28 tombs 192 tombs Total 114 tombs 455 tombs

About 25% of the total chamber tombs from the eight sites appear in the sample.

There are two reasons for why so few of the tombs were included: a large number of the tombs did not contain enough variables and so were excluded, while many others (about

204) have not been published (particularly for Achaea, but also Mycenae) so their data were unavailable for this study. Related to the lack of variables is the lack of datable

100

material. If the publications did not include the dates of the artefacts, and thus the tombs themselves, those tombs were not included in the sample. The dates for the offerings are very important for this analysis, since some of the tombs contain LH I-II material but this study is examining LH IIIA-C material only.

Variables

The variables consist of twelve categories based on the functional characteristics of artefact assemblages commonly found in chamber tombs (Table 5.4). The categories are based on related or shared characteristics in terms of their use or function among the different types of artefacts since such groups are required when using CA for social analysis (Chapter Four).

These categories represent the most common types of artefact assemblages found in chamber tombs and may represent activities performed by the mourners at the tomb.

For example, the presence of drinking and/or serving/food preparation vessels might indicate that a feasting ritual took place at the funeral. The presence of offerings associated with textile production may indicate personal offerings given to the deceased, while weapons may indicate social status. These two offering types are often used to indicate gender, but this distinction is often based on contextual sexing without further evidence, such as biological sexing, to support it. The social implications of these functional categories are important for the interpretation of the results of the CA and will be discussed further in Chapter Six.

101

Table 5.4 Variable Categories Functional Category Artefact Assemblage Pit/Cist All pit or cist graves found in the chamber or the dromos of the tomb

Drinking Vessels Kylikes Goblets Cups Kraters

Pouring Vessels Jugs Feeding Bottles Rhyta

Storage/Transport Piriform jars Amphorae Basket Shaped Vessels Jars Hydria Pithoi

Oil Containers Stirrup Jars Askoi Flasks Alabastra Amphoriskoi

Serving/Food Bowls Saucers Basins Tripods Plates Cooking vessels Kalathoi

Jewellery Beads/Necklaces Sealstones Bracelets Rings

Weapons Knives Spearheads Javelins Swords Arrowheads Weapon Accessories Daggers Blades Pommels Rivets Spear Sockets

Ornaments Bands Buttons Inlays Hair Spirals Pendants Plates Discs Bars Fibulae Wire Belts Ornaments Plaques

Toiletries Mirrors Pyxides Tweezers Razors Combs

Figurines Female Figurines Animal/Ox Figurines Miniature furniture

Manufacture Needles Spindle Whorls Pins Spools

Pit/Cist. These two grave types have been grouped together (Chapter Three) because, despite their differences, many archaeologists do not distinguish between the

102

two in their reports (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:27) and their functions in the chamber tomb were the same – interment for one or more individuals and/or offerings in the chamber or dromos.

Drinking Vessels. As mentioned above, the four pottery types in this category were used for drinking. Goblets and kylikes (Figures 44-45) were used for drinking wine

(Dabney et al. 2004:202), while the krater was used for mixing wine with water (Wright

2004a:146, 148; Wright 2004b:128-9; Stockhammer 2011:226) and may be part of the drinking ritual. All other drinking vessels are labeled under “cups” and were likely used for drinking a variety of liquids, including wine.

Pouring Vessels. Although pouring vessels can be used for serving drinks (Figure

46), they are in a separate category because their functions extend beyond the drinking ritual. For example, pouring vessels, such as rhyta (Figure 47), were used in ritual libation, while jugs could be used to contain liquids used for offerings, libation, and cleansing. The exact function of the feeding bottle (Figure 48) is not understood, but it was originally thought to have been used to feed infants, hence its name (Schofield

2007:30, 136; Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009:100; Konstantinidi 2001:3, 244; Smith and Dabney 2012:442). This vessel, however, comes in a number of sizes that are too large for feeding infants. It has been included in this category because it was likely used for the pouring of liquids (Tournavitou 1992:190). In addition, pouring vessels do not always appear in the same contexts as drinking vessels, suggesting that they had a function beyond drinking, hence the two separate categories.

Storage/Transport. These two functions have been combined because some of the vessels, such as the amphorae (Figure 49), hydria, and jars (Figure 50), were used for

103

both storage and transport. These vessels were used for the long term storage or transportation of both dry materials (food stuffs) and liquids (wine and olive oil)

(Tournavitou 1992: 183-5, 186-7, 188).

Oil Containers. The pottery in this category consists of vessels used for the temporary storage of perfumed/lamp oil and/or wine. Oil and wine containers have been combined into the same category because a number of them, such as stirrup jars (Figure

51) and alabastra (Figure 52), were used for both perfumed oil and wine (Leonard

1981:91; Mountjoy 2001:74, 127). Most of the vessels, however, were used for the short term storage of perfumed oil (flask, amphoriskos, alabastron, askos, and stirrup jar)

(Tournavitou 1992:194-5; Mountjoy 2001:72, 74, 127).

Serving/Food. This category contains vessels used for serving (plates, saucers, and bowls) and preparing food (cooking vessels, tripod cooking vessels, and basins).

These vessels could represent a feasting ritual, just as the Drinking Vessels represent a drinking ritual, or they could represent meals offered to the deceased. Often drinking vessels and feasting vessels appear together and it is thought that drinking vessels, especially kylikes, are a part of the feasting activity (Dabney et al. 2004:202), but there are examples for which this mixed activity is not present. It is, therefore, necessary to separate these actions into different categories rather than one feasting category.

Jewellery. This category includes finger rings, earrings, metal bracelets, necklaces, and beads, including sealstones since these items were often worn around the neck on a necklace or as a bracelet (Konstantinidi 2001:21). These items are a part of the personal adornment of the deceased, since they are worn on the body, rather than placed as offerings beside the body. In many cases, beads (Figures 53-54) were found scattered

104

throughout the tomb and were part of necklaces or bracelets, but it is uncertain how many of them were originally present in the tomb when they are not found in situ. For the purpose of this analysis, the lack of complete necklaces or bracelets is not a problem, since the actual counts are not needed and the presence of beads is enough to indicate the presence of jewellery.18

Weapons. Weapons used for combat and those used for hunting have been placed together in this category because some of the items, such as spears and javelins, can be used for both activities (Table 5.5). The identification of warrior burials is based on the presence of weapons used in combat only. Single combat weapons such as swords and daggers (Figures 55-57) fit this definition, but spears and javelins (Figure 58) without the presence of a sword and/or dagger are often not considered evidence for warrior burials because they are used in hunting as well (Deger-Jalkotzy 2006:169). Moreover, in some examples complete weapons were not recovered whole, but rather in pieces, such as rivets, pommels, sockets, blades, or accessories; therefore these pieces have been included in the category as evidence for the presence of at least one weapon. Arrowheads and knives are also included in this category (Figures 59-60).

Table 5.5 Weapon Types Combat Weapons Hunting Weapons Swords (Spears) Daggers (Javelins) (Spears) Arrows (Javelins) Knives

18 Konstantinidi (2001:244), Voutsaki (2004:2-3), and Smith and Dabney (2012:442) suggest that beads may be offerings given to predominately to children, since most known children’s burials and suspected children’s burials contain beads. This interpretation could not be confirmed with the current data set since the majority of the tombs in the sample contained beads, whether or not children were present. 105

The presence of weapons in a burial or tomb is often used to indicate that the individual is male, since these items are thought to represent the concept of masculinity

(Konstantinidi 2001:3, 237-8, 247; Whitley 2002:218, 226; Vitale 2012:411-2; Haas-

Lebegyev 2012:429; Paschalidis 2012:551). There is, however, evidence which suggests that females were buried with weapons as well (Konstantinidi 2001:237-8). In addition, the identification of a warrior burial does not necessarily indicate that the individual was a warrior, since many of bodies show no signs of having engaged in battle (Whitley

2002:219).

Ornaments. All of the items in this category belong to clothing ornaments

(buttons, wire, fibulae, belts, pendants, discs, plaques, bars, plates), furniture ornaments

(inlays, plaques, bars, plates), or head ornaments (bands, hair spirals) and all are made from exotic materials such as bronze, gold, silver, and ivory, except the buttons which are predominately made of steatite or terracotta (Figures 61-62). These items are grouped together because in some cases, it is difficult to distinguish between plaques, bars, plates used for clothing and those used on furniture unless it is specifically stated in the publication. This distinction is not always mentioned and often the item is simply referred to as “ornament” without any explanation or description, other than that it is distinct from jewellery (Konstantinidi 2001). Although most of the items in this category are also personal adornments, their purpose is different from that of jewellery. Buttons and fibulae, for example, are used to keep clothing on the body, while other ornaments act as extensions of the clothing itself. Jewellery, on the other hand, does not serve a practical function, like buttons and fibulae, nor is it an extension of another item.

106

Toiletries. This category consists of items which are used for grooming – mirrors, combs, and razors (Paschalidis 2012). Pyxides (sg. pyxis) have also been included in this category because they are small boxes, made from ivory or clay, used to hold jewellery, ornaments or cosmetics (Konstantinidi 2001:245; Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2012:448).

Tweezers (Figures 63-64) are included in this category even though they were likely used for more than just grooming, such as the removal of arrowhead barbs (Arnott 1999:501) or other medical practices (Deilaki 1973:92, 93; Arnott 1999:503), because they could still be considered a toiletry item.

Figurines. This category consists of terracotta female (Figure 65-67), and animal figurines (Figure 68), terracotta miniature thrones/chairs which sometimes contain seated figures, and terracotta chariots (Figure 69). The presence of figurines in Mycenaean mortuary contexts has often been interpreted as evidence for a ritual associated with children’s burials (Iakovides, 1966:45; Iakovides 1980:19, 111; Shelton 2000:37).

Blegen (1937:256) suggested that they could be interpreted as playthings (animal figurines, chariots, and furniture) or as divine nurses (female figurines), meant to care for the child in the afterlife. Mylonas (1966:144) also assigned to them a divine function, as either a nurse or goddess figure. Persson (1931:89; 1942:33), however, does not agree with either of these interpretations, suggesting instead that the figures act more as ushabtis, which are found in Egyptian tombs. The function of the ushabtis is to provide a service to the deceased in the afterlife, and this interpretation seems especially true for the furniture and chariots. The female figurines, according to Persson, represent wives or female slaves meant to service the deceased in his afterlife. The problem with this interpretation, however, is that figurines are not exclusive to male burials, and in some

107

cases, such as in the chamber tombs at Prosymna, the figurines are often found in tombs in which children’s burials are present. On the other hand, Wace (1932:141) states that he is unable to comment on the idea that figurines are a part of children’s burials in the chamber tombs at Mycenae because most of the tombs with figurines were so poorly preserved that it is unknown if they contained children’s burials at all.

Manufacture. This category consists of items (needles, pins, spindle whorls, spools) which would have been used for the manufacture of textiles or cloth. The items in this category are often used to indicate female burials (Paschalidis and McGeorge

2009:95) because Linear B tablets show that textile production was done by female workers (Olsen 1998:383), but these items may also be personal offerings given by mourners and likely appear with both male and female burials. Without proper sexing of the individuals, it is not possible to suggest that these offerings belong to female burials only. Other items include nails and whetstones, which, like the textile production materials, are often interpreted as indicators of the deceased’s profession in life

(Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009:84), but they were likely personal offerings given to the deceased.

Summary

The decision to organize the data in this manner is based on shared characteristics of the artefact types and their presence in the tombs. For example, Drinking Vessels and some of the Pouring Vessels appear to have shared characteristics (i.e. used for serving drinks) but the presence of these two vessel types together was rare in the tombs in this

108

sample. The organization of the data into these groups was carefully undertaken so as to represent the various different functions associated with the offerings.

Despite this careful consideration of the material, a number of problems were still encountered when collecting data for this analysis, some of which had no clear solution, such as the intentional removal of offerings during secondary burial. The method of data selection, however, is sufficient enough to compensate for the problems outlined above.

The cemeteries included in this sample represent a fairly wide distribution of sites on the

Mainland, sites which all participated in the socio-political environment of the Palatial period and experienced the turmoil of the Postpalatial period differently. One of the goals of this analysis is to see if these different experiences had an effect on the types of items being placed in chamber tombs and the cemeteries included here are very appropriate for this purpose. Additionally, these tombs contain the required number of variables needed to run a successful CA. Consequently, the results of the CA reveal some noteworthy patterns about the nature of Mycenaean mortuary rituals in chamber tombs during the LH

IIIA to LH IIIC periods. These results are discussed in the next chapter.

109

Chapter Six

Results of the Correspondence Analysis and Chi Square Tests

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the results of the CA, as well as the results of the χ² tests. Since CA is an exploratory technique and is not used to test hypotheses, but rather to develop them, it is necessary to test some of the hypotheses gained from the CA on Mycenaean chamber tombs by using the χ² statistic. The results of the CA are discussed in three sections, with the first looking at the tombs only. The results produced a factor map showing different tomb clusters, which required interpretation. Next, the factor map with just the variable groups is examined. This map provides visual information on how often certain item types appear in the chamber tombs in this sample. Then, the CA map, which displays both the tomb factor map and the variable factor map together, is examined to see how the two correspond with one another. Finally, this section will outline the hypotheses generated from the CA results, followed by the results of the χ² and their significance.

Factor Map - Units

The factor map (Chart II.1) containing only the units (tombs) produced 17 clustered groups based on similarities in artefact assemblages. This factor map represents

51.97% of the total variation from a multi-dimensional space on to a two dimensional one. In this case, the multi-dimensional space is eleven (the number of variables minus one), so a variability of 51.97% is quite reliable. As a result, the tomb clusters are well represented on the factor map and can thus be examined with a considerable degree of accuracy. Because not all of the variability is shown on the map, however, some of the

110

clusters will appear to overlap and their interpretations as distinct categories appear fuzzier than implied below. As mentioned in Chapter Four, the points on the map do not represent spatial distance, but rather the relationship (correspondence) between the tombs in relation to their artifact assemblages. Therefore, the location on the map of tombs, which appear to be located far from their cluster groups, is determined by the variable categories. This is explained in greater detail below.

Another way of representing this information is in the form of hierarchical clustering (Chart II.2). This representation of the tombs is useful because it shows how the clusters relate to one another. For example, cluster 1 and cluster 17 are located on at opposite ends of the tree, suggesting that the tombs in each cluster have the least in common. The formation of the clusters on the factor map is generated on the hierarchical clustering. Each cluster represents tombs which in some way correspond to one another.

Their relationship is explored below.

Based on the presence or absence of particular variable groups, it is possible to determine which factors contributed to the clustering of certain tombs. This information, however, is not enough to determine why these tombs clustered together. As a result, the tombs within each cluster need to be examined to see what else, outside of the variable groups, they all have in common. Possible outside factors for determining which tombs clustered include wealth, sex, age, date, or region since all of these features may determine the types of offerings placed in the tombs. The number of burials per tomb may also be a factor in determining clusters, since fewer burials often means fewer offerings.

111

Many of the burials from Mycenaean chamber tombs have not been properly sexed and in cases where sex is given, it is often based on offerings assigned to specific gender roles (Mee 1998:165-166). These gender identifications are mainly based on modern perceptions of gender and so do not provide an adequate means of determining the sex of the person buried. As a result, sex cannot be sufficiently used as an outside factor for determining why certain tombs in this sample clustered in the manner that they did. All of the other outside factors mentioned above, however, are considered when examining the clusters.

The variable categories discussed in these clusters involve mostly the non-pottery items since these items represent offerings related to specific idiosyncrasies based on the individuals buried in the tombs. The pottery offerings and their significance will be discussed in the section below. For the list of specific tombs in each cluster, see

Appendix III.

Cluster 1 consists of eight tombs which contain items in the Weapons and

Manufacture categories and no items in the Toiletries category. Moreover, Perati T.122

(point 122 on the factor map) is the only tomb in this cluster without Drinking Vessels. It is also the only tomb from Perati in this cluster and its lack of drinking vessels is not surprising since they were not common offerings in the chamber tombs from this site

(Iakovides 1980). Prosymna T.44 (point 60) is the only tomb without Pouring Vessels,

Prosymna T.26 (point 46) is the only tomb without Oil Containers, and Mycenae T.532

(point 22) is the only tomb without Storage/Transport. In terms of Manufacture, all of the tombs but Prosymna T.27 (point 47) contain items related to textile production, while the most common Weapons are knives and arrowheads. These tombs do not represent the so-

112

called warrior burials as defined in Chapter Five and so the weapons may represent hunting. Many of the tombs in this cluster had collapsed and/or been looted but still contain a large quantity of offerings suggesting that they still represent some aspect of the

Mycenaean funerary process.

Cluster 2 includes seven tombs, all of which contain offerings in the Jewellery and Weapons categories but no offerings in the Toiletries, Figurines, or Manufacture categories. The weapons from these tombs consist of knives and arrowheads. In addition to knives or arrowheads, Prosymna T.13 (point 37) contains a dagger, Perati T.38 (point

85) contains a short sword, and the tomb from Calandritsa (point 108) contains an axe.

The jewellery from these tombs consists mostly of small collections of beads or single items like a ring (Prosymna T.15 [point 39]) or a sealstone (Prosymna T.13 [point 37]). In all, these tombs contain rather few offerings.

Cluster 3 contains only four tombs, all of which hold items in the Oil Container,

Weapons, and Toiletries categories but not items in the Manufacture, Figurines, or

Pouring Vessels categories. It is possible that this cluster represents some sort of warrior group since, upon closer inspection, most of the weapons were knives or daggers and three of the tombs, Klauss T. A (point 104), Klauss T. H (point 106) and Kallithea T. B

(point 114), are actually considered to contain warriors’ burials (Deger-Jalkotzy 2006).

Mycenae T.2 (point 1) was not interpreted as a warrior’s tomb, since the only weapon was a knife (Konstantinidi 2001). It is interesting, however, that most of these tombs are located in Achaea, an observation that may support the idea that warrior burials were common in this area. In addition, the Toiletries associated with the three warrior tombs are tweezers (razors also appear in Klauss T. H and Kallithea T. B).

113

Cluster 4 contains seven tombs with offerings in the Drinking Vessels, Pouring

Vessels, Storage/Transport, Weapons, and Toiletries categories. Furthermore, all of these tombs contain pits or cists and the only variable group not represented is Figurines. As was the case with cluster 3, it appears that this group represents warriors’ tombs, but they are of a different type than those in cluster 3. Three of the tombs contain armour, while all of the tombs contain swords or traces of swords. Arrowheads are also found in all but one tomb (Prosymna T.24 [point 44]) and spears are found in four of the seven tombs. In addition, the Toiletries in these burials vary much more than those in cluster 3. Tweezers appear in only two of the tombs (Mycenae T.515 [point 8] and Prosymna T.24), while mirrors, combs, and pyxides are more common. Additionally, most of the tombs contain a large amount of Jewellery (except Kallithea T. A [point 113]) and Ornaments (except

Prosymna T.25 [point 45]) made of exotic materials. These tombs might be considered

“wealthy” and so may represent a warrior class different from those represented by cluster 3. On the other hand, the tombs in this cluster contain more burials (2-16 individuals) than the tombs in cluster 3 (1-4 burials), which may account for why they contain more offerings. The number of burials in a tombs could be a major factor for why some tombs appear “wealthier” than others, if the wealth of the individuals is based on the quantity of offerings. More burials will often mean more offerings (unless the tomb has been heavily looted), so determining wealth based on the quantity of offerings may be misleading.

Cluster 5 contain only three tombs, all with offerings in the variable groups

Pit/Cist, Serving/Food, Jewellery, Toiletries, and Figurines but not offerings in

Manufacture or Pouring Vessels. Upon closer inspection of these three tombs, it was

114

discovered that each contained very few offerings in total and that two of them (Mycenae

T.505 [point 6] and Dendra T.3 [point 68]) had collapsed in antiquity while the other

(Dendra T.7 [point 70]) had been looted save the one cist context. In addition, the offerings from Mycenae T.505 are found only in the dromos, suggesting that the chamber was looted after it collapsed. Overall, these tombs do not seem to provide significant information regarding Mycenaean mortuary rituals, because they were severely damaged and/or looted.

Cluster 6 consists of ten tombs, all of which contain offerings in

Storage/Transport, Ornaments, Toiletries, and Manufacture. Mycenae T.5 (point 2), which deviates quite substantially from the rest of the tombs in this cluster, is the only tomb that does not contain items in the groups Drinking Vessels, Pouring Vessels and Oil

Containers, while Mycenae T.520 (point 13) is the only tomb which does not contain

Figurines. The inclusion of Mycenae T.5 in this cluster is strange, especially considering that the other nine tombs contain items in 10 to 12 of the variable groups while Mycenae

T.5 only contains offerings from 7 variable groups. This tomb’s location on the factor map also appears to indicate its odd placement in this cluster, since it is pulled upwards and away from the others, but its inclusion is made clearer on the hierarchical clustering.

Mycenae T.5 has more in common with the other tombs in this cluster than it does with any of the other tombs in the sample. In addition, the other tombs in this cluster are not among the wealthiest tombs, but may instead represent tombs which were not heavily looted. Of importance here also is the fact that these tombs date to the LH IIIA period or the LH IIIA-B periods and are all located in the Argolid. The date of these tombs is notable because they represent the Palatial period, while their locations at or near a

115

palatial centre may indicate palatial influence on the types of offerings. Furthermore, seven of the tombs (all from Prosymna) contain children’s burials and Figurines. The presence of children in tombs is under-represented, often because their bones either have not preserved or were not uncovered during excavations. As mentioned in Chapter Five, figurines may have been offerings given to children.

Cluster 7 is comprised of nine tombs which contain items in the

Storage/Transport, Jewellery, Ornaments, and Toiletries categories, but not items in the

Manufacture category. Based on these categories alone, it is tempting to suggest that this cluster represents female burials, since an examination of the offerings reveals that the most common items are those which are often associated with women (Konstantinidi

2001:1, 3, 245; Haas-Lebegyev 2012:426-7). The Toiletries consist of combs and mirrors, the Ornaments consist of buttons and fibulae, and the Jewellery consists of rings and necklaces. There are two tombs (Mycenae T.99 [point 3] and Perati T.30 [point 84]) with pyxides – jewellery/cosmetic/ornament boxes – and one (Perati T.92 [point 90]) with a hair spiral. In only one tomb, Perati T.1 (tomb 76), has a female been identified

(Iakovides 1980), so it is difficult to known for certain if these items belong to female burials. Men likely also wore jewellery (Konstantinidi 2001:247),19 while buttons/fibulae are clothing ornaments likely used by both sexes. Additionally, the tombs from cluster 4 suggest that men were buried with combs and mirrors as well. Of note, however, is the fact that most of these tombs are located at Perati and thus date to the LH IIIC period (the two from Mycenae date to LH IIIA). As will be revealed from other clusters, the location

19 For example, one of the boxer boys from a fresco from Akrotiri is wearing a necklace, an armlet, an anklet made of beads, and gold earrings, suggesting that males also wore jewellery in the Bronze Age Aegean (Dickinson 1994:180). 116

and dates of these tombs may be more of a factor in their clustering than the possible sex of the individual(s) interred in the tomb.

Cluster 8 contains tombs exclusively from Perati that might also be interpreted as female burials. It consists of four tombs, all containing offerings in the Storage/Transport,

Oil Containers, Jewellery, Toiletries, and Manufacture categories, but nothing in the

Pit/Cist, Drinking Vessels, Weapons, or Figurines categories. All of the items in the

Manufacture category deal in some way with textile/cloth production – spindle whorls and sewing needles – and most of the Toiletries are combs and mirrors. Of these four tombs, only one (Perati T.16 [point 82]) contains an individual which has been identified as female (Iakovides 1980). Cluster 8 is the second cluster to contain tombs which are mostly from Perati and which appear to represent female burials based on the offerings.

Given the fact that the cemetery at Perati was not used predominately for female burials, it may be the case that the interpretation of sex-specific offerings requires some rethinking.

Cluster 9 consists of four tombs, all of which contain items in the Oil Containers,

Jewellery, Weapons, Toiletries, and Manufacture categories, but none of which contain

Pit/Cist or Figurines. These tombs are noteworthy because, like clusters 7 and 8, they contain items which are often associated with female burials (Jewellery, Manufacture, and Toiletries), although Mycenae T.529 (point 20) is the only tomb in which females have been identified (Wace 1932). On the other hand, Klauss T. Θ (point 107) and

Dendra T.12 (point 75) are both considered warriors’ tombs since they contain armour and weapons (Deger-Jalkotzy 2006). Klauss T. Θ contains two burials, neither of which have been sexed, so the jewellery and spindle whorl could belong to the other burial and

117

not to the warrior. This suggestion for T. Θ, however, does not explain why a mirror, bronze needles, a pyxis, and even a bracelet appear in Dendra T.12, which contains a single, male burial. It would appear, therefore, that these sorts of offerings are not indicative of female burials, since males were buried with them as well.

Cluster 10 consists of eleven tombs which contain Figurines and Pouring Vessels, but no Weapons, Toiletries, or Manufacture. Like cluster 6, some of the tombs in this cluster either have children’s burials or are suspected by the excavators to have children’s burials. As a result, it appears that this cluster represents the common artefact assemblages associated with children. In the tombs with suspected children’s burials, a pit or niche was discovered empty of human remains but often furnished with offerings.

It is possible that the remains of the child or infant have long since decayed. For example,

Mycenae T.522 (point 15) did not contain any burials, just a pit with offerings (Wace

1932), while Mycenae T. G-II (point 25) contained the remains of three poorly preserved individuals in the chamber. The offerings of interest, which were found in the dromos of

T. G-II, were not associated with these burials (Shelton 2000:31, 33), suggesting that the remains of the recipients in both tombs had decayed. Three of the tombs in this cluster from Prosymna (T.22 [point 43], T.32 [point 50], and T.45 [point 61]) were recorded as not having children’s burials, but Blegen (1937:256) suggested that either the bones were not recognized during excavation or that they had since decayed. Child and infant bones tend to be more susceptible to decay, making their presence in tombs more difficult to track, but figurines are often thought to have served as offerings placed with children in the chamber tombs (Blegen 1937:256; Mylonas 1956; Mylonas 1966:144 ff.; Iakovides,

1966: 45; Iakovides 1980:19, 111; Shelton 2000:37).

118

Cluster 11 consists of four tombs which contain offerings in the

Storage/Transport, Oil Containers, Jewellery, Ornaments, and Figurine categories, but not items in Weapons, Toiletries, or Manufacture. Moreover, none of these tombs contain a pit or cist. Perati T.147 (point 96) is the only tomb that does not contain Drinking

Vessels, while Mycenae T G-III (point 26) is the only tomb which does not contain

Pouring Vessels. Upon closer inspection of the tombs themselves, it is difficult to see why these tombs have formed a distinct group, other than the fact that they contain items in the same categories.

Cluster 12 contains ten tombs with offerings in the Oil Containers, Jewellery,

Weapons, Ornaments, and Figurines categories, but no offerings in the Toiletries or

Manufacture categories. With the exception of Mycenae T.102 (point 4) and Dendra T.11

(point 74), the tombs in this cluster all appear to have a large number of interments (6-

20+ individuals) and all contain large quantities of Jewellery and Ornaments. In terms of

Weapons, most of the tombs contain daggers, knives, and arrowheads. Only Mycenae

T.102, Prosymna T.37 (point 55), and Dendra T.11 contain swords. Moreover, these three tombs also lack arrowheads and knives (Prosymna T.37 contained a dagger, while the other two did not). Six of the tombs in this cluster, however, can be considered warriors’ tombs. These tombs differ from the tombs in clusters 3 and 4 because they do not contain

Toiletries. The presence of many burials in a single tomb may be a factor in why these tombs clustered, since it is likely that some of the earlier offerings were removed when the tombs were re-entered for secondary treatment in the process of intentional secondary manipulation (Chapter Five).

119

Cluster 13, which consists of five burials, does not appear to contain much in terms of offerings and all of the tombs have collapsed (except one – Perati T.75 [point

88]). All five contain offerings in the Storage/Transport, Oil Containers, and Ornaments categories and all contained Pit/Cists. None of the tombs contain Weapons, Toiletries,

Figurines, or Manufacture. The Ornaments all consist of buttons, with one pendant

(Dendra T.10 [point 73]) and all the tombs but Dendra T.10 appear to have been looted

(Blegen 1937; Persson 1942; Papadopoulos 1978; Iakovides 1980). The looting might explain why most of the offerings consist exclusively of pottery. In addition, many of the offerings come from pits or cists holding secondary burials, suggesting that much of the looting took place during secondary treatment (Chapter Five).

Cluster 14 consists of nine tombs, most of which are located at Perati and all of which contain offerings in the Storage/Transport and Oil Container categories, but not offerings in the Weapons, Toiletries, Figurines, or Manufacture categories. Moreover, none of these tombs contain pits or cists. These tombs are significant because they do not contain much in terms of offerings and, with the exception of Perati T.10 (point 79), do not appear to have been looted. Blegen, who excavated Prosymna T.48 (point 63), described the tomb as having “workmanship of inferior quality” (1937:216) and Perati

T.4 (point 77) was found to possess two dromoi because the first one collapsed during use (Iakovides 1980). It appears as though the tombs in this category (except Perati T.10, which is the largest tomb at the site) are quite small and poorly constructed.

Cluster 15 consists of seven tombs, six of which are located at Mycenae. They contain offerings in the Oil Containers, Figurines, and Manufacture categories, but not items in the Weapons and Toiletries categories. In addition, Aigion T.4 (point 109) is the

120

only tomb without Pouring Vessels or Storage/Transport while Mycenae T.525 (point 18) is the only tomb without Jewellery or Ornaments. All of the figurines in these tombs are of the female variety, except for Mycenae T.513 (point 7), where the figurine represents a man and an ox, and all of the Manufacture items relate to textile/cloth production (spindle whorls and/or bone pins). The tombs are not particularly wealthy since most contain mainly pottery and there is no evidence for looting. The Jewellery consists of either a few beads or a single ring while the ornaments are all buttons or fibulae. None of the tombs contain a large number of interments, except Mycenae T.524 (point 17), which has 16+ burials, and only two of the tombs, Mycenae T.502 (point 5) and Mycenae T.524, were in use for a long period of time (LH IIIA-C). Furthermore, none of the tombs have LH I-II interments, suggesting that they were all built during the Palatial period (LH IIIA or LH

IIIB).

Cluster 16 consists of eight tombs, all of which contain offerings in the Oil

Containers and Ornaments categories, but no offerings in the Weapons, Toiletries, or

Figurines categories. Moreover, none of these tombs contains Pit/Cist. The majority of the Manufacture items deal with textile/cloth production, with the exception of Perati

T.145/146 (point 95), while Ornaments consist of buttons and ivory discs used as clothing decoration. Perati T.90 (point 89) and Aigion T.8 (point 112) do not contain

Jewellery, while those tombs that do mainly contain a single ring and/or a few beads. In addition, Mycenae T.518 (point 11) is the only tomb which does not contain

Storage/Transport and Aigion T.8 is the only tomb which does not contain Manufacture.

There does not seem to be anything significant about the dates of the tombs or the tombs

121

themselves. They do not contain a large quantity of offerings and none of them appear to have been looted.

Cluster 17 consists of four tombs, all of which contain Pouring Vessels, Oil

Containers, and Manufacture, but not Weapons, Toiletries, or Figurines. All of the tombs also have Pit/Cist. Only one tomb does not have Storage/Transport and Jewellery

(Mycenae T.533 [point 23]), while another one lacks Serving/Food (Mycenae T.516

[point 9]). All of the Manufacture relates to textile/cloth production. This cluster is very similar to cluster 16 in that there does not appear to be anything significant about the tombs for the purposes of the present analysis.

Factor Map – Variables

The variable groupings and their placement on the variable factor map (Chart II.3) are quite noteworthy because they provide some insight into the Mycenaean mortuary ritual of placing offerings in chamber tombs. The factor map dealing with the variable groups alone reveals that certain groups appear most often together and that certain groups are common in most of the tombs, while others are rarer, thus representing specific social groups or idiosyncrasies (Table 6.1).

Figurines, Pit/Cist, Pouring Vessels, Manufacture, Toiletries, and Weapons are the least likely to appear in the tombs in this sample, thus representing specific social groups, such as so-called warriors (Weapons) or children (Figurines), and other idiosyncrasies (Toiletries, Manufacture, Pouring Vessels, and Pit/Cist). Idiosyncrasies in the mortuary realm refer to the presence of actions or offerings which are not common and less ritualized (Pader 1982:54), therefore, making them not a part of the standard

122

mortuary ritual. Pouring Vessels and Pit/Cist are less uncommon than Figurines,

Weapons, Toiletries, and Manufacture but they do not appear to be a common part of the

Mycenaean mortuary repertoire. Some of these offerings may still be ritualized, but their meaning is very specific and limited to certain groups. For example, many of the tombs clustered closest to the Figurines variable group (cluster 10) contain children’s burials or suspected children’s burials (for tombs from Prosymna: Blegen 1937:256), while the tombs clustered closest to Weapons (cluster 3) appear to represent so-called warriors’ burials. The ritualistic nature of these items is associated with the specific role of the individuals buried in the tombs. The cluster of tombs located close to Manufacture

(cluster 8) may represent burials specific to women, but since many of the burials have not been properly sexed, this distinction is difficult to make and may be incorrect.

Table 6.1 Frequency of Variables in the Sample Variables Number to Percentage of Possible Tombs Tombs Representation Oil Containers 104 91% General Ritual Storage/Transport 98 86% Ornaments 94 83% Jewellery 92 81% Toiletries 41 36% Idiosyncrasies Figurines 47 41% Manufacture 49 43% Weapons 50 44% Drinking Vessels 77 68% Feasting Ritual Serving/Food 77 68% Pouring Vessels 80 70% Other Pit/Cist 60 53%

There are two variable cluster groups, however, which do seem to represent standard Mycenaean mortuary rituals. The first of these clusters consists of Drinking

Vessels and Serving/Food. The clustering of these two variables is notable because both are a part of a mortuary feasting/drinking ritual (Mountjoy 2001:128; Wright 2004a:137).

123

As mentioned in Chapter Five, it was uncertain if the two rituals – eating and drinking – were a part of the same mortuary rite. Based on the results present on the factor map, however, it seems that offerings involved with drinking and eating tend to appear together, suggesting that both are a part of the same feasting ritual. On the other hand, these items may also represent offerings of food for the afterlife. Evidence for this practice can be seen in Perati T. Evidence for this practice can be seen in Perati T. Σ3, where an individual was moved before the body had fully decayed and so was provided with a meal (Iakovides 1980). Perati T. 110 also contained evidence for a meal, since a vessel was found containing bird bones (Iakovides 1966:45).

The second variable cluster consists of Ornaments, Jewellery, Oil Containers, and

Storage/Transport. Based on this cluster’s position near the center of the factor map, it represents the variables most common in these tombs and seems to signify offerings which are part of the general Mycenaean mortuary ritual. Jewellery and most of the

Ornaments consist of items worn by the deceased, indicating that the body was prepared in ornate fashion, regardless of social status or age. Oil Containers and Storage/Transport vessels are not the offerings themselves, but instead represent what was held inside them.

The vessels under the category of Oil Containers (Chapter Five) were used for perfumed oil or wine. As a result, it appears that wine and perfumed oil were also common offerings given to the deceased regardless of social status or age. Storage/Transport could be used for a large number of different offerings such as food stuffs or liquids. The exact contents of these vessels are not known, but it appears that the Mycenaeans chose to include these items in their chamber tombs. Without written documentation, however, the reason for the inclusion of these specific offerings is unknown.

124

Correspondence Analysis Map

The CA map, as outlined in Chapter Four, plots the two factor maps (units and variables) onto a single two-dimensional space, in order to provide a clearer picture of how the two correspond (Chart II.4). Whereas the factor maps represented 51.97% of the variability, the CA map only represented 36.46%. The reason for this reduction is that both the units and variables are condensed onto the map. This map, however, is still a reliable representation. As mentioned above, the location of the tombs and variables on the map are based on their correspondence to one another in terms of shared functional categories (for the tombs) and likelihood of appearing together in various contexts (for the variables) and the vagueness of the cluster groups is the result of the data being condensed onto a two dimensional space from an eleven dimensional one.

If the CA map is colour coded to match the two factor maps, then a much clearer picture emerges and the relationship of the tomb clusters to the variable groups can be understood (Chart II.5). For example, cluster 1 is located in a fairly central position on the map, and an examination of the offerings in the tombs shows why this position holds.

As mentioned above, all of the tombs in cluster 1 contain Weapons, explaining why some of the tombs are pulled upward on the map. Others, however, are pulled downwards, onto the negative side of the second principle axis, or to the left, onto the negative side of the first principle axis. For instance, Prosymna T.27 (point 47 on the map) is the only tomb in this cluster which contains Figurines, thus pulling it to the left of the map. The other tombs are pulled down by Storage/Transport and/or Oil Containers. In addition to

Weapons, all the tombs in cluster 1 also contain Manufacture. The fact that these tombs

125

all contain items in two variable groups which are located at different ends of the map explains why they occupy a fairly central location, while the presence of different variables in some of the tombs explains why they are spread out in different directions.

Once the entire map is considered together, interesting patterns begin to emerge and the x and y axes can be identified. The x axis appears to represent age groups, with those closest to the negative side (on the left) representing offerings and burials belonging mostly to children, while the positive side (on the right) representing offerings and burials belonging mostly to adults. The clusters closest to the Figurines variable on the CA map (i.e. those on the negative side of the x axis) are clusters 10, 11, 12, and 13.

There are a total of thirty tombs from these clusters and ten of these tombs have recorded children’s burials. Additionally, all of these tombs, except those from cluster 13 (five tombs total) have figurines. Additional clusters that are close to the Figurine variable on the CA map are clusters 14 and 5. Cluster 14 contains 9 tombs, 3 of which are children and none of which contain figurines. Cluster 5, on the other hand, has three tombs, all of which have figurines and only one of which contains children’s burials.

On the positive side of the x axis (to the right of the map), however, there are thirteen tombs with children, seven of which have figurines (all from cluster 6). The clusters with children from this side of the x axis are clusters 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 16. In all of these clusters, there is only one to two tombs with children’s burials, except cluster 6, in which there are seven tombs with children’s burials (all of which contain figurines). All of these clusters, except cluster 16, contain weapons (particularly those used in combat), four of the clusters contain manufacture items, and two of the clusters contain toiletries.

Given that most of the tombs on this side of the x axis contain adult burials, these

126

offerings might then be offerings given mostly to adults. Cluster 6 is interesting because, based on this interpretation, it should be located on the negative side of the x axis, but instead it occupies a fairly central location, on the positive side. This location may be the result of these tombs containing many offerings associated with both children and adults, instead of one age group out numbering the other.

The y axis, in the other hand, appears to separate two different concepts. On the positive side of the y axis (at the top), are the burials with offerings traditionally associated with male burials (Weapons), while the negative side (at the bottom) contains burials with offerings traditionally associated with female burials (Manufacture/Textile production). The gender distinction between these types of offerings is not always grounded in actual biological evidence but rather on contextual sexing, so it is difficult to verify that this patterning represents actual gender differences rather than some other difference in symbolism.

It is, however, interesting that these two types of offerings have influenced the y axis and their meanings are likely rooted in the intentions of the mourners (personalized gifts to the dead, ideological significance, or family/regional traditions). For example, two of the unit clusters closest to the Manufacture variable group contain tombs strictly from Perati (cluster 8) or mostly from Perati (cluster 14), suggesting that offerings associated with textile production were common in that region. In addition, cluster 17, which contains tombs from the Argolid (mostly Mycenae), and cluster 16, which contains tombs from all three of the regions in this sample, suggest that textile offerings also appear in regions other than Perati, but on a slightly decreased scale. This is evidenced by the fact that Perati makes up 56% of the tombs from the clusters outlined above.

127

A similar picture emerges for the clusters closest to the Weapons variable. The clusters closest to Weapons are cluster 2, cluster 3, cluster 4, and cluster 5. There are a total of twenty-one tombs from these clusters, and fifteen of them contained the so-called warrior burials (meaning that they contained weapons used for combat and sometime armour). Of the twenty-one tombs in these clusters, fifteen of them are from the Argolid, and twelve of these are the so-called warrior tombs. Some of the tombs in this cluster represent 47% of the so-called warrior burials in the sample (this percent increases to

63% if cluster 6, which also has children’s burials, is included). What is interesting, however, about these clusters is that the majority of the tombs present (71.4%) are from the Argolid, indicating that placing weapons (combat or otherwise) was more common in the Argolid.

As a result, it is possible that the y axis represents regional differences rather than gender distinctions, with the negative side indicating tombs from Perati and the positive side indicating tombs from the Argolid. This is further evidenced by clusters 10 and 12, which contain mostly tombs from the Argolid and are located on the positive side of the y axis.

Hypotheses

Based on the results of the CA, the following three hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): From the features of cluster 4 and, to a lesser degree, cluster 3, it is hypothesized that Toiletries belong to the so-called warrior burial ritual. Often the presence of toiletries, such as tweezers and mirrors, are assumed to represent female burials while weapons are often assumed to represent males, but this hypothesis suggests

128

that both offerings types were also commonly associated with one another. A number of these Toiletries are not simply found in the same tomb, but found directly alongside items such as swords, daggers, and armour. If this hypothesis holds, then the gender stereotypes associated with them may need revising. The null hypothesis suggests that these two features are not associated and that their appearance together is mere chance.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): The second hypothesis proposes that Figurines are common offerings found in children’s burials. This hypothesis is important since scholars have suggested this link in the past (Chapter Five), but it has not yet been tested for statistical significance. The presence of Figurines in certain contexts, such as a pit in a chamber tomb in which no bones have been found, may be enough to suggest that a child was buried there but that its remains have since decayed, if this hypothesis is shown to be probable. Alternatively, the null hypothesis states that the two are independent of one another.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The third hypothesis, based on the variable factor map, suggests that Drinking Vessels and Serving/Food tend to appear together in the chamber tombs. It is hypothesized that these two variables groups are associated with one another in chamber tombs because they belong to a single feasting ritual. In the previous chapter, it was suggested that these two groups were parts of different rituals based on what had been observed in the data, but the CA results suggest otherwise. The null hypothesis, on the other hand, suggests that their appearance together is mere chance.

129

Chi Square Results

The χ² tests, done using Microsoft Excel, compare the observed values (of the specific offerings) to the expected values, with the significance set at p<0.05. The purpose of comparing the observed values with the expected values is to determine a departure from average and to determine if the association can be shown not to be random. The first two hypotheses are tested using a 2x2 table (2 rows, 2 columns) for cross classified data, since it compares two variables with two features, while the third is done using a 2x1 table (2 rows, 1 column), known as a 1-sample test, since it is comparing features with a theoretical idea (i.e. feasting). For a complete list of which tombs were used for the χ² tests, see Appendix IV. Ideally, a second data set would be used to test the hypotheses generated from the CA, but access to data was limited for this study, as mentioned above, and the time restraints of the Master’s program did not allow for further research.20 Nevertheless, this analysis is still able to test the significance of some of the patterns seen in the CA.

H1 is tested by organizing the observed data based on tombs with combat weapons and toiletries, tombs with combat weapons but no toiletries, tombs with toiletries but no combat weapons, and tombs without toiletries and without combat weapons (Table 6.2). From these numbers, the expected number of tombs in each category was calculated (Table 6.3) and a χ² was performed.

(19 − 11.5)2 (13 − 20.5)2 (22 − 29.5)2 (60 − 52.5)2 χ2 = + + + = 10.613 11.5 20.5 29.5 52.5

푑푓 = 1

푝 = 0.00114

20 In addition, the ideal circumstance is not always possible with archaeological data since there is often a limit to the amount of data in some contexts. 130

With the significance level set to 0.05, a p=0.00114 makes the association of combat weapons with toiletries in Mycenaean chamber tombs statistically significant. It is important to note that in only one tomb (Prosymna T.24) is the toiletry (in this case, tweezers found on the chamber floor) not associated with the weapon burial, while in all other cases the toiletries were found in the same context as the weapons and/or armour.

Table 6.2 Observed Values: Combat Weapons and Toiletries Combat Weapons No Combat Weapons Total With Toiletries 19 22 41 Without Toiletries 13 60 73 Total 32 82 114

Table 6.3 Expected Values: Combat Weapons and Toiletries Combat Weapons No Combat Weapons Total With Toiletries 11.5 29.5 41 Without Toiletries 20.5 52.5 73 Total 32 82 114

This result is notable because it shows that the association of items, like tweezers, combs, mirrors, and even pyxides with female burials may not be accurate. For example,

Kallithea T. B contains four burials, of which only two have been identified, one as a male and one as a female. The male burial is thought to be a warrior based on the armour and weapons found with him, leading Papadopoulos (1999:269) to suggest that the other burial is the warrior’s wife, since the two were found together. He further suggests that

“the tweezers must be associated with the female burial” (Papadopoulos 1999:269), but does not provide an explanation for why this association must be the case. Other scholars, however, suggest that tweezers were part of the military assemblage because they were used to remove arrowhead barbs (Arnott 1999:501) or were simply a part of a warrior’s personal grooming kit, along with combs and razors (Deger-Jalkotzy 2006:172;

Paschalidis and McGeotge 2009:93; Paschalidis 201). Based on the tombs with combat

131

weapons in this sample and the results from the χ² it appears that such offerings are in fact associated with so-called warrior burials and that mirrors can be also added to the warrior repertoire (Paschalidis 2012:551). These warrior burials, however, likely do not represent males, as is often assumed (Whitley 2002:218), but rather a tradition of placing combat weapons with the dead, whether male or female, to indicate an ideal social status.

H2 is tested by examining tombs with both children and figurines, tombs with children but no figurines, tombs with figurines but no children, and tombs without figurines and without children (Table 6.4). As with H1, these observed values are compared to the expected values (Table 6.5) using the χ² to determine if the association arose by chance.

(16 − 10.7)2 (10 − 15.3)2 (31 − 36.3)2 (57 − 51.7)2 χ2 = + + + = 5.778 10.7 15.3 36.3 51.7

푑푓 = 1

푝 = 0.01664 With the significance level set at 0.05, a p=0.01664 suggests that that the association of children’s burials with figurines is significant.

Table 6.4 Observed Values: Children and Figurines Children’s Burials Non-Children’s Burials Total With Figurines 16 31 47 Without Figurines 10 57 67 Total 25 89 114

Table 6.5 Expected Values: Children and Figurines Children’s Burials Non-Children’s Burials Total With Figurines 10.7 36.3 47 Without Figurines 15.7 52.3 67 Total 25 89 114

The significance of the association between children’s burials and Figurines is useful for the study of Mycenaean chamber tombs because it can help identify children’s burials for contexts (pits, cists, or niches) in which the child’s bones have since decayed.

132

Children are underrepresented in Mycenaean chamber tombs, not necessarily because they were not often buried in them, but because their tiny bones have not survived or were so badly decayed that they were missed during excavation. For example, it is interesting that only one child burial was found at Dendra (T. 11), despite the fact that six of the tombs (T. 1, T. 2, T. 3, T. 7, T. 9, and T. 11) in this sample contained Figurines.

Three of these tombs (T. 2, T. 7, and T. 9) contained adult bones which were poorly preserved, so it is possible that any remains of children had decayed. The lack of sufficient children remains at Dendra also explains why Persson (1931:89; 1942:33) did not agree that figurines were associated with children, but rather were similar to Egyptian ushabtis. The result of this χ² test, however, suggests some probability that figurines are associated with children burials in the chamber tombs. As a result of the χ², the null hypothesis can be rejected.

H3 is tested slightly differently from H1 and H2, since it tests the association of two functional categories used for the CA with a theoretically derived expectation that the two vessel types represent a specific ritual. The data for this test are organized by tombs with both Drinking Vessels and Serving/Food and tombs without Drinking Vessels or Serving/Food (Table 6.6). The number of tombs with both Drinking Vessels and

Serving/Food are added to the number of tombs with just Drinking Vessels and just

Serving/Food respectively and used to determine the expected values.

(54 − 52)2 (14 − 12)2 χ2 = + = 0.41 52 12

푑푓 = 1

푝 = 0.5238 With the significance set to 0.05, a p=0.5238 shows that the two vessel groups are not associated with one another. In other words, the results reveal that the two vessel

133

types appear alongside of one another by chance. Therefore, the null hypothesis that the variables are independent of one another cannot be rejected.

Table 6.6 Observed and Expected: Values Drinking Vessels and Serving/Food Observed % with % without Expected Tombs with both 54 0.474 52 Tombs without both 14 0.123 12 Tombs with Drinking Vessels 23+54 0.675 0.325 Tombs with Serving/Food 23+54 0.675 0.325

This result is still notable, however, since it was suggested above and in the previous chapter (Chapter Five) that the rituals associated with these items were likely not the same, even though some tombs contained both items.

Summary

This study provides the first attempt at applying CA to Mycenaean mortuary data and not only produced results which contribute to the understanding of the rituals in chamber tombs but also generated three testable hypotheses. The concepts behind these hypotheses are not new to the study of Mycenaean chamber tombs, yet it is notable to see that the CA map correlates with these concepts, even if the χ² could not positive relationship. Alternatively, the χ² tests which produced significant results provides archaeologists with a better understanding of the offerings placed in Mycenaean chamber tombs.

Although H3 is shown to be insignificant, the results still provide information about Mycenaean mortuary rituals. While the Drinking Vessels and Serving/Food vessels appear alongside one another in some of the tombs, they do not represent an overall feasting ritual since it cannot be shown that their appearance together is not random. As a result, new questions can be asked regarding why cooking pots, bowls, and plates were

134

included with some burials, while others received vessels associated with drinking such as cups, kylikes, or kraters.

In terms of H2, the association of figurines with children’s burials in the sampled chamber tombs is significant, suggesting that figurines may represent a ritual associated with children. Unfortunately, children’s burials do not always preserve well in the archaeological record even under ideal circumstance, let alone in situations where the tomb or grave is damaged so it is difficult to say for certain how many children were buried in the chamber tombs. With this result, however, the suggestion that contexts without burials, but the presence of figurines, are possibly children’s burials is strengthened. As a result, it can be proposed that children’s burials and figurines are associated with one another in the tombs in this sample based on the result of the χ² test.

The results for H1, on the other hand, add insight into the types of offerings placed in the so-called warrior tombs and show that applying gender specific roles to certain offerings, such as mirrors, combs and weapons, may be misguided. It is assumed that weapons belonged to male burials because it is men who used them in life, but it is also possible that women were given weapons as funerary gifts. It cannot be said for certain which gender is indicated by the presence of weapons, but it can be said that offerings of weapons used for combat were also often accompanied by various toiletries such as tweezers, razors, mirrors, and combs in Mycenaean chamber tombs, at least for those in this sample.

135

Chapter Seven

Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the significance of the current study in terms of what it reveals about the nature of Mycenaean mortuary data and how CA is a valid method for studying such data. In addition, the other research goals, and whether or not they were achieved, are discussed. These research goals, outlined in Chapter One, are: to establish whether Mycenaean mortuary archaeology is sufficiently well recorded to support a meaningful analysis of variation in funerary depositional patterning; to determine if the palaces had an effect on the types of offerings placed in the tombs; and to assess the validity of previously stated claims that the offerings placed in the chamber tombs represent funerary rituals, and if so, what type(s) of rituals? This chapter also discusses some of the difficulties with this study and how future studies can improve it.

CA and Mycenaean Mortuary Remains

The third research goal for this thesis was to determine if Mycenaean mortuary remains are sufficiently recorded to support the use of CA. CA is a technique that is not new to archaeological studies despite its late introduction into the field and its utility as a valid study for a wide variety of archaeological material is already well established. It has been applied to contexts throughout North America and parts of Europe, but not to

Greece, prehistoric or otherwise, prior to this study. Bronze Age Aegean mortuary material is ideally suited for this method because of its quantity and its diversity in terms of burial types and offerings.

136

The results of the current study reveal that CA can be successfully applied to

Mycenaean mortuary data. These results reveal significant information about the use of chamber tombs on the Mainland during the Palatial and Postpalatial periods and allow for a clearer understanding of the significance of the offerings (see below).

Evidence for Palatial Influence on Chamber Tomb Offerings

The first goal of this study was to see if the Mycenaean palaces had any effect on the social structure represented in the chamber tombs by influencing the types of offerings. The nature of the data, however, made this study difficult. Many of the tombs in this sample were used, either continuously or with a brief hiatus, from LH IIIA to LH

IIIC, often resulting in mixed contexts. Pottery is the most easily datable material since decorative styles change over time, while certain artefacts like swords and female figurines are often dated by type (i.e. shape, decoration, and sometimes manufacturing).

Many of the other offerings in the tombs, such as jewellery, ornaments, and toiletries, cannot always be dated based on their style or decoration alone. Instead, the dates for these types of offerings are often based on the pottery found with or near them (Dakouri-

Hild 2012:474). For example, in tombs where LH IIIA and LH IIIB contexts are heaped together (i.e. pottery dating to these periods is found together, along with other items and possibly human remains), it is difficult to know which of the non-datable material belongs to which period. As a result, this study was unable to organize the data in such a way as to reflect clearly the changes proposed by earlier scholars (Chapter Three).

Nonetheless, this study was still able to reveal some significant results in the use of offerings in Palatial and Postpalatial tombs. Clusters 5 and 6 are the only clusters with

137

tombs dating specifically to the Palatial period, while cluster 8 is the only cluster with

Postpalatial tombs. There are two things to note about these clusters: first, cluster 8 contains tombs which are located at Perati, and second, clusters 5 and 6 contain tombs which are located in the Argolid (mostly Prosymna). The LH IIIC date of Cluster 8 is not completely surprising considering that all of the tombs from the cemetery at Perati date to the Postpalatial period, but they do not represent the only LH IIIC tombs in this sample.

Klauss T. A (cluster 3), T. B (cluster 1), and T. Θ (cluster 9) also date to the Postpalatial period exclusively, but they do not appear in the clusters which contain tombs mostly from Perati (cluster 7 contains tombs mostly from Perati, cluster 8 contains tombs exclusively from Perati, and cluster 14 contains tombs mostly from Perati). Instead, the tombs in clusters 7 and 14 which are not from Perati date to the Palatial period, while the

Postpalatial tombs from Klauss are found in clusters that range from LH IIIA to LH IIIC.

The fact that the LH IIIC tombs did not cluster together, except for those from Perati, suggests that the changes which appear to take place in the Postpalatial period are not as clear as once thought. Perati is often used as the archetypal cemetery for the Postpalatial period, since all of the tombs date to LH IIIC, but it might be that the offerings in these tombs represent a local tradition, in addition to the standard tradition seen at the other cemeteries, particularly from tombs which date to the LH IIIA. Tombs with LH IIIA material appear most often in the Perati clusters, suggesting similarities in types of offerings from both of these periods.

In addition, the fact that the only two clusters which represent strictly the Palatial period are located in the Argolid is equally significant (clusters 5 and 6). Generalizations made about the Palatial period are often based on the tombs from the Argolid,

138

particularly the tombs from Mycenae and Prosymna. These two clusters appear to show that such generalizations are justified. More than half of the tombs in this sample, however, are from the Argolid, and close to ninety percent of them date to the Palatial period. The cemeteries at Dendra and Prosymna contain tombs which are no later than

LH IIIB, while most of the tombs from Mycenae in this sample are LH IIIA to LH IIIB.

Additionally, the tombs from Achaea range in date from LH IIIA to LH IIIC, with no one cemetery representing one period over the other. As a result, the Argolid clusters (i.e. clusters 5 and 6), like the Perati clusters, might represent local traditions, which are slightly different from those evident in Achaean and Perati cemeteries. There may still be palatial influence on the tombs in the Argolid, since they are located at or near palatial centres, but the tombs that are not located near palaces are scattered throughout the cluster groups, suggesting that the traditions varied based on the idiosyncrasies mentioned in Chapter Six, rather than on period.

Evidence for Funerary Rituals

The second goal of this thesis was to determine if the offerings placed in chamber tombs were part of mortuary rites. As mentioned above, the fact that most of the data in this study comes from the Argolid and dates predominantly to the Palatial period makes it difficult to say for certain if there are changes from the Palatial period to the Postpalatial period. Some of the clusters produced on the CA map seem to suggest that there are changes when examined individually, but together it appears that many of the tombs contained the same types of offerings, regardless of region or period, with the differences representing deviations from the standard mortuary ritual. The standard mortuary ritual is

139

represented by the offering types grouped into the categories of Jewellery, Ornaments,

Oil Containers, and Storage/Transport, since they appear in the majority of the tombs regardless of region, period, or social status.

Aspects of these offerings may still represent status, however. For example, bronze vessels or gold beads might indicate an individual with higher status than clay vessels or glass paste beads, since the former are made of materials which were harder to access. In addition, ideological significance may have been attached to specific items, such as weapons or mirrors (Whitley 2002:226-7; Paschalidis 2012:548, 551), or even certain pottery shapes. For example, the stirrup jar, one of the most common Mycenaean funerary offerings, may have been of value for its own sake, in addition to its contents

(Tournavitou 1992:195).

What these offerings represented to the Mycenaeans (i.e. why did they choose these specific offering types), however, is not as clear without written sources, but it is possible to suggest that these items were a part of the standard funerary rite, thus changing their significance from just items of wealth and status to ritual offerings given to the dead. The purpose of using CA for social analysis is to answer the question: “What did they want to express?”, and based on these results, it would seem that the jewellery and ornaments found in the tombs express the desire to adorn the deceased in fine attire before putting them into their final resting place. In terms of the oil containers and storage/transport vessels, the answer lies in what was placed inside of them. The vessels under the category Oil Containers, as mentioned in Chapter Five, held oil, perfumed oil, and sometimes wine, while the items in the storage/transport vessels ranged from dry food stuffs (for example, grain or olives) to liquid items (for example, oil, wine, or

140

water). The nature of the Mycenaean interpretation of the afterlife is not known, but these offerings, along with drinking vessels, food preparation and serving vessels, and personal adornment, may hint at the idea that the Mycenaeans believed in an afterlife, since these items are things used and appreciated by the living.

In addition, the idiosyncrasies, although not a part of the general ritual, were intentional and were, therefore, meant to express something. They seem to express certain social identities, idealized or otherwise, as is especially true for combat weapons with Toiletries and children with Figurines. The items in the Toiletries category (Chapter

Five) are often used by archaeologists as indicators for female burials (Mee 1998), but the fact that these items often appear in contexts with weapons suggests that the gender distinctions need revising. In addition, the presence of weapons in burials is often used to define warriors, who are interpreted as male (Deger-Jalkotzy 2006; Konstantinidi

2001:247; Vitale 2012:411-2; Haas-Lebegyev 2012:429), but unless the remains have been sexed by biological anthropologists, it is difficult to know for sure if the individuals associated with these items are male or female. The fact that these items tend to be grouped together, however, does reveal specific ritual offerings, outside of the norm, for a group of individuals, whose sex remains undetermined.

The presence of figurines also reveals a specific idiosyncratic ritual, which was limited to one group of individuals, in this case, children. As mentioned in Chapter Five, scholars have suggested the connection between children’s burials and figurines, so the result of the χ² adds strength to this assertion. It also provides a means to identify children’s burials in contexts where the bodies have not preserved. Shelton (2000:37), for example, suggests that the niche α in the dromos of Mycenae T. G III likely contained the

141

burial of an infant because two Psi figurines were present, but no human remains were found. Further analysis with a much larger sample size would reveal more about the connection between children’s burials and Figurines, but it can be suggested that the two are related, at least for the tombs in this sample.

Significance and Future Studies

This study was able to achieve two of the three research goals, despite the limitations in the data. Future studies on this subject can learn from the problems and limitations in this study to produce better results and provide greater information about the chamber tombs and their associated rituals.

Benefits of the Study

Although archaeologists have been applying CA since the late 1970s and early

1980s, its popularity outside of Scandinavia has been limited. Since the mid-1990s, however, CA has seen a rise in use as archaeologists have realized the potential of this method for the understanding of archaeological material.

Given that this study is the first to apply CA to Mycenaean material, much of the process was a learning experience, since there are no similar Mycenaean studies on which to rely. Determining the type of data to collect and how to organize these data for analysis was a key challenge, resulting in months of trial and error. Since there were cases in which the tombs were poorly published, not published at all, or unavailable for the current study, much of the data needed to be gathered from a number of different sources. As a result, the amount of usable data was limited.

142

Despite these limitations, the analysis was still able to be conducted and enough data was gathered to create a dataset suitable for CA. The dataset was based on the tombs which met the criteria outlined in Chapter Five and the functional categories were based on types of offerings commonly found in the tombs. These functional categories were based on their perceived function and relation to other offerings. For example, kraters were placed in the Drinking Vessels category even though they are not by definition drinking vessels because their function is similar to the various cups used in the drinking ritual. A krater, which was used for mixing wine and water for consumption, cannot function by itself without cups from which to drink the mixed wine.

The experience from the collection process and resulting dataset is beneficial to the study of Mycenaean mortuary data because it might help future researchers who wish to undertake a similar study in this field. It provides something that the current study did not have and that is a basis of comparison with familiar data, a starting point to improve or build upon. This study also shows that the application of CA is suitable and is a valuable approach to understanding Mycenaean mortuary rituals.

Subsequently, another benefit of this study is the results it produced. Although one of the χ² tests was not statistically significant and the CA did not reveal much about the relationship between chamber tombs and the palaces since a chorological and chronological analysis was not done, the results did reveal a reasonable amount of information about Mycenaean mortuary rituals surrounding the deposition of offerings.

The results of the CA provide information about which items can be interpreted as part of the standard mortuary ritual and which items represents idiosyncrasies. This information is important because it allows researchers to see the offerings beyond interpretations of

143

wealth and status. As mentioned in Chapter Three, Mycenaean mortuary remains are often thought to represent either the wealth and status of the deceased or that of the deceased’s relatives (i.e. the people engaging in the funerary ritual). The fact that some offerings are common in most of the tombs, regardless of wealth, social status, region, or time period, is an indication that those items represent the standard mortuary ritual.

Exactly why these items were chosen and what they represent to the mourners is not known, since there are no written records to verify Mycenaean beliefs regarding death, but the results of this study do reveal what types of items that the Mycenaeans deemed appropriate for funerary offerings.

The two most common types of offerings placed in the chamber tombs were pottery and items of personal adornment. The presence of these items is significant because pottery is often overlooked in many analyses except in terms of providing a relative chronology for the tombs, while jewellery and most of the ornaments are associated with the wealth and therefore status of the deceased.21 Since these items seem to represent offerings associated with the standard funerary practices, they can reveal further information about Mycenaean mortuary rituals and should be the focus of study.

Given that most of the tombs in this sample contained jewellery and ornaments, it seems less likely that these items represent wealth, but rather a part of a funerary ritual involving the dressing of the deceased. Additionally, understanding what items were placed in the storage containers can be useful since they might provide insight into the

Mycenaean views on the afterlife. For example, if staple goods were placed in the tomb,

21 For example, Cavanagh and Mee, in their study comparing the size of chamber tombs with the wealth of individuals interred, state that “Pottery was omitted altogether because it is found so generally that it was considered unlikely to reveal much about the distinction of rich and poor burials” (1990:56). 144

then it might suggest the belief in life after death, since these items may have been thought to provide nutrients for the deceased. Further evidence for this idea can be seen in the placement of a meal alongside an individual in Perati T. Σ3, in which the individual was given secondary treatment before the body have fully decomposed (Iakovides 1980).

Secondary treatment was not usually performed until the flesh has decayed, making this individual an exception and might explain why he was given a meal during this process.

The decision to include offerings like flasks and amphoriskoi, both of which might have contained perfumed oil, is also notable because they are personal items. The oil could have been used to anoint the deceased or have been meant for use in the afterlife. Stirrup jars and alabastra, which could have contained oil or wine, may also have served the function of providing comforts in life after death.

Interpreting these offerings as items for the afterlife, however, is pure speculation since our understanding of Mycenaean beliefs is limited. Another way to look at these offerings is to see them as part of the standard funerary ritual. Having a standard set of offerings is not uncommon for mortuary rituals and often the meaning behind these items is forgotten by the people performing the ritual (Pader 1982:38). This idea seems likely for the Mycenaean chamber tombs, especially if one considers the fact that, by the LH

IIIA period, there is an explosion of chamber tomb use on the Mainland and the basic shape of the tomb and the offerings becomes somewhat standardized. This standardization continues into the LH IIIC period, with a few idiosyncrasies appearing in the tombs.

The idiosyncrasies are worthy of examination because they provide insight into how some people chose to bury their dead, regardless of the set standard. The deposition

145

of Weapons, Toiletries, Figurines, and Manufacture items characterizes the idiosyncratic nature of Mycenaean offerings in the chamber tombs, since these offerings deviate from the standard rite. These items might represent family traditions, regional variation, or social distinction. Unfortunately, the sample size in this study was not of sufficient enough size to determine the exact nature of some of these offerings, but a much larger sample size might reveal more information.

CA and Future Research on Mycenaean Mortuary Rituals

As mentioned above, the size of this sample was limited, but it was still a large enough sample size to run the analysis. When compared to the number of known

Mycenaean chamber tombs, however, it represents a very small percentage (<15%). A much larger sample size, taken from a larger number of sites, would definitely increase the value of the results presented in this thesis. Future studies on Mycenaean chamber tombs can use this study as a starting point and expand on it, thus increasing the understanding of the rituals used for burials in chamber tombs. Chamber tombs are found at almost every Mycenaean site on the Mainland, so researchers with access to the material would be able to gather a substantial amount of data for a CA.

CA is a valuable method for understanding the mortuary practices of the

Mycenaeans and can be applied to any burial type or period for which there is an abundance of available data. A dataset that uses a variety of different burial types might reveal some significant patterns in term of the rituals associated with them. It would be noteworthy to see if there is a link between rituals regardless of burial type or if the types of offerings are burial specific. In other words, this study was able show that the offerings

146

in chamber tombs were a part of a standard funerary ritual, but those rituals may not be the same for other burial types such as simple graves, tholos tombs, or shaft graves.

Burial architecture also falls under the category of funerary ritual since the choice of burial type is just as deliberate and intentional as the types of offerings placed with the deceased. The choice of burial type might be related to age, sex, or status, and the types of offerings placed in those tombs might be related to a ritual associated with them.

CA can be used for much more than mortuary data as well. As mentioned in

Chapter Five, CA is ideal for understanding chronology using style-related characteristics. Mycenaean data with the necessary characteristics for a chronological CA analysis include pottery styles, weapon types, figurines, seal rings, and sealstones. A detailed chronology already exists for some of these artefacts, such as pottery, and to a lesser extent figurines and weapons, but it would be fascinating to see how CA correlates with the current understanding of Mycenaean relative chronology.

In addition, a chorological analysis can also be performed on these types of artefacts and on the different burial types, to see if there is regional variation in styles of burials or there is a preference of one burial type over others. For example, it appears that tholos tombs were favoured in Messenia, while chamber tombs were favoured in the

Argolid and Achaea (Cavanagh and Mee 1998:48). It would be fascinating to see how accurate these observations are, and CA would be able to provide a clearer picture.

A chorological analysis of the jewellery and ornaments in chamber tombs might also be the subject of future study. Since these items appear to have been a part of the funerary dress based on the results of this thesis, it would be noteworthy to see if the types of jewellery and ornaments were regionally specific. Although the current study

147

reveals that jewellery and ornaments are a part of the standard mortuary ritual in chamber tombs based on function related variables, it was not able to show if the styles from one region to the next were the same, similar, or different. The nature of these offerings makes them ideal for a chorological analysis using CA because they have very clear style-related characteristics.

Closing Remarks

After running the CA, it was discovered that the link between the palaces and offerings in the chamber tombs was not substantial, at least not with this sample. As stated above, a larger sample size may reveal more on this subject, but this thesis was not able to find a connection between the types of items placed in the chamber tombs and palatial influence, but it was able to show that the offerings may have had regional differences. In addition to a larger sample size, contexts with very specific dates (split into the different time periods) would allow for a much clearer picture regarding the relationship or lack thereof between the palaces and mortuary rituals.

Despite the sparse of evidence for palatial influence, the results of the CA provided very specific and revealing information regarding the significance of the types of offerings placed in chamber tombs. It might be obvious to state that the offerings were deliberate in that they were chosen for a reason, but their inclusion in the offering ritual is significant. Not only do certain offerings appear to have been specific for certain groups of people (children vs. adult), but other offerings were found in almost all of the chamber tombs, suggesting that these offerings were an integral part of the standard Mycenaean funerary ritual. For the tombs which do not contain these items, it is possible that the

148

mourners felt the need to change the ritual or that the items have been lost due to looting or poor preservation. Unfortunately, it is not possible to know why some tombs did not contain these offerings, but the majority of the tombs in this sample did, allowing for the conclusion that the Mycenaeans buried their dead in chamber tombs with specific offering types (Jewellery, Ornaments, Oil Containers, and Storage/Transport) and that these offerings were a part of the standard mortuary ritual.

In addition to specific items representing ritual offerings, there were a number of idiosyncrasies which require more study. A much larger sample size is better suited to understanding what these idiosyncrasies mean and how they supplemented the standard funeral. The results of one of the χ² tests revealed that toiletry offerings were commonly associated with offerings of weapons, more specifically with weapons which were used in the identification of warrior burials (i.e. swords and daggers), but may represent an offering type common in the Argolid. This connection between these two offering types suggests that this idiosyncrasy was based on the social status of the deceased or the deceased’s relatives, since the individuals buried with the weapons were not warriors themselves. Additionally, the other χ² results reveal the association between children’s burials and figurines is justified, while the results of the CA show that figurines, and toiletries, weapons, and manufacture items represent idiosyncrasies based on the age of the deceased. More research on the other idiosyncratic offerings may reveal similar social or age distinctions.

The significance of this study in terms of its contribution to Mycenaean studies is that it introduces a useful method for studying the mortuary remains of Mycenaean

Greece. As a result, this thesis provides a starting point for the use of CA in the

149

understanding of Mycenaean mortuary rituals and for the understanding of funerary offerings as more than symbols of wealth and status. Interpreting the offerings in terms of their ritual significance makes it possible to fully appreciate the intentions of the mourners and their offerings, including those often deemed unimportant, and allows for greater understanding of Mycenaean mortuary rituals.

150

Bibliography

Abrams, Elliot M. 1994 How the Maya Built Their World: Energetics and Ancient Architecture. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Andrikou, Eleni 1999 The Pottery from the Destruction Layer of the Linear B Archive in Pelopidou Street, Thebes. A Preliminary Report. In Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten sed X. internationalen mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg von 1.-5. Mai 1995 II. Edited by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan Hiller and Oswald Panagl, 79-102. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna.

Arnott, R. 1999 War Wounds and Their Treatment in the Aegean Bronze Age. In POLEMOS: Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998, vol. 1. Edited by Robert Laffineur, 499-506. Université de Liège, Liège.

Åström, Paul 1977 The Cuirass Tomb and Other Finds at Dendra. Part 1: The Chamber Tombs. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology IV. Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg.

Bates, Daniel G. and Susan H. Lees 1977 The Role of Exchange in Productive Specialization. American Anthropologist 79:824-841.

Baxter, Michael J. 1994 Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Baxter, Michael J. 2003 Statistics in Archaeology. Arnold, London.

Baxter, Michael J. and Hilary H. Cool 2010 Correspondence Analysis in R for Archaeologists: An Educational Account. Archeologia e Calcolatori 21:211-228.

Beck, Curt and Stephen Shennan 1991 Amber in Prehistoric Britain. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Bennet, John 1985 The Structure of Linear B Administration. American Journal of Archaeology 89:231-249.

Bennet, John

151

1999 The Meaning of ‘Mycenaean’: Speculations on Ethnicity in the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 43:224.

Bennet, John 2007 Pylos: The Expansion of a Mycenaean Palatial Center. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Edited by Michael L. Galaty and William A. Parkinson, 29-39. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Benzécri, J.-P. 1963 Cours de linguistique mathématique. Université de Rennes, Rennes.

Benzécri, J.-P. 1969 Statistical Analysis as a Tool to Make Patterns Emerge from Data. In Methodologies of Pattern Recognition. Edited by S, Watanabe, 35-74. Academic Press, New York.

Benzécri, J.-P. 1977 Histoire et préhistoire de l’analyse des données. 5-L’analyse des correspondaces. Cahiers de l’Analyse des Données 2: 9-40.

Benzi, Mario and Giampaolo Graziadio 1996 The Last Mycenaeans in Italy? Late LH IIIC Pottery from Punta Meliso, Leuca. Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici XXXVIII: 95-138.

Binford, Lewis 1971 Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Edited by James A. Brown. Society for American Archaeology 25:6-29.

Blanton Richard E., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Gary M. Feinman, and Laura M. Finsten 1993 Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Blasius, Jörg 1994 Correspondence Analysis in Social Science Research. In Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences: Recent Developments and Applications. Edited by Michael J. Greenacre and Jörg Blasius, 23-52. Academic Press, London.

Blegen, Carl 1937 Prosymna: The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Blegen, Carl W. and Marion Rawson 1966 The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. Vol. I. The Buildings and their Contents. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

152

Blegen, Carl W., Marion Rawson, William Taylour, and William P. Donovan 1973 The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. Vol. III. Acropolis and Lower Town, Tholoi, Grave Circles and Chamber Tombs, Discoveries outside the Citadel. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Bloch, Maurice 1974 Symbols, Song, Dance and Features of Articulation: Is Religion an Extreme For of Traditional Authority? European Journal of Sociology 15:55-81.

Bloch, Maurice 1975 Property and the End of Affinity. In Marxist Analyses and Social Anthropology, A.S.A 2. Edited by Maurice Bloch, 203-228. Malaby Press, London.

Bloch, Maurice 1977 The Past and the Present in the Present. Man 12:278-292.

Bølviken, Erik, Erika Helskog, Knut Helskog, Inger Marie Holm-Olsen, Leive Solheim, and Reidar Bertelsen 1982 Correspondence Analysis: An Alternative to Principle Components. World Archaeology 14:41-60.

Boyd, Michael J. 2002 Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Mortuary Practices in the Southern and Western Peloponnese. BAR International Series 1009. Archaeopress, Oxford

Brown, James A. (ed.) 1971 Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Society for American Archaeology, Memoirs 25.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1987 Elite and Utilitarian Crafts in the Aztec State. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An Introduction. Edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and Timothy K. Earle, 102-118. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Burke, Brendan 2010 Textiles. In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC). Edited by Eric Cline, 430-442. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Burns, Bryan E 2010 Trade. In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC). Edited by Eric Cline, 291-304. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Carr, Christopher 1995 Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical Determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 105- 200.

153

Cavanagh, William 1978 A Mycenaean Second Burial Custom? BICS 25:171-172.

Cavanagh, William 1998 Innovation, Conservatism and Variation in Mycenaean Funerary Ritual. In Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Edited by Keith Branigan, 103- 114. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

Cavanagh, William and Christopher Mee 1978 The Re-Use of Earlier Tombs in the LH IIIC Period. The Annual of the British School at Athens 73:31-44.

Cavanagh, William and Christopher Mee 1990 The Location of Mycenaean Chamber Tombs in the Argolid. In Celebrations of Death and Divinity in Bronze Age Argolid. Edited by Robin Hägg and Gullög Nordquist, 55-64. Svenska Institutet i Athen, Stockholm.

Cavanagh, William and Christopher Mee 1998 A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece. Paul Åströms Förlag, Josered.

Carneiro, Robert L. 1961 Slash and Burn Cultivation among the Kuikuru and its Implications for Cultural Development in the Amazon Basin. In The Evolution of Horticultural Systems in the Native South America: Cause and Consequence. Edited by Johannes Wilbert, 47-68. Sociedad de Ciencias Naturales La Salle, Caracas.

Carneiro, Robert L. 1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science169:733-738.

Clark, John E. 1995 Craft Specialization as an Archaeological Category. Research in Economic Anthropology 16:267-294.

Cline, Eric H. 1994 Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. BAR International Series 591. Tempvs Reparatvm, Oxford.

Cline, Eric H. 2007 Rethinking Mycenaean International Trade with Egypt and the Near East. . In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Edited by Michael L. Galaty and William A. Parkinson, 190-200. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Cline, Eric H. 2009 Bronze Age Interactions between the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean

154

Revisited. In Archaic State Interaction: The Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age. Edited by William A. Parkinson and Michael L. Galaty, 161-180. School for Advanced Research Press, Sante Fe.

Clouse, Robert A. 1996 Fort Snelling, Minnesota: Intrasite Variability at a Nineteenth Century Military Post. PhD. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois- Urbana. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

Clouse, Robert A. 1999 Interpreting Archaeological Data Through Correspondence Analysis. Historical Archaeology 33:90-107.

Cohen, A. 1974 Two-Dimensional Man: An Essay on the Anthropology of Power and Symbolism in Complex Society. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Cultraro, Massimo 2005 The LH IIIC Period in Arcadia and Imports from Southern Italy. In Ancient Arcadia: Papers from the third international seminar on Ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7-10 May 2002. Edited by Erik Østby, 17-33. Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 8. The Norwegian Institute at Athens, Athens.

Dabney, Mary K. and James C. Wright 1990 Mortuary Customs, Palatial Society and State Formation in the Aegean Area: A Comparative Study. In Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June, 1988. Edited by Robin Hägg and Gullög Nordquist, 45-53. Paul Åstöms Förlag, Stockholm.

Dabney, Mary K., Paul Helstead, and Patrick Thomas 2004 Mycenaean Feasting on Tsoungiza at Ancient Nemea. Hesperia 73:197-215.

Dakouri-Hild, Anastasia 2012 Making La Différence: The Production and Consumption of Ornaments in Late Bronze Age Boeotia. In Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/ 13ͤ Rencontre égénne international, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010. Edited by Marie-Louise Nosch and Robert Laddineur, 471-481. Peeters, Liège.

Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid 1996 On the Negative Aspects of the Mycenaean Palace System. In Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia II. Edited by E. De Miro, L.Godart, and A. Sacconi, 727-28. Gruppo editoriale internazionale, Roma.

155

Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid 2006 Late Mycenaean Warrior Tombs. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. Edited by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Irene S. Lemos, 151-179. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid 2008 Decline, Destruction, Aftermath. In The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Edited by Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, 387-415. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dickinson, Oliver T. P. K. 1977 The Origins of the Mycenaean Civilization. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 49. Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg.

Dickinson, Oliver T. P. K. 1983 Cist Graves and Chamber Tombs. The Annual of the British School at Athens 78:55-67.

Dickinson, Oliver T. P. K. 1994 The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dickinson, Oliver T. P. K. 2006 The Aegean from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age: Continuity and Change in the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC. Routledge, New York.

Dickinson, Oliver 2010 The Collapse at the End of the Bronze Age. In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC). Edited by Eric H. Cline, 483-490. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Deilaki, E. 1973 Aνασκαφικαί Έρευναι εις Περιοχήν Ναυπλιας. Archaiologikon Deltion 28:90- 93.

Dillian, Carolyn D. and Carolyn L. White 2010 Perspectives on Trade and Exchange. In Trade and Exchange: Archaeological Studies from History and Prehistory. Edited by Carolyn D. Dillian and Carolyn L. White, 3-14. Springer, New York.

Dunnel, Robert C. 1978 Style and Function: A functional Dichotomy. American Antiquity 42:192-202.

Drennan, Robert D. 2010 Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach 2nd edition. Springer, New York.

156

Earle, Timothy K. 1982 “Prehistoric Economies and the Archaeology of Exchange.” In Contexts of Prehistoric Exchange. Edited by J. E. Ericson and T. K. Earle, 1-12. Academia Press, New York.

Earle, Timothy K. 2002 Bronze Age Economies: The Beginnings of Political Economies. Westview, Boulder.

Earle, Timothy K. 2004 Culture Matters: The Neolithic Transition and Emergence of Hierarchy on Thy, Denmark. American Anthropologist 106:111-125.

Earle, Timothy K. 2010 Exchange Systems in Prehistory. In Trade and Exchange: Archaeological Studies from History and Prehistory. Edited by Carolyn D. Dillian and Carolyn L. White, 205-217. Springer, New York. Earle, Timothy K. 2011 Redistribution in the Aegean Palatial Socities. Reditribution and the Political Economy: The Evolution of an Idea. Journal of American Archaeology 115:237- 244.

Feinman, Gary M., Steadman Upham, and Kent G. Lightfoot 1981 The Production Step Measure: An Ordinal Index of Labor Input in Ceramic Manufacture. American Antiquity 46:871-885.

Feuer, Bryan 2011 Being Mycenaean: A View from the Periphery. American Journal of Archaeology 115:507-536.

Fisher, R. A. 1940 The Precision of Discriminant Functions. Annual of Eugenics 10:422-429.

Fitzsimons, Rodney D. 2006 Monuments of Power and the Power of Monuments: The Evolution of Elite Architectural Styles at Bronze Age Mycenae. PhD Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Fitzsimons, Rodney D. 2007 Architecture and Power in the Bronze Age Argolid. In Power and Architecture: Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean. Proceedings of the international conference ‘Power and Architecture’ organized by the Katholoeke Universiteit Leuven, the Université Catholique de Louvain and the Westfälische Wilhelms-Univerität Münster on the 21st and 22nd of November

157

2002. Edited by Joachim Bretschneider, Jan Driessen, and Karel van Lerberghe, 93-115. Peeters Publishers, Leuven.

Fitzsimons, Rodney D. 2011 Monumental Architecture and the Construction of the Mycenaean State. In State Formation in Italy and Greece: Questioning the Neoevolutionist Paradigm. Edited by Nicola Terrenato and Donald C. Haggis, 75-118. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

French, Elizabeth 2002 Mycenae: Agamemnon’s Capital. The Site in its Setting. Tempus, Gloucestershire.

French, Elizabeth 2009 The Significance of Changes in Spatial Usage at Mycenae. In Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at St. John's College, University of Oxford, 25- 6th March 2006. BANEA Publication Series 1. Edited Christoph Bachhuber and R. Gareth Roberts, 108-110. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Friedman, Jonathon and Michael J. Rowlands 1978 Notes Towards an Epigenetic Model of the Evolution of 'Civilisation.' In The Evolution of Social Systems. Edited by Jonathon Friedman, Michael J. Rowlands, 201-276. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.

Gallou, Chrysanthi 2005 The Mycenaean Cult of the Dead. BAR S1372. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Galaty, Michael L. 2007 Wealth Ceramics, Staple Ceramics: Pots and the Mycenaean Palaces. Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Edited by Michael L. Galaty and William A. Parkinson, 74-86. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Galaty, Michael L. And William A. Parkinson (eds.) 2007 Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Gnanadesikan, Ram 1977 Methods for Statistical Data Analysis of Multivariate Observations. Wiley, New York.

Goldstein, Lynn 1976 Spatial Structure and Social Organization: Regional Manifestation of Mississippian Society. PhD Dissertation, Northwestern University, Ann Arbor.

158

Goodenough, W. H. 1965 Rethinking “Status” and “Role”: Towards a General Model of the cultural Organization of Social relationships. In The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology. Edited by M. Banton. A.S.A Monographs 1:1-24.

Goody, J. 1962 Death, Property and the Ancestors: A Study of the Mortuary Customs of the LoDagaa of West Africa. Travistock Publications, London.

Goody, J. 1977 The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Graziadio, Giampaolo 1991 The Process of Social Stratification at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period: A Comparative Examination of the Evidence. American Journal of Archaeology 95:403-440.

Greenacre, Michael J. and Jörg Blasius 1994 Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences: Recent Developments and Applications. Academic Press, London.

Greenacre, Michael J. 1984 Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. Academic Press, London.

Guttman, L. 1941 The Quantification of a class of attributes: A Theory and Method of Scale Construction. In The Prediction of Personal Adjustment. Edited by P. Horst, 319- 348. Social Science Research Council, New York.

Hadjianastasiou, Olga 1988 A Late Neolithic Settlement at Grotta, Naxos. In Problems in Greek Prehistory: Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986. Edited by Elizabeth B. French and K. A. Wardle, 11-20. Bristol Classical Press, Bristol.

Hallager, Birgitta P. 1993 Mycenaean Pottery on Crete. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Edited by Carol Zerner, Peter Zerner, and John Winder, 263-269. J. C. Gieben, Amsterdam.

Halstead, Paul 1992 The Mycenaean Palatial Economy: Making the Most of the Gaps in the Evidence. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 38:57-86.

159

Halstead, Paul 2007 Towards a Model of Mycenaean Palatial Mobilization. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Edited by Michael L. Galaty and William A. Parkinson, 40-46. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Hansen Mogens H. (ed.) 2000 A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre (Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter 21). Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen. Haas-Lebegyev, Judit 2012 Constructions of Gendered Identity Through Jewellery in Early Mycenaean Greece. In Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/ 13ͤ Rencontre égénne international, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010. Edited by Marie- Louise Nosch and Robert Laddineur,425-432. Peeters, Liège.

Helms, Mary W. 1988 Ulysses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographic Distance. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Helms, Mary W. 1993 Craft and Kingly Idea: Art, Trade, and Power. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Hirschfeld, H. O. 1935 A Connection between Correlation and Contingency. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 31:520-524.

Hodder, Ian 1982 “Towards a Contextual Approach to Prehistoric Exchange.” In Contexts of Prehistoric Exchange. Edited by J. E. Ericson and T. K. Earle, 199-211. Academia Press, New York.

Horst, P. 1935 Measuring Complex Attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology 6:369-374.

Hudson, Michael and Baruch A. Levine (eds.) 1996 Privatization in the Ancient Near East and Classical World: A Colloquium Held at New York University, November 17-18, 1994. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge.

Hudson, Michael and M Van De Mieroop (eds.) 2002 Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East: A Colloquium Held at Columbia University, November, 1998. Capital Decisions, Bethesda.

160

Humphreys, S. C. 1981 Introduction: Comparative Perspectives on Death. In Mortality and Immortality: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Death. Proceedings of a meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and related subjects held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, in June 1980. Edited by S. C. Humphreys and Helen King, 1-13. Academia Press, London.

Iakovides, Spyros E. 1966 A Mycenaean Mourning Custom. American Journal of Archaeology 70:43-50.

Iakovides, Spyros E. 1969 Perati: To Nekrotapheion A. Archaiologike Hetairia en Athenais, Athens.

Iakovides, Spyros E. 1980 Excavations at the Necropolis at Perati. Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Iakovides, Spyros E. 1983 Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece. E. J. Brill, Leiden.

Jensen, Claus Kjeld and Karen Høilund Nielsen 1997 Burial Data and Correspondence Analysis. In Burial and Society: The Chronological and Social Analysis of Archaeological Burial Data. Arhus University Press, Arhus.

Johnston, Gregory A. 1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference. Edited by Colin Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and B.A. Seagraves, 289-421. Academic Press, New York.

Junker, Laura L. 1999 Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Kayafa, Maria 2006 From Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age Copper Metallurgy in Mainland Greece and Offshore Aegean Islands. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. Edited by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Irene S. Lemos, 213-231. Edinburg University Press, Edinburg.

Kewani, Priscilla S. 2005 Death, Prestige, and Copper in Bronze Age Cyprus. American Journal of Archaeology 109: 341-401.

Khan, Shamus R. 2012 The Sociology of Elites. Annual Review of Sociology 38:361-377.

161

Kilian, Klaus 1984 He Organose tes Pylou. Praktika II. Topikou synedriou Messeniakon Spoudon, Kyparissia 1982. 55-68. He Hetaireia, Athens.

Kilian, Klaus 1988 The Emergence of Wanax Ideology in the Mycenaean Palaces. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7:291-302.

Killen, John T. 1985 The Linear B tablets and the Mycenaean Economy. In Linear B, a 1984 survey. Edited by Anna Morpurgo Davies and Yves Duhoux, 241-98. Peeters, Louvian.

Knapp, A. Bernard 2006 Orientalization and Prehistoric Cyprus: The Social Life of Oriental Goods. In Debating Orientalization: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Change in the Ancient Mediterranean. Edited by Riva, Corinna and Nicholas C. Vella, 48-65. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 10. Equinox, London.

Kolář, Jan 2012 Secondary Mortuary Practices During the Late Eneolithic in Moravia, Czech Republic: State of Knowledge, History of Research, Terminology and Interpretations. In Theoretical and Methodological Considerations in Central European Neolithic Archaeology. Proceedings of the ‘Theory and Method in Archaeology of the Neolithic (7th-3rd millennium BC)’ conference held in Mikulov, Czech Republic, 26th-28th of October 2010. Edited by Jan Kolář and František Trampota, 25-44. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Konstantinidi, Eleni M. 2001 Jewellery Revealed in the Burial Contexts of the Greek Bronze Age. BAR S912. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Kontorli-Papadopoulou, Litsa 1987 Some Aspects Concerning Local Peculiarities of the Mycenaean Chamber Tombs. In Thanatos: les coutumes funéraires en Egée àl’âge du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège, 21-23 avril 1986. Edited by Robert Laffineur, 145-160. Aegaeum 1. Université de Liège, Liège.

Kopcke, Guenter 1995 The Argolid in 1400 – What Happened? In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994. Edited by Edited by Robert Laffineur and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, 89-93. Aegaeum 12. Université de Liège, Liège.

Laffineur, Robert and P. Betancourt (eds) 1997 TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze

162

Age. Aegaeum 16. Université de Liège, Liège.

Laffineur, Robert 1995 Aspects of Rulership at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period. In The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Edited by Paul Rehak, 81-92, Université de Liège, Liège.

Lang, Mabel L. 1969 The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. Vol. II. The Frescos. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Leach, Edward R. 1954 Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of the Kachin Social Structure. G. Bell and Sons, London.

Leach, Edward R. 1979 Discussion. In Space, Hierarchy and Society. Edited by B. C. Burnham and J. Kingsbury. BAR 59.

Leonard, Albert Jr. 1981 Considerations of Morphological Variation in the Mycenaean Pottery from the Southeastern Mediterranean. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 241:87-101.

Le Roux, Brigitte and Henry Rouanet 2010 Multiple Correspondence Analysis. Sage Publications, London.

Lewartowski, Kazimierz 1995 Mycenaean Social Structure: A View from Simple Graves. In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994. Edited by Robert Laffineur and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, 103-114. Aegaeum 12. Université de Liège, Liège.

Lewartowski, Kazimierz 2000 Late Helladic Simple Graves: A Study of Mycenaean Burial Customs BAR 878. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Lolos, Iannis 1989 The Tholos Tomb at Koryphasion: Evidence for the Transition from Middle to Late Helladic in Messenia. In Transition: Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze recent. Actes de la deuxième rencontre égéenne international de l’Université de Liège, 18-20 avril 1988. Aegeaum 3. Edited by Robert Laffineur, 171-175. Université de l’Etat à Liège, Liège.

Lupack, Susan

163

2007 Palaces, Sanctuaries, and Workshops : The Role of the Religious Sector in Mycenaean Economy. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II : Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Edited by Michael L. Galaty and William A. Parkinson, 54-65. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Madsen, Torsten 1988 Multivariate Archaeology: Numerical Approaches in Scandinavian Achaeology. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.

Maran, Joseph 2001 Political and Religious Aspects of Architectural Changes on the Upper Citadel of Tiryns. The Case of Building T. In POTNIA: Dieties and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000. Edited by Robert Laffineur and Robin Hägg, 113-122. Aegaeum 22. Liège Université de Liège, Liège.

Maran, Joseph 2006 Coming to Terms with the Past: Ideology and Power in the Late Helladic IIIC. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. Edited by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Irene S. Lemos, 123-150. Edinburg University Press, Edinburg.

Mauss, Marcel 1950 [1990] The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. W. W. Norton, New York.

Mee, Christopher and William Cavanagh 1990 The Spatial Distribution of the Mycenaean Tombs. The Annual of the British School at Athens 85:225-243.

Mee, Christopher 1998 Gender Bias in Mycenaean Mortuary Practices. In Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Edited by Keith Branigan, 165-170. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

Mountjoy, Penelope 1986 Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 73. Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg.

Mountjoy, Penelope 1993 Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford.

Mountjoy, Penelope 1995 “Thorikos Mine No. 3: The Mycenaean Pottery. Annual of the British School at Athens 90:195-227.

164

Mountjoy, Penelope 1999 Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery vol. 1. Deutsches Archäologishes Institut. M. Leidorf, Rahden/Westfalen.

Mountjoy, Penelope 2001 Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction. Oxford University School of Archaeology, Oxford.

Mühlenburch, Tobias 2009 Tiryns – The Settlement and its History in LH IIIC. In LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms III: LH III C Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age. Proceedings of the international workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, February 23rd and 24th, 2007. Edited by Sigrid Deger- Jalkotzy and Anna Elisabeth Bächle, 313-326. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften 384, Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 30. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna.

Müller, Kurt and Heinrich Sulze 1930 Tiyrns III, Die Architectur der Burg und des Palastes. B. Filser, Ausburg.

Murphy, Joanne M. A. 2010 Political Economies in Ritual: A Comparative Study of the Rise of the State in Pre- and Protopalatial Knossos and Phaistos. In Political Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age. Edited by Daniel J. Pullen, 112-126. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Mylonas, George E. 1956 Seated and Multiple Mycenaean Figurines. In The Aegean and the Near East. Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman. Edited by Sail S. Weinberg, 110-122. J. J. Augustin, New York.

Mylonas, George E. 1957 Ancient Mycenae: The Capitol City of Agamemnon. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Mylonas, George E. 1964 Grave Circle B at Mycenae. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology VII. Carl Bloms Boktryckeri, Lund.

Mylonas, George E. 1966 Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Mylonas, George E. 1973 Mycenae: A Guide to its Ruins and its History. Ekdotiki Hellados, Athens.

165

Nakassis, Dimitri, Michael L. Galaty, and William A. Parkinson 2010 State and Society. In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC). Edited by Eric Cline, 239-250. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Nakassis, Dimitri, William A. Parkinson, and Michael L. Galaty 2011 Redistribution on Aegean Palatial Societies. Redistributive Economies from a Theoretical and Cross-Cultural Perspective. American Journal of Archaeology 115:117-184.

Needleham, S. 1993 Displacement and Exchange in Archaeological Methodology. In Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Edited by C. Scarre and F. Healy, 161-169. Oxbow Monograph 33, Oxford.

Nelson, M. C. 2001 The Architecture of Epano Englianos. PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto.

Nerman, B. 1969 Die Vendelzeit Gotlands. II Tefeln. Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.

Nerman, B. 1975 Die Vendelzeit Gotlands. I:1 Text. Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.

Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich 1984 The End of the Minoan Thalassocracy. In The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet I Athen, 4, XXXII. Edited by Robin Hägg and Nanno Marinatos, 205-214. The Swedish Institute at Athens, Stockholm.

Nordquist, Gullög 2002 Intra- and extramural, single and collective, burials in the Middle and Late Helladic periods. In New Research on Old Material from Asine and Berbati. Edited by Berit Wells, 23-29. Paul Åström Fölag, Stockholm.

Olsen, Barbara A. 1998 Women, Children and the Family in the Late Bronze Age: Differences in Minoan and Mycenaean Constructions of Gender. World Archaeology 29:380- 392.

Orton, C. R. 1999 Plus ça Change? 25 Years of Statistics in Archaeology. In Archaeology in the Age of the Internet: CAA97. Edited by L. Dingwall, S, Exon, V. Gaffney, S. Laflin, and M van Leusen, 25-34. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Orton, C. R. and F. R. Hodson 1981 Rank and Class: Interpreting the evidence from Prehistoric cemeteries. In

166

Mortality and Immortality: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Death. Proceedings of a meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and related subjects held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, in June 1980. Edited by S. C. Humphreys and Helen King, 103-115. Academic Press, London.

Pader, Ellen-Jane 1982 Symbolism, Social Relations and the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains. BAR IS130. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Panagl, Oswald 1986 Politische und soziale Struktur. In Die frühgriechischen texte aus mykenischer Zeit. Edited by Stefan Hiller and Oswald Panagl, 278-88. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt

Papadopoulos, Thanasis J. and Litsa Kontorli-Papadopoulou 1984 Notes from Achaea. The Annual of the British School at Athens 79:221-227.

Papadopoulos, Thanasis J. and Litsa Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2001 Death, Power and Troubles in Late Mycenaean Peloponnese. The Evidence of Warrior Graves. In Contributions to the Archaeology and History of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean. Edited by Peter Fischer, 127-138. Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Vienna.

Papadopoulos, Thanasis J. 1976 Excavations at Aigion – 1970. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology XLVI. Paul Åström Förlag, Göteborg.

Papadopoulos, Thanasis J. 1978 Mycenaean Achaea I-II. SIMA 55. Paul Åsröm Förlag, Göteborg.

Papadopoulos, Thanasis J. 1999 Warrior-Graves in Achaean Mycenaean Cemeteries. In POLEMOS: Le Contexte Guerrier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998, vol. 1. Edited by Robert Laffineur, 267-274. Université de Liège, Liège.

Papazoglou-Manioudaki, Lena 2012 Gold and Ivory Objects at Mycenae and Dendra Revealed. Private Luxury and/or Insigna Dignitatis. In Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/ 13ͤ Rencontre égénne international, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010. Edited by Marie-Louise Nosch and Robert Laddineur, 447-456. Peeters, Liège.

Parkinson, William A. 2007 Chipping Away at a Mycenaean Economy: Obsidian Exchange, Linear B, and

167

“Palatial Control” in Late Bronze Age Messenia. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Edited by Michael L. Galaty and William A. Parkinson, 40-46. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Parker Pearson, Mike 1999 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Sutton Publishing, Phoenix Mill.

Paschalidis, Constantinos and Photini J. P. McGeorge 2009 Life and Death in the Periphery of the Mycenaean World at the end of the Late Bronze Age: The Case of the Achaea Klauss Cemetery. In From the Aegean to the Adriatic: Social Organizations, Modes of Exchange, and Interaction in the Post-Palatial Times. Edited by Elisabetta Borgna and Paola Cassola Guida, 79- 113. Quasar, Rome.

Paschalidis, Constantinos 2012 Reflections of Eternal Beauty. The Unpublished Context of a Wealthy Female Burial From Koukaki, Athens and the Occurrence of Mirrors in Mycenaean Tombs. In Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/ 13ͤ Rencontre égénne international, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010. Edited by Marie-Louise Nosch and Robert Laddineur, 547-557. Peeters, Liège.

Peebles, Christopher S. and Susan Kus 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Society. American Antiquity 42:421- 48.

Persson, Axel W. 1931 The Royal Tombs at Dendra near Midea. C. W. K. Gleerup, Lund.

Persson, Axel W. 1942 New Tombs at Dendra Near Midea. . C. W. K. Gleerup, Lund.

Polanyi, Karl 1957 The Economy as Instituted Process. In Trade and Market in Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory. Edited by Karl Polanyi, Conrad M. Arensberg, and Harry W. Pearson, 243-269. Academic Press, New York.

Preston. Laura 2004 A Mortuary Perspective on Political Changes in LM II-IIIB Crete. American Journal of Archaeology 108: 321-348.

Renfrew, Colin 1975 Trade as Action at a Distance. In Ancient Civilization and Trade. Edited by Jeremy Sabloff and Clifford C. Lamberg Karlovsy, 12-22. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

168

Renfrew, Colin 1986 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change. Edited by Collin Renfrew and John F. Cherry, 1-18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Renfrew, Colin 1993 Trade beyond the Material. In Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Bristol, April 1992. Edited by Chris Scarre and Frances Healy, 5-16. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Richardson, M. and G. F. Kuder 1933 Making a Rating Scale that Measures. Personal Journal 12:36-40.

Rutter, Jeremy B. 1992 Cultural Novelties in the Post-Palatial Aegean World: Indices of Vitality or Decline? In The Crisis Years: The Twelfth Century B.C. from the Danube to the Tigris. Edited by William A. Ward and Martha S. Joukowsky, 61-78. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque.

Rutter, Jeremy B. 2001 The Prepalatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Aegean. . In Aegean Prehistory: A Review. Edited by Tracy Cullen, 95-147. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston.

Rutter, Jeremy B. and Carol W. Zerner 1984 Early Hellado-Minoan Contacts. In The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May – 5 June, 1982. Edited by Robert Hägg and Nanno Marinatos, 75-83. Svenska Institutet i Athen, Stockholm.

Sackett, James R. 1990 Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestism. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Edited by Margret W. Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf, 32- 42. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sahlins, Marshall D. 1972 Stone Age Economies. Aldine, Chicago.

Sanders, William T. and Robert S. Santley 1983 A Tale of Three Cities: Energetics and Urbanization in Prehispanic Central Mexico. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey. Edited by Evon Z. Vogt, Richard Leventhal, 243 91. University New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Saxe, Arthur A.

169

1970 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Schliemann, Henry 1885 Tiryns: The Prehistoric Palace of the Kings of Tiryns. The Results of the Latest Excavations. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.

Schofield, Louise 2007 The Mycenaeans. Getty Publications, Los Angeles.

Schon, Robert 2007 Chariots, Industry, and Elite Power at Pylos. In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Edited by Michael L. Galaty and William A. Parkinson, 133-145. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Schon, Robert 2009 Think Locally, Act Globally: Mycenaean elites and the Late Bronze Age World- System. In Archaic State Interaction: The Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age. Edited by William A. Parkinson and Michael L. Galaty, 213-237. School for Advanced Research Press, Sante Fe.

Schon, Robert 2011 Redistribution in Aegean Palatial Societies. By Appointment to His Majesty the Wanax: Value-Added Goods and Redistribution in Mycenaean Palatial Economies. American Journal of Archaeology 115:219-227.

Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. 2001 The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland. In Aegean Prehistory: A Review. Edited by Tracy Cullen, 329-377. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston.

Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. 2006 Mycenaean Palatial Administration. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. Edited by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Irene S. Lemos, 73-86. Edinburg University Press, Edinburg.

Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. 2007 Administration in the Mycenaean Palaces: Where’s the Chief? In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Edited by Michael L. Galaty and William A. Parkinson, 40-46. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Shelton, Kim S. 1993 Tsountas’ Chamber Tombs at Mycenae. Archaiologike Ephemeris:187-210.

Shelton, Kim S.

170

2000 Four Chamber Tomb Cemeteries at Mycenae. Archaiologike Ephemeris:27-64.

Shelton, Kim S. 2010a Mainland Greece. In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC). Edited by Eric Cline, 139-149. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Shelton, Kim S. 2010b Citadel and Settlement: A Developing Economy at Mycenae, the Case of Petsas House. In Political Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age. Edited by Daniel J. Pullen, 184-204. Oxbow, Oxford.

Shennan, Stephen 1988 [1997] Quantifying Archaeology. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

Sherratt, Andrew and Susan Sherratt 1991 From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Papers Presented at the conference held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989. Edited by N. H. Gale. 351-386. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90. Paul Åström Förlag, Jonsered.

Sherratt, Susan 2003 The Mediterranean Economy: “Globalization” at the end of the Second Millennium BCE. In Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Edited by W. G. Dever and S. Gitin, 37-62. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.

Small, David 2007 Mycenaean Polities: States or Estates? In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Edited by Michael L. Galaty and William A. Parkinson, 47-53. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Smith Michael E. and Frances F. Berdan (eds.) 2003 The Post Classic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Smith, Robert Angus K. and Mary K. Dabney 2012 Children and Adornment in Mycenaean funerary Ritual at Ayia Sotira, Nemea. In Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/ 13ͤ Rencontre égénne international, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010. Edited by Marie-Louise Nosch and Robert Laddineur, 441-445. Peeters, Liège.

Stein, Gil J.

171

1998 Heterogeneity, Power, and Political Economy: Some Current Research Issues in the Archaeology of Old World Complex Societies. Journal of Archaeological Research 6:1-36.

Stockhammer, Phillipp 2011 Household Archaeology in LH IIIC Tiryns. In Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond. Edited by Assaf Yasur-Landau, Jennie R. Ebeling, and Laura B. Mazow, 207-446. Brill, Leiden.

Symeonogleou, Sarantis 1973 Mycenaean Finds from Thebes, Greece: Excavations at 14 Oedipus St (Kadmeia). Paul Åstom Förlag, Jonsered.

Tainter, Joseph 1975 Social Inferences and Mortuary Practices: An Experiment in Numerical Classification. World Archaeology 7:1-15

Tainter, Joseph 1977 Modelling Change in Prehistoric Social Systems. In For Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Modeling. Edited by Lewis Binford, 327-51. Academic Press, New York.

Tainter, Joseph 1978 Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1:105-141.

Thomatos, Marina 2005 A Re-Evaluation of the Settlement Evidence of Late Helladic IIIC. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5(1):77-86.

Thomas, C. G. 1976 The Nature of Mycenaean Kingship. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 17:93- 116.

Thompson, William R. 2006 Trade Pulsations, Collapse and Reorientation in the Ancient World. In Connectivity in Antiquity: Globalization as a Long Term Historical Process. Edited by Oystein LaBianca and Sandra Arnold Scham, 32-57. Equinox Publishing, Sheffield.

Tournavitou, Iphigeneia 1992 Practical Use and Social Function: A Neglected Aspect of Mycenaean Pottery. Annual of the British School at Athens 87:181-210.

Trigger, Bruce G.

172

1990 Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Behavior. World Archaeology 22:119-32.

Trigger Bruce G. 2003 Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tsountas, Christos 1888 Ανασκαφαι Ταφον εν Μυκηναις. Archaiologike Ephemeris:119-179.

Turner, B. S. 1988 Status. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Turner, Victor 1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Cornell University Press, London.

Vermeule, Emily Townsend 1960 The Mycenaeans in Achaia. American Journal of Archaeology 64:1-21.

Ventris, Michael and John Chadwick 1973 Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vitale, Salvatore 2012 Dressing the Dead. The Significance of LH IIIB Adornment at Kos. In Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/ 13ͤ Rencontre égénne international, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile Research, 21-26 April 2010. Edited by Marie-Louise Nosch and Robert Laddineur, 407-415. Peeters, Liège.

Voutsaki, Sofia 1995 Social and Political Processes in the Mycenaean Argolid: The Evidence from the Mortuary Practices. In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994. Edited by Robert Laffineur and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, 55-66. Aegaeum 12. Université de Liège, Liège.

Voutsaki, Sofia 1998 Mortuary Evidence, Symbolic Meanings and Social Change: A Comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean Period. In Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Edited by Keith Branigan, 41-58. Sheffield Academic Press, England.

Voutsaki, Sofia

173

1999 Mortuary Display, Prestige and Identity in the Shaft Grave Era. Eliten in der Bronzezeit:Ergebnissezweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen. Edited by I. Kilian- Dirlmeier and M. Egg, 103-117. Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 43. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz.

Voutsaki, Sofia 2001 Economic Control, Power and Prestige in the Mycenaean World: The Archaeological Evidence. In Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference Held on 1-3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge. Edited by Sofia Voutsaki and John T. Killen, 195-213. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Voutsaki, Sofia 2005 Social and Cultural Change in the Middle Helladic Period: Presentation of a New Project. In Autochthon: Papers presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson at the Occasion of his Retirement. BAR 1432. Edited by A. Dakouri-Hild and S. Sherratt, 134-143. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Voutsaki, Sofia 2010 Argolid. In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC). Edited by Eric Cline, 599-613. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Voutsaki, Sofia and John T. Killen (eds) 2001 Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Cambridge Philological Society, Cambridge.

Wace, Alan J. and Carl W. Blegen 1919 The Pre-Mycenaean Pottery of the Mainland. The Annual of the British School of Athens 22:175-189.

Wace, Alan J. B. 1921-1923 Excavations at Mycenae. VIII – The Palace. Annuals of British School at Athens 25: 147-282.

Wace, Alan J. B. 1932 Chamber Tombs at Mycenae (Archaeologia LXXXII). Society of Antiquities, Oxford.

Wace, Alan J. B. 1949 Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Wace, Alan J. B. 1956 Mycenae 1939-1955. Part I and II. Preliminary Report on the Excavations of 1955. Annual of the British School at Athens 51: 103-127.

174

Walberg, Gisela 1999 The End of the Late Bronze Age at Midea. In POLEMOS: Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998, vol. 1. Edited by Robert Laffineur, 157- 160. Aegaeum 19. Université de Liège, Liège.

Walberg, Gisela 2007 Medea: The Megaron Complex and Shrine Area. Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1994-1997. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia.

Walcot, Peter 1967 The Divinity of the Mycenaean King. Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 2:53-62

Webb, Malcolm C. 1974 Exchange Networks: Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 3:357-383.

Weller, Susan C. and A. Kimball Romney 1990 Metric Scaling: Correspondence Analysis. Sage Publications, London.

Whitley, James 2002 Objects with Attitude: Biographical Facts and Fallacies in the Study of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Warrior Graves. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12:217-232.

Williamson, Judith 1978 Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertisements. Marion Boyars, London.

Wright, James C. 1987 Death and Power at Mycenae: Changing Symbols in Mortuary Practice In Thanatos: les coutumes funéraires en Egée àl’âge du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège, 21-23 avril 1986. Edited by Robert Laffineur, 171-184. Aegaeum 1. Université de Liège, Liège.

Wright, James C. 1995 From Chief to King in Mycenaean Society. In The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Edited by Paul Rehak, 81-92, Université de Liège, Liège.

Wright, James C. 1996 Empty Cups and Empty Jug: The Social Role of Wine in Minoan and Mycenaean Societies. In The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Edited by Patrick E. McGovern, Stuart J. Fleming, and Solomon H. Katz, 287-309. Gordon and Breach Publishers, Amsterdam.

Wright, James C. 2004a A Survey of Evidence for Feasting in Mycenaean Society. In The Mycenaean

175

Feast. Edited By James C. Wright, 13-58. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton.

Wright, James C. 2004b The Mycenaean Feast: An introduction. Hesperia 73:121-132.

Wright, James C. 2006 The Formation of the Mycenaean Palace. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. Edited by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Irene S. Lemos, 7-52. Edinburg University Press, Edinburg.

Wright, James C. 2008 Chamber Tombs, Family, and State in Mycenaean Greece. In Dioskouroi: Studies Presented to W. G. Cavanagh and C. B. Mee on the Anniversary of Their 30-year Joint Contribution to Aegean Archaeology BAR S1889. Edited by Chrysanthi Gallou, Mercouris Georgiadis, and Gina M. Muskett, 144-153. Archaeo[ress, Oxford.

Wundsam, Klaus 1968 Politische und Soziale Struktur der Mykenischen Residenzen. Verlang Notring, Wein.

176

Figures

Figure 1: Map of the Aegean, showing the area of the Mycenaean Mainland (after Shelmerdine 2001:330)

177

127

Papadopoulou 2001: Papadopoulou

and and Kontorli

Papadopoulos

Figure 2: Map of the Peloponnese and Attika, showing the different the showing regions Attika, and examined this in of Map 2: thesis Peloponnese the Figure (after

178

Figure 3: Plan of Petsas’ House from Mycenae (after Shelton

2010b:186).

Figure 4: Plan of the palace at LH IIIA:1 remains

Pylos, showing the LH IIIA:1 Figure 5: Plan of the citadel at remains (after Wright Tiryns, showing the LH IIIA:1

2006:15). remains (after Wright 2006:19).

179

LH IIIA:1 remains

Figure 6: Plan of the palace at Mycenae, showing the LH IIIA:1

remains (after Fitzsimons 2011:101).

Figure 7: Plan of the palace at Mycenae, showing the LH IIIB remains (after Fitzsimons 2006: 403).

180

Palatial Building

Figure 8: Plan of palace at Pylos, showing the LH IIIB remains (after Galaty and Parkinson 2007:5).

Figure 9: Plan of the palace at Tiryns showing the LH IIIB remains (after Müller and Sulze 1930, fig. 75).

181

Cult Centre

Figure 10: The social hierarchy of Figure 11: Plan of the citadel at Mycenae, showing the Mycenaean palatial systems the LH IIIC remains (after French 2009:210). according to the Linear B tablets (after Kilian 1988:293).

Lower Town

Figure 13: Plan of the Lower Figure 12: Plan of the citadel at Town of Tiryns, showing the Tiryns in LH IIIC, showing LH IIIC remains (after Building T (after Thomatos Thomatos 2005:80). 2005:79).

182

Figure 14: Tainter’s key diagram of a Figure 15: Tainter’s key diagram of a perfect perfect tree (from Tainter 1978:111). paradigm (from Tainter 1978:112).

Figure 16: Plan of shaft grave Γ from Grave Circle B, Mycenae (from Mylonas 1973, Fig. 5).

183

Corbel Vault

Stomion

Thalamos Dromos

Stomion

Figure 17: General plan of a Mycenaean tholos tomb (after Gallou 2005:177).

Chamber

Stomion

Dromos

Figure 18: General plan of a Mycenaean chamber tomb (after Gallou 2005: 177).

184

Figure 19: Plot showing the Correspondence Analysis of seriation, with variable 15 representing the oldest and variable 1 represented the newest (after Bølviken 1982: 54, Figure 8).

Figure 20: Correspondence Analysis of the Late Stone Age houses near Iversfjord in Finmark, Arctic Norway, showing the clusters (after Bølviken et al. 1982:47).

185

Mycenae Prosymna Dendra

Figure 21: Map of the Argolid showing the sites examined in this thesis (after Gallou 2005:173).

186

Figure 22: Plan and section of Mycenae Chamber Tomb 502, with remains on the floor and a cist (from Wace 1932:4).

Figure 23: Plan and sections of Mycenae Chamber Tomb 505, with remains in the dromos (from Wace 1932:15).

187

Figure 24: Plan and sections of Mycenae Chamber Tomb 518, with side chamber, and scattered burials and offerings (from Wace 1932:75).

Figure 25: Plan and section of Mycenae Chamber Tomb 521, with pits (from Wace 1932:29).

188

Figure 26: Plan of the chamber tomb cemetery at Prosymna (after Blegen

1937:1).

Figure 27: Plan and sections of Figure 28: Plan and sections of Prosymna Chamber Tomb 1, with Prosymna Chamber Tomb 18 (from remains in the chamber and dromos Blegen 1937, plan 3). (from Blegen 1937, plan 9).

189

Figure 29: Plan of Prosymna Chamber Tomb 27, with bone heaps and pits (from Blegen 1937, plan 16).

Figure 30: Plan and sections of Figure 31: Plan of Prosymna Prosymna Chamber Tomb 37, with a Chamber Tomb 49, with heaps in bone heap and scattered remains in pits and scattered throughout the the chamber and a niche in the chamber (from Blegen 1937, dromos (from Blegen 1937, plan 23). plan 27).

190

Figure 32: Plan of the cemetery at Dendra (from Åström 1977:6).

Figure 33: Plan and section from Dendra Chamber Tomb 1 (from Persson 1931:82).

191

Figure 34: Plan and section of Dendra Chamber Tomb 7, with pits, including a warrior burial (Persson 1942:32).

Figure 35: Plan of Dendra Chamber Tomb 12, the Cuirass Tomb (from Åström 1977:9).

192

Aigion

Klauss

Chanadritsa Kallithea

1960: the of Map 36: examined sites Vermeule this in showing thesis Achaea (after Figure

193

Figure 37: Plan of the cemetery at Aigion (from Papadopoulos 1976, plate 1).

Figure 39: Plan and sections of Aigion

Figure 38: Plan and sections of Aigion Chamber Tomb 8 (from Papadopoulos

Chamber Tomb 4 (from Papadopoulos 1976, plate 85). 1976, plate 21).

194

Figure 40: The cemetery at Perati (after Iakovides 1980, plan 1).

Figure 42: Plan of Perati Chamber Tomb 145, with scattered remains in Figure 41: Plan and section from the chamber (from Iakovides 1980:22). Perati Tomb 13, with scattered remains in the chamber (from Iakovides 1980:24).

195

Perati

Figure 43: Map of Attika showing Perati (after Gallou 2005:174).

196

Figure 44: Mycenaean kylix from Figure 45: Kylix fragments from Aigion Chamber Tomb 4 (from Mycenae Chamber Tomb 505 (from Papadopoulos 1976, plate 27). Wace 1932:17).

Figure 48: “Feeding Figure 46: Jug from Figure 47: Pig shaped rhyton bottle” from Achaea, Prosymna Chamber Tomb from Prosymna Chamber context unspecified 33 (from Blegen 1937:54). Tomb 11 (from Gallou (Papadopoulos 1978 2005:235). II:137).

197

Figure 49: Amphora from Prosymna Figure 50: Piriform jar from Dendra Chamber Tomb 33 (from Blegen Chamber Tomb 7 (from Persson 1937:55). 1942:34).

Figure 51: Stirrup jar from Figure 52: Alabastron from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 10 Prosymna Chamber Tomb 37 (from (from Blegen 1937:127). Blegen 1937:70).

198

Figure 53: Glass and faience beads from Dendra Chamber Tomb 10 (Persson 1942:85).

Figure 54: Miscellaneous beads from Prosymna Chamber

Tomb 33 (from Blegen 1937:56).

199

Figure 55: Bronze sword and dagger from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 25 (from Blegen 1937:45).

Figure 55: Bronze swords from Dendra Chamber Tomb 12 (from Åström 1977, plate VII).

Figure 57: Bronze sword from Klauss Chamber Tomb Θ (from Paschalidis and McGeorge 2006:34).

200

Figure 58: Spear/javelin heads from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 10 (from Blegen

1937:127).

Figure 59: Flint (7 on the left) and obsidian (21 on the right) arrowheads from Dendra Chamber Tomb 8 (from Persson 1942:46).

Figure 60: Bronze knife from Dendra Chamber Tomb 7 (from Persson 1942:34).

201

Figure 61: Gold rosettes from Dendra Chamber Tomb 10 (from Persson 1942:84).

Figure 62: Miscellaneous ornaments from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 37, including a fibula and buttons (from Blegen 1937:71).

202

Figure 63: Bronze tweezers from Figure 64: Bronze tweezers from Klauss Prosymna Chamber Tomb 42 Chamber Tomb Θ (from Paschalidis and (from Blegen 1937:90). McGeorge 2006:35).

Figure 65: Terracotta female figurines Figure 66: Terracotta female (Tau type) from Aigion Chamber Tomb 4 figurines (Psi type) from Perati (from Papadopoulos 1976, plate 33). Chamber Tomb 5 (from Iakovides 1966, plate 15).

Figurine 67: Terracotta female figurines (Phi type) from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 33 (from Blegen 1937:54).

203

Figure 68: Terracotta animal figurines from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 19 (after Blegen 1937: 21).

Figure 69: Terracotta chariot figurine from Prosymna Chamber Tomb 22 (from Gallou 2005:198).

204

Appendix I Data used for the Correspondence Analysis

Site Key MY: Mycenae KL: Klauss PR: Prosymna CAT: Calandritsa Tomb DE: Dendra AI: Aigion PE: Perati KA: Kallithea

Oil Containers

Serving/Food

Manufacture

Ornaments

Transport

Weapons

Jewellery

Toiletries

Figurines

Storage/

Drinking

Pouring

Vessels V

Pit/cist

essels

Sites

MY02 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 MY05 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 MY99 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 MY102 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 MY502 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 MY505 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 MY513 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 MY515 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 MY516 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 MY517 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 MY518 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 MY519 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 MY520 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 MY521 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 MY522 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 MY523 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 MY524 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 MY525 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 MY527 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MY529 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 MY530 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 MY532 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 MY533 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MYGI 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 MYGII 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 MYGIII 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 MYPI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 PR01 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

205

Oil Containers

Serving/Food

Manufacture

Ornaments

Transport

Weapons

Jewellery

Toiletries

Figurines

Storage/

Drinking

Pouring

Vessels V

Pit/cist

essels

Sites

PR02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 PR03 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR04 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 PR07 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 PR08 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 PR10 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 PR11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 PR12 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 PR13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 PR14 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 PR15 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 PR18 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 PR19 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 PR21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 PR22 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 PR24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 PR25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 PR26 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 PR27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 PR28 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 PR29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PR32 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 PR33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 PR34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 PR35 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 PR36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PR37 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR38 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 PR42 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PR43 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR44 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 PR45 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 PR46 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR48 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 PR49 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR51 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 DE01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0

206

Oil Containers

Serving/Food

Manufacture

Ornaments

Transport

Weapons

Jewellery

Toiletries

Figurines

Storage/

Drinking

Pouring

Vessels V

Pit/cist

essels

Sites

DE02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DE03 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 DE06 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 DE07 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 DE08 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 DE09 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 DE10 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 DE11 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 DE12 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 PE01 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 PE04 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE05 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 PE10 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE12 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 PE13 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE16 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 PE24 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 PE30 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 PE38 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 PE64/65 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 PE74 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE75 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE90 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 PE92 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 PE93 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 PE122 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 PE136 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE142 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 PE145/146 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 PE147 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 PE148 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 PE152 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 PE154 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE155 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 PE156/157 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 PEΣ1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 PEΣ2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 KLA 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

207

Oil Containers

Serving/Food

Manufacture

Ornaments

Transport

Weapons

Jewellery

Toiletries

Figurines

Storage/

Drinking

Pouring

Vessels V

Pit/cist

essels

Sites

KLB 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 KLH 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 KLΦ 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 CAT 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 AI04 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 AI05 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 AI06 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 AI08 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 KAA 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 KAB 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

208

Units

AppendixII

Factor Map Factor

Correspondence Analysis Results Correspondence

unit number on the spreadsheet and not the actual tomb number. tomb the not and on number. unitnumber actual spreadsheet the

Analysis. location The the of Correspondence the from tombs chamber only showing Mycenaean the map Factor .1

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6 Cluster 7 Cluster 8 Cluster 9 Cluster 10 Cluster 11 Cluster 12 Cluster 13 Cluster 14 Cluster 15 Cluster 16 Cluster 17 II

clusters on the map is determined by the presence/absence of artefact groups in the individual tombs. The numbers of numbers The artefact individual the in tombs. groups presence/absence the determined is map by the on clusters map the the on indicate presented Chart

209

II.2 Hierarchical clustering of the Mycenaean chamber tombs. The clusters on this tree are the same as the clusters on the clusters the the the on are as tombs. same of The this on clustering tree Mycenaean clusters the Hierarchical chamber II.2

factor map. map. factor Chart

210

Variables

Factor Map Factor

Cluster 3 Cluster Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6 Cluster 7 Cluster 8 Cluster II.3 Factor map showing only the variable group from the Correspondence Analysis. Their placement on the map is based is Their map the on Analysis. placement Correspondence the only showing variable the from map group Factor II.3

on their presence/absence in the tombs. the in presence/absence their on Chart

211

and variables the both showing CA tombs. the map, II.4

Chart

212

Cluster 3 Cluster 13 Cluster Cluster 2 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6 Cluster 7 Cluster 8 Cluster 9 Cluster 10 Cluster 11 Cluster 12 Cluster 14 Cluster 15 Cluster 16 Cluster 17

Cluster 1 II.5 CA map with the clusters. clusters. the with map CA II.5

Chart

213

Appendix III Correspondence Analysis Data based on Clusters

Site Key MY: Mycenae KL: Klauss PR: Prosymna CAT: Calandritsa Tomb DE: Dendra AI: Aigion PE: Perati KA: Kallithea

Oil Containers

Serving/Food

Manufacture

Pointon

Ornaments

Transport

Weapons

Jewellery

Toiletries

Figurines

Storage/

Drinking

Pouring

Vessels V

Pit/cist

essels

Date

Sites

Cluster 1 MY532 ABC 22 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 PR01 B 28 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 PR26 A 46 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 PR27 A 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 PR34 A 52 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 PR44 B 60 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 PE122 C 92 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 KLB C 105 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 Cluster 2 PR7 B 32 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 PR13 AB 37 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 PR15 AB 39 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 DE06 A 69 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 DE08 A 71 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 PE38 C 85 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 CAT ABC 108 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Cluster 3 MY02 AB 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 KLA C 104 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 KLH BC 106 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 KAB ABC 114 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 Cluster 4 MY515 ABC 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 PR02 A 29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 PR14 A 38 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 PR24 A 44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 PR25 A 45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 PR41 AB 57 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

214

Oil Containers

Serving/Food

Manufacture

Pointon

Ornaments

Transport

Weapons

Jewellery

Toiletries

Figurines

Storage/

Drinking

Pouring

Vessels V

Pit/cist

essels

Date

Sites

KAA ABC 113 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 Cluster 5 MY505 AB 6 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 DE03 B 68 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 DE07 A 70 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Cluster 6 MY05 AB 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 MY520 A 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 PR08 AB 33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 PR10 A 34 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 PR29 A 49 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PR33 AB 51 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 PR36 AB 54 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PR42 AB 58 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PR51 A 65 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 DE02 AB 67 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cluster 7 MY99 A 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 MYGI A 24 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 PE01 C 76 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 PE05 C 78 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 PE12 C 80 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 PE24 C 83 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 PE30 C 84 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 PE64/65 C 86 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 PE92 C 90 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Cluster 8 PE16 C 82 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 PE93 C 91 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 PE142 C 94 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 PEΣ1 C 102 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Cluster 9 MY529 AB 20 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 DE12 A 75 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 PEΣ2 C 103 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 KLΦ C 107 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 Cluster 10 MY522 B 15 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

215

Oil Containers

Serving/Food

Manufacture

Pointon

Ornaments

Transport

Weapons

Jewellery

Toiletries

Figurines

Storage/

Drinking

Pouring

Vessels V

Pit/cist

essels

Date

Sites

MY527 ABC 19 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MYGII AB 25 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 MYPI ABC 27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 PR19 AB 41 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 PR22 A 43 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 PR32 A 50 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 PR35 AB 53 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 PR45 A 61 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 DE01 AB 66 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 PE155 C 100 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Cluster 11 MYGIII ABC 26 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 PR28 A 48 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 PE147 C 96 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 AI05 AB 110 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Cluster 12 MY102 A 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR03 AB 30 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR37 B 55 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR38 A 56 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR43 A 59 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR46 A 62 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 PR49 AB 64 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 DE09 B 72 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 DE11 AB 74 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 PE152 C 98 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Cluster 13 PR04 A 31 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 PR21 AB 42 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 DE10 A 73 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 PE75 C 88 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 AI06 A 111 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Cluster 14 PR12 B 36 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 PR48 AB 63 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 PE04 C 77 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE10 C 79 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE13 C 81 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

216

Oil Containers

Serving/Food

Manufacture

Pointon

Ornaments

Transport

Weapons

Jewellery

Toiletries

Figurines

Storage/

Drinking

Pouring

Vessels V

Pit/cist

essels

Date

Sites

PE74 C 87 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE136 C 93 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 PE148 C 97 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 PE154 C 99 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Cluster 15 MY502 ABC 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 MY513 B 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 MY519 B 12 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 MY521 A 14 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 MY524 ABC 17 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 MY525 AB 18 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 AI04 AB 109 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cluster 16 MY518 A 11 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 MY523 AB 16 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 MY530 A 21 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 PR18 A 40 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 PE90 C 89 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 PE145/146 C 95 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 PE156/157 C 101 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 AI08 AB 112 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Cluster 17 MY516 A 9 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 MY517 ABC 10 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 MY533 AB 23 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PR11 A 35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1

217

Appendix IV Tomb Data for Chi Square Tests

Site Key MY: Mycenae KL: Klauss PR: Prosymna CAT: Calandritsa Tomb DE: Dendra AI: Aigion PE: Perati KA: Kallithia

Serving/Food

Weapons

Toiletries

Figurines

Drinking

Children

Warrior

Vessels

Date

Sites

Cluster 1 MY532 ABC ● ● ● PR01 B ● ● ● ● PR26 A ● ● ● ● PR27 A ● ● ● ● PR34 A ● ● ● ● PR44 B ● ● ● PE122 C ● ● KLB C ● ● ● Cluster 2 PR07 B ● ● PR13 AB ● ● ● ● PR15 AB ● ● ● ● ● DE06 A ● ● ● DE08 A ● ● ● PE38 C ● ● CAT ABC ● Cluster 3 MY02 AB ● ● KLA C ● ● ● ● KLH BC ● ● ● ● ● KAB ABC ● ● ● ● ● Cluster 4 MY515 ABC ● ● ● ● ● PR02 A ● ● ● ● ● ● PR14 A ● ● ● ● PR24 A ● ● ● ● ● PR25 A ● ● ● ● ● PR41 AB ● ● ● ● ●

218

Serving/Food

Weapons

Toiletries

Figurines

Drinking

Children

Warrior

Vessels

Date

Sites

KAA ABC ● ● ● ● ● Cluster 5 MY505 AB ● ● ● ● ● DE03 B ● ● ● ● ● DE07 A ● ● ● ● ● Cluster 6 MY05 AB ● ● ● MY520 A ● ● ● PR08 AB ● ● ● ● ● PR10 A ● ● ● ● ● ● ● PR29 A ● ● ● ● ● ● ● PR33 AB ● ● ● ● ● PR36 AB ● ● ● ● ● ● PR42 AB ● ● ● ● ● ● ● PR51 A ● ● ● ● ● ● DE02 AB ● ● ● ● ● ● Cluster 7 MY99 A ● ● MYGI A ● ● ● PE01 C ● ● ● PE05 C ● ● ● PE12 C ● ● ● ● PE24 C ● ● PE30 C ● ● ● PE64/65 C ● ● PE92 C ● ● ● Cluster 8 PE16 C ● PE93 C ● PE142 C ● ● PEΣ1 C ● ● Cluster 9 MY529 AB ● ● ● DE12 A ● ● ● ● PEΣ2 C ● ● ● KLΦ C ● ● ● Cluster 10 MY522 B ● ● ●

219

Serving/Food

Weapons

Toiletries

Figurines

Drinking

Children

Warrior

Vessels

Date

Sites

MY527 ABC ● MYGII AB ● ● ● MYPI ABC ● ● ● ● PR19 AB ● ● ● PR22 A ● ● PR32 A ● ● PR35 AB ● ● ● ● PR45 A ● ● ● DE01 AB ● ● ● PE155 C ● ● ● ● Cluster 11 MYGIII ABC ● ● ● PR28 A ● ● PE147 C ● ● AI05 AB ● ● ● Cluster 12 MY102 A ● ● ● PR03 AB ● ● ● ● ● PR37 B ● ● ● ● PR38 A ● ● ● ● PR43 A ● ● ● ● ● ● PR46 A ● ● ● PR49 AB ● ● ● ● DE09 B ● ● ● ● DE11 AB ● ● ● ● ● ● PE152 C ● ● ● Cluster 13 PR04 A ● PR21 AB ● ● ● DE10 A ● ● PE75 C ● AI06 A ● Cluster 14 PR12 B ● PR48 AB ● ● ● PE04 C ● PE10 C ● PE13 C ● ●

220

Serving/Food

Weapons

Toiletries

Figurines

Drinking

Children

Warrior

Vessels

Date

Sites

PE74 C ● PE136 C ● ● PE148 C ● PE154 C ● ● Cluster 15 MY502 ABC ● ● ● MY513 B ● MY519 B ● MY521 A ● ● MY524 ABC ● ● MY525 AB ● ● ● AI04 AB ● ● ● Cluster 16 MY518 A ● MY523 AB ● MY530 A ● ● PR18 A ● PE90 C ● ● PE145/146 C ● PE156/157 C ● AI08 AB ● Cluster 17 MY516 A MY517 ABC ● MY533 AB ● ● PR11 A ● ●

221