University of Groningen
Mortuary differentiation and social structure in the Middle Helladic Argolid, 2000-1500 B.C. Milka, Eleni
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2019
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Milka, E. (2019). Mortuary differentiation and social structure in the Middle Helladic Argolid, 2000-1500 B.C. University of Groningen.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
709 APPENDIX VII PhD defence proposition
1. Until recently the MH period was described as homogeneous and static. However,
differentiation and change through time was observed in all sites examined in this thesis. Next to variability in grave types and sets of offerings, different spatial contexts were used inside and outside the settlement and diverse mortuary practices have been attested.
2. Changes started already from the beginning of the MH period but they became
intensified towards its end. In general, two major change horizons can be proposed, one at the beginning of the MH II and a second at the transitional MH III/LH I-LH I.
3. Differentiation was not only observed within each burial place, but also between
sites during the same period. Although in general similar practices were followed, the way each community used them and the time they adopted or abandoned these practices was not uniform. Every burial site has its own history and the nature of change differs from site to site. Generally, a steady ‘scaling up’ was observed, but it did not affect all sites in the same way.
4. In all cemeteries and through time kinship was the most important structuring
principle and age position in the kin network the most important component. Gender was less emphasised but became more important during the MH III-LH I period in some, but not all sites.
5. In Lerna the developments in the earlier part of the period do not set in motion an
increase in social complexity. On the contrary, in Asine and in Argos social complexity increased at the end of the MH period.
6. The existence of elite groups or of aggrandizing leaders of factions was not
confirmed for the greater part of the MH period. I would like therefore to propose that instead of local elites or faction leaders already present in the MH II period, the burial record reveals a rather fluid situation, arising perhaps from continuous negotiation between social groups, most probably kin-related. It can be suggested that some groups or individuals, especially during the later part of the MH period and the transition to LH, were expressing their claims on status, trying to
710
distinguish themselves through burial elaboration and mortuary ritual as well as feasting, rather than merely legitimate already existing status divisions.
