The Process of Death
Jones, Olivia
DOI:
10.33612/diss.108355327
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):
Jones, O. (2019). The Process of Death: a bioarchaeological approach to Mycenaean mortuary traditions in Achaia. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.108355327
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.
05
98
Interactions with Materials and Atoms
B172: 58–65.
Voutsaki, S., E. Milka, S. Triantaphyllou, and C. Zerner. 2013. Middle Helladic Lerna: Diet, Ecomony, and Society. In S. Voutsaki and S.M. Valamoti Diet, Economy and
Society in the Ancient Greek World: Towards a Better Integration of Archaeology and Science (Pharos
Supplement 1). pp.133-147. Leuven: Peeters.
Voutsaki, S. 1998. “Mortuary Evidence, Symbolic Meanings and Social Change: A Comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean Period.” In K. Branigan, ed. Cemetery and Society in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press: pp 41-58.
Wace, A. J. B. 1932. Chamber Tombs at
Mycenae. Oxford: The Society of
Antiquaries.
Wardle, K., T. Higham, and B. Kromer. 2014. Dating the End of the Greek Bronze Age: A Robust Radiocarbon-Based Chronology
from Assiros Toumba. PLoS ONE 9 (9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106672. Warren, P., and V. Hankey. 1989. Aegean
Bronze Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.
Whitley, J. 1995. Tomb Cult and Hero Cult: Uses of the Past in Archaic Greece. In N. Spencer, ed. Time, Tradition and Society
in Greek Archaeology: Bridging the “Great Divide. London: Routledge: pp. 43–63.
Wiener, M.H. 2009. Cold Fusion: The Uneasy Alliance of History and Science.” In S.W. Manning and M.J. Bruce, eds. Tree-Rings,
Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment: Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm. Oxford: Oxbow:
pp. 277–92.
———. 2015. Dating the Theran Eruption: Archaeological Science Versus Nonsense Science. In T.E. Levy, T. Schneider, and W.H.C. Propp, eds. Israel’s Exodus in
Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience.
Cham: Springer: pp. 131–43.
99
CHAPTER 5
Demography and burial exclusion
in Mycenaean Achaia, Greece
Publication data
Journal: Journal of Greek Archaeology 3: 75-94 Author: Olivia A. Jones 1, 2
1 Groningen Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen, Poststraat 6, 9712 ER Groningen, The
Netherlands.
2 Malcolm H. Wiener Laboratory for Archaeological Science, The American School of Classical Studies at
Athens, Souidias 54, Athens 106 76, Greece. Abstract
Despite growing interest in Mycenaean mortuary practices, variation in mortuary treatment in the Mycenaean world is still imperfectly understood. The distribution of individuals between sites, in chamber and tholos tombs, among burial forms (primary and non-primary), and through time in the Mycenaean world has not been explored. As a result, we do not know the criteria of selection that may have regulated the mortuary practices in the Mycenaean region of Achaia. Cultural factors, such as social status or manner of death, as well as biological criteria, such as age or sex, could have restricted individuals to interment in specific burial forms. Methods such as estimating the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI), age and sex of the deceased have always fallen rightly to bioarchaeologists. However, bioarchaeological data are rarely consolidated into a regional study and do not evaluate if certain individuals were excluded from tomb burial. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the demographic structure of human remains included in Mycenaean tombs in order to reconstruct the burial criteria for inclusion or exclusion at different levels: the burial form, the tomb type, the time period, and the region. In addition, the article also serves as a precursor to Mycenaean paleodemographic analysis by first assessing the composition of the burial sample. This article is the first synthesis of a regional sample of Mycenaean bioarchaeological data. Bioarchaeological data from the three case studies, the sites of Chalandritsa, Petroto and Portes, are presented, and are then compared to published data from the nearby cemeteries of Achaia Klauss, Spaliareika, and Kallithea. The results suggest that biological sex had a variable effect on an individual’s inclusion in a formal cemetery, in some contexts such as in tomb type there is a difference between the proportion of males and females, while in others sex ratios are equal. However, the gross under-representation of infants may indicate that a young age at death strongly restricted access to burial in formal cemeteries.
Keywords
100 5.1 Burial Exclusion in Mycenaean
Burials 35
The Late Bronze Age period in Greece, known as the Mycenaean period (Figure 1), has been an influential research topic in Greek archaeology since the excavations at Mycenae (Figure 2) by Heinrich Schliemann in the late 19th century. The mortuary record in particular, with exceptional contexts such as the Shaft Graves filled with golden funerary masks, and the elaborately constructed beehive stone-built tholos tombs (pl. tholoi), have encouraged discus-sions of conspicuous consumption and shifts of power in early Mycenaean (MH III-LH I) Greece.36 During the preceding Middle Helladic period, the majority of burials were simple intramural inhumations in pit or cist graves with few grave goods37. In contrast, the early Mycenaean period is marked by the adoption of burial within extramural rock-cut chamber tombs or built tholoi.
35 This study was funded by the University of
Groningen and the Malcolm H. Wiener Laboratory for Archaeological Science of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. The author is deeply indebted to Lazaros Kolonas, Michalis Petropoulos and Maria Stavropoulou-Gatsi for their permission to work on the human remains from Portes, Petroto, and Chalandritsa respectively. Kind support and encouragement have been given by Konstantina Aktypi and Michalis Gazis. Lastly, thanks go to Prof. Sofia Voutsaki and Prof. Jane E. Buikstra for providing thorough and constructive feedback on this paper.
36 Voutsaki 1995; Voutsaki 1999.
37 Voutsaki 2010, 103; Dickinson 2016, 326.
Despite the general homogeneity of Middle Helladic burial practices, recent work by Sarri (2016) makes a convincing argument for re-examining this claim in light of spatial and chronological context such as regional
differences and the practice of placing burials in abandoned domestic structures. For additional references of Middle Helladic burial practices see also the 2010 edited volume titled:
Mesohelladika: The Greek Mainland in the Bronze Age.
These tombs were designed for reuse and multiple burials, sometimes involving post-mortem manipulation of human remains.38 Skeletal remains are found in burial depo-sits including disarticulated commingled piles or pits (termed non-primary burials in this article) (Figure 3) or individuals found in articulation during excavation (termed primary burials in this article) (Figure 3). While the grave goods and tomb architec-ture have been a traditional area of Myce-naean research, the mortuary practices that have created the burial deposits have only recently garnered much-needed attention.39 Within discussions of Mycenaean burials, the proportion of children to adults and wo-men to wo-men is often noted. Archaeologists have noted that an under-representation of children compared to adults is common in many Mycenaean mortuary contexts.40 Gallou-Minopetrou’s study of grave goods and architecture of the tumultuous later Mycenaean period (LH IIIC) suggested that the increased numbers of child burials signi-fies that child burial became vital for “stra-tegies of descent, lineage and kinship”.41 However, many of these studies are based on grave goods or tomb size, rather than skeletal data, and therefore their results are vague (e.g. they separate only by adult and child with no ages mentioned). Turning to differences between the sexes, studies of grave goods and architecture have led Cava-nagh and Mee to report that males outnum-ber females in Mycenaean burials and Le-wartowski’s study confirms this for the simple graves.42 However, these conclusions
38 Boyd 2016a.
39 Boyd 2002; Boyd 2015; Boyd 2016;
Dakouri-Hild and Boyd 2016; Cavanagh and Mee 1998; Musgrave and Popham 1991; Voutsaki 1998.
40 Voutsaki 1993; Cavanagh and Mee 1998;
Lewartowski 2000; Voutsaki 2004.
41 Gallou-Minopetrou 2015, 57.
42 Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 127–29, 165–69;
Lewartowski 2000, 19, 127–29.
101 are reached on the basis of few, sometimes old anthropological studies, or are based on one or two sites. Their overall validity is therefore dubious.
Despite the pioneering work on ancient Greek populations of anthropologist J. Law-rence Angel43, the bioarchaeology of Myce-naean human remains has only recently become a research focus.44 Bioarchaeolo-gical studies of Mycenaeans have focused on diet reconstruction, paleopathology, and patterns of immigration.45 However, a few bioarchaeologists have explicitly addressed the disparity between adults and subadults in Mycenaean burials.46 Lebegyev’s study of child burials included bioarchaeological data and she suggested that child burial was more common in the Shaft Grave period (MH III-LH I), but decreased during the Palatial Period (LH IIIA-B).47 In some cases the traditional archaeological interpreta-tions have been reinforced by bioarchaeolo-gical data, such as in Grave Circle A and B at Mycenae which contain an estimated three to four times more males than females.48 Another more wide-ranging study by Bisel and Angel covering various regions came to a similar conclusion: males outnumbered females in the Mycenaean burial samples.49 However, more recent bioarchaeological
43 e.g. Angel 1945; Angel 1947; Angel 1971. 44 This article uses the term bioarchaeology per
Buikstra and Beck 2006, as a
problem-orientated approach to the study of past peoples and life histories.
45 Papathanasiou and Fox 2015; Schepartz,
Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009; Voutsaki and Valamoti 2013; Wright et al. 2008.
46 Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009;
Schepartz et al. 2011.
47 Lebegyev 2009.
48 Angel 1973; Dickinson et al. 2012;
Papazoglou-Manioudaki et al. 2010; Voutsaki et al 2006.
49 Bisel and Angel 1985.
studies of specific assemblages have shown an equal amount of males and females.50 Regardless of this growing body of know-ledge on the bioarchaeology of the Mycenae-an period, the demographic composition of the burial sample, including age and sex variation in the mortuary practices have rarely been discussed systematically. In addition, since bioarchaeological research in Greece is still in the early stages, the focus has been primarily site-based. No compre-hensive studies of Mycenaean bioarchaeolo-gical data have been carried out for a specific region, let alone for a peripheral region. Many questions still need to be addressed: Do the observations on age and sex hold in peripheral regions of the Myce-naean world and were people excluded from burial in formal cemeteries or in specific tomb types, or did they receive differential mortuary treatment on the basis of sex or age? This article addresses these questions by reconstructing the demo-graphy of a regional burial sample. The results are then used to explore if biological factors, such as age or sex, may have affec-ted inclusion into formal cemeteries, burial in specific tomb types or specific burial forms in Mycenaean Achaia.
This article is the first to use a bioarchae-ological approach as a means to evaluate the demographic composition of the burial sample in the Mycenaean period, and to do so at the level of an entire region. This is the first time in which a regional synthesis of Mycenaean bioarchaeological data has been undertaken. Here I present newly analyzed data from three sites combined with published data from three other sites in the region of Achaia in order to evaluate the paleodemographic composition of the as-semblage and to reconstruct regional burial
50 Iezzi 2005; Papathanasiou, Schepartz, et al.
05
100 5.1 Burial Exclusion in Mycenaean
Burials 35
The Late Bronze Age period in Greece, known as the Mycenaean period (Figure 1), has been an influential research topic in Greek archaeology since the excavations at Mycenae (Figure 2) by Heinrich Schliemann in the late 19th century. The mortuary record in particular, with exceptional contexts such as the Shaft Graves filled with golden funerary masks, and the elaborately constructed beehive stone-built tholos tombs (pl. tholoi), have encouraged discus-sions of conspicuous consumption and shifts of power in early Mycenaean (MH III-LH I) Greece.36 During the preceding Middle Helladic period, the majority of burials were simple intramural inhumations in pit or cist graves with few grave goods37. In contrast, the early Mycenaean period is marked by the adoption of burial within extramural rock-cut chamber tombs or built tholoi.
35 This study was funded by the University of
Groningen and the Malcolm H. Wiener Laboratory for Archaeological Science of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. The author is deeply indebted to Lazaros Kolonas, Michalis Petropoulos and Maria Stavropoulou-Gatsi for their permission to work on the human remains from Portes, Petroto, and Chalandritsa respectively. Kind support and encouragement have been given by Konstantina Aktypi and Michalis Gazis. Lastly, thanks go to Prof. Sofia Voutsaki and Prof. Jane E. Buikstra for providing thorough and constructive feedback on this paper.
36 Voutsaki 1995; Voutsaki 1999.
37 Voutsaki 2010, 103; Dickinson 2016, 326.
Despite the general homogeneity of Middle Helladic burial practices, recent work by Sarri (2016) makes a convincing argument for re-examining this claim in light of spatial and chronological context such as regional
differences and the practice of placing burials in abandoned domestic structures. For additional references of Middle Helladic burial practices see also the 2010 edited volume titled:
Mesohelladika: The Greek Mainland in the Bronze Age.
These tombs were designed for reuse and multiple burials, sometimes involving post-mortem manipulation of human remains.38 Skeletal remains are found in burial depo-sits including disarticulated commingled piles or pits (termed non-primary burials in this article) (Figure 3) or individuals found in articulation during excavation (termed primary burials in this article) (Figure 3). While the grave goods and tomb architec-ture have been a traditional area of Myce-naean research, the mortuary practices that have created the burial deposits have only recently garnered much-needed attention.39 Within discussions of Mycenaean burials, the proportion of children to adults and wo-men to wo-men is often noted. Archaeologists have noted that an under-representation of children compared to adults is common in many Mycenaean mortuary contexts.40 Gallou-Minopetrou’s study of grave goods and architecture of the tumultuous later Mycenaean period (LH IIIC) suggested that the increased numbers of child burials signi-fies that child burial became vital for “stra-tegies of descent, lineage and kinship”.41 However, many of these studies are based on grave goods or tomb size, rather than skeletal data, and therefore their results are vague (e.g. they separate only by adult and child with no ages mentioned). Turning to differences between the sexes, studies of grave goods and architecture have led Cava-nagh and Mee to report that males outnum-ber females in Mycenaean burials and Le-wartowski’s study confirms this for the simple graves.42 However, these conclusions
38 Boyd 2016a.
39 Boyd 2002; Boyd 2015; Boyd 2016;
Dakouri-Hild and Boyd 2016; Cavanagh and Mee 1998; Musgrave and Popham 1991; Voutsaki 1998.
40 Voutsaki 1993; Cavanagh and Mee 1998;
Lewartowski 2000; Voutsaki 2004.
41 Gallou-Minopetrou 2015, 57.
42 Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 127–29, 165–69;
Lewartowski 2000, 19, 127–29.
101 are reached on the basis of few, sometimes old anthropological studies, or are based on one or two sites. Their overall validity is therefore dubious.
Despite the pioneering work on ancient Greek populations of anthropologist J. Law-rence Angel43, the bioarchaeology of Myce-naean human remains has only recently become a research focus.44 Bioarchaeolo-gical studies of Mycenaeans have focused on diet reconstruction, paleopathology, and patterns of immigration.45 However, a few bioarchaeologists have explicitly addressed the disparity between adults and subadults in Mycenaean burials.46 Lebegyev’s study of child burials included bioarchaeological data and she suggested that child burial was more common in the Shaft Grave period (MH III-LH I), but decreased during the Palatial Period (LH IIIA-B).47 In some cases the traditional archaeological interpreta-tions have been reinforced by bioarchaeolo-gical data, such as in Grave Circle A and B at Mycenae which contain an estimated three to four times more males than females.48 Another more wide-ranging study by Bisel and Angel covering various regions came to a similar conclusion: males outnumbered females in the Mycenaean burial samples.49 However, more recent bioarchaeological
43 e.g. Angel 1945; Angel 1947; Angel 1971. 44 This article uses the term bioarchaeology per
Buikstra and Beck 2006, as a
problem-orientated approach to the study of past peoples and life histories.
45 Papathanasiou and Fox 2015; Schepartz,
Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009; Voutsaki and Valamoti 2013; Wright et al. 2008.
46 Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009;
Schepartz et al. 2011.
47 Lebegyev 2009.
48 Angel 1973; Dickinson et al. 2012;
Papazoglou-Manioudaki et al. 2010; Voutsaki et al 2006.
49 Bisel and Angel 1985.
studies of specific assemblages have shown an equal amount of males and females.50 Regardless of this growing body of know-ledge on the bioarchaeology of the Mycenae-an period, the demographic composition of the burial sample, including age and sex variation in the mortuary practices have rarely been discussed systematically. In addition, since bioarchaeological research in Greece is still in the early stages, the focus has been primarily site-based. No compre-hensive studies of Mycenaean bioarchaeolo-gical data have been carried out for a specific region, let alone for a peripheral region. Many questions still need to be addressed: Do the observations on age and sex hold in peripheral regions of the Myce-naean world and were people excluded from burial in formal cemeteries or in specific tomb types, or did they receive differential mortuary treatment on the basis of sex or age? This article addresses these questions by reconstructing the demo-graphy of a regional burial sample. The results are then used to explore if biological factors, such as age or sex, may have affec-ted inclusion into formal cemeteries, burial in specific tomb types or specific burial forms in Mycenaean Achaia.
This article is the first to use a bioarchae-ological approach as a means to evaluate the demographic composition of the burial sample in the Mycenaean period, and to do so at the level of an entire region. This is the first time in which a regional synthesis of Mycenaean bioarchaeological data has been undertaken. Here I present newly analyzed data from three sites combined with published data from three other sites in the region of Achaia in order to evaluate the paleodemographic composition of the as-semblage and to reconstruct regional burial
50 Iezzi 2005; Papathanasiou, Schepartz, et al.
102 practices. My aim is not to reconstruct the living population, but rather the selection criteria that created the burial sample and to evaluate possible cultural biases within the sample. It is possible that certain mortuary practices were prescribed for certain individuals based on biological criteria. The aim is to evaluate if Mycenaean people excluded individuals based on biological sex or age at death in various sites within the region of Achaia, in different tomb types (chamber tomb versus tholos), for certain burial forms (primary, non-primary and secondary burial), and whether patterns of inclusion/exclusion changed through time. This focus will help archae-ologists to understand both the cultural context of mortuary practices and the demographic representativeness of a Myce-naean burial sample. This type of evaluation is a crucial first step in bioarchaeological analysis which aims to assess biases and reconstruct cultural and taphonomic pro-cesses that influence a skeletal sample.51 Assessments of burial samples are vital for understanding mortuary practices, as Mil-ner, Wood, and Boldsen note, “the atypical demographic structure may be precisely the clue needed to tell us about what led to a
51 Milner, Wood, and Boldsen 2008, 569.
burial area’s formation”.52 Additionally, this initial study will facilitate later second level evaluations of health and mortality rates. 5.2 A sample of Cemeteries from Mycenaean Achaia
The region of Achaia is located in the southern Greek mainland in the northwest Peloponnese (Figure 2). Although recent scholars have emphasized Achaia’s complex relationship with Mycenaean core regions and its prime location for western trade, Achaia is still considered a peripheral region in the Mycenaean world due to its lack of palatial structures.53
5.2.1 The Sites
The sites, including the specific tombs and burial, used in this study are shown in Figure 4. The bioarchaeological data pre-sented here comes from my own analysis of the sites of Chalandritsa, Petroto, and Portes and published data from the sites of Achaia Klaus, Kallithea, and Spaliareika.54
52 Milner, Wood, and Boldsen 2008, 569. 53 Arena, 2015; Van den Berg 2011;
Papadopoulos 1979.
54 Graff 2011; Papadopoulos 1991;
Papathanasiou 2005; Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009.
Time Period Abbreviation Approximate Dates (BC) Mycenaean Period
Middle Helladic III MH III 1800-1700
Pre-Palatial Period
Late Helladic I LH I 1700-1580
Late Helladic IIA LH IIA 1580-1440
Late Helladic IIB LH IIB 1440-1390
Late Helladic IIIA LH IIIA 1390-1310
Palatial Period Late Helladic IIIB LH IIIB 1310-1190
Late Helladic IIIC LH IIIC 1190-1065 Post-Palatial Period
Figure 1. Mycenaean Chronology. This chart was modified following
Shelmerdine 1997: Table 1 and Voutsaki et al. 2013: Table 1.
103 The site of Chalandritsa is located in the foothills inland of the coastal plain of Achaia and consists of a settlement and cemetery.55 The chamber tomb cemetery, consisting of approximately 45 tombs, has been dated to the LH IIIA-C.56 Excavations were carried out as early as 1928 but, it is the remains from the more recent excavations conduc-ted in 1989, 1991 and 1995 that are inclu-ded in this study.57 All Mycenaean period burials from tombs 16, 17, 19, and 26 have been included in this study due to their good documentation and variety of burial forms.
55 Kolonas 2009, 7-13.
56 Aktypi, 2017; Stavropoulou-Gatsi and
Petropoulos 1989.
57 Kyparissis 1928; Kyparissis 1929; Kyparissis
1930; A dromos burial from chamber tomb 17 was not included since it has been dated to the Geometric period (see Aktypi 2014).
Petroto is also located a few kilometers outside of Patras and the site consists of a single tholos tomb located on the western side of the Mygdalia hill, where a Myce-naean settlement is currently under exca-vation.58 The tomb consisted of a round subterranean chamber crudely constructed of limestone blocks arranged to form a bee-hive shaped tomb.59 The tomb was initially used during the early Mycenaean period (LH IIA-B) and reused during later Myce-naean periods.60 The excavator identified nine burial levels containing skeletal re-mains of humans and animals as well as a variety of artifacts.61 All levels are used for the tomb type and time period analysis,
58 Petropoulos 1989; Papazoglou-Manioudaki
2003; Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2011.
59 Petropoulos 1989.
60 Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2011; Jones et al.
2018.
61 Petropoulos 1989.
Figure 2. Map of the study area with case study sites indicated.
05
102 practices. My aim is not to reconstruct the living population, but rather the selection criteria that created the burial sample and to evaluate possible cultural biases within the sample. It is possible that certain mortuary practices were prescribed for certain individuals based on biological criteria. The aim is to evaluate if Mycenaean people excluded individuals based on biological sex or age at death in various sites within the region of Achaia, in different tomb types (chamber tomb versus tholos), for certain burial forms (primary, non-primary and secondary burial), and whether patterns of inclusion/exclusion changed through time. This focus will help archae-ologists to understand both the cultural context of mortuary practices and the demographic representativeness of a Myce-naean burial sample. This type of evaluation is a crucial first step in bioarchaeological analysis which aims to assess biases and reconstruct cultural and taphonomic pro-cesses that influence a skeletal sample.51 Assessments of burial samples are vital for understanding mortuary practices, as Mil-ner, Wood, and Boldsen note, “the atypical demographic structure may be precisely the clue needed to tell us about what led to a
51 Milner, Wood, and Boldsen 2008, 569.
burial area’s formation”.52 Additionally, this initial study will facilitate later second level evaluations of health and mortality rates. 5.2 A sample of Cemeteries from Mycenaean Achaia
The region of Achaia is located in the southern Greek mainland in the northwest Peloponnese (Figure 2). Although recent scholars have emphasized Achaia’s complex relationship with Mycenaean core regions and its prime location for western trade, Achaia is still considered a peripheral region in the Mycenaean world due to its lack of palatial structures.53
5.2.1 The Sites
The sites, including the specific tombs and burial, used in this study are shown in Figure 4. The bioarchaeological data pre-sented here comes from my own analysis of the sites of Chalandritsa, Petroto, and Portes and published data from the sites of Achaia Klaus, Kallithea, and Spaliareika.54
52 Milner, Wood, and Boldsen 2008, 569. 53 Arena, 2015; Van den Berg 2011;
Papadopoulos 1979.
54 Graff 2011; Papadopoulos 1991;
Papathanasiou 2005; Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009.
Time Period Abbreviation Approximate Dates (BC) Mycenaean Period
Middle Helladic III MH III 1800-1700
Pre-Palatial Period
Late Helladic I LH I 1700-1580
Late Helladic IIA LH IIA 1580-1440
Late Helladic IIB LH IIB 1440-1390
Late Helladic IIIA LH IIIA 1390-1310
Palatial Period Late Helladic IIIB LH IIIB 1310-1190
Late Helladic IIIC LH IIIC 1190-1065 Post-Palatial Period
Figure 1. Mycenaean Chronology. This chart was modified following
Shelmerdine 1997: Table 1 and Voutsaki et al. 2013: Table 1.
103 The site of Chalandritsa is located in the foothills inland of the coastal plain of Achaia and consists of a settlement and cemetery.55 The chamber tomb cemetery, consisting of approximately 45 tombs, has been dated to the LH IIIA-C.56 Excavations were carried out as early as 1928 but, it is the remains from the more recent excavations conduc-ted in 1989, 1991 and 1995 that are inclu-ded in this study.57 All Mycenaean period burials from tombs 16, 17, 19, and 26 have been included in this study due to their good documentation and variety of burial forms.
55 Kolonas 2009, 7-13.
56 Aktypi, 2017; Stavropoulou-Gatsi and
Petropoulos 1989.
57 Kyparissis 1928; Kyparissis 1929; Kyparissis
1930; A dromos burial from chamber tomb 17 was not included since it has been dated to the Geometric period (see Aktypi 2014).
Petroto is also located a few kilometers outside of Patras and the site consists of a single tholos tomb located on the western side of the Mygdalia hill, where a Myce-naean settlement is currently under exca-vation.58 The tomb consisted of a round subterranean chamber crudely constructed of limestone blocks arranged to form a bee-hive shaped tomb.59 The tomb was initially used during the early Mycenaean period (LH IIA-B) and reused during later Myce-naean periods.60 The excavator identified nine burial levels containing skeletal re-mains of humans and animals as well as a variety of artifacts.61 All levels are used for the tomb type and time period analysis,
58 Petropoulos 1989; Papazoglou-Manioudaki
2003; Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2011.
59 Petropoulos 1989.
60 Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2011; Jones et al.
2018.
61 Petropoulos 1989.
Figure 2. Map of the study area with case study sites indicated.
104 while only levels 3, 6 and 7 have been included in the burial form analysis due to their good documentation and range of burial forms.
The site of Portes is located in southwest Achaia and consists of an unexcavated settlement and cemetery.62 The cemetery is made up of chamber tombs, cist and pit
62 The settlement adjacent to the cemetery was
partly excavated but remains unpublished. See Kolonas 2009, 34 for details. Ongoing study of Portes, including finds and tomb architecture, is being conducted by Ioannis Moschos.
graves, tholoi, and tumuli (burial mounds).63 The cemetery is exceptional due its long use, spanning most of the Mycenaean era from the LH II-IIIC, and its variety of burial forms.64 All burials from chamber tombs 5, 10, and 12 have been included here because their documentation is good and they possess a variety of burial forms.
63 Kolonas 1993; Kolonas and Moschos 1994;
Moschos 2007; Moschos 2009; Kolonas 2009.
64 Kolonas 2009.
1
2
3
Figure 3. Examples of Mycenaean burial
variation in a schematic drawing of typical chamber tomb. A primary burial is located along the left wall (1). Non-primary burials are located in the pit along the back wall (2) and in a pile of bones located along the chamber wall (3). Figure drawn by drafting technician Miriam Los-Weijns.
105 Kallithea is a cemetery site located on the edge of the foothills directly south of Patras and was excavated by Papadopoulos from 1986 until 2002. The site consisted of 23 chamber tombs and one tholos dated to the LH IIIA-C period.65 The arrangement of the chamber tombs around the tholos makes the site an interesting study for spatial pat-terning in mortuary sites.66 Human remains from five chamber tombs have been previously studied and have been included here.67
The cemetery of Achaia Klauss is located near Petroto on the northern side of the Mygdalia hill and consisted of chamber tombs in use from the LH IIIA-C.68 The cemetery was excavated by Papadopoulos and contained some rich unlooted tombs including one of the so-called “warrior burials” of Achaia.69 Only the human remains from eight primary burials within five chamber tombs have been published and included here.70
65 Papadopoulos 1991. 66 Graff 2011.
67 Graff 2011; Undated dromoi burials were not
included since they likely date to the Submycenaean or Geometric period.
68 Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009; Paschalidis
2016.
69 Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009, 89. 70 Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009.
Spaliareika is a cemetery located further southwest of Patras and is composed of nine rock-cut chamber tombs dated to the later Mycenaean period LH IIIA-C.71 The site was excavated by Petropoulos and included the typical Mycenaean array of grave goods including ceramic vases and beads with a few bronze weapons more commonly found in Achaia.72 All human remains from four chamber tombs have been published and are included here.73
5.2.2 The Sample
The sample contains one tholos and 21 chamber tombs from six sites (Figure 4). The sites span the Palatial and Post-Palatial Mycenaean time periods and primarily contain chamber tombs, which are the most common tomb type in the Mycenaean period. In addition, one tholos is included in the sample in order to examine differences between tomb types. The burials and tombs included from each site were selected for maximum data quality including excavation archives and bone preservation. The sites studied by myself (Chalandritsa, Petroto, and Portes) include all Mycenaean period burials from each tomb. The sites previously published include only the primary burials
71 Kolonas 2009.
72 Kolonas 2009; Petropoulos 2000. 73 Papathanasiou 2005.
Site Tombs Cemetery Date
Chalandritsa CT 16, 17, 19 & 26 LH IIIA-IIIC Petroto Tholos 1 Tholos tomb LH IIB-IIIC
Portes CT 5, 10 & 12 LH II-LH IIIC Kallithea CT XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX & XX LH II-ΙΙΙC Achaia Klauss CT Delta, H, Theta, B & E LH IIIC
Spaliareika 4 Chamber tombs LH IIIA-IIIC
05
104 while only levels 3, 6 and 7 have been included in the burial form analysis due to their good documentation and range of burial forms.
The site of Portes is located in southwest Achaia and consists of an unexcavated settlement and cemetery.62 The cemetery is made up of chamber tombs, cist and pit
62 The settlement adjacent to the cemetery was
partly excavated but remains unpublished. See Kolonas 2009, 34 for details. Ongoing study of Portes, including finds and tomb architecture, is being conducted by Ioannis Moschos.
graves, tholoi, and tumuli (burial mounds).63 The cemetery is exceptional due its long use, spanning most of the Mycenaean era from the LH II-IIIC, and its variety of burial forms.64 All burials from chamber tombs 5, 10, and 12 have been included here because their documentation is good and they possess a variety of burial forms.
63 Kolonas 1993; Kolonas and Moschos 1994;
Moschos 2007; Moschos 2009; Kolonas 2009.
64 Kolonas 2009.
1
2
3
Figure 3. Examples of Mycenaean burial
variation in a schematic drawing of typical chamber tomb. A primary burial is located along the left wall (1). Non-primary burials are located in the pit along the back wall (2) and in a pile of bones located along the chamber wall (3). Figure drawn by drafting technician Miriam Los-Weijns.
105 Kallithea is a cemetery site located on the edge of the foothills directly south of Patras and was excavated by Papadopoulos from 1986 until 2002. The site consisted of 23 chamber tombs and one tholos dated to the LH IIIA-C period.65 The arrangement of the chamber tombs around the tholos makes the site an interesting study for spatial pat-terning in mortuary sites.66 Human remains from five chamber tombs have been previously studied and have been included here.67
The cemetery of Achaia Klauss is located near Petroto on the northern side of the Mygdalia hill and consisted of chamber tombs in use from the LH IIIA-C.68 The cemetery was excavated by Papadopoulos and contained some rich unlooted tombs including one of the so-called “warrior burials” of Achaia.69 Only the human remains from eight primary burials within five chamber tombs have been published and included here.70
65 Papadopoulos 1991. 66 Graff 2011.
67 Graff 2011; Undated dromoi burials were not
included since they likely date to the Submycenaean or Geometric period.
68 Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009; Paschalidis
2016.
69 Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009, 89. 70 Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009.
Spaliareika is a cemetery located further southwest of Patras and is composed of nine rock-cut chamber tombs dated to the later Mycenaean period LH IIIA-C.71 The site was excavated by Petropoulos and included the typical Mycenaean array of grave goods including ceramic vases and beads with a few bronze weapons more commonly found in Achaia.72 All human remains from four chamber tombs have been published and are included here.73
5.2.2 The Sample
The sample contains one tholos and 21 chamber tombs from six sites (Figure 4). The sites span the Palatial and Post-Palatial Mycenaean time periods and primarily contain chamber tombs, which are the most common tomb type in the Mycenaean period. In addition, one tholos is included in the sample in order to examine differences between tomb types. The burials and tombs included from each site were selected for maximum data quality including excavation archives and bone preservation. The sites studied by myself (Chalandritsa, Petroto, and Portes) include all Mycenaean period burials from each tomb. The sites previously published include only the primary burials
71 Kolonas 2009.
72 Kolonas 2009; Petropoulos 2000. 73 Papathanasiou 2005.
Site Tombs Cemetery Date
Chalandritsa CT 16, 17, 19 & 26 LH IIIA-IIIC Petroto Tholos 1 Tholos tomb LH IIB-IIIC
Portes CT 5, 10 & 12 LH II-LH IIIC Kallithea CT XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX & XX LH II-ΙΙΙC Achaia Klauss CT Delta, H, Theta, B & E LH IIIC
Spaliareika 4 Chamber tombs LH IIIA-IIIC
106 from Achaia Klauss and all Mycenaean peri-od burials from certain tombs at Kallithea and Spaliareika. The sample includes data from tholos and chamber tomb burials (Figure 4), Palatial and Post-Palatial burials (Figure 5), and primary burials (articulated at time of excavation) and non-primary burials (disarticulated at the time of excavation) (Figure 6).74 Additionally, the goal when compiling the sample was to include as many well-documented burials as possible; therefore, the sample represents the most up to date bioarchaeological information for the Achaia region.75 Including various sites, burials forms, time periods, tomb types, and bioarchaeological data, the sample is highly representative of burial practices in Mycenaean Achaia and
74 See Jones, forthcoming for a detailed
discussion of non-primary burials.
75 The Mycenaean cemetery of Voudeni has been
studied by Dr. Ioanna Moutafi (2015), but has not yet been published and is not accessible for comparison at this time.
thus ideal for evaluating exclusionary social practices in the mortuary record.
5.3 Bioarchaeological Methodology 5.3.1 Zonation MNI
To accurately calculate the minimum num-ber of individuals (MNI) in a fragmented and commingled assemblage, an anatomical feature-based or “zonation” recording me-thod was used for each identifiable frag-ment. This method had been adapted from zooarchaeology for use on human skeletal material by Knüsel and Outram and extends the traditional three-zoned bone recording method of proximal, diaphysis, and distal zones.76
Due to the highly fragmented and coming-led nature of the non-primary assemblage, it was neither feasible nor necessary to recon-struct whole individuals. Thus the burial is treated as the total unit for commingled
76 Knüsel and Outram 2004; Buikstra and
Ubelaker 1994.
Palatial Period Burials Post-Palatial Period Burials
Petroto Levels 6, 7, 8/9 Achaia Klauss CT Delta 1 Primary Burial Kallithea CT XV: B, Γ, Δ, Ε, Ζ, Η, Θ, Ι, Κ, Ξ, Λ, Μ, Ν Achaia Klauss CT H 1 Primary Burial Kallithea CT XVI: A, B, Γ, Δ, Ε, ΣΤ, Ζ, Η, Θ, I, & Κ Achaia Klauss CT Theta 2 Primary Burials
Kallithea XVIIΙ: A, B, Γ, Δ, Ε, Η, ΣΤ
Achaia Klauss CT B 2 Primary Burials Achaia Klauss CT E 2 Primary Burials Chalandritsa CT 19: 1 & 2
Kallithea XVIII: A Petroto Level 3 Portes CT 5 Burial B
*Dating Mycenaean burials, especially non-primary burials, is often challenging since grave goods are difficult to associate with individual burials and tombs are reused for many years. The burials listed in this table were able to be dated by the archaeologists, but many others were not, or were given a long time range in which the Palatial and Post-Palatial Periods overlapped.
Figure 5: The sample of burials separated by time period.*
107 contexts. Age at death and sex estimations of non-primary burials were based on fragments and the minimum number of an age category or sex is reported. The following methods were chosen for this study because they are easily comparable with the published methods and data and because they can be applied to the fragmented, commingled human remains. 5.3.2 Age at Death
The age at death has been estimated using established methods. Subadult age was estimated using epiphyseal closure or dental formation and eruption rates.77 Adult age was estimated for the pelvis using the aging stages of the pubic symphysis and auricular surface while dental wear was used for the aging of teeth.78
77 Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; White, Black and
Folkens 2012.
78 Brooks and Suchey 1990; Brothwell 1981;
Buckberry and Chamberlain 2002.
Age categories used for the discussion are condensed for two reasons. First, the fragmented and commingled nature of the assemblage does not always allow a more specific age estimate, and secondly, the previously published studies often do not present more specific age estimation. This may be an imperfect categorization, but it is better than the coarse division child – adult adopted in earlier studies, and it is based on skeletal data rather than grave goods or architecture.
Thus, age at death categories used here are: - Infant: fetal - ~3 years
- Subadult: ~4-20 - Adult: 21+ 5.3.3 Biological Sex
Biological sex of the human remains was estimated using established methods of sexual traits for the skull and pelvis. The cranial and mandibular traits were estima-ted based on a five-point scoring system, while sex of the pelvis was estimated for the
Primary Burial Non-Primary Burial
Petroto Level 3 Chalandritsa CT 16 Burial I Portes CT 5 Burial A Chalandritsa CT 19 Burial 1 & 2 Portes CT 10 Burial A Chalandritsa CT 26 Burial 1 Portes CT 12 Burial B Petroto Level 6 & 7
Kallithea CT XV Burials Α, Ο, Β, Γ, Λ, Μ & Ν Portes CT 5 Burial B & C Kallithea CT XVI Burials A & B Portes CT 10 Burial B Kallithea CT XVIII Burials A & B Portes CT 12 Burial A & C
Kallithea CT XIX Burial B Kallithea CT XV Burials Δ, Ε, Z, H, Θ, Ι, Κ & Ξ Kallithea CT XX Burials A, B, Γ, ΣΤ Kallithea CT XVI Burials Γ, Δ, Ε, ΣΤ, Ζ, Η, Θ, Ι, & Κ Achaia Klauss CT Delta 1 Primary Burial Kallithea CT XIX Burial A
Achaia Klauss CT H 1 Primary Burial Kallithea CT XX Δ, Ε & Η Achaia Klauss CT Theta 2 Primary Burials
Spaliareika 4 Chamber Tombs Achaia Klauss CT B 2 Primary Burials
Achaia Klauss CT E 2 Primary Burials
05
106 from Achaia Klauss and all Mycenaean peri-od burials from certain tombs at Kallithea and Spaliareika. The sample includes data from tholos and chamber tomb burials (Figure 4), Palatial and Post-Palatial burials (Figure 5), and primary burials (articulated at time of excavation) and non-primary burials (disarticulated at the time of excavation) (Figure 6).74 Additionally, the goal when compiling the sample was to include as many well-documented burials as possible; therefore, the sample represents the most up to date bioarchaeological information for the Achaia region.75 Including various sites, burials forms, time periods, tomb types, and bioarchaeological data, the sample is highly representative of burial practices in Mycenaean Achaia and
74 See Jones, forthcoming for a detailed
discussion of non-primary burials.
75 The Mycenaean cemetery of Voudeni has been
studied by Dr. Ioanna Moutafi (2015), but has not yet been published and is not accessible for comparison at this time.
thus ideal for evaluating exclusionary social practices in the mortuary record.
5.3 Bioarchaeological Methodology 5.3.1 Zonation MNI
To accurately calculate the minimum num-ber of individuals (MNI) in a fragmented and commingled assemblage, an anatomical feature-based or “zonation” recording me-thod was used for each identifiable frag-ment. This method had been adapted from zooarchaeology for use on human skeletal material by Knüsel and Outram and extends the traditional three-zoned bone recording method of proximal, diaphysis, and distal zones.76
Due to the highly fragmented and coming-led nature of the non-primary assemblage, it was neither feasible nor necessary to recon-struct whole individuals. Thus the burial is treated as the total unit for commingled
76 Knüsel and Outram 2004; Buikstra and
Ubelaker 1994.
Palatial Period Burials Post-Palatial Period Burials
Petroto Levels 6, 7, 8/9 Achaia Klauss CT Delta 1 Primary Burial Kallithea CT XV: B, Γ, Δ, Ε, Ζ, Η, Θ, Ι, Κ, Ξ, Λ, Μ, Ν Achaia Klauss CT H 1 Primary Burial Kallithea CT XVI: A, B, Γ, Δ, Ε, ΣΤ, Ζ, Η, Θ, I, & Κ Achaia Klauss CT Theta 2 Primary Burials
Kallithea XVIIΙ: A, B, Γ, Δ, Ε, Η, ΣΤ
Achaia Klauss CT B 2 Primary Burials Achaia Klauss CT E 2 Primary Burials Chalandritsa CT 19: 1 & 2
Kallithea XVIII: A Petroto Level 3 Portes CT 5 Burial B
*Dating Mycenaean burials, especially non-primary burials, is often challenging since grave goods are difficult to associate with individual burials and tombs are reused for many years. The burials listed in this table were able to be dated by the archaeologists, but many others were not, or were given a long time range in which the Palatial and Post-Palatial Periods overlapped.
Figure 5: The sample of burials separated by time period.*
107 contexts. Age at death and sex estimations of non-primary burials were based on fragments and the minimum number of an age category or sex is reported. The following methods were chosen for this study because they are easily comparable with the published methods and data and because they can be applied to the fragmented, commingled human remains. 5.3.2 Age at Death
The age at death has been estimated using established methods. Subadult age was estimated using epiphyseal closure or dental formation and eruption rates.77 Adult age was estimated for the pelvis using the aging stages of the pubic symphysis and auricular surface while dental wear was used for the aging of teeth.78
77 Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; White, Black and
Folkens 2012.
78 Brooks and Suchey 1990; Brothwell 1981;
Buckberry and Chamberlain 2002.
Age categories used for the discussion are condensed for two reasons. First, the fragmented and commingled nature of the assemblage does not always allow a more specific age estimate, and secondly, the previously published studies often do not present more specific age estimation. This may be an imperfect categorization, but it is better than the coarse division child – adult adopted in earlier studies, and it is based on skeletal data rather than grave goods or architecture.
Thus, age at death categories used here are: - Infant: fetal - ~3 years
- Subadult: ~4-20 - Adult: 21+ 5.3.3 Biological Sex
Biological sex of the human remains was estimated using established methods of sexual traits for the skull and pelvis. The cranial and mandibular traits were estima-ted based on a five-point scoring system, while sex of the pelvis was estimated for the
Primary Burial Non-Primary Burial
Petroto Level 3 Chalandritsa CT 16 Burial I Portes CT 5 Burial A Chalandritsa CT 19 Burial 1 & 2 Portes CT 10 Burial A Chalandritsa CT 26 Burial 1 Portes CT 12 Burial B Petroto Level 6 & 7
Kallithea CT XV Burials Α, Ο, Β, Γ, Λ, Μ & Ν Portes CT 5 Burial B & C Kallithea CT XVI Burials A & B Portes CT 10 Burial B Kallithea CT XVIII Burials A & B Portes CT 12 Burial A & C
Kallithea CT XIX Burial B Kallithea CT XV Burials Δ, Ε, Z, H, Θ, Ι, Κ & Ξ Kallithea CT XX Burials A, B, Γ, ΣΤ Kallithea CT XVI Burials Γ, Δ, Ε, ΣΤ, Ζ, Η, Θ, Ι, & Κ Achaia Klauss CT Delta 1 Primary Burial Kallithea CT XIX Burial A
Achaia Klauss CT H 1 Primary Burial Kallithea CT XX Δ, Ε & Η Achaia Klauss CT Theta 2 Primary Burials
Spaliareika 4 Chamber Tombs Achaia Klauss CT B 2 Primary Burials
Achaia Klauss CT E 2 Primary Burials
108 pubis, sciatic notch, and the preauricular sulcus.79
Degrees of sex (probable male and probable female) were used in initial data collection but consolidated in this article so that pro-bable male or female were included into the respective male and female categories. Ambiguous and indeterminate sex catego-ries were kept in order to best demonstrate the preservation and completeness of the sample.
5.3.4 Paleodemographic Expectations In order to hypothesize if a group is practicing burial exclusion, the demographic composition of the burial sample must be abnormal. That is, the number of adults, subadults, and infants must be skewed beyond that of normal paleodemographic expectations. High infant mortality, as demonstrated by Weiss, Morris, and more
79Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Milner 1992;
Phenice 1969.
recently by Guy, Masset, and Baud, should produce cemeteries composed of 22-50% infants.80 While subadults should make up the least represented group, at 5-15% of the total, since this segment of the population usually has the lowest mortality rate.81 Lastly, adults should comprise 15-35% of the population total.82 Therefore, graphs of ages at death should follow a U-shape, with high infant numbers, low subadult numbers, and peak again in the adult category (Figure 7).
5.4 Demography of Burials in Mycenaean Achaia
The 21 chamber tombs and one tholos included in this study contained a total MNI of 206 (Figure 8). Age estimations conclu-ded that the sample contained 170 adults (83%), 28 subadults (13%), and eight
80 Guy, Masset and Baud 1997; Morris 1987;
Weiss 1973.
81 Weiss 1973, 26. 82 Weiss 1973.
Figure 7. Graph demonstrating normal demographic percentages. The data for this chart
were modified from Weiss 1973, Morris 1987, and Guy, Masset, and Baud 1997.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Infant Subadult Adult
Min Max
109 fants (4%) (Figure 8). The age percentages show that infants are very much under-represented, subadult percentages are with-in a normal range, while adults are grossly over-represented.
Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that the sample contained 54 males (32%), 65 females (38%), two ambiguous (1%), and 49 of indeterminate sex (29%) (Figure 8). The sex percentages show that the sam-ple slightly favors females to males.
5.4.1 Sites
The four chamber tombs at Chalandritsa studied here contained an MNI of 39 made up of 35 adults (91%) and four subadults (9%) (Figure 9). Of the adults, sex estima-tions concluded that eight were male (23%), 9 were female (26%), and 18 (51%) were indeterminate sex (Figure 9).
The Petroto tholos contained an MNI of 62 made up of 49 (79%) adults, 10 subadults
Figure 8. Overall age and sex percentages for the sample (A=ambiguous; I= indeterminate).
0% 25% 50% 75% Male Female A I 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
05
108 pubis, sciatic notch, and the preauricular sulcus.79
Degrees of sex (probable male and probable female) were used in initial data collection but consolidated in this article so that pro-bable male or female were included into the respective male and female categories. Ambiguous and indeterminate sex catego-ries were kept in order to best demonstrate the preservation and completeness of the sample.
5.3.4 Paleodemographic Expectations In order to hypothesize if a group is practicing burial exclusion, the demographic composition of the burial sample must be abnormal. That is, the number of adults, subadults, and infants must be skewed beyond that of normal paleodemographic expectations. High infant mortality, as demonstrated by Weiss, Morris, and more
79Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Milner 1992;
Phenice 1969.
recently by Guy, Masset, and Baud, should produce cemeteries composed of 22-50% infants.80 While subadults should make up the least represented group, at 5-15% of the total, since this segment of the population usually has the lowest mortality rate.81 Lastly, adults should comprise 15-35% of the population total.82 Therefore, graphs of ages at death should follow a U-shape, with high infant numbers, low subadult numbers, and peak again in the adult category (Figure 7).
5.4 Demography of Burials in Mycenaean Achaia
The 21 chamber tombs and one tholos included in this study contained a total MNI of 206 (Figure 8). Age estimations conclu-ded that the sample contained 170 adults (83%), 28 subadults (13%), and eight
80 Guy, Masset and Baud 1997; Morris 1987;
Weiss 1973.
81 Weiss 1973, 26. 82 Weiss 1973.
Figure 7. Graph demonstrating normal demographic percentages. The data for this chart
were modified from Weiss 1973, Morris 1987, and Guy, Masset, and Baud 1997.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Infant Subadult Adult
Min Max
109 fants (4%) (Figure 8). The age percentages show that infants are very much under-represented, subadult percentages are with-in a normal range, while adults are grossly over-represented.
Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that the sample contained 54 males (32%), 65 females (38%), two ambiguous (1%), and 49 of indeterminate sex (29%) (Figure 8). The sex percentages show that the sam-ple slightly favors females to males.
5.4.1 Sites
The four chamber tombs at Chalandritsa studied here contained an MNI of 39 made up of 35 adults (91%) and four subadults (9%) (Figure 9). Of the adults, sex estima-tions concluded that eight were male (23%), 9 were female (26%), and 18 (51%) were indeterminate sex (Figure 9).
The Petroto tholos contained an MNI of 62 made up of 49 (79%) adults, 10 subadults
Figure 8. Overall age and sex percentages for the sample (A=ambiguous; I= indeterminate).
0% 25% 50% 75% Male Female A I 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
110 (16%), and three infants (5%) (Figure 9). Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that 17 were males (27%), 13 were females (22%), two were of ambiguous sex (3%), and 16 were indeterminate sex (48%) (Figure 9).
The three chamber tombs at Portes con-tained an MNI of 34 made up of 28 adults (82%) and six subadults (18%) (Figure 9). Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that 9 were male (32%), 14 were female (50%), and 5 (18%) were of indeterminate sex (Figure 9).
Five chamber tombs at Kallithea, which had been previously studied, contained an MNI of 35, made up of 30 adults (86%), one sub-adult (3%), and four infants (11%) (Figure 9).83 Of the adults, sex estimations conclu-ded that 9 were male (30%), 17 were female (57%), and 4 (13%) were of indeterminate sex (Figure 9).
83 Graff 2011.
Figure 9. Age and sex percentages for each site (A=ambiguous; I= indeterminate).
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Adult Subadult Infant 0% 25% 50% 75% Male Female A I 111 The primary burials from five chamber tombs at Achaia Klauss, which had been previously studied, contained an MNI of 11, made up of seven adults (64%), three subadults (27%), and one infant (9%) (Figure 9).84 Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that four were male (57%) and three were female (43%) (Figure 9).
Four chamber tombs at Spaliareika, which had been previous studied, contained an
84 Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009.
MNI of 25, made up of 21 adults (84%) and four subadults (16%) (Figure 9).85 Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that seven were male (33%), eight were female (38%), and 6 (29%) were of indeterminate sex (Figure 9).
The six sites included here show a general consistency in the age data but some varia-tion in the sex data (Figure 9). The most represented age category is the adults,
85 Papathanasiou, Lagia et al. 2012.
Figure 10. Age and sex percentages separated by tomb type (A=ambiguous; I= indeterminate).
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Chamber Tombs Tholos
Adult Subadult Infant 0% 25% 50% 75%
Chamber Tombs Tholos
Male Female A I
05
110 (16%), and three infants (5%) (Figure 9). Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that 17 were males (27%), 13 were females (22%), two were of ambiguous sex (3%), and 16 were indeterminate sex (48%) (Figure 9).
The three chamber tombs at Portes con-tained an MNI of 34 made up of 28 adults (82%) and six subadults (18%) (Figure 9). Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that 9 were male (32%), 14 were female (50%), and 5 (18%) were of indeterminate sex (Figure 9).
Five chamber tombs at Kallithea, which had been previously studied, contained an MNI of 35, made up of 30 adults (86%), one sub-adult (3%), and four infants (11%) (Figure 9).83 Of the adults, sex estimations conclu-ded that 9 were male (30%), 17 were female (57%), and 4 (13%) were of indeterminate sex (Figure 9).
83 Graff 2011.
Figure 9. Age and sex percentages for each site (A=ambiguous; I= indeterminate).
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Adult Subadult Infant 0% 25% 50% 75% Male Female A I 111 The primary burials from five chamber tombs at Achaia Klauss, which had been previously studied, contained an MNI of 11, made up of seven adults (64%), three subadults (27%), and one infant (9%) (Figure 9).84 Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that four were male (57%) and three were female (43%) (Figure 9).
Four chamber tombs at Spaliareika, which had been previous studied, contained an
84 Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009.
MNI of 25, made up of 21 adults (84%) and four subadults (16%) (Figure 9).85 Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that seven were male (33%), eight were female (38%), and 6 (29%) were of indeterminate sex (Figure 9).
The six sites included here show a general consistency in the age data but some varia-tion in the sex data (Figure 9). The most represented age category is the adults,
85 Papathanasiou, Lagia et al. 2012.
Figure 10. Age and sex percentages separated by tomb type (A=ambiguous; I= indeterminate).
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Chamber Tombs Tholos
Adult Subadult Infant 0% 25% 50% 75%
Chamber Tombs Tholos
Male Female A I
112 wed by subadults, then infants in very low numbers. The sex data shows that some sites (Petroto and Spaliareika) were approximately even in male and female percentages, however others (Chalandritsa, Portes, and Kallithea) showed a marked difference with more females than males present or more males than females (Achaia Klauss). The data suggests that age at death was a consistent factor of exclusion between sites, while sex was a variable factor.
5.4.2 Tomb Type
The 20 chamber tombs contained an MNI
of 144 made up of 121 adults (84%), 18 subadults (13%), and five infants (3%) (Figure 10). Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that 37 were male (31%), 51 were female (42%), and 33 (27%) were of indeterminate sex.
The single tholos tomb located at Petroto contained an MNI of 62 made up of 49 (79%) adults, 10 subadults (16%), and three infants (5%) (Figure 10). Of the adults, sex estimations concluded that 17 were males (27%), 13 were females (22%), two were of ambiguous sex (3%), and 16 were indeterminate sex (48%).
Figure 11. Age and sex percentages separated by time period (A=ambiguous; I= indeterminate).
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Palatial Post-Palatial Adult Subadult Infant 0% 25% 50% 75% Palatial Post-Palatial Male Female Α Ι 113 The tomb type data (Figure 10) suggest that females were somewhat more likely to be buried in chamber tombs rather than the
tholos. However, the age differences are not
very large, and the proportions of adults, subadults, and infants for chamber and
tholos tombs are more or less the same.
Again, infants make up a small percentage of both chamber and tholos tomb interments suggesting they were excluded from both tomb types.
5.4.3 Time period: Palatial Period versus Post-Palatial Period
Some burials have been dated by associated grave goods and in this article these burials have been separated into Palatial Period (LH IIIA-B) (Figure 1) and Post-Palatial Pe-riod (LH IIIC) (Figure 5).86
The Palatial Period sample consists of three chamber tombs with 34 burials and three burial levels from the Petroto tholos. The sample contained an MNI of 73 made up of 60 adults (82%), nine subadults (12%), and four infants (6%) (Figure 11). Of the adults, sex estimates showed that 20 were male (33%), 23 were female (38%), one was of ambiguous sex (2%), and 16 were of indeterminate sex (27%). It is noteworthy that all subadults and the only infant dated to the Palatial Period were found in the tholos. No children were recovered in Palatial Period chamber tombs.
The Post-Palatial Period sample consists of 8 chamber tombs with 12 burials and 1 burial from the tholos. The sample con-tained an MNI of 30 made up of 26 adults
86 In Achaia, few tombs have been dated to the
Pre-Palatial Period (LHI-II). See
Papadopoulos1979 for a discussion of Achaia tomb chronology. It should also be noted that the remainder of the tombs could not be accurately dated to either Palatial or Post-Palatial since they contained artifacts from both periods likely because they were reused for generations.
(87%), three subadults (10%), and one infant (3%) (Figure 11). Of the adults, sex estimates showed that 7 were male (27%), 6 were female (23%), and 13 were of inde-terminate sex (50%).
The results (Figure 11) show two trends through time. First, the data suggests that there was a shift from burials being slightly female-dominated in the Palatial Period to then being slightly male-dominated in the Post-Palatial Period. Thus, in this sample, there is a slight decrease of females and in-crease of males interred in tholos and cham-ber tombs through time. Secondly, there also appears to be an overall decrease of subadults and infants from the Palatial to the Post-Palatial Period.
5.4.4 Burial Form
The burial form sample consists of 28 primary burials from 14 tombs and 33 non-primary burials from 12 tombs (Figure 6). The total MNI of the primary burials is 32. The estimated age at death consisted of 26 adults (81%), four subadults (13%) and two infants (6%) (Figure 12). The ratio of males and females was 8 males (31%) to 11 (42%) females, while 7 were of indeterminate sex (27%).
The total MNI for the non-primary burials from all Achaia sites is 124. The estimated age at death consisted of 103 adults (83%), 17 subadults (14%) and four infants (3%) (Figure 12). Of the adults, sex estimates showed that 36 were male (35%), 46 were female (45%), three were of ambiguous sex (3%), and 18 were of indeterminate sex (17%).
The age data shows that both primary and non-primary burial forms were dominated by adults with few subadults, and only a few infants included. There appear to have been slightly fewer infants included in non-primary burials forms than non-primary burials. The data of biological sex data also appear fairly consistent demonstrating that both
