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.
122
CHAPTER 6
Bioarchaeology of the Mycenaean world:
engaging with past assumptions and new opportunities
Publication dataStatus: to be submitted
Authors: Olivia A. Jones1, Jason King2, Jane E. Buikstra3
1 Groningen Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen 2 Center for American Archaeology
3 School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University
Abstract
Scholarship of Mycenaean mortuary practices has primarily focused on social status and hierarchy, while actual age-at-death and biological sex of the deceased have received relatively little attention. When considered, traditional interpretations in Mycenaean mortuary studies equate certain grave goods and architecture with age-at-death or biological sex. Previous research has thus suggested that Mycenaean society placed an emphasis on adult men, with women and children of lesser importance. Nevertheless, this has not been evaluated with bioarchaeological evidence and statistical rigor. Fortunately, an increase in bioarchaeological research has produced a large amount of biological data. However, these studies are site-based and no scholarship has included all published Mycenaean bioarchaeological data within a synthetic study. This study brings together all available bioarchaeological data of Mycenaean human remains in order to examine patterns of age and sex within the burial record. Limitations within the data include: small and uneven sample sizes, certain sites and regions are over or under-represented, uneven recording of bioarchaeological data, and lack of archaeological context in bioarchaeological reports. This was mitigated by using complete data sets with systematic contextual data. The age and sex data were partitioned within the following categories: intramural/extra-mural, regional, tomb type, and time period. The sex results challenge past assumptions while the low numbers of infants aligns with previous reports. An over-representation of males in simple graves and during the Early Mycenaean period suggests an imbalance based on biological sex; however, female interments rise over time and across space with most samples possessing equal proportions of males and females. Low numbers of infants and children in extramural burials, such as chamber and tholos tombs and high numbers in intramural graves suggests that young individuals were more likely to be given intramural burial (though regional variation exists). The results suggest that age-at-death influenced burial inclusion throughout the Mycenaean period, while inclusion based on biological sex varied across time and space, but also across social categories.
Keywords
Mycenaean, mortuary practices, bioarchaeology, paleodemography, infant burials, chamber tombs
123
6.1 The Demography of Mycenaean Burials94
6.1.1 Mycenaean Mortuary Practices: Homogeneity and Diversity
Burial traditions in the Mycenaean world (Figure 1) generally exhibit homogeneity during the Palatial Period. During this height of the Mycenaean period (LH IIIA-B) burial customs typically included multiple inhumations in chamber tombs accom-panied by a fairly standardized set of grave goods (e.g. ceramic containers, often stirrup jars, jewelry, bronze tools/weapons despite the differences in wealth) (see Cavanagh and Mee 1998 for an overview). Despite this homogeneous tradition, burial practices change through time and vary across space during the roughly 500 years of Mycenaean cultural influence. Early in the Mycenaean period (MH III-LH I; see Table 1 for time period) people were experimenting with novel forms and practices as the single pit/cist graves of the previous Middle Helladic period gave way to larger built tombs: intermediate types such as the shaft graves and built tombs, and mostly chamber and tholos tombs characteristic of Myce-naean culture. Likewise, during the end of Mycenaean period, during the Post-Palatial period, the archaeological record is charact- erized by mortuary variation and experi-mentation, including the reuse of old tombs, cremation of the body, cessation of monumental tombs and decline in wealth. In addition, regional variation in mortuary practices has been noted throughout the Mycenaean period. For example, rock-hewn chamber tombs have been found (albeit in varying proportions) across Mycenaean Greece; however, beehive-shaped
94 The authors are sincerely grateful to Anastasia
Papathanasiou for providing unpublished data and to Sofia Voutsaki for providing thorough and constructive feedback on drafts of this paper.
built tholos tombs (pl. tholoi) were more common in regions, such as Messenia and the Argolid than in Boeotia and are virtually absent in the Dodecanese (Cavanagh and Mee 1998). Such variations can cause diffi-culty for the study of Mycenaean mortuary practices if they are not contextualized in time and space.
Another characteristic feature of Mycenaean burial practices is the reuse of graves and tombs. Primary burials are often placed on the floor or within sub-floor pits, and earlier burials are moved and redeposited at the tomb edges or in pits. Many Mycenaean tombs exhibit evidence of postmortem manipulation of human remains indicative of multi-stage mortuary practices. This practice created commingled assemblages of human remains that are often difficult to disentangle, date, and interpret. In addition, the burials display great variation e.g. both primary and secondary burials are found in pits, cists, or scattered/laid on the tomb floor. The postmortem manipulation charac-teristic of Mycenaean mortuary practices has been the topic of recent studies (Boyd 2014; Boyd 2015; Gallou 2005; Jones, 2018a; Moutafi 2015; Moutafi and Voutsaki 2016).
Despite the continued interest on Mycenae-an mortuary practices, the basic demogra-phic structure of the Mycenaean mortuary record has never been systematically eva-luated with statistical rigor and a systematic control of biases within the data. Therefore, in this study I will examine anew the pat-terns in the sex ratios and age-at-death in all published Mycenaean bioarchaeological data.
6.1.2 Past Assumptions
The long history of archaeological research on Mycenaean mortuary practices has pro-duced various interpretations of the sex/
06
122
CHAPTER 6
Bioarchaeology of the Mycenaean world:
engaging with past assumptions and new opportunities
Publication dataStatus: to be submitted
Authors: Olivia A. Jones1, Jason King2, Jane E. Buikstra3
1 Groningen Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen 2 Center for American Archaeology
3 School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University
Abstract
Scholarship of Mycenaean mortuary practices has primarily focused on social status and hierarchy, while actual age-at-death and biological sex of the deceased have received relatively little attention. When considered, traditional interpretations in Mycenaean mortuary studies equate certain grave goods and architecture with age-at-death or biological sex. Previous research has thus suggested that Mycenaean society placed an emphasis on adult men, with women and children of lesser importance. Nevertheless, this has not been evaluated with bioarchaeological evidence and statistical rigor. Fortunately, an increase in bioarchaeological research has produced a large amount of biological data. However, these studies are site-based and no scholarship has included all published Mycenaean bioarchaeological data within a synthetic study. This study brings together all available bioarchaeological data of Mycenaean human remains in order to examine patterns of age and sex within the burial record. Limitations within the data include: small and uneven sample sizes, certain sites and regions are over or under-represented, uneven recording of bioarchaeological data, and lack of archaeological context in bioarchaeological reports. This was mitigated by using complete data sets with systematic contextual data. The age and sex data were partitioned within the following categories: intramural/extra-mural, regional, tomb type, and time period. The sex results challenge past assumptions while the low numbers of infants aligns with previous reports. An over-representation of males in simple graves and during the Early Mycenaean period suggests an imbalance based on biological sex; however, female interments rise over time and across space with most samples possessing equal proportions of males and females. Low numbers of infants and children in extramural burials, such as chamber and tholos tombs and high numbers in intramural graves suggests that young individuals were more likely to be given intramural burial (though regional variation exists). The results suggest that age-at-death influenced burial inclusion throughout the Mycenaean period, while inclusion based on biological sex varied across time and space, but also across social categories.
Keywords
Mycenaean, mortuary practices, bioarchaeology, paleodemography, infant burials, chamber tombs
123
6.1 The Demography of Mycenaean Burials94
6.1.1 Mycenaean Mortuary Practices: Homogeneity and Diversity
Burial traditions in the Mycenaean world (Figure 1) generally exhibit homogeneity during the Palatial Period. During this height of the Mycenaean period (LH IIIA-B) burial customs typically included multiple inhumations in chamber tombs accom-panied by a fairly standardized set of grave goods (e.g. ceramic containers, often stirrup jars, jewelry, bronze tools/weapons despite the differences in wealth) (see Cavanagh and Mee 1998 for an overview). Despite this homogeneous tradition, burial practices change through time and vary across space during the roughly 500 years of Mycenaean cultural influence. Early in the Mycenaean period (MH III-LH I; see Table 1 for time period) people were experimenting with novel forms and practices as the single pit/cist graves of the previous Middle Helladic period gave way to larger built tombs: intermediate types such as the shaft graves and built tombs, and mostly chamber and tholos tombs characteristic of Myce-naean culture. Likewise, during the end of Mycenaean period, during the Post-Palatial period, the archaeological record is charact- erized by mortuary variation and experi-mentation, including the reuse of old tombs, cremation of the body, cessation of monumental tombs and decline in wealth. In addition, regional variation in mortuary practices has been noted throughout the Mycenaean period. For example, rock-hewn chamber tombs have been found (albeit in varying proportions) across Mycenaean Greece; however, beehive-shaped
94 The authors are sincerely grateful to Anastasia
Papathanasiou for providing unpublished data and to Sofia Voutsaki for providing thorough and constructive feedback on drafts of this paper.
built tholos tombs (pl. tholoi) were more common in regions, such as Messenia and the Argolid than in Boeotia and are virtually absent in the Dodecanese (Cavanagh and Mee 1998). Such variations can cause diffi-culty for the study of Mycenaean mortuary practices if they are not contextualized in time and space.
Another characteristic feature of Mycenaean burial practices is the reuse of graves and tombs. Primary burials are often placed on the floor or within sub-floor pits, and earlier burials are moved and redeposited at the tomb edges or in pits. Many Mycenaean tombs exhibit evidence of postmortem manipulation of human remains indicative of multi-stage mortuary practices. This practice created commingled assemblages of human remains that are often difficult to disentangle, date, and interpret. In addition, the burials display great variation e.g. both primary and secondary burials are found in pits, cists, or scattered/laid on the tomb floor. The postmortem manipulation charac-teristic of Mycenaean mortuary practices has been the topic of recent studies (Boyd 2014; Boyd 2015; Gallou 2005; Jones, 2018a; Moutafi 2015; Moutafi and Voutsaki 2016).
Despite the continued interest on Mycenae-an mortuary practices, the basic demogra-phic structure of the Mycenaean mortuary record has never been systematically eva-luated with statistical rigor and a systematic control of biases within the data. Therefore, in this study I will examine anew the pat-terns in the sex ratios and age-at-death in all published Mycenaean bioarchaeological data.
6.1.2 Past Assumptions
The long history of archaeological research on Mycenaean mortuary practices has pro-duced various interpretations of the sex/
124 gender95 and age-at-death for the people interred in these prehistoric tombs and graves. Studies of Mycenaean age and sex have drawn conclusions from various sources including grave goods, but also from iconography and the scanty information contained in the Linear B archives. While iconography and Linear B research may provide useful contextual information for interpreting gender and age norms (see Hitchcock and Nikolaidou 2013 for
95 This study recognizes that “gender” is a social
construct and that only biological sex can be interpreted from skeletal remains. Biological sex may be used as a proxy for gender when
discussing identity.
view), grave goods have dominated interpretations of demographic structure of Mycenaean burials. In addition, synthetic studies, which include demographic data from multiple sites and regions, are few in number.
Grave goods have provided considerable information for archaeologists attempting to reconstruct the social roles and identities of men and women. Past research has often focused on interpreting social status through studies of burial wealth with little attention paid to age and sex/gender iden-tities. The interpretation of the decedent’s status often led to certain grave goods (or lack thereof) being used to infer sex of the
Figure 1. Map of Greece indicating the sites included in this study (see Table).
125
Region Site with Map Number
Achaia 1. Mydalia Hill Petroto Tholos Achaia Klauss 2. Chalandritsa 3. Voudeni 4. Spaliareika 5. Kallithea 6. Portes
Argolid & Corinthia
7. Mycenae Sites Tomb 222 Grave Circle A Grave Circle B 8. Barnavos 9. Dendra 10. Deiras 11. Corinthia tholos 12. Lerna 13. Asine Attica 14. Athens Sites Kerameikos
Athenian Agora
15. Markopoulos 16. Glyka Nera 17. Thorikos
Central Greece
18. East Lokris Sites: Modi
Kokla Tragana Atalanti
19. Profitias Ilias, Kampotades 20. Antrona Tumuli
21. Lefkandi
Crete & Islands
22. Khania 23. Tourloti, Sitiea 24. Mochlos Limenaria 25. Psara
Elis 26. Agia Triada
Laconia 27. Ayios Vasilios (21) 28. Kouphovouno (16) 29. Sykia (3) 30. Ayios Stephanos (66) Messenia 31. Nichoria Sites: Tholos Little Circle Area I & II 32. Pylos Sites: Grave Circle Tholos III Tholos IV Kondou Tsakalis Kokkevis Thessaly 33. Spathes 34. Valestino, Magnesia 35. Kazanaki 36. Dhimini
06
124 gender95 and age-at-death for the people interred in these prehistoric tombs and graves. Studies of Mycenaean age and sex have drawn conclusions from various sources including grave goods, but also from iconography and the scanty information contained in the Linear B archives. While iconography and Linear B research may provide useful contextual information for interpreting gender and age norms (see Hitchcock and Nikolaidou 2013 for
95 This study recognizes that “gender” is a social
construct and that only biological sex can be interpreted from skeletal remains. Biological sex may be used as a proxy for gender when
discussing identity.
view), grave goods have dominated interpretations of demographic structure of Mycenaean burials. In addition, synthetic studies, which include demographic data from multiple sites and regions, are few in number.
Grave goods have provided considerable information for archaeologists attempting to reconstruct the social roles and identities of men and women. Past research has often focused on interpreting social status through studies of burial wealth with little attention paid to age and sex/gender iden-tities. The interpretation of the decedent’s status often led to certain grave goods (or lack thereof) being used to infer sex of the
Figure 1. Map of Greece indicating the sites included in this study (see Table).
125
Region Site with Map Number
Achaia 1. Mydalia Hill Petroto Tholos Achaia Klauss 2. Chalandritsa 3. Voudeni 4. Spaliareika 5. Kallithea 6. Portes
Argolid & Corinthia
7. Mycenae Sites Tomb 222 Grave Circle A Grave Circle B 8. Barnavos 9. Dendra 10. Deiras 11. Corinthia tholos 12. Lerna 13. Asine Attica 14. Athens Sites Kerameikos
Athenian Agora
15. Markopoulos 16. Glyka Nera 17. Thorikos
Central Greece
18. East Lokris Sites: Modi
Kokla Tragana Atalanti
19. Profitias Ilias, Kampotades 20. Antrona Tumuli
21. Lefkandi
Crete & Islands
22. Khania 23. Tourloti, Sitiea 24. Mochlos Limenaria 25. Psara
Elis 26. Agia Triada
Laconia 27. Ayios Vasilios (21) 28. Kouphovouno (16) 29. Sykia (3) 30. Ayios Stephanos (66) Messenia 31. Nichoria Sites: Tholos Little Circle Area I & II 32. Pylos Sites: Grave Circle Tholos III Tholos IV Kondou Tsakalis Kokkevis Thessaly 33. Spathes 34. Valestino, Magnesia 35. Kazanaki 36. Dhimini
126
Table 1. Chronology of Middle and Late Bronze Age (Middle and Late Helladic) for Mainland
Greece (modified following Shelmerdine 1997, Figure 1; Voutsaki et al. 2013, fig. 1).
Time Period Abbreviation Approximate Dates (B.C.) Mycenaean Period
Middle Helladic III MH III 1800-1700
Early Mycenaean Period*
Late Helladic I LH I 1700-1580
Late Helladic II LH II 1580-1390
Late Helladic IIIA LH IIIA 1390-1300
Palatial Period Late Helladic IIIB LH IIIB 1300-1190
Late Helladic IIIC LH IIIC 1190-1065 Post-Palatial Period
* Also known as the Pre-Palatial Period.
interred body (Cavanagh and Mee 1998). Undoubtedly, the most persistent of these speculations has been equating specific grave goods with biological sex. Weapons such as swords, knives, greaves, and hel-mets are often attributed to the quintes-sential “male warrior”, while spindle whorls and cosmetic equipment identify women’s burials. Blegen’s 1930 publication of the Prosymna cemetery reported that all jewelry belonged to women and children while weapons and metal tools were buried with men (1937, 253–54). In some cases, of course, the association is not valid, such as the males in Grave Circle B who had been buried with ornaments and tweezers (Mylo-nas 1973). Nonetheless, over 60 years later, this association is still tacitly accepted with-out having been systematically tested across a larger sample of data.
Similarly, grave goods have also been used as primary evidence for identifying the presence of infants and children in Myce-naean tombs and graves. Like with other archaeological research, the study of age identities in Mycenaean contexts has only recently included children (Rutter 2003; Gallou 2004; Voutsaki 2004; Lebegyev 2009a; Pomadere 2010; Gallou-Minopetrou 2015). Grave goods commonly thought to be
associated with child burials are feeding bottles and perhaps figurines (Gallou 2004; Smith and Dabney 2012). Infant graves are often identified based on the size of the grave and type of grave goods, frequently without any observable or observed bones (e.g. Smith and Dabney 2012). Recent work by Gallou (2004; Gallou-Minopetrou 2015) has emphasized the lack of Mycenaean infant studies, critiquing statements such as “child burials count for only 13% of the entire burials at Perati” far fewer than might be expected in a cemetery for which no bioarchaeological analysis has been carried out (2015, 57). Likewise, Lebegyev includes both anthropological and non-anthropol-ogical data in her search for age phases within Mycenaean child burials (Lebegyev 2009b).
To summarize, Mycenaean researchers have either relied on grave goods for estimating the age and sex of burials or have not addressed the question but continued to repeat past assumptions. In turn, this has prompted scholars to conclude that adult males had disproportionate access to burial forms, while women and children were more likely to be denied access to formal burial (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 56, 127– 28; Cavanagh 2008, 336). Rather than being
127 tested against bioarchaeological data, the use of grave goods and architectural forms to estimate age-at-death and sex/gender has not been questioned. Discussions of age and gender in Mycenaean research has almost exclusively relied on Linear B, icono-graphy, or grave goods; rarely has the actual demographic composition been discussed. Despite the asymmetry of age and gender in iconography and Linear B, males and fe-males may be equally present in Mycenaean burials. However, without rigorous testing against biological data, inferences about identity and social status remain weak and under-developed. Mycenaean bodies (hu-man remains) have and continue to be an under-appreciated source of information. 6.1.3 New Opportunities: An
Anthropological Revolution in Greece A crucial turning point in the study of age and sex in Mycenaean archaeology was the work of physical anthropologist, J. Lawrence Angel. Angel was a true pioneer in physical anthropology and forensic anthropology, with an important focus upon social biology as the study of contextualized life in the past (Buikstra 1990; Lagia, Papathanasiou, and Triantaphyllou 2014; Buikstra and Preve-dorou 2012). Angel’s interests in paleo-demography included concerns about popu-lation growth, age-related risk of anemias, and rigorous approaches to paleodemo-graphy (Angel, 1964, 1966, 1969). Angel’s social biology of ancient Greek peoples approached the past through the study of human remains, thus integrating human remains with the study of material culture and monuments (e.g. Angel 1971; Bisel and Angel 1985). However, Angel’s bioarchaeo-logical data were often relegated to the ap-pendix of site or excavation reports (e.g. Mylonas 1973) and rarely entered the dis-cussion of mortuary practices. In many ways, Angel’s skeletal analyses represent a missed opportunity by archaeologists (until
recently) for the reconstruction of Myce-naean mortuary practices.
J. Lawrence Angel engaged in other archae-ological and forensic work and therefore was only intermittently active in Greece. There were no direct successors of his Greek research legacy, leaving a chronolo-gical gap between Angel and the current generations of bioarchaeologists. Regard-less, Angel’s revolutionary research ushered in a new era of anthropological study in Greece. Bioarchaeological research, here defined as a problem-oriented, contextually informed study of the past frequently combining methods drawn from human osteology and archaeology (Buikstra and Beck 2006), has increased markedly in Greek (including Mycenaean) research over the last 15 years. Although bioarchae-ological research in Greece does not have a long history (Buikstra and Lagia 2009; Lagia, Papathanasiou, and Triantaphyllou 2014), there has now been a significant in-crease in published bioarchaeological re-ports of Mycenaean contexts. Few studies have focused on the Mycenaean population structure and no study attempted a regional synthesis, let alone a supra-regional study96. Alden’s reconstruction of the Mycenaean population of the Argolid is the most inclusive study to date of burial data; however, this study focused upon large scale fluctuations rather than small scale at-tributes, such as ratios of males and females or adults and children, based on inaccurate and uneven data (Alden 1981).
Previous estimates of the sex ratio in Myce-naean tombs have suggested that males are more common, making up 63%, while females are less represented comprising
96 Two noteworthy exceptions are the Middle
Helladic Argolid Project, under the direction of Sofia Voutsaki and currently being published, and the recent publication of Achaian
06
126
Table 1. Chronology of Middle and Late Bronze Age (Middle and Late Helladic) for Mainland
Greece (modified following Shelmerdine 1997, Figure 1; Voutsaki et al. 2013, fig. 1).
Time Period Abbreviation Approximate Dates (B.C.) Mycenaean Period
Middle Helladic III MH III 1800-1700
Early Mycenaean Period*
Late Helladic I LH I 1700-1580
Late Helladic II LH II 1580-1390
Late Helladic IIIA LH IIIA 1390-1300
Palatial Period Late Helladic IIIB LH IIIB 1300-1190
Late Helladic IIIC LH IIIC 1190-1065 Post-Palatial Period
* Also known as the Pre-Palatial Period.
interred body (Cavanagh and Mee 1998). Undoubtedly, the most persistent of these speculations has been equating specific grave goods with biological sex. Weapons such as swords, knives, greaves, and hel-mets are often attributed to the quintes-sential “male warrior”, while spindle whorls and cosmetic equipment identify women’s burials. Blegen’s 1930 publication of the Prosymna cemetery reported that all jewelry belonged to women and children while weapons and metal tools were buried with men (1937, 253–54). In some cases, of course, the association is not valid, such as the males in Grave Circle B who had been buried with ornaments and tweezers (Mylo-nas 1973). Nonetheless, over 60 years later, this association is still tacitly accepted with-out having been systematically tested across a larger sample of data.
Similarly, grave goods have also been used as primary evidence for identifying the presence of infants and children in Myce-naean tombs and graves. Like with other archaeological research, the study of age identities in Mycenaean contexts has only recently included children (Rutter 2003; Gallou 2004; Voutsaki 2004; Lebegyev 2009a; Pomadere 2010; Gallou-Minopetrou 2015). Grave goods commonly thought to be
associated with child burials are feeding bottles and perhaps figurines (Gallou 2004; Smith and Dabney 2012). Infant graves are often identified based on the size of the grave and type of grave goods, frequently without any observable or observed bones (e.g. Smith and Dabney 2012). Recent work by Gallou (2004; Gallou-Minopetrou 2015) has emphasized the lack of Mycenaean infant studies, critiquing statements such as “child burials count for only 13% of the entire burials at Perati” far fewer than might be expected in a cemetery for which no bioarchaeological analysis has been carried out (2015, 57). Likewise, Lebegyev includes both anthropological and non-anthropol-ogical data in her search for age phases within Mycenaean child burials (Lebegyev 2009b).
To summarize, Mycenaean researchers have either relied on grave goods for estimating the age and sex of burials or have not addressed the question but continued to repeat past assumptions. In turn, this has prompted scholars to conclude that adult males had disproportionate access to burial forms, while women and children were more likely to be denied access to formal burial (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 56, 127– 28; Cavanagh 2008, 336). Rather than being
127 tested against bioarchaeological data, the use of grave goods and architectural forms to estimate age-at-death and sex/gender has not been questioned. Discussions of age and gender in Mycenaean research has almost exclusively relied on Linear B, icono-graphy, or grave goods; rarely has the actual demographic composition been discussed. Despite the asymmetry of age and gender in iconography and Linear B, males and fe-males may be equally present in Mycenaean burials. However, without rigorous testing against biological data, inferences about identity and social status remain weak and under-developed. Mycenaean bodies (hu-man remains) have and continue to be an under-appreciated source of information. 6.1.3 New Opportunities: An
Anthropological Revolution in Greece A crucial turning point in the study of age and sex in Mycenaean archaeology was the work of physical anthropologist, J. Lawrence Angel. Angel was a true pioneer in physical anthropology and forensic anthropology, with an important focus upon social biology as the study of contextualized life in the past (Buikstra 1990; Lagia, Papathanasiou, and Triantaphyllou 2014; Buikstra and Preve-dorou 2012). Angel’s interests in paleo-demography included concerns about popu-lation growth, age-related risk of anemias, and rigorous approaches to paleodemo-graphy (Angel, 1964, 1966, 1969). Angel’s social biology of ancient Greek peoples approached the past through the study of human remains, thus integrating human remains with the study of material culture and monuments (e.g. Angel 1971; Bisel and Angel 1985). However, Angel’s bioarchaeo-logical data were often relegated to the ap-pendix of site or excavation reports (e.g. Mylonas 1973) and rarely entered the dis-cussion of mortuary practices. In many ways, Angel’s skeletal analyses represent a missed opportunity by archaeologists (until
recently) for the reconstruction of Myce-naean mortuary practices.
J. Lawrence Angel engaged in other archae-ological and forensic work and therefore was only intermittently active in Greece. There were no direct successors of his Greek research legacy, leaving a chronolo-gical gap between Angel and the current generations of bioarchaeologists. Regard-less, Angel’s revolutionary research ushered in a new era of anthropological study in Greece. Bioarchaeological research, here defined as a problem-oriented, contextually informed study of the past frequently combining methods drawn from human osteology and archaeology (Buikstra and Beck 2006), has increased markedly in Greek (including Mycenaean) research over the last 15 years. Although bioarchae-ological research in Greece does not have a long history (Buikstra and Lagia 2009; Lagia, Papathanasiou, and Triantaphyllou 2014), there has now been a significant in-crease in published bioarchaeological re-ports of Mycenaean contexts. Few studies have focused on the Mycenaean population structure and no study attempted a regional synthesis, let alone a supra-regional study96. Alden’s reconstruction of the Mycenaean population of the Argolid is the most inclusive study to date of burial data; however, this study focused upon large scale fluctuations rather than small scale at-tributes, such as ratios of males and females or adults and children, based on inaccurate and uneven data (Alden 1981).
Previous estimates of the sex ratio in Myce-naean tombs have suggested that males are more common, making up 63%, while females are less represented comprising
96 Two noteworthy exceptions are the Middle
Helladic Argolid Project, under the direction of Sofia Voutsaki and currently being published, and the recent publication of Achaian
128 37% of the skeletal sample (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 127). This conclusion is based on a small sample of skeletal material analyzed by an anthropologist in the mid-1990s. It is not only an out of date ratio, but is also biased according to the sample, which was primarily chamber tombs and elite tombs in the Argolid and Messenia97 (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 127). However, recent Myce-naean bioarchaeological site-based studies have produced varied sex ratios. At Ayios Vasilios in Laconia, a sample of two graves revealed an equal number of male and females (13:13) (Voutsaki and Moutafi 2016, Table 3), while at Kallithea in Achaia, a greater number of females has been reported (10:15) (Graff 2011). The Shaft Graves at Mycenae include mostly males (Angel 1973; Dickinson et al. 2012) as do the burials from Lerna and Asine (Angel 1971). However, more broadly based bioarchaeological studies of the Pylos area have shown near equal numbers of male and females (Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009). These data show that the ratio of males to females may differ based on the sample; however, a synthesis of sex data may highlight important variations. In contrast to the sex data, there is a general consensus among bioarchaeologists and archaeologists that subadults, especially in-fants, are under-represented in Mycenaean burials. All of the published Mycenaean cemeteries have much lower ratios of sub-adults than sub-adults, a finding that is in con-trast to the high infant mortality found in pre-industrial burial samples (e.g Weiss 1973). This has prompted some researchers to suggest that the low numbers of children in Mycenaean burials may be due to
97 More specifically, Cavanagh and Mee (1998,
127) state their percentages are based on the following sites: Argos, Asine, Athens, Dendra, Lerna, the Pylos tholoi, and the Grave Circles at Mycenae.
rential burial practices (Papathanasiou et. al.2012). In contrast, Angel has suggested that the lack of children in Greek skeletal assemblages is often a result of their more fragile remains or the lack of anthropo-logists present during excavations (Angel 1969; Angel 1971).
6.1.4 Complications: Biases and Limitations The general nature of Mycenaean burial re-search presents two major challenges for demographic reconstructions. The first is that Mycenaean burial programs exhibit considerable variation that belies their apparent homogeneity across the 500-year long history as the Mycenaean culture spread from Crete in the south to Thes-saly/Olympos in the Central Greece. At the same time, this variation is possibly ob-scured by the very nature of Mycenaean data. With its relatively abundant archae-ological record, much attention has been given to the (relatively) homogeneous koine of the Palatial Period (IIIA-B). Research focuses rarely on the transitional Early Mycenaean period and the process of Mycenaeanization, or to the Post-Palatial period, which is characterized by regional differences and uneven data. Thus, discus-sions of Mycenaean mortuary practices most often refer to the Palatial Period by default. Secondly, post-mortem manipul-ation is characteristic of Mycenaean mor-tuary practices. This can create assemblages of human remains that are commingled and therefore cannot easily be associated with a dateable artifact. Also, some sites are used over long periods of time, but the publications do not clarify which tombs, graves, or burials belong to particular time periods. In addition, there are few radio-carbon dated Mycenaean tombs, but a re-cent study (Jones et al. 2018) has shown the value in radiocarbon dating multiple levels in a reused tholos tomb. These challenges make reconstructing change through time difficult. Therefore, when possible, as in the
129 case of Petroto, and also from a chamber tomb in the Athenian Agora (Smith 1998), more precise divisions of dated burials have been incorporated into this chronology. Another issue is varying data quality, i.e. changing methodologies over time. For ex-ample, Angel used methods, such as parturi-tion pits on the pubic symphysis to estimate the number of births for females (Angel 1969), which are today regarded as inherently flawed. Additionally, in past skeletal studies it was customary to estimate sex for sub-adults. However, we now know that sub-adult remains do not possess the full sexual dimorphism of adults, so these data have been omitted from the current study. Fortunately, since the publication of “Standards” in 1994 (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994), data have been collected with comparable methods; the older studies represent a minority among those included here.
Mycenaean bioarchaeological data also vary in detail. The vast majority of bio-archaeological research in Greece has been site-based studies wherein data are placed in short appendices of excavation reports or only preliminarily published in Greek. Authors of these short reports often simply state total numbers of adults, juveniles or subadults without detailed age information or detailing the methods used for biological sex and age estimation. Excavation reports of a single site sometimes include a chapter on the study of the human remains but comparative interpretations of bioarchae-ological data are lacking. In addition, not all regions, tomb types, or periods are repre-sented equally in the data. The history of Mycenaean research favors the Argolid and Messenia. As a consequence, this study in-cludes data from sites spanning the full My-cenaean period (MH III-LH IIIC; approxi-mately 1750-1100 BC) and from all over the Mycenaean world (see Figure 1 and Table 3). All sites with bioarchaeological data
were included in order to produce a com-prehensive and contemporary demography of Mycenaean mortuary practices.
A final problem is that archaeological con-text are often published separately from bioarchaeological data. Some reports in-clude detailed archaeological information such as the dating of each burial, while others have only dated the whole tomb or site. This does not encourage bioarchae-ologists who wish to draw upon published data for more inclusive, comparative studies. These problematic reports are a reminder that bioarchaeological research is still an unrealized opportunity within much of Greek archaeology. For this study, only well-described data were selected for com-parative purposes. By focusing on several attributes, such as intramural or extramural location, tomb type, region, and time period, patterns within the data are contextualized properly.
Thus, current studies have not fully engaged with bioarchaeological data in studies of Mycenaean age and sex. Widely accepted “truths” about the overrepresentation of males and lack of infants and children in Mycenaean graves should be evaluated against the bioarchaeological evidence. In addition, site-based data are even more powerful when subjected to regional syn-theses (Jones, 2018b). To illustrate the power of comparative bioarchaeological study, this article presents a reconstruction of Mycen-aean burial demography.
The overall aim of this article is to present a general picture of bioarchaeological data in order to reconstruct patterns of age and sex in Mycenaean mortuary practices across diachronic changes, tomb types, and re-gions. More specifically, statistical analyses of samples of bioarchaeological data are employed to evaluate proportions of infants, children, adolescents, adults, and males or females against variables such as tomb type,
06
128 37% of the skeletal sample (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 127). This conclusion is based on a small sample of skeletal material analyzed by an anthropologist in the mid-1990s. It is not only an out of date ratio, but is also biased according to the sample, which was primarily chamber tombs and elite tombs in the Argolid and Messenia97 (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 127). However, recent Myce-naean bioarchaeological site-based studies have produced varied sex ratios. At Ayios Vasilios in Laconia, a sample of two graves revealed an equal number of male and females (13:13) (Voutsaki and Moutafi 2016, Table 3), while at Kallithea in Achaia, a greater number of females has been reported (10:15) (Graff 2011). The Shaft Graves at Mycenae include mostly males (Angel 1973; Dickinson et al. 2012) as do the burials from Lerna and Asine (Angel 1971). However, more broadly based bioarchaeological studies of the Pylos area have shown near equal numbers of male and females (Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009). These data show that the ratio of males to females may differ based on the sample; however, a synthesis of sex data may highlight important variations. In contrast to the sex data, there is a general consensus among bioarchaeologists and archaeologists that subadults, especially in-fants, are under-represented in Mycenaean burials. All of the published Mycenaean cemeteries have much lower ratios of sub-adults than sub-adults, a finding that is in con-trast to the high infant mortality found in pre-industrial burial samples (e.g Weiss 1973). This has prompted some researchers to suggest that the low numbers of children in Mycenaean burials may be due to
97 More specifically, Cavanagh and Mee (1998,
127) state their percentages are based on the following sites: Argos, Asine, Athens, Dendra, Lerna, the Pylos tholoi, and the Grave Circles at Mycenae.
rential burial practices (Papathanasiou et. al.2012). In contrast, Angel has suggested that the lack of children in Greek skeletal assemblages is often a result of their more fragile remains or the lack of anthropo-logists present during excavations (Angel 1969; Angel 1971).
6.1.4 Complications: Biases and Limitations The general nature of Mycenaean burial re-search presents two major challenges for demographic reconstructions. The first is that Mycenaean burial programs exhibit considerable variation that belies their apparent homogeneity across the 500-year long history as the Mycenaean culture spread from Crete in the south to Thes-saly/Olympos in the Central Greece. At the same time, this variation is possibly ob-scured by the very nature of Mycenaean data. With its relatively abundant archae-ological record, much attention has been given to the (relatively) homogeneous koine of the Palatial Period (IIIA-B). Research focuses rarely on the transitional Early Mycenaean period and the process of Mycenaeanization, or to the Post-Palatial period, which is characterized by regional differences and uneven data. Thus, discus-sions of Mycenaean mortuary practices most often refer to the Palatial Period by default. Secondly, post-mortem manipul-ation is characteristic of Mycenaean mor-tuary practices. This can create assemblages of human remains that are commingled and therefore cannot easily be associated with a dateable artifact. Also, some sites are used over long periods of time, but the publications do not clarify which tombs, graves, or burials belong to particular time periods. In addition, there are few radio-carbon dated Mycenaean tombs, but a re-cent study (Jones et al. 2018) has shown the value in radiocarbon dating multiple levels in a reused tholos tomb. These challenges make reconstructing change through time difficult. Therefore, when possible, as in the
129 case of Petroto, and also from a chamber tomb in the Athenian Agora (Smith 1998), more precise divisions of dated burials have been incorporated into this chronology. Another issue is varying data quality, i.e. changing methodologies over time. For ex-ample, Angel used methods, such as parturi-tion pits on the pubic symphysis to estimate the number of births for females (Angel 1969), which are today regarded as inherently flawed. Additionally, in past skeletal studies it was customary to estimate sex for sub-adults. However, we now know that sub-adult remains do not possess the full sexual dimorphism of adults, so these data have been omitted from the current study. Fortunately, since the publication of “Standards” in 1994 (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994), data have been collected with comparable methods; the older studies represent a minority among those included here.
Mycenaean bioarchaeological data also vary in detail. The vast majority of bio-archaeological research in Greece has been site-based studies wherein data are placed in short appendices of excavation reports or only preliminarily published in Greek. Authors of these short reports often simply state total numbers of adults, juveniles or subadults without detailed age information or detailing the methods used for biological sex and age estimation. Excavation reports of a single site sometimes include a chapter on the study of the human remains but comparative interpretations of bioarchae-ological data are lacking. In addition, not all regions, tomb types, or periods are repre-sented equally in the data. The history of Mycenaean research favors the Argolid and Messenia. As a consequence, this study in-cludes data from sites spanning the full My-cenaean period (MH III-LH IIIC; approxi-mately 1750-1100 BC) and from all over the Mycenaean world (see Figure 1 and Table 3). All sites with bioarchaeological data
were included in order to produce a com-prehensive and contemporary demography of Mycenaean mortuary practices.
A final problem is that archaeological con-text are often published separately from bioarchaeological data. Some reports in-clude detailed archaeological information such as the dating of each burial, while others have only dated the whole tomb or site. This does not encourage bioarchae-ologists who wish to draw upon published data for more inclusive, comparative studies. These problematic reports are a reminder that bioarchaeological research is still an unrealized opportunity within much of Greek archaeology. For this study, only well-described data were selected for com-parative purposes. By focusing on several attributes, such as intramural or extramural location, tomb type, region, and time period, patterns within the data are contextualized properly.
Thus, current studies have not fully engaged with bioarchaeological data in studies of Mycenaean age and sex. Widely accepted “truths” about the overrepresentation of males and lack of infants and children in Mycenaean graves should be evaluated against the bioarchaeological evidence. In addition, site-based data are even more powerful when subjected to regional syn-theses (Jones, 2018b). To illustrate the power of comparative bioarchaeological study, this article presents a reconstruction of Mycen-aean burial demography.
The overall aim of this article is to present a general picture of bioarchaeological data in order to reconstruct patterns of age and sex in Mycenaean mortuary practices across diachronic changes, tomb types, and re-gions. More specifically, statistical analyses of samples of bioarchaeological data are employed to evaluate proportions of infants, children, adolescents, adults, and males or females against variables such as tomb type,
130 burial location (intramural vs. extramural), region, and time period.
6.2 Materials: The Sample Data
The sample of sites presented in Table 3 was collected from 34 articles, reports, book chapters, theses, etc., and some data were generously given to the author prior to their publication98. The sample selected for study contains 274 extramural tombs and roughly 242 intramural graves included in this study (Table 4). In addition, the sample is divided by tomb type (Table 5): ten tholoi (of an estimated 128, or 8%) (Dirlik 2012), approximately 265 chamber tombs (of an estimated 3,000, or 9%) (Cavanagh and Mee 1998; Cavanagh 2008, 327), and approxima-tely 250 simple graves (of an estimated 1200, or 20%) (Lewartowski 2000). Since many of the tombs included in the estimated totals were excavated at a time when retaining human remains was not a priority, these totals do not accurately represent the number of tombs with human remains data available for study. Simple graves are a rare research topic (apart from the Shaft Graves) due to their often complex intramural stratigraphy, problematic dating and poor quality of grave goods (if any), (Lewar-towski 2000). Despite these caveats, the sample used here represents roughly 12% of the total number of known Mycenaean tombs and graves. In addition to tomb type, the data are also separated by location (intramural versus extramural), region, and time period.
Also, the data are separated by region as shown in Figure 1. For a better overview of age and sex within the Mycenaean world, it is more accurate to analyze the core regions (Argolid, Attica, Central Greece, Corinthia, Laconia, Messenia, and Crete) separate from the so-called ‘peripheral’ regions (Achaia,
98 Dr. Anastasia Papathanasiou kindly provided
unpublished data for the Antrona tumuli.
Elis, and Thessaly). The data have been se-parated into the regional units based primarily on Galaty and Parkinson’s map (2007, Figure 1) of the Mycenaean “hypo-thetical state boundaries”. Some adaptions include combining the Argolid with Corin-thia since only one tholos from CorinCorin-thia had available data for the region, and combining the sites within Central Greece (including Lefkandi99) again due to a small sample. Separating the sample into “core” and “periphery” will allow for a wider look at differences between these core and peripheral units100.
Finally, the data are separated by time pe-riod as shown in Table 6. Evaluating chan-ges of the biological sex and achan-ges will high-light patterns of burial exclusion through time. However, it should be noted that due to the difficulty of dating individual burials in a multiple tomb, the time period sample is much smaller than the location, tomb type, and regional samples.
In addition, although the sample is essen-tially random, the effects of excavation, re-search bias, and regional Mycenaean patt-erns are important. For example, although Achaia is a Mycenaean periphery with a more recent excavation history, it is emer-ging as a major research area due to the willingness of excavators to release skeletal material for study by bioarchaeologists. Similarly, the long excavation history in par- ticular regions such, as the Argolid and Messenia, have created a large dataset com-pared to more seldom investigated regions such as Elis or Thessaly. Some regions in the
99 See Lemos 2006 who states that Lefkandi was
under the control of Thebes in the Mycenaean period.
100 The authors are aware that the concepts of
core and periphery in the Mycenaean period have recently come under scrutiny (e.g Nakassis forthcoming); however, they are used here for synthesizing supraregional data and assessing broad patterns.
131 Mycenaean world possess different archae-ological patterns. The region of Messenia has a tradition of tholoi being more common and sometimes smaller, and in other regions tholoi are rare or absent (see Cavanagh and Mee 1998 for an overview of tomb types among regions). These biases and ensuing variation affect the sample and should be considered when interpreting Mycenaean mortuary data.
Despite the caveats, the data are diverse and representative. The sample reflects the general number of Mycenaean tombs since chamber tombs are the most common tomb type, with the simple graves being less common, and tholoi are the rarest (Cava-nagh and Mee 1998). In addition, the data span the entire Mycenaean period from MH III-LH IIIC, comprise of human remains from all tomb types (tholoi, chamber tombs and simple graves) and come from contexts all over the Mycenaean world.
6.3 Methods
6.3.1 Data Consolidation
The consolidation of bioarchaeological data is the primary goal of this article; therefore, I focused on including published data. Since
much Mycenaean bioarchaeological re-search has been recent, data recording has been somewhat standardized. The Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) is a standard estimation in all bioarchaeological research and involves estimating the number of individuals in a skeletal assemblage (Buik-stra and Ubelaker 1994). Estimations of age and sex in the literature were primarily conducted using established methods (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Biological sex was estimated using morphological traits of the cranial and pelvic bones and scored on a five-point scale ranging from male, probable male, ambiguous, probably female, and female (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Estimation of subadult age also ad-heres to internationally accepted methods that are based on epiphyseal fusion and dental eruption (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Lastly, demographic studies typically sort age data into ranges as such, infants under 1 year, children aged 1-4 years, and then incremental ranges every five years (5-9, 10-14, and so on) (Weiss 1973, 9).
Less than perfect bioarchaeological data for the Mycenaean period meant that a few preliminary publications did not include detailed age categories. In addition, the goal
Table 2. The expected demographic ranges and the reference populations. In addition, the
u-shaped curve in the background shows how a demographically normal population exhibits high infant mortality rates, low rates for children and adolescents, and high rates for adults.
Range Infants Children Adolescents Adults Reference Population
Low 20% 12% 21% 47% Classical Athens (MNI: 737)*
Middle 25% 14% 26% 35% Macedonia Neolithic and Çatalhüyük (MNI: 2142)**
High 40% 17% 16% 27% Pecos Pueblo (MNI: 2754)***
* Based on Angel 1969; adapted from Table A.43 in Weiss 1973, 106. ** Based on Angel 1969; adapted from Table A.23 and A.24 in Weiss 1973, 96. *** Based on Kidder 1958; adapted from Table A.42 in Weiss 1973, 105.
06
130 burial location (intramural vs. extramural), region, and time period.
6.2 Materials: The Sample Data
The sample of sites presented in Table 3 was collected from 34 articles, reports, book chapters, theses, etc., and some data were generously given to the author prior to their publication98. The sample selected for study contains 274 extramural tombs and roughly 242 intramural graves included in this study (Table 4). In addition, the sample is divided by tomb type (Table 5): ten tholoi (of an estimated 128, or 8%) (Dirlik 2012), approximately 265 chamber tombs (of an estimated 3,000, or 9%) (Cavanagh and Mee 1998; Cavanagh 2008, 327), and approxima-tely 250 simple graves (of an estimated 1200, or 20%) (Lewartowski 2000). Since many of the tombs included in the estimated totals were excavated at a time when retaining human remains was not a priority, these totals do not accurately represent the number of tombs with human remains data available for study. Simple graves are a rare research topic (apart from the Shaft Graves) due to their often complex intramural stratigraphy, problematic dating and poor quality of grave goods (if any), (Lewar-towski 2000). Despite these caveats, the sample used here represents roughly 12% of the total number of known Mycenaean tombs and graves. In addition to tomb type, the data are also separated by location (intramural versus extramural), region, and time period.
Also, the data are separated by region as shown in Figure 1. For a better overview of age and sex within the Mycenaean world, it is more accurate to analyze the core regions (Argolid, Attica, Central Greece, Corinthia, Laconia, Messenia, and Crete) separate from the so-called ‘peripheral’ regions (Achaia,
98 Dr. Anastasia Papathanasiou kindly provided
unpublished data for the Antrona tumuli.
Elis, and Thessaly). The data have been se-parated into the regional units based primarily on Galaty and Parkinson’s map (2007, Figure 1) of the Mycenaean “hypo-thetical state boundaries”. Some adaptions include combining the Argolid with Corin-thia since only one tholos from CorinCorin-thia had available data for the region, and combining the sites within Central Greece (including Lefkandi99) again due to a small sample. Separating the sample into “core” and “periphery” will allow for a wider look at differences between these core and peripheral units100.
Finally, the data are separated by time pe-riod as shown in Table 6. Evaluating chan-ges of the biological sex and achan-ges will high-light patterns of burial exclusion through time. However, it should be noted that due to the difficulty of dating individual burials in a multiple tomb, the time period sample is much smaller than the location, tomb type, and regional samples.
In addition, although the sample is essen-tially random, the effects of excavation, re-search bias, and regional Mycenaean patt-erns are important. For example, although Achaia is a Mycenaean periphery with a more recent excavation history, it is emer-ging as a major research area due to the willingness of excavators to release skeletal material for study by bioarchaeologists. Similarly, the long excavation history in par- ticular regions such, as the Argolid and Messenia, have created a large dataset com-pared to more seldom investigated regions such as Elis or Thessaly. Some regions in the
99 See Lemos 2006 who states that Lefkandi was
under the control of Thebes in the Mycenaean period.
100 The authors are aware that the concepts of
core and periphery in the Mycenaean period have recently come under scrutiny (e.g Nakassis forthcoming); however, they are used here for synthesizing supraregional data and assessing broad patterns.
131 Mycenaean world possess different archae-ological patterns. The region of Messenia has a tradition of tholoi being more common and sometimes smaller, and in other regions tholoi are rare or absent (see Cavanagh and Mee 1998 for an overview of tomb types among regions). These biases and ensuing variation affect the sample and should be considered when interpreting Mycenaean mortuary data.
Despite the caveats, the data are diverse and representative. The sample reflects the general number of Mycenaean tombs since chamber tombs are the most common tomb type, with the simple graves being less common, and tholoi are the rarest (Cava-nagh and Mee 1998). In addition, the data span the entire Mycenaean period from MH III-LH IIIC, comprise of human remains from all tomb types (tholoi, chamber tombs and simple graves) and come from contexts all over the Mycenaean world.
6.3 Methods
6.3.1 Data Consolidation
The consolidation of bioarchaeological data is the primary goal of this article; therefore, I focused on including published data. Since
much Mycenaean bioarchaeological re-search has been recent, data recording has been somewhat standardized. The Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) is a standard estimation in all bioarchaeological research and involves estimating the number of individuals in a skeletal assemblage (Buik-stra and Ubelaker 1994). Estimations of age and sex in the literature were primarily conducted using established methods (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Biological sex was estimated using morphological traits of the cranial and pelvic bones and scored on a five-point scale ranging from male, probable male, ambiguous, probably female, and female (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Estimation of subadult age also ad-heres to internationally accepted methods that are based on epiphyseal fusion and dental eruption (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Lastly, demographic studies typically sort age data into ranges as such, infants under 1 year, children aged 1-4 years, and then incremental ranges every five years (5-9, 10-14, and so on) (Weiss 1973, 9).
Less than perfect bioarchaeological data for the Mycenaean period meant that a few preliminary publications did not include detailed age categories. In addition, the goal
Table 2. The expected demographic ranges and the reference populations. In addition, the
u-shaped curve in the background shows how a demographically normal population exhibits high infant mortality rates, low rates for children and adolescents, and high rates for adults.
Range Infants Children Adolescents Adults Reference Population
Low 20% 12% 21% 47% Classical Athens (MNI: 737)*
Middle 25% 14% 26% 35% Macedonia Neolithic and Çatalhüyük (MNI: 2142)**
High 40% 17% 16% 27% Pecos Pueblo (MNI: 2754)***
* Based on Angel 1969; adapted from Table A.43 in Weiss 1973, 106. ** Based on Angel 1969; adapted from Table A.23 and A.24 in Weiss 1973, 96. *** Based on Kidder 1958; adapted from Table A.42 in Weiss 1973, 105.
132 was to explore general patterns within the data and therefore maximizing data from every site was a priority. Therefore general categories of age-at-death and sex (per Weiss 1973, 69) were recorded in order to provide an overall picture of Mycenaean burial practices. Therefore, the data was smoothed to mitigate the effect of varying methods and contextual information. Probable biological sex categories were combined to form the binary male or female categories. The age-at-death categories used here are: Infant (0-2), Child (3-6), Adolescent (6-20), and adult (20+). These categories were chosen for two reasons. First, subdividing subadult age into defined ranges is possible since juvenile growth is biologically more easily assessedthan that of adults (Bocquet-Appel and Masset 1982, 324), and secondly, the classification will aid in reconstructing Mycenaean age categories as hypothesized in a recent study of Mycenaean childhood (Lebegyev 2009b). Lastly, the manner in which intramural (within the settlement) burials should be defined is a debated issue (Milka 2010, Sarri 2016). Although graves have been found in many Mycenaean settlements, their strati-graphy and dating are often unclear. At some sites the line separating intramural from extramural contexts is blurred. Some of the graves may have been placed in disused, isolated portions of the settlement, as at the edges of the settled area at Mycenae (Pakenham-Walsh and Wace 1955; Alden 2000). Likewise, some graves may have been originally external to the settlement but became incorporated, as at Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Thus, a grave that was classified as intramural may, in
fact, be in a portion of the settlement that was disused at the time of burial. In this article, for the sake of simplicity and in order to view the data from a macroscopic perspective, any burial originally placed within a settlement was categorized as intramural.
6.3.2 Demographic Expectations
In order to evaluate if Mycenaean demogra-phy exhibits normal or skewed ratios of adults, subadults, and infants, and males and females, demographic expectations must first be outlined in normal popu-lations. As demonstrated by Weiss (1973), Morris (1987), and more recently by Guy, Masset, and Baud (1997, Table 2), high infant mortality should produce cemeteries composed of approximately 20-50% infants. Subadults (children and adolescents) typically have the lowest mortality rate and should make up the least represented group, at approximately 10-25% of the total (Weiss 1973). Lastly, adults should com-prise approximately 15-40% of the mor-tality total (Weiss 1973). Thus, ages at death tend to follow a U-shape when plotted on a graph, with high infant numbers, low sub-adult numbers, and high numbers again for the adult category (Wood et al. 2002, 137). Although accurate, these demographic ranges of infants, sub-adults, and adults are wide and imprecise. Therefore, in order to compare observed versus expected age frequencies across these ranges, this study uses three ranges of expected demographic values in order to test which group best matches the Mycenaean data. The ranges and their associated values used to construct them are outlined in Table 2.
133
Table 3. The site and corresponding references used in this study.
Site Reference
Achaia Klauss Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009a Agia Triada, Elis Petroutsa et al. 2002
Ayia Sotira Smith et al. 2017
Antrona Unpublished data from Papathanasiou
Archontiki Agelarakis 1987
Asine Angel 1982
Atalanti Iezzi 2005
Athenian Agora Smith 1998
Ayios Stephanos Duhig 2008
Ayios Vasilios Moutafi and Voutsaki 2016
Nichoria Bisel 1992
Barnavos Wright et al. 2008
Chalandritsa Jones 2017; Jones 2018a,b
Corinthia tholos Kassimi 2015
Dendra Gejvall 1977
Deiras, Argos Charles 1963; Philippa-Touchais and Papadimitriou 2015
Dhimini Unpublished data from Papathanasiou
Glyka Nera Papathanasiou et al in press Grave Circle A Papazoglou-Manioudaki et al. 2010
Grave Circle B Angel 1973
Kallithea Graff 2011
Kazanaki Papathanasiou 2009
Kerameikos Angel 1945
Khania, Crete Hallager and McGeorge 1992
Kokla Iezzi 2005
Kouphovouno Lagia and Cavanagh 2010
Lefkandi Musgrave and Popham 1991
Lerna Angel 1971
Markopoulos Angel 1945)
Mochlos Limenaria Triantaphyllou 2011
Modi Iezzi 2005
Mycenae Chamber Tomb 222 Angel 1945 Mycenae Prehistoric Cemetery Angel 1971 Nichoria Area I & II Bisel 1992 Nichoria Little Circle Bisel 1992
Petroto Jones 2018a,b
Portes Jones 2018a,b
Profitias Ilias, Kampotades Karantzali and McGeorge 2013
Pylos, Tsakalis Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009 Pylos, Kondou Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009 Pylos, Kokkevis Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009 Pylos Grace Circle (Tholos V) Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009 Pylos Tholos IV Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009 Pylos tholos III Schepartz, Miller-Antonio, and Murphy 2009
Spaliareika Papathanasiou 2005
Spathes Triantaphyllou 2001
Sykia, Laconia Papathanasiou 2002
Thorikos Angel 1945
Tragana Iezzi 2005
Tourloti, Sitiea Paschalidis and McGeorge 2009b Valestino, Magnesia Papathanasiou et al. 2012
