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.
26
CHAPTER 2
Mortuary traditions in Achaia:
adoption and adaptation
Publication dataStatus: to be submitted Author: Olivia A. Jones
Abstract
Mycenaean mortuary practices, such as grave goods and monumental tomb architecture, are known to have varied throughout the Mycenaean world. While the tombs and mortuary practices at palatial sites such as Mycenae and Pylos have been the subject of much research, the variations within mortuary practices in peripheral regions are rarely explored.
In this chapter, I focus on the adoption and regional adaptation of mortuary practices in the Mycenaean region of Achaia. Changes in the burial program through the Mycenaean period, spanning MH III-LH IIIC, are evaluated. The overall aim is to reconstruct the patterns in which novel practices were introduced and a local mortuary tradition was distilled in Mycenaean Achaia. In short, I evaluate if a distinct Achaia way of death existed and if so, what aspects from the repertoire of Mycenaean mortuary practices were or were not adopted, and which local elements persisted (if any).
The results suggest that the Achaian way of death changed dramatically through time. Innovation and hybridization during the Pre-Palatial period is evident from the experimentation with built tombs, the blending of old with new tomb types, and the few cases of lavish grave goods. During the Palatial Period mortuary practices generally adhere to the Mycenaean koine manifested in core regions though variation is narrower. Finally, during the Post-Palatial period the ‘warrior-burials’ and an increase in imported or foreign-style grave goods are evidence of strong regional variation. I argue that these temporally distinct burial practices are indicative of a local Achaian burial tradition.
Keywords
Mycenaean Achaia, mortuary practices
27
2.1 Introduction11
2.1.1 The Traditional View: Achaia as Periphery
The peripheral regions of the Mycenaean world are those areas considered to be spa-tially removed from the central areas, while still subscribing to the general Mycenaean cultural ethos. Mycenaean economic control was centralized at palatial sites such as Mycenae and Tiryns (Figure 1). These Myce-naean palatial centers controlled the pro-duction of mass as well as highly specialized goods thereby becoming centers of econ-omic and political power. In contrast, non-central regions lack particular aspects, such as palatial architecture, Linear B tablets, and where few or no elite tholos tombs have been found. Thus these regions are consi-dered to be part of the Mycenaean peri-phery. Although these economic, political, and cultural aspects of Mycenaean society are often oversimplified, each element re-presents diverse interactions between the peripheries and centers. Here, these criteria are highlighted only in relation to the introduction and adaptation of Mycenaean mortuary practices in the region of Achaia. Located in the northwest Peloponnese, Achaia has traditionally been seen as the periphery of the Mycenaean world (Desbo-rough 1964; Galaty and Parkinson 2007; Vermeule 1960). The lack of Achaian palaces, the quality and style of local cera-mics and the later adoption of Mycenaean culture have been touted as evidence for this categorization. Early scholars have
11 I would like to thank Konstantina Aktypi and
Michalis Gazis for their useful feedback and their permission to use the map from Figure 1 and 3. Their willingness to share their expertise of Mycenaean Achaia has been invaluable during my PhD research. In addition, I would like to thank my supervisor, Sofia Voutsaki, for providing constructive and encouraging feedback on this chapter.
especially highlighted regional styles of material culture, especially local ceramic styles (Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2003; Mos-chos 2002; Papadopoulos 1979). Here, I focus on the different aspects of ceramic traditions (shapes, decorations, use/practic-es) to show the Achaian style. One example of an Achaian ceramic variation is the bird vase (often labelled the duck-shaped askos; pl. askoi) dated primarily to the LH IIIC (and later) period12, which may have originated in Achaia (Giannopoulos 2008, 164-165). In addition, distinct decorations, such as the fringed semicircles, integrated within esta-blished Mycenaean ceramic shapes, such as the stirrup jars (Papadopoulos 1991), set Achaian pottery apart from other regions. Another distinct ceramic feature found in Achaia is the great number of two- and four-handled jars and large kalathoi containing several small vases both attested at many tombs throughout Achaia13. In addition, some local crafts, especially pottery, were of equal quality to those found at the palatial sites (Papadopoulos 1979, 176–177), and have led some scholars to doubt Achaia’s (and other peripheral regions’) economic dependence on the palatial centers. Papado-poulos’ seminal study of the Achaia ceramic material prompted him to suggest that the Achaia pottery style is very homogeneous with “no sense of dependence on any cen-tral area” (1979, 177). However, the nature of this dependence is often qualified (and quantified) with the ceramic evidence; these
12 See Aktypi 2017, 244 and footnotes 438-454
for the most up to date bibliography of the duck vases.
13 The most notable examples were found at
Klauss (Paschalidis and MacGeorge 2009, 95-96, fig. 16; Paschalidis 2018) and Krini (Kaskantiri 2016, 100-103, 268-269, plates 70, 71 & 79) However, the kalathoi containing small vases are also found at Voudeni (Kolonas 1998, 98, 102-103), at Mitopoli (Christakopoulou-Somakou 2010, 74, 76, plates 15 and 16) and at Agia Triada in Elis (Vikatou 2008, 175, 543).
02
26
CHAPTER 2
Mortuary traditions in Achaia:
adoption and adaptation
Publication dataStatus: to be submitted Author: Olivia A. Jones
Abstract
Mycenaean mortuary practices, such as grave goods and monumental tomb architecture, are known to have varied throughout the Mycenaean world. While the tombs and mortuary practices at palatial sites such as Mycenae and Pylos have been the subject of much research, the variations within mortuary practices in peripheral regions are rarely explored.
In this chapter, I focus on the adoption and regional adaptation of mortuary practices in the Mycenaean region of Achaia. Changes in the burial program through the Mycenaean period, spanning MH III-LH IIIC, are evaluated. The overall aim is to reconstruct the patterns in which novel practices were introduced and a local mortuary tradition was distilled in Mycenaean Achaia. In short, I evaluate if a distinct Achaia way of death existed and if so, what aspects from the repertoire of Mycenaean mortuary practices were or were not adopted, and which local elements persisted (if any).
The results suggest that the Achaian way of death changed dramatically through time. Innovation and hybridization during the Pre-Palatial period is evident from the experimentation with built tombs, the blending of old with new tomb types, and the few cases of lavish grave goods. During the Palatial Period mortuary practices generally adhere to the Mycenaean koine manifested in core regions though variation is narrower. Finally, during the Post-Palatial period the ‘warrior-burials’ and an increase in imported or foreign-style grave goods are evidence of strong regional variation. I argue that these temporally distinct burial practices are indicative of a local Achaian burial tradition.
Keywords
Mycenaean Achaia, mortuary practices
27
2.1 Introduction11
2.1.1 The Traditional View: Achaia as Periphery
The peripheral regions of the Mycenaean world are those areas considered to be spa-tially removed from the central areas, while still subscribing to the general Mycenaean cultural ethos. Mycenaean economic control was centralized at palatial sites such as Mycenae and Tiryns (Figure 1). These Myce-naean palatial centers controlled the pro-duction of mass as well as highly specialized goods thereby becoming centers of econ-omic and political power. In contrast, non-central regions lack particular aspects, such as palatial architecture, Linear B tablets, and where few or no elite tholos tombs have been found. Thus these regions are consi-dered to be part of the Mycenaean peri-phery. Although these economic, political, and cultural aspects of Mycenaean society are often oversimplified, each element re-presents diverse interactions between the peripheries and centers. Here, these criteria are highlighted only in relation to the introduction and adaptation of Mycenaean mortuary practices in the region of Achaia. Located in the northwest Peloponnese, Achaia has traditionally been seen as the periphery of the Mycenaean world (Desbo-rough 1964; Galaty and Parkinson 2007; Vermeule 1960). The lack of Achaian palaces, the quality and style of local cera-mics and the later adoption of Mycenaean culture have been touted as evidence for this categorization. Early scholars have
11 I would like to thank Konstantina Aktypi and
Michalis Gazis for their useful feedback and their permission to use the map from Figure 1 and 3. Their willingness to share their expertise of Mycenaean Achaia has been invaluable during my PhD research. In addition, I would like to thank my supervisor, Sofia Voutsaki, for providing constructive and encouraging feedback on this chapter.
especially highlighted regional styles of material culture, especially local ceramic styles (Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2003; Mos-chos 2002; Papadopoulos 1979). Here, I focus on the different aspects of ceramic traditions (shapes, decorations, use/practic-es) to show the Achaian style. One example of an Achaian ceramic variation is the bird vase (often labelled the duck-shaped askos; pl. askoi) dated primarily to the LH IIIC (and later) period12, which may have originated in Achaia (Giannopoulos 2008, 164-165). In addition, distinct decorations, such as the fringed semicircles, integrated within esta-blished Mycenaean ceramic shapes, such as the stirrup jars (Papadopoulos 1991), set Achaian pottery apart from other regions. Another distinct ceramic feature found in Achaia is the great number of two- and four-handled jars and large kalathoi containing several small vases both attested at many tombs throughout Achaia13. In addition, some local crafts, especially pottery, were of equal quality to those found at the palatial sites (Papadopoulos 1979, 176–177), and have led some scholars to doubt Achaia’s (and other peripheral regions’) economic dependence on the palatial centers. Papado-poulos’ seminal study of the Achaia ceramic material prompted him to suggest that the Achaia pottery style is very homogeneous with “no sense of dependence on any cen-tral area” (1979, 177). However, the nature of this dependence is often qualified (and quantified) with the ceramic evidence; these
12 See Aktypi 2017, 244 and footnotes 438-454
for the most up to date bibliography of the duck vases.
13 The most notable examples were found at
Klauss (Paschalidis and MacGeorge 2009, 95-96, fig. 16; Paschalidis 2018) and Krini (Kaskantiri 2016, 100-103, 268-269, plates 70, 71 & 79) However, the kalathoi containing small vases are also found at Voudeni (Kolonas 1998, 98, 102-103), at Mitopoli (Christakopoulou-Somakou 2010, 74, 76, plates 15 and 16) and at Agia Triada in Elis (Vikatou 2008, 175, 543).
28 analyses can fall into the frequent archae-ological trap of ‘equating pots with people’. Therefore, Achaia’s material culture has been employed by many scholars to argue for a categorization of the region as part of the Mycenaean world.
Other evidence for Achaia as a Mycenaean periphery is the contrasting timeline be-tween Achaia and the palatial regions. In stark contrast to the conditions in regions such as the Argolid, where intense com-petitive consumption in mortuary practices marks the beginning, and violent settlement destructions and austerity, characterize the end of the Mycenaean period, Achaia under-goes a slow, steady and relatively calm de-velopment. Mycenaean culture likely spread from the core regions to Achaia in the Early Mycenaean period as ways of living and dying slowly spread throughout the Myce-naean world. During this early integration
period, sites near to the palatial centers, such as Aigion (Papadopoulos 1979, 33) or in strategic, defensible locations, such as Teichos Dymaion (Gazis 2017) were among the first to be inhabited in Achaia (Kolonas 2009, 3). During the Palatial period, “the real Mycenaean expansion begins in Achaea” with more new tombs being built and cemeteries expanded (Papadopoulos 1979, 172). Likewise, the population of Achaia is viewed as fairly stable with a continuity of settlements with only slight disturbances during the LH IIIB period (Moschos 2002; Eder 2006). Finally, in the Post-Palatial period Achaia - in contrast to central regions - sees a slight rise in the number of sites and the continued occupa-tion of almost all others, indicating a fairly stable population or possibly slight demo-graphic growth.
Figure 1. Map of Mycenaean Achaia (Aktypi, Jones and Gazis, 2019, forthcoming-b).
29 2.1.2 Recent Debates: Achaia as
Autonomous
Recent research by non-Greek (e.g. Arena 2015; van den Berg 2011, Feuer 2011; Vermeule 1960) and Greek scholars (e.g. Kaskantiri 2016; Kolonas 2009; Moschos 2002, 2007, 2008; Moutafi 2015; Papazo-glou-Manioudaki 2011, 2015; Paschalidis 2018) has recognized and promoted the role of Achaia in the Mycenaean world. More specifically, a recent wave of interest in Achaia is challenging the traditional view, based on Renfrew’s Early State Model (Ren-frew 1977, 119), of Achaia as a dependent, subject region with new evidence and research (Arena 2015; van den Berg 2011; Feuer 2011). For example, rather than con-trol by the centralized palaces, Arena (2015, 37) argues that peripheral regions such as Achaia possess evidence for a local, elite ruling class despite lacking the centralized hierarchy of a palace with Linear B archive. This local control likely oversaw small-scale manufacture of goods or raw materials (Galaty and Parkinson 2007, 5–6). The autonomy of Achaia (especially during the Post-Palatial Period) rather than depen-dence on the palatial sites is evidepen-denced by the population increase, continuity of many sites, and emphasis on a distinct elite group in the form of warrior burials in LH IIIC (Arena 2015, 29–31). In addition, Arena makes heavy use of the presence of tholoi (traditionally associated with the Mycenae-an elite) in Achaia to support of his argu-ment for local Achaian rulers (Arena 2015, 3). Also, some autonomy of Achaia may also be inferred from the lack of widespread destruction in Achaia during the LH IIIB palatial collapse; if the region was fully dependent on the centers, then we would expect some decline to occur in the depen-dent regions as well (Arena 2015, 30). Thus, this recent scholarship argues that the lack of palatial structures in Achaia should not automatically lead to the conclusion that
peripheries were under the control of a nearby palatial center (Arena 2015, 25); indeed it is becoming accepted that differen-ces existed among the peripheries as well as the core regions in terms of political control and autonomy. In summary, although it is clear that regions such as Achaia did not possess the same level of administration and economic control as the large palatial sites of Mycenaean, Pylos, and Tiryns, new research has proposed that the core versus periphery argument is likely an overly sim-plistic model for a more complex and fluid relationship.
2.1.3 Aims and Approach
Despite this new attention to Mycenaean Achaia, there has not been a systematic or synthetic approach to the mortuary prac-tices of the region through time. Therefore, I will outline the mortuary characteristics during the Early Mycenaean Period (Pre-palatial; MH III-LH II), the Palatial Period (LH IIIA-B) and Post-Palatial Period (LH IIIC). During this review of mortuary practices I will especially highlight any local variations. After outlining the chronological development of mortuary practices, I will then discuss the adoption and adaptation of Mycenaean mortuary practices through time.
My aim in this chapter is to evaluate if the variation within mortuary practices present in Mycenaean Achaia amounts to a distinct regional tradition or consists of isolated ca-ses of experimentation. In short, I will ask: is there a distinct Achaian way of death during any of these Mycenaean periods? I will present mortuary data for Achaia by time period and will include multiple lines of evidence. A diachronically structured exa-mination is necessary for evaluating the timing and nature of the adoption of Mycenaean mortuary practices in Achaia. In the discussion I will break down the chrono-logical evidence into categories of mortuary data: tomb type, grave goods, treatment of
02
28 analyses can fall into the frequent archae-ological trap of ‘equating pots with people’. Therefore, Achaia’s material culture has been employed by many scholars to argue for a categorization of the region as part of the Mycenaean world.
Other evidence for Achaia as a Mycenaean periphery is the contrasting timeline be-tween Achaia and the palatial regions. In stark contrast to the conditions in regions such as the Argolid, where intense com-petitive consumption in mortuary practices marks the beginning, and violent settlement destructions and austerity, characterize the end of the Mycenaean period, Achaia under-goes a slow, steady and relatively calm de-velopment. Mycenaean culture likely spread from the core regions to Achaia in the Early Mycenaean period as ways of living and dying slowly spread throughout the Myce-naean world. During this early integration
period, sites near to the palatial centers, such as Aigion (Papadopoulos 1979, 33) or in strategic, defensible locations, such as Teichos Dymaion (Gazis 2017) were among the first to be inhabited in Achaia (Kolonas 2009, 3). During the Palatial period, “the real Mycenaean expansion begins in Achaea” with more new tombs being built and cemeteries expanded (Papadopoulos 1979, 172). Likewise, the population of Achaia is viewed as fairly stable with a continuity of settlements with only slight disturbances during the LH IIIB period (Moschos 2002; Eder 2006). Finally, in the Post-Palatial period Achaia - in contrast to central regions - sees a slight rise in the number of sites and the continued occupa-tion of almost all others, indicating a fairly stable population or possibly slight demo-graphic growth.
Figure 1. Map of Mycenaean Achaia (Aktypi, Jones and Gazis, 2019, forthcoming-b).
29 2.1.2 Recent Debates: Achaia as
Autonomous
Recent research by non-Greek (e.g. Arena 2015; van den Berg 2011, Feuer 2011; Vermeule 1960) and Greek scholars (e.g. Kaskantiri 2016; Kolonas 2009; Moschos 2002, 2007, 2008; Moutafi 2015; Papazo-glou-Manioudaki 2011, 2015; Paschalidis 2018) has recognized and promoted the role of Achaia in the Mycenaean world. More specifically, a recent wave of interest in Achaia is challenging the traditional view, based on Renfrew’s Early State Model (Ren-frew 1977, 119), of Achaia as a dependent, subject region with new evidence and research (Arena 2015; van den Berg 2011; Feuer 2011). For example, rather than con-trol by the centralized palaces, Arena (2015, 37) argues that peripheral regions such as Achaia possess evidence for a local, elite ruling class despite lacking the centralized hierarchy of a palace with Linear B archive. This local control likely oversaw small-scale manufacture of goods or raw materials (Galaty and Parkinson 2007, 5–6). The autonomy of Achaia (especially during the Post-Palatial Period) rather than depen-dence on the palatial sites is evidepen-denced by the population increase, continuity of many sites, and emphasis on a distinct elite group in the form of warrior burials in LH IIIC (Arena 2015, 29–31). In addition, Arena makes heavy use of the presence of tholoi (traditionally associated with the Mycenae-an elite) in Achaia to support of his argu-ment for local Achaian rulers (Arena 2015, 3). Also, some autonomy of Achaia may also be inferred from the lack of widespread destruction in Achaia during the LH IIIB palatial collapse; if the region was fully dependent on the centers, then we would expect some decline to occur in the depen-dent regions as well (Arena 2015, 30). Thus, this recent scholarship argues that the lack of palatial structures in Achaia should not automatically lead to the conclusion that
peripheries were under the control of a nearby palatial center (Arena 2015, 25); indeed it is becoming accepted that differen-ces existed among the peripheries as well as the core regions in terms of political control and autonomy. In summary, although it is clear that regions such as Achaia did not possess the same level of administration and economic control as the large palatial sites of Mycenaean, Pylos, and Tiryns, new research has proposed that the core versus periphery argument is likely an overly sim-plistic model for a more complex and fluid relationship.
2.1.3 Aims and Approach
Despite this new attention to Mycenaean Achaia, there has not been a systematic or synthetic approach to the mortuary prac-tices of the region through time. Therefore, I will outline the mortuary characteristics during the Early Mycenaean Period (Pre-palatial; MH III-LH II), the Palatial Period (LH IIIA-B) and Post-Palatial Period (LH IIIC). During this review of mortuary practices I will especially highlight any local variations. After outlining the chronological development of mortuary practices, I will then discuss the adoption and adaptation of Mycenaean mortuary practices through time.
My aim in this chapter is to evaluate if the variation within mortuary practices present in Mycenaean Achaia amounts to a distinct regional tradition or consists of isolated ca-ses of experimentation. In short, I will ask: is there a distinct Achaian way of death during any of these Mycenaean periods? I will present mortuary data for Achaia by time period and will include multiple lines of evidence. A diachronically structured exa-mination is necessary for evaluating the timing and nature of the adoption of Mycenaean mortuary practices in Achaia. In the discussion I will break down the chrono-logical evidence into categories of mortuary data: tomb type, grave goods, treatment of
30 the body, and changes through time. The discussion of tomb types focuses on the introduction and uses of tholoi, chamber tombs, and simple graves. Then, the focus shifts to the repertoire of Achaian grave goods and the proportion of local and im-ported objects in burial assemblages. Also, looking at the treatment of the body in Achaian tombs examines if the manipulation of the dead differed greatly in Achaia com-pared to central (palatial) regions. Outlining local variation is vital for a regional-based archaeological study that places the mor-tuary data within a wider context. In addi-tion, this updated synthesis will finally bring the mortuary practices to the foreground of discussions on Mycenaean Achaia.
2.1.4 Caveats
There are some issues and caveats when studying Achaia that should be outlined be-fore delving into the main evidence. Outli-ning these caveats is crucial in order to reconstruct the Mycenaean mortuary se-quence in the best possible way while also being aware of the limitations of the data. The first major issue is that the majority of the data from Achaia originates from tombs. Kyparisses’ “survey of cemeteries” in the early part of the 20th century has given Achaia a reputation as a region filled only with tombs and cemeteries (Giannopoulos 2008). So far, there over 300 tombs located in ~37 sites14; in contrast only 10 settle-ment sites have been found: seven in Western Achaia and four in Eastern Achaia (Figure 1; Aktypi, Gazis, Jones forthcoming). For this chapter, which aims to evaluate the introduction and adoption of Mycenaean mortuary practices, the over-representation
14 The exact number of sites varies depending on
how the cemeteries are counted and if the neighboring settlements are included in the count of cemetery or given a separate entry. The number here is based on the map in figure 1.
of mortuary data may not seem to be a dis-advantage. However, I will show in Chapter 5 for Achaia (published as Jones 2018b) and 6 for the whole of the Mycenaean world, that Mycenaean cemeteries do not include all mortuary data since infants and young children were often interred in intramural graves. Thus, the lack of settlement data hinders a full evaluation of the develop-ments in local mortuary practices. Although, ongoing excavation and future publication of settlements such as Voudeni Bortzi, Stavros Chalandritsa and Mygdalia will greatly increase our knowledge of settle-ments and intramural burials in Mycenaean Achaia15, it is crucial to remember that the data is heavily biased towards extramural tombs.
Secondly, Achaia does not have a long histo-ry of research. Likely, due to its characteri-zation as a Mycenaean backwater, Achaia is frequently overlooked as a region of sub- stantial research potential in Mycenaean archaeology. There has been an absence of large international projects and surveys; therefore, the region lacks synthetic studies. Although Achaia is a region in which a number of significant excavations have been carried out by the Greek Archaeological Service over the last fifty years, much of the archaeological work in Achaia is the result of rescue operations during the con-struction boom of the 1970s, 80s and 90s. A disadvantage of this rescue type of research is that the majority of the bibliography for Achaia is in Greek and therefore the region is rarely investigated systematically by outsiders. Rather, the attention paid to Achaia has primarily come from local
15 These excavations are in progress and as such
they have not been fully published. Voudeni: Bortzi is under the direction of Dr. Lazaros Kolonas and Mygdalia has been published in a preliminary fashion (Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2008; Papazoglou-Manioudaki and Paschalidis 2017).
31 practitioners such as Thanasis Papado-poulos; his seminal work (1979) is still the authoritative account for Mycenaean Achaia. The advantage of this recent research is that many of the sites are from fairly well-documented excavations; however much of this data have only been published in preliminary Greek reports and has not been fully synthesized. Currently, Papadopoulos’ 1979 dissertation remains the most recent and comprehensive study. However, over 30 years have passed since his study appeared and other Greek scholars have been adding to the bibliography on Mycenaean Achaia (e.g. Aktypi 2017; Kolonas 2009a; Moschos 2009; Paschalidis 2018; Petropoulos 1990). Lastly, the research of Mycenaean Achaia has primarily focused on the LH IIIA-C period, with little exploration of the earlier Mycenaean periods. In some instances, the lack of earlier Mycenaean data may be due to the difficulty archaeologists have in dating tombs that contain multiple, com-mingled burials that are reused for gene-rations and may contain difficult-to-date local, rare pottery traditions. In addition, the dearth of Early Mycenaean material may be attributed to few settlements having been fully excavated, leaving their complete chro-nology unexplored. Only the settlements at Chalandritsa (Kolonas 2009) and Teichos Dymaion (Gazis 2017; Kolonas 2009) have been extensively investigated; however, even these sites have not been completely excavated. In addition, the flashy warrior burials found mainly in Western Achaia have often dominated research on Post-Palatial (LH IIIC) Mycenaean Achaia. In contrast, the warrior burials must be situated within a discussion of LH IIIC Achaia wealth and funerary goods. This research gap has produced a skewed picture of Achaia dominated by late Mycenaean sites and therefore tracing the incorpor-ation of Achaia into the Mycenaean koine is difficult. This serious gap in Achaian studies
has to be redressed, which is what this chapter sets out to do.
The aforementioned caveats and issues with the study of Mycenaean Achaia do a disser-vice to the potential of the region’s archae-ological record. Until now much of the lite-rature has focused on Achaia as a periphery, about which there is primarily tomb data. However, the use of mortuary data in these discussions rarely targets the mortuary practices themselves, rather scholars have used the mortuary data to theorize about social status and economy. In contrast, my aim is to bring the mortuary data into focus in order to reconstruct the ways in which the people of Mycenaean Achaia dealt with their dead.
2.2 The Mortuary Traditions of Achaia through Time
2.2.1 Early Mycenaean Period (MH III-LH II) The MH period in Achaia is rarely studied likely due to the few sites known from this period. Only a handful of MH cemetery sites have been found and a fraction of these have been systematically studied and published. The MH cemetery sites exhibit typical cha-racteristics for the period: few grave goods, simple pit or cist construction, single buri-als, and often in close proximity to a settle-ment. The majority of MH mortuary sites in Achaia are either intramural pits or cists, or tumuli (Papadopoulos 1979, 50). The intra-mural graves are often simple pits or cists, containing the burials of children, as found at Katarraktis, Pyrgaki, and Drakotrypa (Papadopoulos 1979, 50). The burials with-in these graves and tumuli possess few (if any) grave goods and the treatment of the body was typically single inhumation in a contracted position (Papadopoulos 1979, 50). This evidence aligns well with other regions during this time, although there may be a possible regional preference for tumuli in Achaia and western Greece in general. Overall, the MH burial record in
02
30 the body, and changes through time. The discussion of tomb types focuses on the introduction and uses of tholoi, chamber tombs, and simple graves. Then, the focus shifts to the repertoire of Achaian grave goods and the proportion of local and im-ported objects in burial assemblages. Also, looking at the treatment of the body in Achaian tombs examines if the manipulation of the dead differed greatly in Achaia com-pared to central (palatial) regions. Outlining local variation is vital for a regional-based archaeological study that places the mor-tuary data within a wider context. In addi-tion, this updated synthesis will finally bring the mortuary practices to the foreground of discussions on Mycenaean Achaia.
2.1.4 Caveats
There are some issues and caveats when studying Achaia that should be outlined be-fore delving into the main evidence. Outli-ning these caveats is crucial in order to reconstruct the Mycenaean mortuary se-quence in the best possible way while also being aware of the limitations of the data. The first major issue is that the majority of the data from Achaia originates from tombs. Kyparisses’ “survey of cemeteries” in the early part of the 20th century has given Achaia a reputation as a region filled only with tombs and cemeteries (Giannopoulos 2008). So far, there over 300 tombs located in ~37 sites14; in contrast only 10 settle-ment sites have been found: seven in Western Achaia and four in Eastern Achaia (Figure 1; Aktypi, Gazis, Jones forthcoming). For this chapter, which aims to evaluate the introduction and adoption of Mycenaean mortuary practices, the over-representation
14 The exact number of sites varies depending on
how the cemeteries are counted and if the neighboring settlements are included in the count of cemetery or given a separate entry. The number here is based on the map in figure 1.
of mortuary data may not seem to be a dis-advantage. However, I will show in Chapter 5 for Achaia (published as Jones 2018b) and 6 for the whole of the Mycenaean world, that Mycenaean cemeteries do not include all mortuary data since infants and young children were often interred in intramural graves. Thus, the lack of settlement data hinders a full evaluation of the develop-ments in local mortuary practices. Although, ongoing excavation and future publication of settlements such as Voudeni Bortzi, Stavros Chalandritsa and Mygdalia will greatly increase our knowledge of settle-ments and intramural burials in Mycenaean Achaia15, it is crucial to remember that the data is heavily biased towards extramural tombs.
Secondly, Achaia does not have a long histo-ry of research. Likely, due to its characteri-zation as a Mycenaean backwater, Achaia is frequently overlooked as a region of sub- stantial research potential in Mycenaean archaeology. There has been an absence of large international projects and surveys; therefore, the region lacks synthetic studies. Although Achaia is a region in which a number of significant excavations have been carried out by the Greek Archaeological Service over the last fifty years, much of the archaeological work in Achaia is the result of rescue operations during the con-struction boom of the 1970s, 80s and 90s. A disadvantage of this rescue type of research is that the majority of the bibliography for Achaia is in Greek and therefore the region is rarely investigated systematically by outsiders. Rather, the attention paid to Achaia has primarily come from local
15 These excavations are in progress and as such
they have not been fully published. Voudeni: Bortzi is under the direction of Dr. Lazaros Kolonas and Mygdalia has been published in a preliminary fashion (Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2008; Papazoglou-Manioudaki and Paschalidis 2017).
31 practitioners such as Thanasis Papado-poulos; his seminal work (1979) is still the authoritative account for Mycenaean Achaia. The advantage of this recent research is that many of the sites are from fairly well-documented excavations; however much of this data have only been published in preliminary Greek reports and has not been fully synthesized. Currently, Papadopoulos’ 1979 dissertation remains the most recent and comprehensive study. However, over 30 years have passed since his study appeared and other Greek scholars have been adding to the bibliography on Mycenaean Achaia (e.g. Aktypi 2017; Kolonas 2009a; Moschos 2009; Paschalidis 2018; Petropoulos 1990). Lastly, the research of Mycenaean Achaia has primarily focused on the LH IIIA-C period, with little exploration of the earlier Mycenaean periods. In some instances, the lack of earlier Mycenaean data may be due to the difficulty archaeologists have in dating tombs that contain multiple, com-mingled burials that are reused for gene-rations and may contain difficult-to-date local, rare pottery traditions. In addition, the dearth of Early Mycenaean material may be attributed to few settlements having been fully excavated, leaving their complete chro-nology unexplored. Only the settlements at Chalandritsa (Kolonas 2009) and Teichos Dymaion (Gazis 2017; Kolonas 2009) have been extensively investigated; however, even these sites have not been completely excavated. In addition, the flashy warrior burials found mainly in Western Achaia have often dominated research on Post-Palatial (LH IIIC) Mycenaean Achaia. In contrast, the warrior burials must be situated within a discussion of LH IIIC Achaia wealth and funerary goods. This research gap has produced a skewed picture of Achaia dominated by late Mycenaean sites and therefore tracing the incorpor-ation of Achaia into the Mycenaean koine is difficult. This serious gap in Achaian studies
has to be redressed, which is what this chapter sets out to do.
The aforementioned caveats and issues with the study of Mycenaean Achaia do a disser-vice to the potential of the region’s archae-ological record. Until now much of the lite-rature has focused on Achaia as a periphery, about which there is primarily tomb data. However, the use of mortuary data in these discussions rarely targets the mortuary practices themselves, rather scholars have used the mortuary data to theorize about social status and economy. In contrast, my aim is to bring the mortuary data into focus in order to reconstruct the ways in which the people of Mycenaean Achaia dealt with their dead.
2.2 The Mortuary Traditions of Achaia through Time
2.2.1 Early Mycenaean Period (MH III-LH II) The MH period in Achaia is rarely studied likely due to the few sites known from this period. Only a handful of MH cemetery sites have been found and a fraction of these have been systematically studied and published. The MH cemetery sites exhibit typical cha-racteristics for the period: few grave goods, simple pit or cist construction, single buri-als, and often in close proximity to a settle-ment. The majority of MH mortuary sites in Achaia are either intramural pits or cists, or tumuli (Papadopoulos 1979, 50). The intra-mural graves are often simple pits or cists, containing the burials of children, as found at Katarraktis, Pyrgaki, and Drakotrypa (Papadopoulos 1979, 50). The burials with-in these graves and tumuli possess few (if any) grave goods and the treatment of the body was typically single inhumation in a contracted position (Papadopoulos 1979, 50). This evidence aligns well with other regions during this time, although there may be a possible regional preference for tumuli in Achaia and western Greece in general. Overall, the MH burial record in
32
Time Period Abbreviation Approximate Dates (BC) Mycenaean Period Middle Helladic III MH III 1800-1700
Pre-Palatial/ Early Mycenaean Late Helladic I LH I 1700-1580
Late Helladic II LH II 1580-1390 Late Helladic IIIA LH IIIA 1390-1300
Palatial Late Helladic IIIB LH IIIB 1300-1190
Late Helladic IIIC LH IIIC 1190-1065 Post-Palatial
Figure 2. Chronology of Middle and Late Helladic for Mainland Greece
(modified from Shelmerdine 1997: Table 1 and Voutsaki et al. 2013: Table 1).
Achaia suggests a general adherence to MH traditions but with a possible western Greece sub-tradition in which extramural tumuli were used throughout the MH period (Papadopoulos 1979, 50). An explosion of extramural cemeteries with Mycenaean tomb forms (chamber and tholos tombs) in-dicates that the Achaians adopted Mycenae-an burial traditions during the Pre-Palatial Period.
During this adoption of burial traditions, the archaeological evidence also shows experi-mentation with built tombs and blending of old and new tomb construction. The ceme-tery at Portes, though not yet fully publish-ed, is a rare site as is contains all of the Mycenaean tomb types, but it also contains traditional types (tumuli) and new experi-mental forms (built tombs). This cemetery is exceptional because the tombs span the entire Mycenaean period beginning with tumuli built on the central part of a hill in which built tombs were inserted (Moschos 2000; Moschos 2009, 346; Moschos and Gazis 2008; Giannopoulos 2008; Kolonas 2009a, 44). These rectangular built chamber tombs have a small entrance on one side and are covered with large stone slabs (Kolonas 2009a, 34; Papadimitriou 2015). The rare built tombs are contemporary or slightly later than the tumuli, and although many tombs at Portes were looted, the con-struction of these tombs within the tumuli
indicates a blending or hybridization of previous MH grave types with newer Myce-naean burial practices, especially tomb re-use16. Another example of blending old and new tomb types can be seen at Rhodia (Pharai-Katarraktis17). In addition, the blen-ding of cist graves, a possibly built tomb, and tholoi at Rhodia suggest adoption of Mycenaean burial architecture but also some hybridization of cist graves with built tombs. In many regions, including Achaia, the experimentation with transitional tomb types, such as built tombs, hints at a more tenuous, uneven adoption of Mycenaean tomb types.
The chronology of the tomb types shows that the earliest Achaian chamber tombs are dated to LH II (possibly LH I) and are found both in the eastern portion of Achaia, at Vrysari and Aigion (Papadopoulos 1979, 57), near Patras, at Voudeni (Kolonas 2009b) and Kallithea Laganidia (Papado-poulos 1991), and in the southwest, at Portes (Kolonas 2009a) (see Figure 2). The Vrysari cemetery is located in the central
16 Unfortunately, very little information has been
published regarding treatment of the body at Portes.
17 This site has been published using three
different names causing some confusion. See Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2009, 514 regarding this issue.
33 Achaia plain of Lapathoi far from the Achaia main sites of Aigion, Patras or Teichos Dy-maion. Despite this seemingly distant loca-tion, chamber tomb 28 at Vrysari has been dated to the LH I-II period and may represent the earliest chamber tomb in Achaia (Papadopoulos 1979, 33; Gianno-poulos 2008, 69). In LH IIB, roughly when the tumuli at Portes were being abandoned,
the earliest chamber tombs at Portes were constructed (Moschos 2000; Kolonas 2009a, 35) demonstrating that the chamber tomb spread deep into Achaia in the Pre-palatial period. In the cemetery at Aigion three chamber tombs were in use in the LH IIB, with much of the pottery from this cemetery closely resembled styles and fabrics from the Argolid (Papadopoulos 1976, 38). The Figure 3. Map of Western Achaia showing the distribution of tholos tombs
(modified from Aktypi, Jones, and Gazis forthcoming). Rhodia Petroto-Mygdalia
Kallithea
Portes
02
32
Time Period Abbreviation Approximate Dates (BC) Mycenaean Period Middle Helladic III MH III 1800-1700
Pre-Palatial/ Early Mycenaean Late Helladic I LH I 1700-1580
Late Helladic II LH II 1580-1390 Late Helladic IIIA LH IIIA 1390-1300
Palatial Late Helladic IIIB LH IIIB 1300-1190
Late Helladic IIIC LH IIIC 1190-1065 Post-Palatial
Figure 2. Chronology of Middle and Late Helladic for Mainland Greece
(modified from Shelmerdine 1997: Table 1 and Voutsaki et al. 2013: Table 1).
Achaia suggests a general adherence to MH traditions but with a possible western Greece sub-tradition in which extramural tumuli were used throughout the MH period (Papadopoulos 1979, 50). An explosion of extramural cemeteries with Mycenaean tomb forms (chamber and tholos tombs) in-dicates that the Achaians adopted Mycenae-an burial traditions during the Pre-Palatial Period.
During this adoption of burial traditions, the archaeological evidence also shows experi-mentation with built tombs and blending of old and new tomb construction. The ceme-tery at Portes, though not yet fully publish-ed, is a rare site as is contains all of the Mycenaean tomb types, but it also contains traditional types (tumuli) and new experi-mental forms (built tombs). This cemetery is exceptional because the tombs span the entire Mycenaean period beginning with tumuli built on the central part of a hill in which built tombs were inserted (Moschos 2000; Moschos 2009, 346; Moschos and Gazis 2008; Giannopoulos 2008; Kolonas 2009a, 44). These rectangular built chamber tombs have a small entrance on one side and are covered with large stone slabs (Kolonas 2009a, 34; Papadimitriou 2015). The rare built tombs are contemporary or slightly later than the tumuli, and although many tombs at Portes were looted, the con-struction of these tombs within the tumuli
indicates a blending or hybridization of previous MH grave types with newer Myce-naean burial practices, especially tomb re-use16. Another example of blending old and new tomb types can be seen at Rhodia (Pharai-Katarraktis17). In addition, the blen-ding of cist graves, a possibly built tomb, and tholoi at Rhodia suggest adoption of Mycenaean burial architecture but also some hybridization of cist graves with built tombs. In many regions, including Achaia, the experimentation with transitional tomb types, such as built tombs, hints at a more tenuous, uneven adoption of Mycenaean tomb types.
The chronology of the tomb types shows that the earliest Achaian chamber tombs are dated to LH II (possibly LH I) and are found both in the eastern portion of Achaia, at Vrysari and Aigion (Papadopoulos 1979, 57), near Patras, at Voudeni (Kolonas 2009b) and Kallithea Laganidia (Papado-poulos 1991), and in the southwest, at Portes (Kolonas 2009a) (see Figure 2). The Vrysari cemetery is located in the central
16 Unfortunately, very little information has been
published regarding treatment of the body at Portes.
17 This site has been published using three
different names causing some confusion. See Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2009, 514 regarding this issue.
33 Achaia plain of Lapathoi far from the Achaia main sites of Aigion, Patras or Teichos Dy-maion. Despite this seemingly distant loca-tion, chamber tomb 28 at Vrysari has been dated to the LH I-II period and may represent the earliest chamber tomb in Achaia (Papadopoulos 1979, 33; Gianno-poulos 2008, 69). In LH IIB, roughly when the tumuli at Portes were being abandoned,
the earliest chamber tombs at Portes were constructed (Moschos 2000; Kolonas 2009a, 35) demonstrating that the chamber tomb spread deep into Achaia in the Pre-palatial period. In the cemetery at Aigion three chamber tombs were in use in the LH IIB, with much of the pottery from this cemetery closely resembled styles and fabrics from the Argolid (Papadopoulos 1976, 38). The Figure 3. Map of Western Achaia showing the distribution of tholos tombs
(modified from Aktypi, Jones, and Gazis forthcoming). Rhodia Petroto-Mygdalia
Kallithea
Portes
34 adoption of chamber tombs, possibly as early as LH I at a few Achaian cemeteries, such as Vrysai, is rare and worth further investigation. Overall, the beginning of chamber tombs in the Pre-palatial period marks an important shift, observed in many other regions, from MH to Mycenaean burial traditions in Achaia.
Tholoi are first constructed in Achaia during the Pre-Palatial Period and are found only in western Achaia during the entire Myce-naean period (Figure 3). The uncertain and controversial dating coupled with evidence of extensive reuse of the Achaian tholoi make detailed discussions of the introduc-tion and adaptaintroduc-tion of this tomb type ten-tative. However, by the Early Mycenaean Period tholoi are introduced into Achaia mainly at sites with other tombs types, such as with the associated cist graves at Rhodia and the tumuli with pits at Portes (Figures 1 and 3). Generally, the tholoi in Achaia are small (all belong to Pelon’s Type A with a diameter of less than 6m) (Pelon 1976), none have floors larger than approximately 5.5m in diameter (Kolonas 2009a; Papa-zoglou-Mani-oudaki 2011). At the site of Rhodia (Figures 1 and 3), one tholos (Tomb A with an approximate diameter of 4m) and 6 cist graves (one may be a rudimentary built grave) dating roughly to the LH IIB period have been found.18 The tholoi are situated slightly downslope from the cluster of cist graves and were explored by Zaphei-ropoulos in the 1950s. His excavations were brief since the tombs were thought to have been looted. Despite this notion, a cache of wealthy well-crafted objects, dubbed the Pharai hoard, including highly prestigious and rare objects such as a dolphin inlaid
18 Further study of the Rhodia tholoi and cists,
including radiocarbon dating of human remains, is currently being undertaken by Konstantina Aktypi, Michalis Gazis, and myself. This analysis may change the estimated dates presented here.
dagger and silver bowl, were uncovered outside of the tholoi (Zapheiropoulos 1956; Zapheiropoulos 1957; Aktypi and Gazis forthcoming). Tholos A is smaller than the later Tholos B with a curved dromos, and possible steps into the dromos and stomion (Papadopoulos 1979, 58–59; Aktypi and Gazis forthcoming). The architectural varia-tions of Tholos A may be a local experimen-tation since they are unique to Rhodia. Although the picture of Rhodia is greatly obscured by looting, the presence of such wealthy, rare objects such as an inlaid dag-ger suggests connections with elites most likely in core regions.
Another tholos tomb constructed in this pe-riod also suggests the Mycenaean Achaians adopted the tholos tomb. The Petroto tholos was initially used during LH IIA-B and the floor level contained disarticulated and commingled human and animal remains along with pottery and small gold objects (Jones et al 2018; Petropoulos 1990; Petropoulos 1995; Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2011). Since Petroto appears to have been looted, some wealthy objects have likely been taken making it difficult to compare the grave goods of Petroto with those of Rhodia. Despite these preservation issues, grave goods found in the Pre-palatial Achai-an tholoi demonstrate that some individuals in this region had access to elite goods and exchange networks and some were willing to invest more energy in the construction of this tomb type. These grave goods may indi-cate that some Achaians were participating in local competition perhaps with the aim of asserting themselves as local rulers. In addition, although the Achaian tholoi are small compared to the monumental coun-terparts in the Argolid, their use suggests a local elite attempting to set themselves apart from others.
The limited study of body treatment in Mycenaean Achaia hinders in depth discus-sions on this mortuary aspect; however
35 general observations suggest that treatment of the body during the Pre-palatial period seemed to follow Mycenaean customs. For example, there is evidence of secondary bu-rial19 dated to LH IIB/IIIA in at least one tomb at Aigio (tomb 6, burials a and b) (Papadopoulos 1976, 25-27). This early case of secondary burial demonstrates how quickly manipulation of the body was adop-ted in Achaia. Inhumation was the standard practice and bodies were most often placed on the tomb floor, while others were occasionally placed in pits (Papadopoulos 55-56). A local Achaian tradition may be the orientation of the body towards the stomion of the tomb, but the body position with flexed legs and hands either over the torso or at the side of the body is common throughout the Mycenaean world (Papado-poulos 1979, 56). There are a few examples of burials found on a bench or in a niche (at Aigio) (Papadopoulos 1979, 56), but this was a rare occurrence indicating that Achaia may possess a more limited range of burial features compared to core regions such as the Argolid that have a wider range of bu-rials in niches, benches, and side-chambers (see Voutsaki 1993). As seen in other ceme-teries throughout the Mycenaean world, the practice of secondary manipulation was also common in Achaia, although with a more limited range. Piles of bones ‘pushed to the side’ (anakomidi) are a common find in Achaian tombs, but scatters of bones are rarely found, such as the floor level in the Petroto tholos (Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2009). Tombs often contain multiple prima-ry burials although a few have been noted to only house secondary deposits (Jones
19 Unfortunately, isolating certain treatments of
the body, such as secondary burial, to specific Mycenaean sub-phases is difficult. The dating of secondary burials is complex due to the multiple interments, lack of dateable grave goods, or dating by pottery may inaccurately date the secondary burial actions.
2018a). In addition, there are no confirmed cases of tombs that have fumigation fires (Papadopoulos 1979, 57). The current evi-dence does not depict much variation within the Mycenaean Achaia body treatment, rather the archaeological record points to a narrow range of practices in this region overall. Future studies of Mycenaean body treatment will certainly expand on the limited picture presented here.
The Early Mycenaean period witnessed the introduction and selective adoption of dras-tically different mortuary practices in Achaia. Graves transitioned from cists and pits into large tombs containing multiple interments and meant for reuse. The tombs were placed further from the settlement, often within a larger grouping of tombs. However, in Achaia (as in most regions) this adoption of a new mortuary program also contained a mixture of old and new tra-ditions. The transitional period from MH to Mycenaean mortuary practices suggests a selective adoption in which different features are adopted at different times, rather than a quick replacement; the Myce-naeans of Achaia chose their own combi-nation of burial traditions out of the new Mycenaean repertoire. In comparison to the timeline of burial traditions at Mycenae (Boyd 2015, 434), Achaia was later with the introduction and reuse of chamber tombs but not far behind in the introduction of tholoi. Outside of Messenia, tholoi do not appear until LH II20 (Boyd 2015), which is roughly contemporary with the earliest tholoi in Achaia. The incorporation of Myce-naean tomb types into earlier forms, espe-cially the built tombs and tumuli at Portes, hints at a mixture of old and new traditions. This blending suggests that these commu-nities experimented with the Mycenaean
20 Except for the oval tholoi at Thorikos, dated to
LH I, with hints of experimentation in tomb architecture.
02
34 adoption of chamber tombs, possibly as early as LH I at a few Achaian cemeteries, such as Vrysai, is rare and worth further investigation. Overall, the beginning of chamber tombs in the Pre-palatial period marks an important shift, observed in many other regions, from MH to Mycenaean burial traditions in Achaia.
Tholoi are first constructed in Achaia during the Pre-Palatial Period and are found only in western Achaia during the entire Myce-naean period (Figure 3). The uncertain and controversial dating coupled with evidence of extensive reuse of the Achaian tholoi make detailed discussions of the introduc-tion and adaptaintroduc-tion of this tomb type ten-tative. However, by the Early Mycenaean Period tholoi are introduced into Achaia mainly at sites with other tombs types, such as with the associated cist graves at Rhodia and the tumuli with pits at Portes (Figures 1 and 3). Generally, the tholoi in Achaia are small (all belong to Pelon’s Type A with a diameter of less than 6m) (Pelon 1976), none have floors larger than approximately 5.5m in diameter (Kolonas 2009a; Papa-zoglou-Mani-oudaki 2011). At the site of Rhodia (Figures 1 and 3), one tholos (Tomb A with an approximate diameter of 4m) and 6 cist graves (one may be a rudimentary built grave) dating roughly to the LH IIB period have been found.18 The tholoi are situated slightly downslope from the cluster of cist graves and were explored by Zaphei-ropoulos in the 1950s. His excavations were brief since the tombs were thought to have been looted. Despite this notion, a cache of wealthy well-crafted objects, dubbed the Pharai hoard, including highly prestigious and rare objects such as a dolphin inlaid
18 Further study of the Rhodia tholoi and cists,
including radiocarbon dating of human remains, is currently being undertaken by Konstantina Aktypi, Michalis Gazis, and myself. This analysis may change the estimated dates presented here.
dagger and silver bowl, were uncovered outside of the tholoi (Zapheiropoulos 1956; Zapheiropoulos 1957; Aktypi and Gazis forthcoming). Tholos A is smaller than the later Tholos B with a curved dromos, and possible steps into the dromos and stomion (Papadopoulos 1979, 58–59; Aktypi and Gazis forthcoming). The architectural varia-tions of Tholos A may be a local experimen-tation since they are unique to Rhodia. Although the picture of Rhodia is greatly obscured by looting, the presence of such wealthy, rare objects such as an inlaid dag-ger suggests connections with elites most likely in core regions.
Another tholos tomb constructed in this pe-riod also suggests the Mycenaean Achaians adopted the tholos tomb. The Petroto tholos was initially used during LH IIA-B and the floor level contained disarticulated and commingled human and animal remains along with pottery and small gold objects (Jones et al 2018; Petropoulos 1990; Petropoulos 1995; Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2011). Since Petroto appears to have been looted, some wealthy objects have likely been taken making it difficult to compare the grave goods of Petroto with those of Rhodia. Despite these preservation issues, grave goods found in the Pre-palatial Achai-an tholoi demonstrate that some individuals in this region had access to elite goods and exchange networks and some were willing to invest more energy in the construction of this tomb type. These grave goods may indi-cate that some Achaians were participating in local competition perhaps with the aim of asserting themselves as local rulers. In addition, although the Achaian tholoi are small compared to the monumental coun-terparts in the Argolid, their use suggests a local elite attempting to set themselves apart from others.
The limited study of body treatment in Mycenaean Achaia hinders in depth discus-sions on this mortuary aspect; however
35 general observations suggest that treatment of the body during the Pre-palatial period seemed to follow Mycenaean customs. For example, there is evidence of secondary bu-rial19 dated to LH IIB/IIIA in at least one tomb at Aigio (tomb 6, burials a and b) (Papadopoulos 1976, 25-27). This early case of secondary burial demonstrates how quickly manipulation of the body was adop-ted in Achaia. Inhumation was the standard practice and bodies were most often placed on the tomb floor, while others were occasionally placed in pits (Papadopoulos 55-56). A local Achaian tradition may be the orientation of the body towards the stomion of the tomb, but the body position with flexed legs and hands either over the torso or at the side of the body is common throughout the Mycenaean world (Papado-poulos 1979, 56). There are a few examples of burials found on a bench or in a niche (at Aigio) (Papadopoulos 1979, 56), but this was a rare occurrence indicating that Achaia may possess a more limited range of burial features compared to core regions such as the Argolid that have a wider range of bu-rials in niches, benches, and side-chambers (see Voutsaki 1993). As seen in other ceme-teries throughout the Mycenaean world, the practice of secondary manipulation was also common in Achaia, although with a more limited range. Piles of bones ‘pushed to the side’ (anakomidi) are a common find in Achaian tombs, but scatters of bones are rarely found, such as the floor level in the Petroto tholos (Papazoglou-Manioudaki 2009). Tombs often contain multiple prima-ry burials although a few have been noted to only house secondary deposits (Jones
19 Unfortunately, isolating certain treatments of
the body, such as secondary burial, to specific Mycenaean sub-phases is difficult. The dating of secondary burials is complex due to the multiple interments, lack of dateable grave goods, or dating by pottery may inaccurately date the secondary burial actions.
2018a). In addition, there are no confirmed cases of tombs that have fumigation fires (Papadopoulos 1979, 57). The current evi-dence does not depict much variation within the Mycenaean Achaia body treatment, rather the archaeological record points to a narrow range of practices in this region overall. Future studies of Mycenaean body treatment will certainly expand on the limited picture presented here.
The Early Mycenaean period witnessed the introduction and selective adoption of dras-tically different mortuary practices in Achaia. Graves transitioned from cists and pits into large tombs containing multiple interments and meant for reuse. The tombs were placed further from the settlement, often within a larger grouping of tombs. However, in Achaia (as in most regions) this adoption of a new mortuary program also contained a mixture of old and new tra-ditions. The transitional period from MH to Mycenaean mortuary practices suggests a selective adoption in which different features are adopted at different times, rather than a quick replacement; the Myce-naeans of Achaia chose their own combi-nation of burial traditions out of the new Mycenaean repertoire. In comparison to the timeline of burial traditions at Mycenae (Boyd 2015, 434), Achaia was later with the introduction and reuse of chamber tombs but not far behind in the introduction of tholoi. Outside of Messenia, tholoi do not appear until LH II20 (Boyd 2015), which is roughly contemporary with the earliest tholoi in Achaia. The incorporation of Myce-naean tomb types into earlier forms, espe-cially the built tombs and tumuli at Portes, hints at a mixture of old and new traditions. This blending suggests that these commu-nities experimented with the Mycenaean
20 Except for the oval tholoi at Thorikos, dated to
LH I, with hints of experimentation in tomb architecture.
36 burial traditions without total eradication of previous forms or total adoption of new ones. This experimentation and blending of tomb forms can also be observed in other regions such as the continued use of tumuli at Asine and Marathon. Likewise, the rich and elaborate grave goods observed in the tholoi at Rhodia and Petroto (though both likely were looted) suggest regional access to highly valued objects such as the inlaid dagger at Rhodia and may also be evidence for local elites in Achaia. However, this display of wealth is less common in Achaia compared with core areas. The incor-poration of Mycenaean mortuary traditions met some resistance in Achaia; some aspects were quickly adopted while others were selectively omitted or hybridized with older practices. Thus, during the Pre-Palatial Period Achaians selected and mixed mortuary practices to form their own regional tradition.
2.2.2 Palatial Period (LH IIIA-IIIB)
The Palatial Period throughout much of My-cenaean Greece21 witnessed an explosion of chamber tombs in most regions (a notable exception is Messenia, where small tholoi are more common) and this was no dif-ferent in Achaia. Chamber tomb cemeteries founded in the previous Early Mycenaean Period were expanded upon, while other cemeteries were founded with new chamber tombs during the Palatial Period. In addition, this period in Achaia sees the construction of new tholoi, in addition to the reuse of older tombs, though they remains small and an increase of imported or foreign-style grave goods. However, overall
21 A notable exception to the trend of chamber
tombs seems to have occurred in some regions, such as Thessaly with few early Mycenaean chamber tombs and in Messenia where small rudimentary tholoi were used in lieu of chamber tombs (see Cavanagh and Mee 1998 for an overview of regional tomb type variations).
Achaia exhibits less conspicuous consump-tion in the mortuary practices than in core areas.
Also, during this period, many tombs show evidence of continuity and expansion. At Voudeni, the few tombs dated to the Early Mycenaean Period were then reused and many other tombs were carved in the Pala-tial Period. Also at the Aigion cemetery new tombs were carved during this period: tombs 1 and 2 are used only during the LH IIIA-B period, while the previously construc-ted tombs were reused (Papadopoulos 1976, 46). In addition, during the Palatial period chamber tombs are added to the cemeteries at Portes (Kolonas 1998; Kolo-nas and Moschos 1999; KoloKolo-nas 2009a) and Kallithea (Papadopoulos 1991). Mitopoli, a cemetery located in the foothills on the edge of the Pharai plain, contained five chamber tombs dated to the Palatial Period (Christa-kopoulou-Somakou 2010). The continuity, lack of tomb construction overlap, and spatial clustering of chamber tombs around a central tholos (discussed below) at Kalli-thea suggest that cemeteries were possibly expanded in planned ways during this pe-riod (Graff 2011, 23). Despite this increase in tomb construction the new tombs are nearly all chamber tombs; the tumuli and cist graves at Portes and the cist graves at Rhodia are not reused in this period and no new ones are built, suggesting that the period of tomb/grave experimentation was over. This period is a time in which there was less variation and more homogeneity in mortuary traditions.
The Palatial Period also witnessed the crea-tion of new cemeteries with the construc-tion of chamber tombs in locaconstruc-tions never before used all over the region. One newly founded cemetery, which has been exten-sively excavated and recently published, is the chamber tomb cemetery of Achaia Klauss (Paschalidis 2014; 2018). Klauss was
37 Table 1. Catalog of sites by time period.
Early Mycenaean Period/Pre-Palatial: MH III-LHII
Site Number and Type of Tombs
Portes Tumuli, built graves, tholos I, chamber tombs Rhodia 5 cists, 1 cist/built tomb, Tholos A
Vrysari Chamber tombs
Petroto Tholos tomb floor (level 8) Aigion Chamber tombs 3,5, 6 Voudeni Chamber tombs Chalandritsa Chamber tombs 1, 16
Palatial Period: LH IIIA-B
Site New Tombs Continued tombs
Achaia Klauss 28 chamber tombs Kalamaki Chamber tombs Krini Chamber tombs Kallithea 5 chamber tombs Chalandritsa* ~15 tombs
Aigion Chamber tombs 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 All three from previous period reused Petroto Tholos tomb levels 7-4 ---
Mitopoli 5 chamber tombs
Rhodia Tholos B Tholos A?
Germanou Chamber tombs Voudeni Chamber tombs Monodendri Chamber tombs Spaliareika Chamber tombs 2-8, 10 Elaiochori Chamber tombs
Portes Chamber tombs Tholos I? Platani Chamber tombs
Nikoleika Chamber tombs Trapeza** Chamber tombs
Post-Palatial Period: LH IIIC
All Palatial Period cemeteries are still in use
* Only 15 tombs (out of 45 which have been located) have been studied and published (Aktypi 2007).
** The excavation of Trapeza cemetery is ongoing and will greatly inform our view of eastern Achaia (see Borgna et al 2019).
