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.
07
156 Voutsaki, S., E. Milka, S. Triantaphyllou, and
C. Zerner. 2013. Middle Helladic Lerna: Diet, Ecomony, and Society. In Diet, Economy and Society in the Ancient Greek World: Towards a Better Integration of Archaeology and Science, edited by S. Voutsaki and S. Valamoti, Pharos Sup, 133–47. Leuven: Peeters.
Weiss, K. 1973. Demographic Models for Anthropology. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 27: 1–186. doi:10.2307/25146719.
James W. Wood, Darryl J. Holman, Kathleen A. O’Connor, and Rebecca J. Ferrel. 2002. Mortality models for Paleodemography. In R.D. Hoppa and J.W. Vaupel
Paleodemography: Age Distributions from Skeletal Samples. Cambridge Studies in
Biological and Evolutionary
Anthropology 31, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Pp-129-168.
Wright, J.C. 1995. From Chief to King in Mycenaean Society in The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean, edited by P. Rehak. pp. 63–75. Liége: Université de Liége.
Wright, J.C., E. Pappi, S. Triantaphyllou, M.K. Dabney, Panagiotis Karkanas, Georgia Kotzamani, and Alexandra Livarda. 2008. Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, Excavations at Barnavos: Final Report. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 77 (4): 607–54.
157
CHAPTER 7
Discussion and conclusions
7.1 Processing Mycenaean Burial Traditions
This project focuses on two main issues within Mycenaean burial traditions: secon-dary treatment and burial exclusion. Ap-proaching these themes with a multi-faceted bioarchaeological methodology has allowed me to explore the evidence in a new light. 7.1.1 Mycenaean Achaia
Chapter 2 addressed the questions set out in Chapter 1 of: What is the timeline for the introduction and adoption of Mycenaean mortuary practices in Achaia? Thus, this chapter focused on the adoption and variations within mortuary practices of Mycenaean Achaia. By evaluating the changes through time, my aim was to distinguish the idiosyncratic variations from true local traditions. I separated the evidence of tomb types, grave goods, and treatment of the body by Pre-Palatial, Palatial, Post-Palatial periods in order to systematically outline the variations.
The results suggest that mortuary practices during the Pre-Palatial period in Achaia exhibited experimentation and hybridiza-tion especially seen in the built tombs and at certain sites that possess multiple tomb types107. Alternatively, mortuary traditions
primarily mirror those of other regions, essentially subscribing to the Mycenaean koine, during the Palatial Period. However,
107 Achaia is not unique in this respect; sites such
as Thorikos and Marathon also possess multiple tomb types.
during the Post-Palatial period in Achaian mortuary practices underwent major chang-es. During the IIIC period local Achaian mortuary traditions are prevalent as seen in the ‘warrior-burials’ that have attracted considerable scholarly attention. Properly situated in their archaeological context, the ‘warrior-burials’ distinguish Mycenaean Achaia as possessing an alternative sequence of events possibly amounting to a different tradition compared to the rest of the Mycenaean world during the Post-Palatial period. Also, the increase and emphasis on imports (or stylistically foreign) grave goods suggest that not only were the Mycenaean Achaians practicing a local burial tradition, but also that they were placing emphasis on non-Mycenaean goods, suggesting an internationalizing society. In addition, this chapter serves an important reminder that an archaeology of Mycenaean Achaia is an archaeology of death due to the abundant cemetery record. As more settlements are excavated in this region, the fuller picture of Mycenaean Achaia (and the attitudes of the inhabitants towards burial) will likely be amended. 7.1.2 Taphonomy
Chapter 3/ Jones 2018a addresses the aforementioned questions of: What is se-condary burial in Mycenaean mortuary practice? How can we reconstruct the actions that produced the burial deposits? Mycenaean tombs contain deposits of disar-ticulated and commingled human remains found in piles, scatters, and pits. These deposits have been labeled as “secondary burials” without questioning their
158 formation and without utilizing all evidence within the tombs. Grouping these different deposits under the term “secondary burial” and without bioarchaeological analysis, misrepresents mortuary practices and raises problems of definitional clarity. Thus, few studies have evaluated the practice of secondary burial treatment through the analysis of the human remains. To rethink postmortem manipulation of human remains in Mycenaean tombs, including separating natural taphonomic damage from purposeful human action, a bioarchaeological approach is key.
First, I estimated the amount of natural taphonomic damage displayed within the human skeletal remains in order to demon-strate that the manipulation of the bones was in fact anthropogenic. Also, the frag-mentation of the bones consisted of post-mortem breakage at the epiphyseal ends, suggesting that the damage was the result of natural breakage likely due to sediment pressure.
In order to reconstruct the anthropogenic actions carried out in the tombs, I used mu-ltiple methods. The postmortem timing in which human remains are manipulated has been recognized to be a crucial theme in studies of secondary burial. The lack of cut marks suggest that bodies were not disarti-culated with sharp tools and a contextual analysis of the excavation archives shows only a single example of skeletal articulation (a vertebral column). This combination of evidence suggests that bodies were typically not manipulated before complete skeleton-ization had taken place, but manipulation could occur if circumstances necessitated. Therefore, the time interval between initial interment and subsequent manipulation of human remains was likely a few years, based on the modern practice of exhuma-tion and secondary burial in Greece which is conducted 3-5 years after burial (Danforth 1982).
Another method used to estimate the de-gree of anthropogenic manipulation of the bones was element survival rates. With this method, I asked whether entire bodies (all bones) had been manipulated and moved to secondary locations, or if only certain bones (specific elements such as crania and long bones) had been selected for secondary burial. The high survival rates of all bones, including small or fragile bones, suggest that element selection did not occur when bones were manipulated. However, one tomb (Chalandritsa chamber tomb 19) possessed two pits of bones containing only certain elements. One pit contained mainly crania, scapulae, and sacra, while the other con-tained long bones, demonstrating that specific element selection could also occur. Another theme in secondary burial research is the return to the body in order to carry out secondary funerary rituals. It has been demonstrated that bones in Mycenaean tombs were frequently manipulated without a practical need for space. All five of the tombs in the sample possess manipulated deposits of human remains without the pre-sence of a primary burial or in a tomb with adequate space for further burials. This manipulation is likely evidence of secondary funerary rituals.
A final aspect of secondary burial studies concerns the retention or obliteration of individuality. No refits of bones between contexts were found, suggesting that when manipulation took place some care was taken to place all bones of an individual in the same secondary location (individuali-zation) within the tomb. However, the singular case of the pits in Chalandritsa chamber tomb 19-with selected bones- suggests that obliteration of individuality and the emphasis on collectivity was also a possibility.
The commingled and disarticulated deposits of human remains found in Mycenaean tombs are not haphazardly placed or
discar-159 ded previous interments, but instead they represent evidence of purposeful mortuary practices, including tomb reuse and secon-dary burial. The study of seconsecon-dary treat-ment in Greece benefits from a combination of bioarchaeological methods. This study of Mycenaean secondary treatment suggests that post-mortem manipulation of human remains occurred primarily after skeletoni-zation but without the inclusion of another body. Additionally, the manipulated human remains often contained all skeletal ele-ments and individuals were kept together when moving the human remains to demar-cated piles or pits within the tomb.
To conclude, I emphasize that the variation and complexity of Mycenaean mortuary practices, and secondary burial in parti-cular, can only be reconstructed and inter-preted with clear, objective, and consistent definitions (Knüsel 2014). For this, we need to combine a thorough bioarchaeological analysis, especially including taphonomic methods and archaeological context. Legacy data present challenges, but also offer enormous potential. Higher resolution data may lead to nuanced inferences about these burials, such as the possibility that the various burial forms represent different stages within a burial sequence or if the purposeful retention of a ‘founding’ burial occurs while other burials are manipulated in the tomb. The short time interval likely separating burial stages makes recognizing distinct burial phases a difficult task.
7.1.3 Using Radiocarbon to Reconstruct Tomb Reuse
In Chapter 4/ Jones et al 2018, I evaluate another aspect of secondary burial and ask, what is the timing of tomb reuse in a Myce-naean tholos tomb? The timing of reuse in Mycenaean tholoi is not well understood. Many tombs have been looted and lack dateable finds. Conducting radiocarbon samples in reused tombs is often the only method that can accurately date multi-level
reuse. Rarely is this issue addressed with radiocarbon dating. At present, radiocarbon dating has been used to date burial strati-graphy in only two tholoi. In this chapter I used the tholos tomb at Petroto to present a common issue in reused Mycenaean tombs and show how radiocarbon dating can aid in reconstructing the timing of burials.
The Petroto tholos contained six sequential levels of burials, but only the floor deposit possessed artifacts and could be securely dated. As a result, the reuse in the tholos was of an unknown date. First, radiocarbon samples were used to reconstruct the levels of use within the Petroto tholos demonstra-ting the long history of tomb reuse. Second, the impact of radiocarbon dating for complex tomb reuse was discussed as a means to reconstruct burials without date-able grave goods.
The results were successful for two human bone samples from the Petroto tholos, which yielded radiocarbon dates of 3105 +/- 35 BP (1420-1305 cal BC) and 2965 +/- 35 BP (1255-1120 cal BC). The Petroto tholos tomb was used over a period of 400 years. Petroto was reused in various ways but without a major hiatus in the Mycenaean period; C14 sampling is important for reconstructing tomb reuse. Through this long time period, the tomb was reused for various burial practices. Many of the burial levels were typical for the Mycenaean period, but the final period was an atypical burial in a cist which may reflect changing burial practices towards the end of the Mycenaean period. The use of the tholos may have been due to either practical reasons since the tomb was already constructed or for unknown socio-cultural reasons. The radiocarbon dating of the Petroto tholos has allowed us to contextualize the burials and hypothesize about the history of reuse in the tomb.
07
158 formation and without utilizing all evidence within the tombs. Grouping these different deposits under the term “secondary burial” and without bioarchaeological analysis, misrepresents mortuary practices and raises problems of definitional clarity. Thus, few studies have evaluated the practice of secondary burial treatment through the analysis of the human remains. To rethink postmortem manipulation of human remains in Mycenaean tombs, including separating natural taphonomic damage from purposeful human action, a bioarchaeological approach is key.
First, I estimated the amount of natural taphonomic damage displayed within the human skeletal remains in order to demon-strate that the manipulation of the bones was in fact anthropogenic. Also, the frag-mentation of the bones consisted of post-mortem breakage at the epiphyseal ends, suggesting that the damage was the result of natural breakage likely due to sediment pressure.
In order to reconstruct the anthropogenic actions carried out in the tombs, I used mu-ltiple methods. The postmortem timing in which human remains are manipulated has been recognized to be a crucial theme in studies of secondary burial. The lack of cut marks suggest that bodies were not disarti-culated with sharp tools and a contextual analysis of the excavation archives shows only a single example of skeletal articulation (a vertebral column). This combination of evidence suggests that bodies were typically not manipulated before complete skeleton-ization had taken place, but manipulation could occur if circumstances necessitated. Therefore, the time interval between initial interment and subsequent manipulation of human remains was likely a few years, based on the modern practice of exhuma-tion and secondary burial in Greece which is conducted 3-5 years after burial (Danforth 1982).
Another method used to estimate the de-gree of anthropogenic manipulation of the bones was element survival rates. With this method, I asked whether entire bodies (all bones) had been manipulated and moved to secondary locations, or if only certain bones (specific elements such as crania and long bones) had been selected for secondary burial. The high survival rates of all bones, including small or fragile bones, suggest that element selection did not occur when bones were manipulated. However, one tomb (Chalandritsa chamber tomb 19) possessed two pits of bones containing only certain elements. One pit contained mainly crania, scapulae, and sacra, while the other con-tained long bones, demonstrating that specific element selection could also occur. Another theme in secondary burial research is the return to the body in order to carry out secondary funerary rituals. It has been demonstrated that bones in Mycenaean tombs were frequently manipulated without a practical need for space. All five of the tombs in the sample possess manipulated deposits of human remains without the pre-sence of a primary burial or in a tomb with adequate space for further burials. This manipulation is likely evidence of secondary funerary rituals.
A final aspect of secondary burial studies concerns the retention or obliteration of individuality. No refits of bones between contexts were found, suggesting that when manipulation took place some care was taken to place all bones of an individual in the same secondary location (individuali-zation) within the tomb. However, the singular case of the pits in Chalandritsa chamber tomb 19-with selected bones- suggests that obliteration of individuality and the emphasis on collectivity was also a possibility.
The commingled and disarticulated deposits of human remains found in Mycenaean tombs are not haphazardly placed or
discar-159 ded previous interments, but instead they represent evidence of purposeful mortuary practices, including tomb reuse and secon-dary burial. The study of seconsecon-dary treat-ment in Greece benefits from a combination of bioarchaeological methods. This study of Mycenaean secondary treatment suggests that post-mortem manipulation of human remains occurred primarily after skeletoni-zation but without the inclusion of another body. Additionally, the manipulated human remains often contained all skeletal ele-ments and individuals were kept together when moving the human remains to demar-cated piles or pits within the tomb.
To conclude, I emphasize that the variation and complexity of Mycenaean mortuary practices, and secondary burial in parti-cular, can only be reconstructed and inter-preted with clear, objective, and consistent definitions (Knüsel 2014). For this, we need to combine a thorough bioarchaeological analysis, especially including taphonomic methods and archaeological context. Legacy data present challenges, but also offer enormous potential. Higher resolution data may lead to nuanced inferences about these burials, such as the possibility that the various burial forms represent different stages within a burial sequence or if the purposeful retention of a ‘founding’ burial occurs while other burials are manipulated in the tomb. The short time interval likely separating burial stages makes recognizing distinct burial phases a difficult task.
7.1.3 Using Radiocarbon to Reconstruct Tomb Reuse
In Chapter 4/ Jones et al 2018, I evaluate another aspect of secondary burial and ask, what is the timing of tomb reuse in a Myce-naean tholos tomb? The timing of reuse in Mycenaean tholoi is not well understood. Many tombs have been looted and lack dateable finds. Conducting radiocarbon samples in reused tombs is often the only method that can accurately date multi-level
reuse. Rarely is this issue addressed with radiocarbon dating. At present, radiocarbon dating has been used to date burial strati-graphy in only two tholoi. In this chapter I used the tholos tomb at Petroto to present a common issue in reused Mycenaean tombs and show how radiocarbon dating can aid in reconstructing the timing of burials.
The Petroto tholos contained six sequential levels of burials, but only the floor deposit possessed artifacts and could be securely dated. As a result, the reuse in the tholos was of an unknown date. First, radiocarbon samples were used to reconstruct the levels of use within the Petroto tholos demonstra-ting the long history of tomb reuse. Second, the impact of radiocarbon dating for complex tomb reuse was discussed as a means to reconstruct burials without date-able grave goods.
The results were successful for two human bone samples from the Petroto tholos, which yielded radiocarbon dates of 3105 +/- 35 BP (1420-1305 cal BC) and 2965 +/- 35 BP (1255-1120 cal BC). The Petroto tholos tomb was used over a period of 400 years. Petroto was reused in various ways but without a major hiatus in the Mycenaean period; C14 sampling is important for reconstructing tomb reuse. Through this long time period, the tomb was reused for various burial practices. Many of the burial levels were typical for the Mycenaean period, but the final period was an atypical burial in a cist which may reflect changing burial practices towards the end of the Mycenaean period. The use of the tholos may have been due to either practical reasons since the tomb was already constructed or for unknown socio-cultural reasons. The radiocarbon dating of the Petroto tholos has allowed us to contextualize the burials and hypothesize about the history of reuse in the tomb.
160 7.1.4 Demography in Mycenaean Achaia
Chapter 5/ Jones 2018b focuses on the question of: Does burial exclusion of biolo-gical categories of age and sex exist in Myce-naean burials? Current research has never before employed a regional sample of skele-tal data to question if persons interred with-in Mycenaean chamber or tholos tombs were selected based on age or sex. Rather, assumptions of age and sex have been made based on grave goods or architecture. These interpretations have become ingrained within the research thereby muddling the discussion of age and sex groups in Mycenaean burials. As a direct result of the lack of regional Mycenaean skeletal studies, we do not know if the demographic data are representative of the actual population. Using a regional sample of demographic data from Mycenaean Achaia, this chapter explored patterns of age and sex within burial forms.
Infants should make up approximately 35-50% of the skeletal data; however, the num-bers do not approach this in Mycenaean Achaia. Exclusion of infants, and also pos-sibly of subadults, was evident from the under-representation of both age groups in the human remains from the Achaian tombs. Changes through time suggest that this exclusion was stricter in the Palatial versus Post-Palatial period. Only four subadults and one infant could be confidently dated to the Palatial period and these individuals were all interred with the Petroto tholos. In contrast, an increase in infants and sub-adults was observed in the Post-Palatial period. The data support the existence of burial exclusion of infants, and subadults to a lesser extent, in chamber and tholos tombs.
Overall, males and females were equally represented in Mycenaean Achaian tombs. Changes through time reveal that, during the Palatial period males and females were equally represented in the four tombs
included in this sample. In contrast, during the Post-Palatial period, there is a slight im-balance in favor of females interred in 10 tombs. Burial exclusion based on sex was not demonstrated by the data. The tradi-tional idea that males were chosen more often for formal burial is not supported by the data.
Primary burials showed a near equality between the sexes but low numbers of sub-adults and very low numbers of infants. Likewise, in secondary burials sex was also near equal; subadults and especially infants are poorly represented. Exclusion based on sex was not demonstrated in either primary or secondary burials, but again age was a restricting factor. No notable difference between burial forms was supported by the data. Individuals were not selected for secondary burial based on age or sex.
The severe under-representation of infants and low numbers of subadults suggest that the burial sample is not representative of a living population and thus second level inferences such as population reconstruc-tions, health, and mortality rates should be approached with this mind. Thus, age is a major factor for burial exclusion in Myce-naean Achaia. A site-based study would risk interpreting localized, anomalous practices as indicators of a broader pattern, thus projecting practices from one site onto a regional reconstruction of age and sex in Mycenaean burials. This study advocates for regional approaches using bioarchaeological data for reconstructing exclusionary burial patterns in mortuary practices.
7.1.5 Mycenaean Bioarchaeology
Lastly, in Chapter 6, I step back from a regional perspective and evaluate a supra-regional sample of bioarchaeological data by asking: how were Mycenaean burial pro-grams structured demographically over space and time? How does this structure help us understand the Mycenaean world?
161 In recent decades, bioarchaeological re-search has increased in Mycenaean studies. Although Mycenaean research has often focused on the palatial centers, the recent surge of bioarchaeological research has contributed data from throughout the Mycnaean world. However, this growing body of data has not been consolidated; therefore, age and sex has not been evaluated on a larger scale. Also, traditional notions of age and sex based on iconography, Linear B, and grave goods are still passed on without systematic evaluation of skeletal data. Therefore, the aims of this chapter were twofold. First, I combined all published skeletal data from Mycenaean contexts. Secondly, I used the data to run statistical analyses in order to evaluate age and sex patterns across tomb type, region, and through time.
Some important caveats include the uneven publication record, which may skew the data towards chamber tombs due to the sheer number of them. In addition, there has been a larger amount of bioarchaeological research of Early Mycenaean period tombs, due to greater interest in this period, and towards adults due to taphonomic biases that affect the preservation of subadults. The biological sex ratios appear to show equal numbers of males and females in most samples; however, statistical analyses cap-ture subtle nuances within the data. There was no statistically significant difference between the sexes in intramural and extra- mural samples. The simple graves and the Early Mycenaean period sample showed a statistical difference between the numbers of males and females interred within this tomb type. Overall the time period samples show that the percentages of males decreases over time. In the Early Mycenaean Period, males slightly outnumbered females, but by the Post-Palatial Period, females nearly outnumber males. According to the regional sample, sex may have been a more
important factor in the core versus periphery since sex ratios favor males in the core but are equal in the periphery, and this pattern was statistically significant. Thus, significant differences between the ratios of males and females have been identified in tomb type, region, and time period.
In contrast, the age-at-death results show that the subadults are drastically under-represented in most samples. Overall, infants, children, and adolescents comprise only 20% of the pooled sample when this group - combined - should comprise closer to 40-60%. Age-at-death was significantly different from the expected demographic ranges in all samples. Despite the low numbers, infants, children and adolescents exhibit some interesting variations among tomb types, between regions, and across time periods. Intramural analyses strongly suggest that infants and young children were preferentially interred in these graves, while extra-mural tombs contained larger numbers of adults. Tomb type data shows that all sub-adult age categories were likely excluded from tholoi, with equally small numbers in chamber tombs, but higher numbers of infants in simple graves. The changes through time shows that infants make up over 25% of the data from the Early Mycenaean period, but by the Post-Palatial period they comprise only 1%. In addition, adolescents, children, and infants are equally represented in the core regions, while in the peripheral regions the majority of the subadults are adolescents. When intramural data is available (best region for this is Laconia), infants were present overall in near ‘normal’ demographic numbers. The study of sex in the Mycenaean period has traditionally focused on the male warrior/hunter persona, producing recon-structions of Mycenaean society as popu-lated primarily by adult men. The synthesis of a larger dataset from throughout the Mycenaean world suggests that categories
07
160 7.1.4 Demography in Mycenaean Achaia
Chapter 5/ Jones 2018b focuses on the question of: Does burial exclusion of biolo-gical categories of age and sex exist in Myce-naean burials? Current research has never before employed a regional sample of skele-tal data to question if persons interred with-in Mycenaean chamber or tholos tombs were selected based on age or sex. Rather, assumptions of age and sex have been made based on grave goods or architecture. These interpretations have become ingrained within the research thereby muddling the discussion of age and sex groups in Mycenaean burials. As a direct result of the lack of regional Mycenaean skeletal studies, we do not know if the demographic data are representative of the actual population. Using a regional sample of demographic data from Mycenaean Achaia, this chapter explored patterns of age and sex within burial forms.
Infants should make up approximately 35-50% of the skeletal data; however, the num-bers do not approach this in Mycenaean Achaia. Exclusion of infants, and also pos-sibly of subadults, was evident from the under-representation of both age groups in the human remains from the Achaian tombs. Changes through time suggest that this exclusion was stricter in the Palatial versus Post-Palatial period. Only four subadults and one infant could be confidently dated to the Palatial period and these individuals were all interred with the Petroto tholos. In contrast, an increase in infants and sub-adults was observed in the Post-Palatial period. The data support the existence of burial exclusion of infants, and subadults to a lesser extent, in chamber and tholos tombs.
Overall, males and females were equally represented in Mycenaean Achaian tombs. Changes through time reveal that, during the Palatial period males and females were equally represented in the four tombs
included in this sample. In contrast, during the Post-Palatial period, there is a slight im-balance in favor of females interred in 10 tombs. Burial exclusion based on sex was not demonstrated by the data. The tradi-tional idea that males were chosen more often for formal burial is not supported by the data.
Primary burials showed a near equality between the sexes but low numbers of sub-adults and very low numbers of infants. Likewise, in secondary burials sex was also near equal; subadults and especially infants are poorly represented. Exclusion based on sex was not demonstrated in either primary or secondary burials, but again age was a restricting factor. No notable difference between burial forms was supported by the data. Individuals were not selected for secondary burial based on age or sex.
The severe under-representation of infants and low numbers of subadults suggest that the burial sample is not representative of a living population and thus second level inferences such as population reconstruc-tions, health, and mortality rates should be approached with this mind. Thus, age is a major factor for burial exclusion in Myce-naean Achaia. A site-based study would risk interpreting localized, anomalous practices as indicators of a broader pattern, thus projecting practices from one site onto a regional reconstruction of age and sex in Mycenaean burials. This study advocates for regional approaches using bioarchaeological data for reconstructing exclusionary burial patterns in mortuary practices.
7.1.5 Mycenaean Bioarchaeology
Lastly, in Chapter 6, I step back from a regional perspective and evaluate a supra-regional sample of bioarchaeological data by asking: how were Mycenaean burial pro-grams structured demographically over space and time? How does this structure help us understand the Mycenaean world?
161 In recent decades, bioarchaeological re-search has increased in Mycenaean studies. Although Mycenaean research has often focused on the palatial centers, the recent surge of bioarchaeological research has contributed data from throughout the Mycnaean world. However, this growing body of data has not been consolidated; therefore, age and sex has not been evaluated on a larger scale. Also, traditional notions of age and sex based on iconography, Linear B, and grave goods are still passed on without systematic evaluation of skeletal data. Therefore, the aims of this chapter were twofold. First, I combined all published skeletal data from Mycenaean contexts. Secondly, I used the data to run statistical analyses in order to evaluate age and sex patterns across tomb type, region, and through time.
Some important caveats include the uneven publication record, which may skew the data towards chamber tombs due to the sheer number of them. In addition, there has been a larger amount of bioarchaeological research of Early Mycenaean period tombs, due to greater interest in this period, and towards adults due to taphonomic biases that affect the preservation of subadults. The biological sex ratios appear to show equal numbers of males and females in most samples; however, statistical analyses cap-ture subtle nuances within the data. There was no statistically significant difference between the sexes in intramural and extra- mural samples. The simple graves and the Early Mycenaean period sample showed a statistical difference between the numbers of males and females interred within this tomb type. Overall the time period samples show that the percentages of males decreases over time. In the Early Mycenaean Period, males slightly outnumbered females, but by the Post-Palatial Period, females nearly outnumber males. According to the regional sample, sex may have been a more
important factor in the core versus periphery since sex ratios favor males in the core but are equal in the periphery, and this pattern was statistically significant. Thus, significant differences between the ratios of males and females have been identified in tomb type, region, and time period.
In contrast, the age-at-death results show that the subadults are drastically under-represented in most samples. Overall, infants, children, and adolescents comprise only 20% of the pooled sample when this group - combined - should comprise closer to 40-60%. Age-at-death was significantly different from the expected demographic ranges in all samples. Despite the low numbers, infants, children and adolescents exhibit some interesting variations among tomb types, between regions, and across time periods. Intramural analyses strongly suggest that infants and young children were preferentially interred in these graves, while extra-mural tombs contained larger numbers of adults. Tomb type data shows that all sub-adult age categories were likely excluded from tholoi, with equally small numbers in chamber tombs, but higher numbers of infants in simple graves. The changes through time shows that infants make up over 25% of the data from the Early Mycenaean period, but by the Post-Palatial period they comprise only 1%. In addition, adolescents, children, and infants are equally represented in the core regions, while in the peripheral regions the majority of the subadults are adolescents. When intramural data is available (best region for this is Laconia), infants were present overall in near ‘normal’ demographic numbers. The study of sex in the Mycenaean period has traditionally focused on the male warrior/hunter persona, producing recon-structions of Mycenaean society as popu-lated primarily by adult men. The synthesis of a larger dataset from throughout the Mycenaean world suggests that categories
162 of age and sex exhibited different variations in tomb types, among regions, and through time. Bioarchaeological data suggests subtle restrictions based on sex for tomb type, region, and time period. In contrast, age-at-death was a major factor for burial exclu-sion for most contexts, except for intramural simple graves. Syntheses of data and statistical rigor of results are vital in reconstructions of Mycenaean age and sex in burial samples and when unpacking past interpretations.
7.2 Conclusions
This study applied a bioarchaeological me-thodology, including archaeological, osteo-logical, and radiocarbon data to approach postmortem manipulation and demographic composition of Mycenaean burials. In short, an integrated bioarchaeological approach was utilized to reveal observations related to Mycenaean mortuary practices, a research theme which typically relies only on typological analyses of material culture such as grave goods and tomb architecture. The objective was to shift the focus towards the people, (i.e. the skeletal remains) found in Mycenaean burials, rather than the artifacts, and to explore past interpretations with nuanced bioarchaeological data. In addition, this study produced bioarchae-ological data which will aid future Mycenae-an research. The research provided new insight into the issue of Mycenaean secon-dary treatment and burial exclusion.
This study also has a great impact on Mycenaean archaeology due to the bio-archaeological approach and the use of lega-cy data. While bioarchaeology in Greece is still relatively young field, the research in this dissertation showed the potential of bioarchaeological studies when addressing complex mortuary questions. In addition, this research showed the potential of legacy data when approached with a multi-variate methodology. Knowing the storage condi-tions and having access to the excavation
archive were crucial in selecting methods appropriate for legacy data. While it is important to be clear and transparent about the limitations of legacy data, the large numbers of unstudied human remains can provide a large, multi-site sample, which is often easily accessible to enthusiastic bio-archaeologists willing to work with such data. Thus, in spite of the drawbacks, legacy data is an untapped resource that should be more readily integrated into bioarchaeolo-gical studies.
Finally, this study illustrates the potential of regional and inter-regional cal research. By combining bioarchaeologi-cal data from multiple sites and regions, it was possible to examine demographic composition and discuss Mycenaean burial exclusion in a new way. Regional studies in archaeology and bioarchaeology are necessary to observe the total diversity of mortuary practices and can highlight patterns beyond the site-level analyses (Goldstein 1995, 101). Consolidating inter-regional data allows archaeologists to step back and observe wider socio-cultural patterns, while also leaving site-specific trends behind.
7.3 Future Directions in Mycenaean Bioarchaeology
7.3.1 Eastern versus Western Achaia
Debate surrounds the differences between western and eastern Achaia, and the mor-tuary data has some evidence to support a meaningful distinction. The Achaian tholoi are clustered geographically. All of the tholoi found in Achaia are located in the western portion of the region; no tholoi have been found east of Patras. Portes is located in the far southwest, Kallithea and Petroto are located in the foothills outside of Patras, and Rhodia is in the central hills just south of Patras. In addition, the tumuli and cist graves at Portes, the early tholoi at Kallithea, Rhodia, and Petroto are
contem-163 poraneous with some tholoi in the Argolid but are geographically separated by eastern Achaia. This exclusivity of tholoi to western Achaia may suggest that local elites were present in western Achaia (Arena 2015, 13), while eastern Achaia, especially Aigion, may have been more restricted in its use of this tomb type if it was under the control of pa-latial sites in the Argolid. Further evidence of a distinction between the subregions during the LH IIIC period is the numerous warrior burials (15 total, as defined by the Naue II swords; see Chapter 2, Figure 3) found in western Achaia, while only a single such burial has been found in eastern Achaia, at Nikoleika. Future research could explore this divide more thoroughly, especially in relation to new Achaian excavations both in the East (at Trapeza) and the West (at Mygdalia).
7.3.2 Mycenaean Bioarchaeology
Scientific improvements have pushed the empirical data of osteology further than
ever before. New techniques for dietary reconstruction and demography have been particularly gaining momentum and recognition in Greek bioarchaeology. As a result, scientific applications in Mycenaean bioarchaeology will no doubt increase. An interesting future avenue would be an evaluation of kinship using non-metric traits, aDNA, and provenancing isotopes (i.e. strontium), to evaluate genetic affinity and explore local versus non-local mobility of individuals in conjuction with the development of cultural features such as tomb types and the occupation of sites and regions (see Prevedorou 2015 for a similar research design). There is great potential for Mycenaean bioarchaeological studies to incorporate legacy data and scientific advances, but the inclusion of bioarchae-ologists into research designs and exca-vation is necessary.
07
162 of age and sex exhibited different variations in tomb types, among regions, and through time. Bioarchaeological data suggests subtle restrictions based on sex for tomb type, region, and time period. In contrast, age-at-death was a major factor for burial exclu-sion for most contexts, except for intramural simple graves. Syntheses of data and statistical rigor of results are vital in reconstructions of Mycenaean age and sex in burial samples and when unpacking past interpretations.
7.2 Conclusions
This study applied a bioarchaeological me-thodology, including archaeological, osteo-logical, and radiocarbon data to approach postmortem manipulation and demographic composition of Mycenaean burials. In short, an integrated bioarchaeological approach was utilized to reveal observations related to Mycenaean mortuary practices, a research theme which typically relies only on typological analyses of material culture such as grave goods and tomb architecture. The objective was to shift the focus towards the people, (i.e. the skeletal remains) found in Mycenaean burials, rather than the artifacts, and to explore past interpretations with nuanced bioarchaeological data. In addition, this study produced bioarchae-ological data which will aid future Mycenae-an research. The research provided new insight into the issue of Mycenaean secon-dary treatment and burial exclusion.
This study also has a great impact on Mycenaean archaeology due to the bio-archaeological approach and the use of lega-cy data. While bioarchaeology in Greece is still relatively young field, the research in this dissertation showed the potential of bioarchaeological studies when addressing complex mortuary questions. In addition, this research showed the potential of legacy data when approached with a multi-variate methodology. Knowing the storage condi-tions and having access to the excavation
archive were crucial in selecting methods appropriate for legacy data. While it is important to be clear and transparent about the limitations of legacy data, the large numbers of unstudied human remains can provide a large, multi-site sample, which is often easily accessible to enthusiastic bio-archaeologists willing to work with such data. Thus, in spite of the drawbacks, legacy data is an untapped resource that should be more readily integrated into bioarchaeolo-gical studies.
Finally, this study illustrates the potential of regional and inter-regional cal research. By combining bioarchaeologi-cal data from multiple sites and regions, it was possible to examine demographic composition and discuss Mycenaean burial exclusion in a new way. Regional studies in archaeology and bioarchaeology are necessary to observe the total diversity of mortuary practices and can highlight patterns beyond the site-level analyses (Goldstein 1995, 101). Consolidating inter-regional data allows archaeologists to step back and observe wider socio-cultural patterns, while also leaving site-specific trends behind.
7.3 Future Directions in Mycenaean Bioarchaeology
7.3.1 Eastern versus Western Achaia
Debate surrounds the differences between western and eastern Achaia, and the mor-tuary data has some evidence to support a meaningful distinction. The Achaian tholoi are clustered geographically. All of the tholoi found in Achaia are located in the western portion of the region; no tholoi have been found east of Patras. Portes is located in the far southwest, Kallithea and Petroto are located in the foothills outside of Patras, and Rhodia is in the central hills just south of Patras. In addition, the tumuli and cist graves at Portes, the early tholoi at Kallithea, Rhodia, and Petroto are
contem-163 poraneous with some tholoi in the Argolid but are geographically separated by eastern Achaia. This exclusivity of tholoi to western Achaia may suggest that local elites were present in western Achaia (Arena 2015, 13), while eastern Achaia, especially Aigion, may have been more restricted in its use of this tomb type if it was under the control of pa-latial sites in the Argolid. Further evidence of a distinction between the subregions during the LH IIIC period is the numerous warrior burials (15 total, as defined by the Naue II swords; see Chapter 2, Figure 3) found in western Achaia, while only a single such burial has been found in eastern Achaia, at Nikoleika. Future research could explore this divide more thoroughly, especially in relation to new Achaian excavations both in the East (at Trapeza) and the West (at Mygdalia).
7.3.2 Mycenaean Bioarchaeology
Scientific improvements have pushed the empirical data of osteology further than
ever before. New techniques for dietary reconstruction and demography have been particularly gaining momentum and recognition in Greek bioarchaeology. As a result, scientific applications in Mycenaean bioarchaeology will no doubt increase. An interesting future avenue would be an evaluation of kinship using non-metric traits, aDNA, and provenancing isotopes (i.e. strontium), to evaluate genetic affinity and explore local versus non-local mobility of individuals in conjuction with the development of cultural features such as tomb types and the occupation of sites and regions (see Prevedorou 2015 for a similar research design). There is great potential for Mycenaean bioarchaeological studies to incorporate legacy data and scientific advances, but the inclusion of bioarchae-ologists into research designs and exca-vation is necessary.
164 References
Adrymi-Sismani, V., and S. Alexandrou. 2009. Μυκηναϊκό Θολωτό Τάφοs Στη Θέση Καζανάκι. In Αλέξανδρος Μαζαράκης Αινιάν ed. Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας Και Στερεάς Ελλάδας. Volume 2. Volos, University of Thessaly: pp. 133–50. Aktypi, K. 2011. Παρατηρήσεις στα τοπογραφικά δεδομένα της δυτικής Αχαΐας κατά την Ύστερη Εποχή του Χαλκού – Χερσαίοι και θαλάσσιοι δρόμοιεπικοινωνίας, in Pro-istorimata, e-magazine of the Group for the study and promotion of Greek prehistory 4, June 2011, available on line:
https://proistoria.wordpress.com/pro-istorimata/
———. 2014. Finds of the Geometric Period in the Mycenaean Cemetery at Agios Vasileios, Chalandritsa, Achaea. The Annual of the British School at Athens 109 (2014): 129–157.
DOI:10.1017/S0068245414000124. ———. 2017. The Mycenaean Cemetery at
Agios Vasileios, Chalandritsa, in Achaea. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Aktypi, K. O.A. Jones, and M. Gazis. 2019.” Use and Reuse of the Past: Case Studies from Mycenaean Achaea” Mneme:Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age edited by E. Borgna, I. Caloi, F. Carincia and R. Laffineur.17th International
Aegean Conference Venice, Italy. ———. Forthcoming. “Ένας αιώνας
ερευνών στη Μυκηναϊκή Δυτική Αχαΐα: Επισκόπηση των παλαιών και νέων δεδομένων από τους θολωτούς και τους θαλαμοειδείς τάφους” 3rd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium of the Periphery of the Mycenaean World. Lamia, Greece.
Ålin, P. 1962. Das Ende der Mykenischen Fundstätten auf dem Griechischen Festland (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 1). Astrom, Lund. Angel, J.L. 1944a. A Racial Analysis of the
Ancient Greeks: An Essay on the Use of Morphological Types. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2: 329–376.
———. 1944b. Greek Teeth: Ancient and Modern. Human Biology 16: 283–297. ———. 1945. Skeletal Material from Attica.
Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 14: 279–363.
———. 1946. Skeletal Change in Ancient Greece. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 4: 69–97.
———. 1964. Osteoporosis: Thalessemia? American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 22: 369–374. ———. 1966. Porotic Hyperostosis,
Anemias, Malarias, and Marshes in the Prehistoric Eastern Mediterranean. Science 153: 760–763.
———. 1971. The People of Lerna: Analysis of a Prehistoric Aegean Population. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C.
———. 1975. Human Skeletons from Eleusis in To Δυτικον Νεκροταφειον Τις Ελευσινος, edited by George E. Mylonas. pp. 301–12. Athens Archaeological Society, Athens.
———. 1982. Ancient Skeletons from Asine in Asine II: Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970-1974, edited by Søren Dietz. pp. 105–38. Paul Aströms Förlag, Stockholm.
Arena, E. 2015. Mycenaean Peripheries during the Palatial Age: The Case of Achaia. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 84: 1–46.
Åstrom, P. 1964. “Mycenaean Pottery from the Region of Aigion with a List of Prehistoric Sites in Achaea,” Op.Ath 5: 89–110.
Bisel, S.C., and J.L. Angel. 1985. Health and Nutrition in Mycenaean Greece: A Study in Human Skeletal Remains in
Contributions to Aegean Archaeology, edited by N.C. Wilkie and W.D.E. Coulson. pp. 197–209. Center for Ancient Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Boyd, M.J. 2002. Middle Helladic and Early
Mycenaean Mortuary Practices in the Southern and Western Peloponnese.
165 British Archaeological Reports 1009.
Archaeopress, Oxford.
———. 2015. “Explaining the Mortuary Sequence at Mycenae.” In Mycenaeans up to Date: The Archaeology of the North-Eastern Peloponnese- Current Concepts and New Directions, edited by Ann-Louise Schallin and Iphiyenia Tournavitou, 433– 47. Athens, Swedish Institute at Athens. ———. 2016. “Becoming Mycenaean? The Living, the Dead, and the Ancestors in the Transformation of Society in Second Millennium BC Southern Greece.” In Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient World: “Death Shall Have No Dominion,” edited by Colin Renfrew, Michael J. Boyd, and Iain Morley, 200–220. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bouwman, A.S., K.A. Brown, T.A. Brown, E.R. Chilvers, R. Arnott and A.J.N.W. Prag. 2008. “Kinship in Aegean Prehistory? Ancient DNA in Human Bones from Mainland Greece and Crete” The Annual of the British School at Athens: 104. 293– 309.
Brown, T.A., K.A. Brown, C.E. Flaherty, L.M. Little and A.J.N.W. Prag 2000. DNA Analysis of Bones from Grave Circle B at Mycenae: A First Report. The Annual of the British School at Athens: 95. 115–119. Buikstra, J.E., and L.A. Beck. 2006. Preface in
Bioarchaeology: The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains, edited by J.E. Buikstra and L.A. Beck. pp. xvii. Elsevier, New York.
Cavanagh, W.G. 1978. A Mycenaean Second Burial Custom? Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 25: 171–172.
Cavanagh, W.G. and C. Mee. 1998. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece. Studies in Mediterannean Archaeology Vol. CXXV. Paul Aströms Förlag, Jonsred.
Clark, J.G.D. 1972. Star Carr: A case study in bioarchaeology. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Danforth, Loring. 1982. The Death Rituals of Rural Greece. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Davis, J.L. and S.R. Stocker. 2016. The Lord of the Gold Rings: The Griffin Warrior of Pylos. Hesperia 85: 627–655.
Desborough, V. R. d’A. 1964. The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors. An Archaeological Survey, c. 1200-c.1000 B.C. Oxford University, Oxford.
———. 1972. Bird vases, Κρητικά Χρονικά 24, 245–277.
Dickinson, O.T.P.K., L. Papazoglou-Manioudaki, A. Nafplioti and A.J.N.W. Prag 2012. Mycenae Revisited Part 4: Assessing the New Data. The Annual of the British School at Athens: 107. 161– 188.
Giannopoulos, T.G. 2008. Die Letzte Elite der Mykenischen Welt. Achaia in
Mykenischer Zeit und das Phänomen der Kriegerbestattungen im 12.-11.
Jahrhundert v.Chr. Bd. 152. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonn. Goldstein, L. 1995. Landscapes and
Mortuary Practices: A Case for Regional Perspectives in Regional Approaches to Mortuary Archaeology edited by L.A. Beck. Springer, New York. 101–124. Higgins, M.D, and R. Higgins. 1996. A
Geological Companion to Greece and the Aegean. Cornell University Press: Ithaca. Iakovidis, S. 1978. A Hundred Years of
Mycenaean Archaeology. The Antiquities Journal: 1. 13–30.
Jacobson, T.W. and T. Cullen. 1990. The Work of J.L. Angel in the Eastern
Mediterranean in J.E. Buikstra (ed) A Life in Science: Papers in Honor of J. Lawrence Angel. Center for American Archaeology, Scientific Papers 6.
Jones, O.A., J. van der Plicht, L. Papazoglou-Manioudaki, and M. Petropoulos. 2018. Timing is Everything: Radiocarbon Dating the Multiple Levels in a Mycenaean Tholos. STAR: Science & Technology of Archaeological Research 3:2. Open access:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/ 10.1080/20548923.2018.1428408. Jones, O. A. 2018a. Mycenaean Secondary
Burial Revisited: legacy data, taphonomy, and the process of burial in Mycenaean
07
164 References
Adrymi-Sismani, V., and S. Alexandrou. 2009. Μυκηναϊκό Θολωτό Τάφοs Στη Θέση Καζανάκι. In Αλέξανδρος Μαζαράκης Αινιάν ed. Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας Και Στερεάς Ελλάδας. Volume 2. Volos, University of Thessaly: pp. 133–50. Aktypi, K. 2011. Παρατηρήσεις στα τοπογραφικά δεδομένα της δυτικής Αχαΐας κατά την Ύστερη Εποχή του Χαλκού – Χερσαίοι και θαλάσσιοι δρόμοιεπικοινωνίας, in Pro-istorimata, e-magazine of the Group for the study and promotion of Greek prehistory 4, June 2011, available on line:
https://proistoria.wordpress.com/pro-istorimata/
———. 2014. Finds of the Geometric Period in the Mycenaean Cemetery at Agios Vasileios, Chalandritsa, Achaea. The Annual of the British School at Athens 109 (2014): 129–157.
DOI:10.1017/S0068245414000124. ———. 2017. The Mycenaean Cemetery at
Agios Vasileios, Chalandritsa, in Achaea. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Aktypi, K. O.A. Jones, and M. Gazis. 2019.” Use and Reuse of the Past: Case Studies from Mycenaean Achaea” Mneme:Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age edited by E. Borgna, I. Caloi, F. Carincia and R. Laffineur.17th International
Aegean Conference Venice, Italy. ———. Forthcoming. “Ένας αιώνας
ερευνών στη Μυκηναϊκή Δυτική Αχαΐα: Επισκόπηση των παλαιών και νέων δεδομένων από τους θολωτούς και τους θαλαμοειδείς τάφους” 3rd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium of the Periphery of the Mycenaean World. Lamia, Greece.
Ålin, P. 1962. Das Ende der Mykenischen Fundstätten auf dem Griechischen Festland (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 1). Astrom, Lund. Angel, J.L. 1944a. A Racial Analysis of the
Ancient Greeks: An Essay on the Use of Morphological Types. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2: 329–376.
———. 1944b. Greek Teeth: Ancient and Modern. Human Biology 16: 283–297. ———. 1945. Skeletal Material from Attica.
Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 14: 279–363.
———. 1946. Skeletal Change in Ancient Greece. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 4: 69–97.
———. 1964. Osteoporosis: Thalessemia? American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 22: 369–374. ———. 1966. Porotic Hyperostosis,
Anemias, Malarias, and Marshes in the Prehistoric Eastern Mediterranean. Science 153: 760–763.
———. 1971. The People of Lerna: Analysis of a Prehistoric Aegean Population. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C.
———. 1975. Human Skeletons from Eleusis in To Δυτικον Νεκροταφειον Τις Ελευσινος, edited by George E. Mylonas. pp. 301–12. Athens Archaeological Society, Athens.
———. 1982. Ancient Skeletons from Asine in Asine II: Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970-1974, edited by Søren Dietz. pp. 105–38. Paul Aströms Förlag, Stockholm.
Arena, E. 2015. Mycenaean Peripheries during the Palatial Age: The Case of Achaia. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 84: 1–46.
Åstrom, P. 1964. “Mycenaean Pottery from the Region of Aigion with a List of Prehistoric Sites in Achaea,” Op.Ath 5: 89–110.
Bisel, S.C., and J.L. Angel. 1985. Health and Nutrition in Mycenaean Greece: A Study in Human Skeletal Remains in
Contributions to Aegean Archaeology, edited by N.C. Wilkie and W.D.E. Coulson. pp. 197–209. Center for Ancient Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Boyd, M.J. 2002. Middle Helladic and Early
Mycenaean Mortuary Practices in the Southern and Western Peloponnese.
165 British Archaeological Reports 1009.
Archaeopress, Oxford.
———. 2015. “Explaining the Mortuary Sequence at Mycenae.” In Mycenaeans up to Date: The Archaeology of the North-Eastern Peloponnese- Current Concepts and New Directions, edited by Ann-Louise Schallin and Iphiyenia Tournavitou, 433– 47. Athens, Swedish Institute at Athens. ———. 2016. “Becoming Mycenaean? The Living, the Dead, and the Ancestors in the Transformation of Society in Second Millennium BC Southern Greece.” In Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient World: “Death Shall Have No Dominion,” edited by Colin Renfrew, Michael J. Boyd, and Iain Morley, 200–220. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bouwman, A.S., K.A. Brown, T.A. Brown, E.R. Chilvers, R. Arnott and A.J.N.W. Prag. 2008. “Kinship in Aegean Prehistory? Ancient DNA in Human Bones from Mainland Greece and Crete” The Annual of the British School at Athens: 104. 293– 309.
Brown, T.A., K.A. Brown, C.E. Flaherty, L.M. Little and A.J.N.W. Prag 2000. DNA Analysis of Bones from Grave Circle B at Mycenae: A First Report. The Annual of the British School at Athens: 95. 115–119. Buikstra, J.E., and L.A. Beck. 2006. Preface in
Bioarchaeology: The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains, edited by J.E. Buikstra and L.A. Beck. pp. xvii. Elsevier, New York.
Cavanagh, W.G. 1978. A Mycenaean Second Burial Custom? Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 25: 171–172.
Cavanagh, W.G. and C. Mee. 1998. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece. Studies in Mediterannean Archaeology Vol. CXXV. Paul Aströms Förlag, Jonsred.
Clark, J.G.D. 1972. Star Carr: A case study in bioarchaeology. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Danforth, Loring. 1982. The Death Rituals of Rural Greece. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Davis, J.L. and S.R. Stocker. 2016. The Lord of the Gold Rings: The Griffin Warrior of Pylos. Hesperia 85: 627–655.
Desborough, V. R. d’A. 1964. The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors. An Archaeological Survey, c. 1200-c.1000 B.C. Oxford University, Oxford.
———. 1972. Bird vases, Κρητικά Χρονικά 24, 245–277.
Dickinson, O.T.P.K., L. Papazoglou-Manioudaki, A. Nafplioti and A.J.N.W. Prag 2012. Mycenae Revisited Part 4: Assessing the New Data. The Annual of the British School at Athens: 107. 161– 188.
Giannopoulos, T.G. 2008. Die Letzte Elite der Mykenischen Welt. Achaia in
Mykenischer Zeit und das Phänomen der Kriegerbestattungen im 12.-11.
Jahrhundert v.Chr. Bd. 152. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonn. Goldstein, L. 1995. Landscapes and
Mortuary Practices: A Case for Regional Perspectives in Regional Approaches to Mortuary Archaeology edited by L.A. Beck. Springer, New York. 101–124. Higgins, M.D, and R. Higgins. 1996. A
Geological Companion to Greece and the Aegean. Cornell University Press: Ithaca. Iakovidis, S. 1978. A Hundred Years of
Mycenaean Archaeology. The Antiquities Journal: 1. 13–30.
Jacobson, T.W. and T. Cullen. 1990. The Work of J.L. Angel in the Eastern
Mediterranean in J.E. Buikstra (ed) A Life in Science: Papers in Honor of J. Lawrence Angel. Center for American Archaeology, Scientific Papers 6.
Jones, O.A., J. van der Plicht, L. Papazoglou-Manioudaki, and M. Petropoulos. 2018. Timing is Everything: Radiocarbon Dating the Multiple Levels in a Mycenaean Tholos. STAR: Science & Technology of Archaeological Research 3:2. Open access:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/ 10.1080/20548923.2018.1428408. Jones, O. A. 2018a. Mycenaean Secondary
Burial Revisited: legacy data, taphonomy, and the process of burial in Mycenaean
166 Achaia, Greece. Bioarchaeology
International 2 (4): 217-239. ———. 2018b. Burial Exclusion or
Inclusion: The Demography of
Mycenaean Mortuary Practices in Achaia, Greece. Journal of Greek Archaeology 3: 75-93.
de Jong, L. 2017. The Archaeology of Death in Roman Syria: Commemoration, Empire, and Community. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Jung, R. and M. Mehofer. 2013. Mycenaean Greece and Bronze Age Italy:
Cooperation, Trade or War?
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 43 (3): 175–193.
Kelder, J.M. 2010. The Kingdom of Mycenae: A Great Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. CDL Press: Bethesda, Maryland. Knüsel, Christopher J. 2014. Crouching in
Fear: Terms of Engagement for Funerary Remains. Journal of Social Archaeology 14 (1): 26–58.
Kolonas, L. 1998. Πóρτες. Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο 48, Χρονικά Β1΄: 123.
———. 2009. Network of Visitable
Mycenaean Settlements and Cemeteries in the Prefecture of Patras. Ministry of Culture, Athens.
Kolonas, Lazaros and Ioannis Moschos. 1999. Πóρτες. Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο 49, Χρονικά Β1΄: 230–231.
Kontorli-Papadopoulou, L. 1987. Some Aspects Concerning Local Peculiarities of the Mycenaean Chamber Tombs in Thanatos: Les Coutumes Funéraires En Egée À L’âge Du Bronze. Actes Du Colloque de Liège, 21-23 Avril 1986, edited by Robert Laffineur, 145–59. Liége: Université de lÉtat á de l’art et archéologie de la Gréce antique. ———. 2003. Late Mycenaean Achaean
Vases and Bronzes in Berlin. Athenische Mitteilungen 18: 23–47.
Moschos, Ioannis. 2002. Western Achaea during the LH IIIC period. Approaching the Latest Excavation Evidence, in E. Greco (ed.), L’Acaia e l’identita etnica degli Achei d’occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale de Studi (Paestum, 23-25
Febbraio 2001), (Tekmeria 3), Athens: Paestum, 15–41.
———. 2007. Mycenaeans in Achaia. Faedimos 1 edited by Lazaros Kolonas. Patras: Society for the Study of
Mycenaean Achaea.
———. 2008. “Western Achaea during the Succeeding LHIII C Late Period-The Final Mycenaean Phase and the Submycenaean Period,” in S. Deger-Jalkotzy, A. E. Bächle (eds), LH IIIC Chronology and
Synchronisms III. LH IIIC Late and the Transition to the Early Iron Age, Proceedings of the International
Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, (23-24/2/2007), Vienna, 235–288.
———. 2009. Evidence of Social Re-organization and Reconstruction in the Late Helladic IIIC Achaea and Modes of Contacts and Exchange via the Ionian and Adriatic Sea. In E. Borgna and P. Cassola Guida (eds.) Dall'Egeo all'Adriatico. Organizzazioni sociali, modi di scambio e interazione in età postpalaziale (XII-XI sec. a.C.). From the Aegean to the Adriatic. Social Organizations, Modes of Exchange and Interaction in the Post-palatial Times (12th to 11th c. B.C.) Seminario
internazionale, 1-2 Dicembre 2006/International workshop, 1-2 December 2006, CISM Piazza Galibaldi 18, Udine, Roma: Quasar, pp. 345-414. Moutafi, I. 2015. Towards a Social
Bioarchaeology of the Mycenaean Period: A Multi-Disciplinary Analysis of Funerary Remains from the Late Helladic Chamber Tomb Cemetery of Voudeni, Achaea, Greece. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Sheffield.
Moutafi, I. and S. Voutsaki. 2016.
Commingled Burials and Shifting Notions of the Self at the Onset of the Mycenaean Era (1700-1500 BC): The Case of the Ayios Vasilios North Cemetery, Laconia. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10: 780–790.
Mountjoy, P. 1999. 1999. Regional
Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Papadimitriou, N. 2015. The Formation and Use of Dromoi in Early Mycenaean
167 Tombs. Annual of the British School at
Athens 110 (1): 71–120.
———. 2016. Structuring Space, Performing Rituals, Creating Memories: Towards a Cognitive Map of Early Mycenaean Funerary Behaviour in A. Dakouri-Hild and M.J. Boyd. Staging Death: Funerary Performance, Architecture and Landscape in the Aegean. de Gruyter: Berlin. 335– 360.
Papadopoulos, T.J. 1979. Mycenaean Achaea. Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg.
———. 1991. Achaea’s Role in Mycenaean World. In Αρχαία Αχαΐα Και Ηλεία: Ανακοινώσεις Κατά Το Πρώτο Διεθνές Συμπόσιο, Αθήνα 19-21 Μαΐου
1989/Achaia Und Elis in Der Antike: Des 1 Internationalen Symposiums, Athen 19-21 Mai 1989, edited by A.D. Rizakis, 31–37. Paris. Papathanasiou, A. 2009. Το ανθρωπολογικό οστεολογικό υλικό από τον Μυκηναϊκό θολωτό τάφο στη θέση Καζανάκι Βόλου in 2ο Αρχαιολογικό έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας: Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης Βόλος 16.3 - 19.3.2006, Αινιάν Αλέξανδρος-Μαζαράκης . pp. 151–161. Εργαστήριο Αρχαιολογίας Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλίας, Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού, Volos.
Papathanasiou, A., M.P. Richards, and S.C. Fox, eds. 2015. Archaeodiet in the Greek World: Dietary Reconstruction from Stable Isotope Analaysis. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton.
Papathanasiou, A., L.A. Schepartz, M.P. Richards, and E. Malapani. 2012. Bioarchaeological Evidence for Social Differentiation in the Health and Diet of Mycenaean Pylos in Proceedings of the 2nd ARCH-RNT Symposium. pp. 143–151. University of Kalamata, Kalamata. Papazoglou-Manioudaki, L. 2003. Ο
Θολωτός Τάφος Του Πετρωτού Πατρών. Τα Πρώτα Στοιχεία in The Periphery of the Mycenaean World, 2nd International Interdisciplinary Symposium, Lamia, edited by N. Kyparissi-Apostolika. pp. 433–453. ΙΔ’ Εφορεία Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων, Athens. ———. 2008. Ανασκαφή στο λόφο της Μυγδαλιάς Πατρών. Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο 63, Χρονικά B1΄: 532–535.
———. 2011. Dishonoring the Dead: The Plundering of Tholos Tombs in the Early Palatial Period and the Case of the Tholos Tomb at Mygdalia Hill (Petroto) in Achaea in Honoring the Dead in the Peloponnese: Proceedings of the Conference Held at Sparta 23-25 April 2009, edited by Helen Cavanagh, William G. Cavanagh, and James Roy. pp. 501– 520. CSPS Online Publication 2.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/csps/ope n-source/hounouring-the-dead.aspx. Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology
of Death and Burial. Texas A&M University Press: College Station. Petropoulos, M. 1990. Πετρωτó Θέση Γούπατα. Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο 44, Χρονικά Β1΄: 132–33. ———. 1995. “Πετρωτó Θέση Γούπατα.” Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο 44: 132–33. Prag, A.J.N.W., L. Papazoglou-Manioudaki,
R.A.H. Neave, D. Smith, J.H. Musgrave and A. Nafplioti. 2009. Mycenae Revisited Part 1: The Human Remains from Grave Circle A: Stamatakis, Schliemann and Two New Faces from Shaft Grave VI. The Annual of the British School at Athens: 104. 233– 277.
Prevedorou, E.A. 2015. The Role of Kin Relations and Residential Mobility During the Transition from Final Neolithic to Early Bronze Age in Attica, Greece. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Arizona State University.
Prevedorou, E.A. and C.M. Stojanowski. 2017. Biological Kinship, Postmarital Residence and the Emergence of Cemetery
Formalisation at Prehistoric Marathon. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology: 27. 580–597. Osterholtz, A.J., K.M. Baustian, and D.L.
Martin eds. Commingled and Dis-articulated Human Remains: Working Toward Improved Theory, Method, And Data. Springer: New York.
Saul, J.M., and F.P. Saul. 2002. Forensics, Archaeology, and Taphonomy: The
