Voutsaki et al 2009 Pharos XV Argos tumuli report 2006-2007

8/8/2019 Voutsaki et al 2009 Pharos XV Argos tumuli report 2006-2007

1/40


2/40

154 s ofia v outsaki et al .

the MH ceramic fnds (seriation) is under way. All the in ormation pertaining to each MHceramic arte act (inventory number, Deilaki dissertation number, burial / skeleton / gravenumbers, technical characteristics, shape, type, measurements, re erences in Deilakis dis-sertation, re erence in diary, photo, drawing, parallels, date) has been entered into thedatabase. This will serve as the basis or the statistical analysis o the pottery and or thereconstruction o the grave contexts. A ull report is given below in section 4 (see also Sarriin Voutsaki et al . 2007, 83-85).

(ii) The study o the LH ceramic fnds is carried out by Dr Sofa Voutsaki. All fnds have

been studied, drawn and photographed. A brie presentation o the results was includedin last years report (Voutsaki et al. 2007, 85-86). The main observations are summarizedagain here: While the tumuli are in use primarily in the MH III period, seven graves inthe large tumulus (all clustering in the same area, in building plot Theodoropoulou)are used during the LH period. 3 The graves contain mostly pottery, and only very ew andhumble non-ceramic o erings (a whorl, a ew bone pins, a shell ornament). Some graveswere frst used in the MH period, while others came into use in the early Mycenaean pe-riod (LH I II). 4 It should be kept in mind that the chamber tomb cemetery in the Deiras

3 Grave : 5 (V) may have been in use in the transition rom the MH to the LH period. The two vases

deposited in the tomb (2 small plain amphoras) are now missing.4 One LH IIIA1 goblet comes rom a tomb in tumulus E (building plot Kaza). The goblet is not men-tioned in Deilakis dissertation.

Figure 1 . The location of tumuli A-E in Argos


3/40

155t he a rGos t umuli P roJect : a rePort on the 2006 and 2007 seasons

is used or the rst time in LH II. There ore, the gradual abandonment o the tumuli cem-eteries coincides with the introduction o new mortuary practices. Only a minority (one

amily group?) continued or a while to bury its members in the older pit and cist cemetery

in the oothills o the Aspis.5

(iii) The study o the MH small nds is carried out by Kalliope Sarri, while So a Vout-saki is responsible or the study o LH small nds. Almost all the non-ceramic nds havebeen studied, drawn and photographed. Only a ew have not been located so ar; in somecases (e.g. obsidian fakes not depicted in the dissertation), they cannot anymore be iden-ti ed. 6 The study o the small nds revealed some discrepancies between the Deilaki dis-sertation catalogue and the Museum inventory; most however, have been resolved.

(iv) The extant skeletons have been studied by Dr Sevi Triantaphyllou. Un ortunatelyonly a small number o skeletons could be located and securely identi ed. A rst presen-tation o the skeletons was included in last years report (Triantaphyllou in Voutsaki et al.

2007, 88-89), but the in ormation is updated here (section 6.), as the ongoing study has ledto some modi cations o the earlier results(v) The documentation pertaining to the Argos tumuli has been studied by Dr Kalliope

Sarri. The archival material includes: The excavation diaries kept by Deilaki (now held in the Archive of the 4th Ephorate

o Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities). The diaries have been photocopied, scannedand transcribed using a voice recognition programme. In addition, they have beenindexed and special keywords have been added in order to acilitate the retrieval andprocessing o in ormation.

All the material (plans, topographical plans, photoes included in Deilakis disserta-

tion, additional excavation photoes, correspondence by E. Deilaki, permits, reports,etc) kept in the Deilaki Archive (now housed in the Ephorate o Palaeoanthropologyand Speleology) has been scanned and recorded.

All excavations photoes of the Argos tumuli kept in the Photographic archive of the4th Ephorate have been scanned. 7

The volume o the archival in ormation we ound exceeded our expectations. At the sametime, the gaps in the documentation are becoming apparent: the grave contexts are not al-ways described in much detail; certain excavations are not well documented; some groundplans o grave clusters and topographical plans o burial plots are missing and have to be

reconstructed rom the available documentation; by ar the majority o the photoes (withthe exception o those included in Deilakis disseration) have no captions, and there oretheir identi cation is a slow and laborious process. However, in some respects the diarieso er more in ormation than we expected: or instance, a lot o detail is included in the de-scription o the excavation and the stratigraphy o the tumuli; measurements, in particu-lar depth measurements, were taken regularly and seem to be accurate. This in ormation

5 Cists and pits are sporadically used in LH times in di erent parts o Argos e.g. the MH / LH pit301 with a cremation rom secteur (Daux 1968, 1038-1039), or the LH IIB cist tomb in plot Yiannaki(Touchais & Divari-Valakou 1998, 11).6 Here we need to acknowledge once more the assistance o the apothekarios o the Argos Museum,

Vangelis Giannopoulos, without whose help this study would have been impossible.7 The photoes have been scanned by Eleni Milka.


4/40


is very important when trying to establish stratigraphic units, as well as the stratigraphicassociations o particular eatures such as perivoloi, stone covers, pebble layers, etc.

(v) All the archival material, plus the photoes and drawings we have made are being

classifed into an electronic project archive by Kalliope Sarri. All photographs and draw-ings o the fnds have been digitized and classifed. The material obtained rom the DeilakiArchive and the Nauplion Photographic Archive has been entered into the electronicarchive and classifed per grave / per building plot / per tumulus.

The classifcation o the archival material is a necessary step which will acilitate thereconstruction o the fnd contexts at the next stage o the study. The classifcation has al-ready solved many (though not all) discrepancies between inventory numbers, cataloguenumbers used in Deilakis dissertation and Museum / excavation labels.

(vi) The analysis o the mortuary practices is carried out in the frst instance by EleniMilka, as part o her comparative study o mortuary practices in the large MH cemeteries

(Lerna, Asine, Argos). This analysis is based primarily on Deilakis dissertation (Protono-tariou-Deilaki 1980a). A report on the spatial aspects o the analysis is given below (sec-tion 5.).

Sofa Voutsaki is responsible or the integration o material rom the Deilaki Archiveand or the analysis o the Mycenaean graves.

3. Summary of the work to be carried out in 2008

The most important task to be carried out in 2008 is the reconstruction of the stratigra-

phy o the individual tumuli, and o the stratigraphic associations o individual graves to the extent that this is possible. This will be carried out by Dr Oliver Dickinson, whowill draw together:- The in ormation rom Deilakis dissertation;- The in ormation rom the Deilaki archive, put together by K. Sarri with help by

Sofa Voutsaki;- The dating o the pottery fnds provided by K. Sarri.

In 2008 we will also carry out radiocarbon, stable isotopes and ancient DNA analyseson a sample o the extant skeletons.

Our initial plan included to place the tumuli in the GIS grid set up for Argos by the 4th

Ephorate. This can only be done once we fnish the study o the archival material, andcheck the accuracy o ground plans or all tumuli and building plots. Our analysis will also include the comparison of mortuary practices in the Argos tu -

muli with the largely contemporary intramural burials in the Aspis, but also the otherlarge cemeteries in the Argolid (Lerna and Asine). This comparison is carried out byEleni Milka. Sofa Voutsaki is responsible or the comparison with other burials andcemeteries in Argos itsel , i.e. Deshayes (1966) excavations, the excavations by theFrench School in Argos, reported annually in the Chroniques o the BCH, recent res-cue excavations by the 4 th Ephorate (reported in the Archaiologikon Deltion ; see alsoDivari-Valakou 1989; Papadimitriou in press), as well as with the Mycenaean chamber

tomb cemetery in the Deiras (Deshayes 1966).


5/40


6/40


Tumulus Grave Description Offerings Proto-notariou

- Deilaki(1980)

Deilakidate

New date

B B: 137(A)

Mudbrick cist.Single,contracted burial

1 Minyan jug(shapeunique)

pp. 24-25 MH I MH I II

B: 138(B)

Pit, singlecontracted burial

1 fask pp. 25-26 MH MH I II

: 70 (12) Pithos, no burialpreserved

7 vasesinside, 1vase ascover,7 vasesoutside

pp. 72-77 MHearly

MH I(withsomeEH IIIelements)

It is interesting perhaps that no grave can be dated with absolute certainty to the MHII period. 10 The progress o the analysis will allow us to examine whether we are dealingwith a real gap, i.e. a break in the use o the cemetery. However, as many graves are un-

urnished, or not closely datable, it is also possible that no objects, or no diagnostic objectswere deposited with the dead in this period.

At least in one case the early date o the grave should be revised (Table 2).Table 2. Early phase: Grave with revised dating

Tumulus Graveno

Description Offerings Proto-notariou- Deilaki(1980)

Deilakidate

New date

: 44 (V) Pit.Single burial,contracted,

proneposition

Jug with cut-away neck,plate (plate

now missing)

p. 63 MH I - II MH IIIA

In some other graves the dating is less secure. As we can see in Table 3, we are dealingeither with un urnished graves, or with graves containing undiagnostic nds. It should benoted that graves : 40 (I), : 41 (II), : 42 (III), : 43 (IV), : 44 (V) and : 84 (28)were dated to Deilaki to the early MH period on the basis o stratigraphic evidence (she

10 Zerner 1988; Dietz 1991, 4257; Maran 1992, Beilage 1018, Abb. 25.

(ervolg) Table 1. Early phase: MH I II graves in the Argos tumuli


7/40


reconstructed them as part o an older tumulus ). 11 The revision o the date o grave 44casts some doubt on the early date o this group.

Table 3. Graves with uncertain early dating

Tumulus Grave no Description Offerings Proto-notariou- Deilaki(1980)

Deilakidate

New date

: 40 (I) PitSingle burial,on its back,contracted legs

- p. 62 MH I ?

: 41 (II) PitSingle contractedburial

- pp. 62 MH I ?

: 42 (III) Pit.Single heavilycontracted burial

- pp. 62-63 MH I ?

: 43 (IV) Pit.In ant burial

- pp. 63 MH I ?

: 84 (28) Pit. Accordingto Deilaki, incentre o earlier

tumulus to whichtombs 40-44 alsobelong.

- pp. 86-87 MH I ?

: 77 (18) Pit. No burialpreserved in ant?

Bone tool p. 81 MH I ?

Turning now to graves rom all periods, our study has revised or refned the date o mostgraves dated by Deilaki to the MH period in general (Table 4).

Table 4. Graves dated by Deilaki to MH, with revised or refned dating.


Deilakidate

New date

: 78 (19) Pit Matt-painted jug

pp. 81-82 MH MH IIIB?

: 79 (20) Pit Jug,kantharos

p. 82 MH MH IIIB

11 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, pp. 62-63, 86-87. But see below, section 5.


8/40



Deilakidate

New date

: 10 (X) Pit Kalathos p. 39 MH LH IA : 14 (XIII) Cist.

Singlecontractedburial.

Matt-painted jug

pp. 41-42 MH I- II

MH III

: 140 (1) Pit 24 vases, foundinside and justabove the grave.

Metal and bone jewellery

pp. 91-101 MH MH IIIB

: 141 (2) Pit Jug,kantharos


: 142 (III) Pit Jug,kantharos

p. 103 MH MH IIIB

: 143 (IV) Pit Jug,kalathos


: 144 (VI) Pit Juglet, pyxis pp. 105-106 MH LH I : 161 (2) Pit 2 jugs.

Kantharos,cup

pp. 107-108 MH MH IIIB-LH I

: 162 (3b) Shaft grave - p. 109 MH MH IIIB

E E: 88 (1) Cist Jug,Kantharos.Gold diadem

pp. 111-112 MH MH IIIB-LH IA

E E: 89 (2) Pit Clay button p. 113 MH MH

E E: 90 (3) Pit Jug,kantharos


E E: 92 (5) Elaboratecist, or shaftgrave

Kantharos,2 amphorae.Gold ornaments,sword,knives


E E: 93 (6) Shaft grave Jug,Kantharos,Amphora.Stone jewelry.




9/40



Deilakidate

New date

Z: A Cist 2 jugs p. 192 MH II MHIIIA

MH IIIB

Z: H Cist Jug,Kantharos,cup

pp. 192-193 MH II MHIIIA

MH III

A large number o graves (53) contained no ceramic o erings. We hope we will be able todate these graves more accurately once we have completed the study o the stratigraphy.It would be very interesting, or instance, to see i they fll the (possible) MH II hiatus. Inaddition, it is worth examining i these un urnished graves share common eatures and i they belong to the same stratigraphic units or burial clusters (see below, section 5).

A urther aim o our study is to apply the current sub-divisions o the MH III period andthereby elucidate the relative chronology o this crucial period. The sub-division into MHIIIA and MH IIIB is based on Dietzs (1991) pottery seriation o selected burial c ontexts

rom the Argolid, 12 and is widely used in order to date non-stratifed ceramic fnds o the lateMH period. Following these subdivisions, the main period o use o the tumuli cemeteries

is the MH IIIB period, a phase contemporary with Lerna V 6-7, Aegina-Kolonna Town X(pottery phases J and K) and the layers younger than the oval house in the Lower Town o Asine. 13

Our study benefts rom a comparison o the tumuli assemblage with material romthe settlements in Aegina-Kolonna, Lerna and Aspis which has appeared in recent (albeitpreliminary) publications. 14 In particular, comparisons with Aegina and Lerna help us torefne the chronology o the earlier part o the period, to understand the use o the areain MH III and to reconstruct patterns o interaction with other regions o the Aegean.The comparison o various chronological clusters o the Argos tumuli with the sequenceo the Aspis settlement (Table 5) provides us with an interesting contrast, as the material

which is plenti ul on the Aspis does not occur in the tumuli. While the early MH I phase isrepresented both in the Aspis settlement (Aspis II) and in the tumuli (tumuli A and ), themain phase o use o the tumuli (MH IIIB with tumuli , , and Z in use) representsthe last period o habitation o the Aspis (Aspis IV 2-3). Finally, a ew tombs in tumulus remain in use in the LH period, a ter the settlement was abandoned. 15

12 Dietz 1991, 243-246.13 Dietz 1991, 41, fg. 93; Gauss & Smetana 2007, 65, fg. B; Zerner, n.d.. See also above, n. 8.14 Aegina: Gauss & Smetana 2007. Lerna: Zerner 1978, 1988 and 1990. Aspis: Philippa-Touchais 2002;

2003; 2007; Touchais 2007.15 On the stratigraphy o the Aspis settlement, see Touchais 2007, 83.



10/40


Table 5 . Periods of use of the Aspis settlement and the Argos tumuli

Period Aspis sequence Argos tumuli

MH I Aspis II

, B,

MH II Aspis III A?, B?, ?

MH III A Aspis IV 1 A?,

MH III B Aspis IV 2-3 A?, , , , , Z

LH I onwards -

The comparison between the tumuli and Aspis assemblages urther helps us to clari yaspects o the local argive ceramic production, but also to observe the gradual creation o

a specialized unerary assemblage.To conclude: The tumuli cemeteries contain some earlier (MH III) burials (probablyin tumuli, at least partly, see below section 5). The absence o o erings unambiguouslydating to the MH II period may indicate the temporary abandonment o the cemetery,or the interment o un urnished burials, or the deposition o undiagnostic o erings. Themain use o the cemeteries should be placed in the MH IIIB period. Indeed during thisperiod, the number o tombs in use increased sharply, and the cemeteries expanded in size.In contrast, numbers declined dramatically in the Mycenaean period. The use during theLH (LH I-LH IIIA?) period was sporadic, and spatially very restricted.

(ii) The composition of the assemblageThe MH-LH I ceramic assemblage consists o 123 complete vases. he vases show markedhomogeneity and can be considered to be coming largely rom a local workshop. By arthe majority o vases belong to fne wares; only very ew coarse vases (3%) are placedas burial gi ts or used as receptacles or the bodies (fg. 2). A household pottery groupcomes rom the early assemblage in tumulus rom the two pithoi : 69 and : 70 (12)in oikopedon Prokopiou. 16 A coarse tub-shaped pyxis rom : 22 (XXI), a airly rich gravecontaining also 6 fne-tempered decorated vases, 17 may have been placed in the grave be-cause o its special use or content. The coarse incised jugs rom the pithos graves : 70 (12)and : 6918 date according to the Lerna and Nichoria sequence to MH I-II, but occur in the

Aspis settlement also in later stages o the MH period.19

A coarse kalathos rom grave

:6120 is the only coarse version o a shape usually made in the local matt-painted style andshould belong to the LH IA period. 21

16 Only pithos : 70 (12) contains diagnostic pottery, but as pithos : 69 shares many similarities with : 70 (12), it should be contemporary with it (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 27).17 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 4649.18 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 7172, pl. 45.3-4.19 Nichoria: Howell 1992, pl. 3-22, P2318P2328; pl. 3-60, P2662, P2671P2673, P2675. Lerna: Zerner 1978,fg. 1.2b, 5.21.23, 8.25. Aspis: Touchais 2007, 89, fg. 13.

20 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 6667, pl. 43.12.21 Dietz 1991, 162, fg. 48, AB-7(3).


11/40


Turning now to bulk o the medium to ne-tempered pottery, two local argive classes havebeen recognized in previous MH pottery studies: 22 the Argive Minyan, and more recentlythe Argive Light Ware. 23

Fine Grey Minyan constitutes 23% o the entire assemblage in the Argos tumuli ( g.3), and we can there ore presume that this class although already out o ashion duringthe main period o use o the cemetery, i.e. in MH IIIB- is local rather than imported romcentral Greece. This suggestion is rein orced i we look at the large amount o True Min-yan rom the Aspis which must have been manu actured in Argos or in the adjacent ar-ea. 24 The shape repertoire o this small group 25 refects all stages o development rom the

early hand-made deep bowls o the MH I-II period, to the kantharoi and high-stemmedgoblets o the MH II-III period, and, nally, to the characteristic shapes o LH I. This in-dicates that this category continues until the end o the transitional MH / LH period, butbecomes less requent with time.

The so-called Argive Minyan made o dark red reddish clay is poorly represented:there is only one questionable vase rom tumulus B. 26 This class is underrepresented in

22 French 1972; Zerner 1978; 1986; 1993; Dietz et al. 1988.23 Argive Minyan: Blegen 1921, 1718. Argive Light Ware: Dietz 1991, 2931, g. 2.24 Kilikoglou et al. 2003, 132, g. XXVIIa, XXVIIIb; Sarri in print.

25 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, pl. 29.1, 32.4, 44.14, 51.13.8, 53, 5.26 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 25, pl. B 4.1.

Figure 2 . Fine and coarse wares in the Argos tumuli assemblage


12/40


Figure 3 . MH pottery classes among the Argos tumuli finds

the tumuli, while it is airly abundant on the Aspis and the Deiras, 27 where apparently itbelongs to the MH I II phases.

Yellow Minyan is o ten hard to distinguish rom the fne tempered Argive Light Ware, 28 or two reasons: a) Both classes are o ten similar in terms o abric, shape and manu acturing

techniques, and b) di erent terms are used or the same class in the various publications. 29 Under Yellow Minyan we classi y here examples with hard-fred clay and reddish-yellowintensively burnished sur ace. All examples rom the Argos tumuli date to MH III period.Yellow Minyan with matt-painted decoration, a distinctive central Greek product well rep-resented in Eutresis, 30 is very rare and obviously not a typical local eature. 31 Applied decora-

tion is used only in one case, a unique kalathos with animal-shaped spout (fg. 4.6).32

Painted pottery is the most requently occurring class. Both Matt-painted and LustrousDecorated categories are represented. Matt-painted pottery (fg. 3) is by ar the best repre-sented category: it represents 52% o the entire assemblage (against 35% in the Aspis). 33 It

27 Deiras: Deshayes 1966, 116120. Aspis: Kilikoglou et al . 2003, 133, XXVIIIb; Sarri in print.28 This ware is called monochrome claire in the French terminology or the pottery o Aspis: Philippa-Touchais 2002, 4, fg. 1, and Philippa-Touchais, personal communication.29 Dietz 1991, 34, fg. 2.30 Goldman 1931, 167.31 See a brie re erence to this variation in: Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 15, n. 52.

32 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 98, pl. 8.2.33 Kilikoglou et al . 132, XXVIIa.


13/40


Figure 4 . Vases from the Argos tumuli


14/40


shows a large variety o shapes and decorations, and thereby reveals the main eatures o the local workshop, which we know already rom the domestic assemblage o the Aspis. 34 However, some di erences can be noted: e.g. among the burial o erings o the tumuli

we usually nd very ne tempered pottery, but hardly ever the gritty matt-painted abrics,which occur in large numbers in the settlement. The decorative patterns are usually simplebands, groups o lines and running spirals, but occasionally gurative moti s, such as shipsand birds 35 ( g. 4.8) are also depicted. A distinctive eature o the local pottery workshopis the hand-made technique and the almost exclusive use o dark brown paint.

The Matt-painted pottery o Argos shares many similarities with the Aeginetan waresin terms o ring technology, decoration and orm. The main distinguishing eature o Ae-ginetan pottery, the gold mica inclusions, are not always detectable. We there ore classi eda small group o vases made o pure clay, with greenish bu porous sur ace to the Aegine-tan workshop. 36 However, since no petrographic analyses have been undertaken, the prov-

enance o these vases has to remain an open question. We should there ore talk ratherabout Matt-painted pottery o Aegina type rather than about Aeginetan imports. 37

A special Matt-painted class, the Mainland Polychrome, is represented by only twoexamples, both coming rom the same grave : 22 (XXI), used in MH IIIB. 38 They seem to

ollow the Minyan tradition rather than the local Matt-painted, as they are ne-levigated,and well burnished with a reddish-yellow sur ace. The bichrome decoration o fying birdson both vases, nds close argive parallels in tumulus IQ o Asine and in Grave Circle B. 39

Lustrous Decorated is a Minoanizing class, widely distributed in the southern Pelopon-nese. 40 In the Argolid it is mainly known rom the early settlement phases o Aspis andLerna. 41 In the Argos tumuli assemblage this abric is represented by only three vases

rom graves

: 73, E: 92 (5) and Z: H ( g. 4.9).42

One o them, a polychrome amphora witha close parallel in Sha t Grave Iota, 43 comes rom grave E: 92 (5), where it was ound to-gether with a bronze sword and 3 gold ornaments. 44

Finally, Red-slipped pottery, a abric mainly ound on Aegina, but also in Keos 45 and invarious coastal argive sites, is represented only by two small cups, both ound in the samegrave o a young girl, : 140 (1), dated to MH III B period ( g. 4.2). 46

34 Philippa-Touchais 2002.35 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 95, 9697, pl. 7.23 and 73.

36 On the technology o Aeginetan wares: Zerner 1978, 156; Siedentop 1991, 1013. For the presence o the abric in the Argos area, Philippa-Touchais 2007, 110, n. 14.37 On the petrographic analysis o the Aspis Matt-painted, s. Kilikoglou et al. 2003, 134.38 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980, 46, pl. 33.2-3; 34.3-5.39 Mylonas 1973, pl. 113, 171 ; Dietz 1980, g. 26, 28; Dietz 1991, 231, g. 72, 74, LD-4.40 Dietz 1991, 236, g. 75, MA-1, MB-1.41 Lerna: Zerner 1986, 6668. Aspis: Philippa-Touchais 2003; Kilikiglou et al. 2003, 132, g. XXVIIa.42 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, see also Sarri 2007, g.13,4.43 Mylonas 1973: Grave I, pl. 95 , Grave a pl. 158 .44 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 117.45 French 1972, 25 -26. A very small amount is ound on the Aspis settlement, Kilikoglou et al. 2003, XX-VIIa.

46 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 98, pl. 8.3a-b. On the chronology o this grave, see Dietz 1991, 243-244(contexts 12-13), 263, 265.


15/40


The divergence observed in the proportional representation o abrics in the Argos tu-muli and the Aspis settlement, can be attributed to the di erent uses o pottery in thedomestic or burial contexts, but also to the act that the periods o use o the Aspis settle-

ment and the tumuli cemeteries overlap only partly (see above). For instance, the under-representation o Minyan wares in the cemeteries confrms perhaps that the tumuli maynot have been in use in MH II or at least that no diagnostic pottery was deposited in thisperiod.

(iii) ShapesThe repertoire o shapes (fg. 5) is closely connected with the special use o pottery in aburial context. Jugs constitute the most numerous category (fg. 5; fgs 4.8,10); they mayhave been used or pouring, or or libations. Various types o kantharoi represent the mostcommon open shape. They are o ten ound in sets with a jug, 47 though the kantharoi are

sometimes replaced by cups. Goblets, a shape used mainly in the MH II period, are noto ten ound. (fg. 4.7). 48 Amphoriskoi and kalathoi, shapes used more during the MHIIIB period, may have been made especially or burial use, as they are not o ten ound insettlements. 49

47 Nordquist 1999.

48 Sarri in Voutsaki et al. 2007, fg. 13.6.49 For context and development o these shapes, see Dietz 1991, fg. 48, 195-198, ig. 60.

Figure 5 . Pottery shapes from the Argos tumuli


16/40


Miniature vases occur very o ten; they come usually (but not always) rom child burials( g. 4.1-5). 50 In order to examine this particular group closely and compare it with thepottery o normal size, we took various measurements and weighted all pottery nds. The

lightest vessel o the assemblage is a red-slipped carinated cup rom grave

: 61 weightingonly 28g ( g. 4.1). Unusual, small-sized vases ( g. 4.4-6) occur in the Argos tumuli muchmore requently than in settlements, a practical unction in the household is there oreunlikely. They may have had a special or votive character.

(iv) Imports and oreign infuencesBased on our preliminary observations, imported pottery constitutes a rather small part o the assemblage, at the most 14%. This number is de nitely smaller than the one reported

rom the Lerna and Aspis settlements. 51 Imports coming probably rom distant productioncentres, include incised fasks, Lustrous Decorated, Aeginetan and probably Polychrome

Mainland pottery.52

One medium tempered jar with traces o black decoration53

comingrom the oval structure o tumulus A might have come rom an Aegean island or evenrom Crete, as proposed initially by Deilaki. 54

The assemblage presents a purely local character and even a certain introversion. Notonly does it include ew imports, but also little e ort is made to imitate oreign trends. Theonly direct infuence comes rom the island o Aegina, but even this infuence has alreadybeen assimilated into the local production. However, this may have to do with the special

unerary nature o the assemblage, since the nearby settlements o Aspis and Lerna seemto be more open to oreign infuences.

As a nal point, it can be suggested that the closest parallels to the Argos tumuli

assemblage, at least as ar as the character o the local production and the proportionalrepresentation o abrics is concerned, are to be ound in the contemporary graves o Pro-symna. This may suggest the existence o a continental cultural circle o inland argive sites,marking a clear di erence rom the contemporary coastal sites like Lerna or Asine.

5. The analysis of mortuary practices: tumuli and grave clusters (by Eleni Milka)

The analysis o mortuary practices concentrated on two key questions:(i) Are the Argos cemeteries tumuli or not?

(ii) Do the tumulus burials belong to an elite?The rst question will be answered by examining the spatial organization o the graves,and by checking Deilakis arguments or the existence o tumuli. The second question willbe discussed by examining the quantity and quality o the grave goods and the elaborationo the tombs.

50 A large number o miniature vases is also ound on the Aspis, Philippa-Touchais 2002, 16-17, g. 11-13.51 Lerna: Zerner 1993. Aspis: Kilikoglou et al. 2003; Philippa-Touchais 2007.52 Dietz et al. 1988; Dietz 1991, 32-35; Zerner 1993, 42; Kilikoglou et al. 2003; Philippa-Touchais 2007.

53 See below, section 5.54 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 1516, 52, n. 55.


17/40


(i) Spatial organizationThe 101 graves studied here were divided by Deilaki into ve tumuli ( g. 1). The ollowingtypes o evidence were used: the existence o successive pebble and clay layers, the pres-

ence o enclosure walls and the spatial arrangement o the graves. However, not all theseeatures can be ound in each one o the tumuli. Moreover, Deilaki suggested that tumu-lus was a compound tumulus, consisting o smaller grave groups, which may representseparate, smaller tumuli. It should be noted that the designation o these cemeteries astumuli has been recently disputed (A. Papadimitriou 1994; Divari-Valakou 1998; A. Pa-padimitriou in press), and the suggestion was made that the pebble layers, into which thegraves were cut, were the result o periodic foods o the river Haradros.

Here the stratigraphy and the basic eatures (e.g. enclosures, spatial arrangement o graves) o each tumulus, as described by Deilaki, will be presented and subsequentlycritically assessed. Special attention will be given to any similarities in practices within

each tumulus. Finally, the existence o spatial variation inside each o the burial placesdesignated as tumuli by Deilaki will be examined. Spatial variation within tumuli maynot necessarily disprove the existence o burial mounds, but it does rein orce any doubtsas to their existence. Following this analysis, the question whether MH tumuli existed inArgos will be addressed.

It should be stressed, however, that the spatial analysis o data obtained rom rescueexcavations in areas constantly occupied until the present day presents several problemsand limitations. The excavations are limited to small areas, i.e. private building plots whichwere excavated at di erent times by di erent archaeologists. As a result, it is di cult to

orm an overall picture o the Argos cemeteries. Moreover, the constant occupation o the

city o Argos has caused many disturbances both during antiquity and during the modernperiod, as earlier layers have been cut away. In addition, in some cases the excavation didnot continue below substantial structures. All these actors a ect and distort the distribu-tion o eatures available or study.

Tumulus A (Oikonomou, Kapetanou, Gritzani and Totsika plots)

Tumulus A consisted o two pebble layers with red clay in between (7-10cm). A cover o bigger, rounded stones was ound upon the pebble layers. The burial mound was markedby two enclosures, which were partially preserved ( g. 7). The pebble ll o the tumulus

was 0.32m higher than the outer enclosure, orming a clear mound (Protonotariou-Deilaki1980a, 9-11). It should be mentioned, however, that only the northern part o the tumulushad been excavated be ore 1974.

In the centre o the two (not really concentric) enclosures, an oval structure was ound(1.28 x 1.05m). The soil inside this structure contained carbonised material,which mayhave been the result o strong and repeated res. Only ve MH I-II vases, but no boneswere ound inside the structure. This structure was probably connected with some kind o ritual taking place at the centre o the tumulus (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 11-14).

All the graves (6) ound in Oikonomou and Gritzani plots ( g. 6), where the excavatedpart o the tumulus was situated, were ound inside the inner enclosure. The graves were

oriented N-S (although A: 119 (B) was oriented NW-SE) and not towards the stone struc-ture in the centre o the tumulus. They date rom the earlier (A: 121 ( ), MH I-II) until the


18/40


later phases o the cemetery use (sha t grave A: 122 (Z), late MH?). No graves have beenound between the two enclosures.

However, some graves (7) were ound outside the two enclosures, in the adjacent Ka-petanou ( g. 6) and Totsika ( g. 7) plots (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 9-11). These graveswere roughly oriented along the E-W axis and their orientation does not seem to be in-fuenced by the tumulus construction. Two o them might date to the earlier phases o theMH period (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 21-22) while the others are generally dated tothe MH period. However, the presence o larger and more elaborate graves (e.g. A: 122

(Z), which cannot be closely dated) imply that the tumulus may have remained in use (orre-used) in the later MH phases.We see there ore that in this case there is evidence supporting the existence o a tumu-

lus, namely two concentric stone enclosures, with a possibly ritual structure in the centre,and a burial mound constructed rom successive stone and clay layers. However, it can bequestioned whether all graves ascribed to tumulus A belong to it. Deilaki (1980, 11, n. 37)suggested that the graves ound at Kapetanou and Totsika plots outside the outer enclo-sure o the tumulus belonged to a compound tumulus (as in tumulus ) or to a di erentburial mound, adjacent to tumulus A.

The graves can be divided into two groups on the basis o their spatial arrangement.

Group A:1 ( g. 6) contains the six graves ound inside the inner perivolos o the tumulus atOikonomou and Gritzani plots and group A:2 ( g. 6, g. 7) the seven graves ound outside

Figure 5 . Tumulus A: Oikonomou, Kapetanou and Gritzani plots


19/40


the two perivoloi, in Kapetanou and Totsika plots. The two grave groups ollow a di er-ent orientation. The graves o group A:1 were oriented along the N-S axis (A: 119 (B) wasoriented NW-SE), while the graves o group A:2 were roughly oriented E-W. Moreover,the age composition o the two groups di ers. Group A:1 contains only adult individuals

buried mainly in cists (3) and in one sha t grave, while in group A:2 both adults and sub-adults were buried mainly in pit graves (6). No consistent chronological di erence existsbetween the two groups; at least, both contain early graves.

On the basis o the evidence presented above, and in particular the di erences be-tween the two groups, it can be suggested that the graves ound in Oikonomou and Grit-zani belonged to a tumulus, and the graves ound in Kapetanou and Totsika plots werepart o an extended cemetery. As the majority o the graves cannot be dated, it is di fcultto ascertain the temporal relation between graves inside and outside the tumulus. Thereare two possibilities: Either the tumulus was constructed with the oval structure at its cen-tre already in the MH I-II period, and then remained in use until the later phases, while

in the meantime graves were opened next to it. Or the tumulus was constructed at a latertime in an area already used as cemetery. The detailed study o the stratigraphic relation

Figure 7 . Tumulus A: Totsika plot


20/40


21/40


(Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 27). Adults and three sub-adults were buried here in cists

and one pit. Most (9) o the graves date rom the later MH phases, while the remainingcannot be closely dated.The 2 nd group (fg. 8) consists o fve graves 58 ound close together in the SE corner o

Theodoropoulos property. A retaining wall runs between these graves (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 27). Adults and one child were buried here in cists. Four o the graves date

rom the MH III-LH I period.Finally, a small mound with a heap o stones around it were ound above built grave :

29 (XXVIII) (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 27). This small mound, however, marked theposition o a single grave and is there ore not a typical tumulus.

We see there ore that two grave groups supposedly covered with small mounds have

been distinguished by Deilaki in Theodoropoulos plot. The case or the frst tumulus,around the well (1 st group), is more convincing, as the graves seem to have been arrangedin circles around a central point. However, the signifcance o the two separate pebble cov-ers described by Deilaki is not very clear. Nor can the limits o the tumulus be defned, asno enclosure has been ound.

The evidence or the existence o the second mound (2 nd group) is rather weak. No de-scription o the stratigraphy is given, no enclosure was ound and the retaining wall whichruns between the graves argues against the tumulus theory. The burials placed here sharemany eatures with those o the 1 st group, e.g. double/multiple burials and more o erings,making the limits between the 1 st and the 2 nd group more uncertain.

58 : 11 (XI), : 22 (XXI), : 4 (IV), : 21 (XX), : 3 (III).

Figure 8 . Tumulus : Theodoropoulou, Prokopiou and Renta plots


22/40


Finally, it should be added that many o the graves excavated in Theodoropoulos plot areound outside the groups proposed by Deilaki, suggesting that we are here dealing with an

extensive burial ground rather than with distinct tumuli.

b) Prokopiou plot (middle)The older (MH) tumulus cover/fll or to be more precise, what was interpreted by Deilakias the older (MH) tumulus cover/fll- was ound in the area o Prokopiou and Renta plotsbelow the Classical and the Hellenistic layers (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 29).

Generally, in this area it is di fcult to reconstruct both Deilakis groupings and thesequence o use. For instance, in her catalogue o graves, Deilaki dates graves : 40 (I), : 41 (II), : 42 (III), : 43 (IV), : 44 (V) and : 84 (28) - all between Theodoropoulouand Prokopiou plots - to MH I, and attributes them to the earlier tumulus in the area(Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 86). All these tombs seem to be contemporary, but as Sarrihas re-dated : 44 (V) to MH IIIA, 59 the existence o an older tumulus becomes uncer-

tain.Deilaki also thought that a 3 rd small group o three pits (fg. 8) 60 was arranged in a circlearound an unknown centre (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 27). This evidence alone, how-ever, is insu fcient to support the existence o a separate group o graves, or the existenceo a burial mound. Moreover, it is not clear why Deilaki did not include into this group thethree graves 61 which were ound very close and share the same eatures, i.e. they are singleadult burials in pits, though probably dating rom the MH IIIB period (see above, Sarri,Table 4). 62 c) Rentas plot (southern)This plot has the same stratigraphy as the Prokopiou plot (see above). Traces o what

Deilaki thought to be the MH tumulus were ound only in the northern part o the plot.The southern part was occupied by later Classical and Hellenistic buildings (Protonotari-ou-Deilaki 1980a, 27), which probably cut away any earlier strata.

A 4 th group o graves (fg. 8) 63 in the area between Renta and Prokopiou plots was de-scribed by Deilaki separately. She thought that the graves o this group were arranged ina circle. A couple o rounded stones orming a circle may indicate the existence o a stoneenclosure although it is not clear which graves were included in the stone enclosure, i there ever was one. According to Deilaki, this enclosure was in use during the early phaseso the tumulus (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 27). However, the graves o this group donot share the same orientation nor do they seem to be arranged around a central structure

or grave. It should be pointed out that Deilaki (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a, 86) suggeststhat they were arranged around early grave : 84 (28) whose date however is uncertain(Table 3).

59 See Table 2 above.60 : 80 (21), : 81 (22), : 82 (23). Dietz dated : 82 (23) to the MH IIIA period (Dietz 1991, 136, 244-245).61 : 78 (19), : 79 (20), : 86 (30).62 Dietz (1991, 244-245, fg. 77) dates : 79 (20) to LH IA.

63 : 69, : 70 (12), : 68, : 74 (15), : 75 (16), : 65 (8), : 63, : 71 (13), : 58; see Protonotariou-Deilaki1980a, 27.


23/40


24/40


Tumulus E (Kaza property)As with tumulus , the upper layers o tumulus E were disturbed by ancient occupa-tion and no mound was preserved. Deilaki mentioned that the layer into which the MHgraves were opened looked like the natural fne pebble layer ound in this area. Accord-ing to her, the nine graves excavated here ormed a circle. This circular arrangement was

the strongest indication that a tumulus once existed here (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a,110). However, only a part o the burial plot was excavated, and there ore it is not reallypossible to establish whether the graves were arranged in a circle. No stone enclosure was

ound. Once more, the evidence or the existence o a tumulus in this area is not strong. Itis once more sa er to conclude that these graves were part o an extended and well orga-nized cemetery. The graves share common eatures. Four date to the MH IIIB period (E:88(1) continues into LH IA) while the remaining cannot be dated. Seven adults and a childwere buried in Kaza plot, mainly in cists. Most o the graves (6) contained grave goods,including golden items, which are not ound in other parts o the cemetery.

Figure 9 . Tumulus : Vlahou plot


25/40


Concluding Discussion

To conclude: Su fcient evidence or the existence o a tumulus can be ound in Oikono-mou and Gritzani plots, which are part o Deilakis tumulus A. This tumulus may havebeen constructed during the early phases o the MH period, or during the later phases inthe area o an earlier burial place. A second tumulus may have existed in the northern parto Theodoropoulos plot, around Deilakis 1 st group o graves. As most graves in the areadate to MH III, this tumulus may have belonged to the MH III period. However, the evi-dence is not very strong, as no enclosure was ound and the evidence or the existence o amound is ambiguous. The evidence or Deilakis older tumulus in tumulus , Prokopiouis ambiguous, and the date is uncertain.

Figure 10 . Tumulus E: Kaza plot


26/40


The remaining graves should be treated as part o an extended cemetery, di erent partso which were in use in di erent periods though the main period o use o the cemeterywas in MH IIIB. 64 A certain spatial variation between di erent parts o the cemetery can

be observed, but the analysis is seriously hampered by the ragmented nature o the avail-able data.

(ii) WealthThe second important question we need to address is whether the graves belonged to anelite. 65 The criteria usually used to establish the presence o an elite group are the quantityand the quality o the grave goods and the elaboration o the tombs. Let us examine eachvariable separately.a. Quantity and quality of the grave goodsIn total 190 objects have been ound in 53 graves (52.5% o all the graves). The vast major-

ity o these objects were vases (140), deposited in 41 graves (40.6%) (28 graves containedonly pottery). Most o them contained one (13) or two (16) vases. Seven graves containedup to fve vases and only fve graves contained more than fve vases. Tombs containingmore than three vases date rom MH III period onwards. The only exception is the MH Iburial pithos : 70 (12) in which 14 vases were ound. Graves with many vases were oundin tumulus , Vlahou plot, and in tumulus , Theodoropoulos and Prokopiou plots.

Both adults and sub-adults received vases; equally, larger groups o vases were deposit-ed with both adults and sub-adults. Only a small number o the skeletons has been locatedand studied; 66 among the studied skeletons who were accompanied by pottery our were

emales and two males.

Ornaments (16) and tools (14) are the second most common categories o grave goods,while pins (7), terracotta whorls (5) and weapons (5) are only occasionally ound. Non ce-ramic objects were ound in 28 graves (27.7%). However, only fve o them 67 contained objects that could be characterized as valuables. These were our gold bands, a bronze sword,three bronze kni es, a necklace o agate and cornelian beads, a bronze pendant and twobracelets o cornelian, paste, aience and crystal beads. They all date rom the MH IIIB-LH IA period and most are ound in tumulus E, Kaza plot and tumulus , Vlahou plot.Valuable objects were ound in three adult and two sub-adult graves, which also containedvases. No correlation with gender could be made, as none o the three adult skeletons hasbeen examined.

Generally, there is a correlation between the quantity and the quality o grave goods andthe grave type. Larger quantities o vases and valuable objects were mainly ound in graveso more substantial construction (cists, pithoi, sha t grave, built tomb). However, exceptionsexist, e.g. the rich MH IIIB pit : 140 (I), or the un urnished sha t-grave A: 122 (Z).

64 See above, section 4.65 See also the discussion in Papadimitriou 2001, passim.66 See section 6.

67 : 140 (I), E: 88 (1), E: 92 (5), E: 93 (6), : 2 (II).


27/40


b. Tomb elaborationAlmost equal numbers o pit (45) and cist (48) graves were ound in the Argos tumuli.The most elaborate graves were two sha t graves 68 ound in the Kaza property, tumulus E

and in the Gritzani property, tumulus A and one built tomb ound in Theodoropoulos plot,tumulus . There ore elaborate tombs do not concentrate in one area o the cemetery.The proportion o di erent grave types is typical or a late MH burial ground.

To conclude: the data do not support the idea that the tumuli burials belong exclusivelyto elites. Only nine o the 101 graves were richer in terms o the quantity and/or quality o the grave goods. With the exception o pithos burial : 70 (12), these graves date rom thelater part o the period when a general increase in wealth across all Argive cemeteries hasbeen observed. Interestingly, out o these nine tombs, fve were ound in Theodoropoulosplot, tumulus , three in Kaza plot, tumulus E and one in Vlahou plot, tumulus . Thisspatial distribution may indicate the burial places where more prosperous members o the

community were buried.

6. The human skeletal remains ( by Sevi Triantaphyllou )

The extant MH skeletons rom the Argos tumuli comprise a total o twenty-fve indi-viduals. 69 The examination o the skeletons was carried out in May-June 2006, and thestatistical analysis during October-November 2007. Un ortunately, only a very small seg-ment o the skeletal remains collected during excavation was located and identifed in thestorerooms o the Argos Museum. In particular, the skeletal material o 13 only out o 101

graves was examined and yielded the minimum number o 25 individuals out o 116 exca-vated and collected by Deilaki (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a). A frst preliminary reporton the skeletal material was included in our previous report (Triantaphyllou in Voutsaki et al. 2007, 88-89). In addition, the results o the analysis have been presented at the MiddleHelladic Argolid Project Conference in December 2007 as part o a comparative analysiso MH skeletal populations rom the Argolid.

Table 6. Extant skeletal remains from the Argos tumuli

Tumulus No o tombs No o individuals

A 2 2 9 20 2 3

TOTAL 13 25

68 It has to be emphasized, however, that the graves we describe as sha t-graves in Argos cannot be com-pared to those at Mycenae in terms o size and complexity o construction. For instance, E: 92 (5) could bedescribed as an elaborate cist rather than a sha t grave.69 The total number o the extant MH skeletons has been slightly modifed since our previous report

(Triantaphyllou in Voutsaki et al. 2007, 88-89), as new in ormation on dating has been provided by K.Sarri.


28/40


The distribution o the minimum number o the individuals represented in each tumulus(Table 6) shows that tumulus produced the largest number o human skeletal remains

or study. Furthermore, fg. 11 gives the minimum number o individuals included in each

grave in tumulus

through time.70

Nine graves in this tumulus produced twenty indi-viduals disposed o ten in multiple burials ranging between two and our individuals. Thedistribution o the burials through time reveals that there is no clear chronological distinc-tion between single and multiple burials in all phases o use o the tumulus, both single andmultiple burials are ound throughout the MH and LH periods at least in the sampleexamined.

(i) DemographyFig. 12 presents the mortality profles o the Argos tumuli superimposed by the mortalityrates o a modern population with a li e expectancy at birth o thirty. In the Argos tumulithere is a notable absence o individuals less than 6 years old, while children and juvenilesare represented. Di erential actors o recovery and storage o the skeletal material haveseriously a ected the composition o the Argos tumuli population and there ore cautionis necessary when interpreting the results. It is possible that neonates and in ants, i.e. the

70 The dating o the skeletal material is based on Sarris most recent conclusions (see above, section 4).

However, in a ew cases where stratigraphic or contextual evidence is unclear, Deilakis original dates areretained. This is the case or the skeletons dated to the transitional period MH III-LH I.

Figure 11 . Minimum number of the individuals buried in tumulus


29/40


age groups less than 6 years old, had no, or very restricted access to these burial grounds.It should be mentioned that Deilaki in her dissertation re ers to only six neonates or earlyin ants71 (individuals less than 6 years old) in graves A: 134 (IX), A: 124 ( ), A: 135 (X), :

39 (X) pit,

: 68 (11),

: 29 (85). Out o the six graves with neonates/early in ants, there isa photograph only o one (grave : 29 (85)). This allows us to confrm that the individualindeed belonged to this age group. In any way, six individuals aged 0 to 6 years (out o ca.116 recovered skeletons) constitute a very small number. This is even more striking i weconsider the particularly high mortality rates in this age group in the nearby populationso Aspis, Lerna and the Prehistoric Cemetery, area at Mycenae. This rein orces our sug-gestion that neonates and in ants appear to have had no, or restricted access to the Argostumuli.

As regards the adult categories, the largest number o deaths all in prime adults (abbrevi-ated PA in fg. 12), while old adults, i.e. individuals over 50 years, are completely missing.However, this may be attributed to the limitations o macroscopic methods used to deter-mine age. 72

71 E. Milka, personal communication.72 The reliability o ageing methods decreases as biological age increases (Chamberlain 2000).

Figure 12 . Mortality rates in the Argos tumuli population


30/40


Fig. 13, which presents mortality profles through time, reveals that all age categories arewell represented in the MH III and MH III-LH I periods which represent the peak in theuse o the cemeteries. This pattern is compatible with the settlement evidence rom the As-pis which indicates that the settlement expanded during MH III, but may have decreasedin size and declined in importance rom LH I onwards (Touchais 1998, 77). It is also worthnoting that in the Argos tumuli in contrast to the situation in other Argive cemeteries prime adults (30-40 years old), an age group in which mortality is relatively high, are miss-ing rom the transitional period (MH III-LH I). Although the limitations o the analysisdue to the small size and random nature o the sample have already been emphasized, it is

tempting to suggest that prime adult individuals had limited access to the Argos tumuli,at least in the transitional period.The distribution o the two sexes (fg. 14) suggests that men and women were equally

represented in the sample examined but its small size and random nature need to bekept in mind.

To sum up the observations on the demography o the Argos tumuli, it appears thatage was a signifcant criterion determining inclusion to the tumuli cemeteries, while gen-der may not (?) have been as important. However, we should repeat that the sample is toosmall to make general in erences on MH unerary ideology.

Figure 13 . Mortality rates in the Argos tumuli population through time


31/40


(ii) Health statusAs already described in a previous report (Triantaphyllou in Voutsaki et al. 2006, 97),the requency o pathological conditions has been plotted as measured out o the totalnumber o the skeletal elements represented in the assemblage. The distribution o patho-logical conditions (fg. 15) in the Argos tumuli reveals declining levels o health status as

ollows: Overall, the Argos tumuli population shows moderate prevalence of lesions related

to the musculo-skeletal system, e.g. vertebral arthritis and musculo-skeletal markersand enthesopathies. Traumatic injuries are completely missing.

Skeletal lesions related to physiological stress factors, e.g. anaemia as well as enamelhypoplasia lines and to a lesser degree non-specifc in ections and metabolic disease,are commonly ound in the Argos tumuli.

The picture of relatively low levels of health status in the Argos tumuli is furtherrein orced by the distribution o pathological conditions between the adult and thesubadult age categories (fg. 16). Subadults show a high incidence o lesions associatedwith metabolic disease, cribra orbitalia (anaemia) and enamel hypoplasia. This patterno declining levels o health status in the subadult segment o the Argos tumuli allowus to conclude that sub-optimal external actors, e.g. harsh living conditions and nutri-tional problems, a ected the most vulnerable members o the population.

Figure 14 . Men and women in the Argos tumuli population


32/40


Figure 15 . Pathological conditions in the Argos tumuli population

Figure 16 . Pathological conditions among adults and subadults in the Argos tumuli population


33/40


These results allow us to make some suggestions on the status o the people buried in theArgos tumuli. 73 The overall high requency o lesions associated with the prevalence o stress actors and non-specifc in ections in the Argos tumuli seem to suggest that we are

dealing with ordinary people rather than elite groups. Considering the small size o skel-etal population examined, it cannot be emphasized enough that individuals o higher sta-tus may have been buried in the tumuli cemeteries, but were not preserved and there orenot available or examination. For all it is worth, we can point out that one o the skeletonsexamined is a young girl buried in a care ully built rectangular stone-lined pit ( : 140 (1))accompanied by airly rich o erings (bronze necklace, pendant, ring and ear-rings, arm-bands made o beads o di erent materials). In general, the levels o health status do notprovide real support to the hypothesis that the Argos tumuli contained elite burials.

I we now consider gender di erentiation in health status (fg. 17), women in the Ar-gos tumuli appear to have been more requently a ected by non-specifc in ections and

stress actors than men, except or cribra orbitalia. This suggests that they were exposedto poor living conditions and nutritional problems throughout their li e. On the otherhand, men mani est higher rates o skeletal changes related to vertebral arthritis, musculo-skeletal stress markers and enthesopathies than women. This indicates that they weremore involved in heavy physical activities than women. Although the sample is too smallto make in erences on gender roles during li etime, the evidence allows us to suggest, atleast tentatively, a certain division o labour between the two sexes.

73 See Dickinson 1977, 38, and above, section 5.

Figure 17 . Pathological conditions among men and women


34/40


(iii) Oral status and dietThe distribution o dental disease in the Argos tumuli population (fg. 18) reveals highrates o caries and teeth lost prior to death versus low rates o calculus. This implies they

relied on so t and processed ood based on carbohydrates. This pattern is rein orced whenthe distribution o dental lesions is plotted through time (fg. 19).

Figure 18 . Dental disease in the Argos tumuli population

Figure 19 . Dental disease in the Argos tumuli population through time


35/40


Levels o dental lesions (fg. 20) reveal similar dietary patterns or both sex groups. Bothmen and women in the Argos tumuli show high rates o caries versus low rates o cal-culus, i.e. both consumed the type o ood described above. When the dental lesions are

plotted through time (fg. 21), changing patterns o ood types are emerging between thetwo sexes: in MH III, men seem to have consumed more carbohydrates, while women mayhave consumed more animal protein, i.e. meat and / or dairy products. In LH I, the oppo-site can be observed: men seem to have consumed more animal protein and women mayhave consumed more carbohydrates. The distribution o caries versus calculus betweenadults and subadults (fg. 22) indicates that both broad age categories had a similar diet.To sum up: Mortality rates show that certain age groups, e.g. neonates (0-1 year) and infants (1-6

years) had restricted or no access to the Argos tumuli. Skeletal lesions related to physiological stress factors, e.g. anaemia as well as enamel

hypoplasia lines and to a lesser degree non-specifc in ections and metabolic disease,are commonly ound in the Argos tumuli. This suggests that ordinary people, and notonly elite groups were buried in this burial ground.

Levels of oral status reveal high rates of caries and teeth lost prior to death versus lowrates o calculus. This implies heavy consumption o a so t and processed ood basedon carbohydrates. The distribution o dental lesions between the two sexes reveals theyboth had a similar diet, although in MH III - LH I there is some evidence or genderdi erentiation in diet.

Figure 20 . Dental disease among men and women


36/40


Figure 21. Dental disease in the Argos tumuli population through time

Figure 22 . Dental disease among adults and subadults in the Argos tumuli population


37/40


7. Conclusions

The study so ar has given us invaluable new in ormation on di erent aspects o the Argos

tumuli. Our main conclusions can be summarized as ollows:- When were the tumuli cemeteries in use?The main period o use o the tumuli is the MH IIIB period. Few graves are in use inMH I II, and ew continue, or come into use in the Mycenaean period in a specifcpart o tumulus .

- Are we dealing with real tumuli?The examination so ar indicates that there is indeed evidence or some kind o ar-rangements around some graves in some parts o the cemeteries. This does not mean,however, that all groupings and clusters o graves can be designated as tumuli. Onlythe completion o the study o the archival in ormation (primarily the excavation note-

books and the photos) will allow us to reach more concrete conclusions on this point.- Are the tumuli cemeteries the burial ground of the elite?Neither the history o use o the tumuli cemeteries, nor the in erences on health statusand pathology support the elite hypothesis. By ar the majority o the graves are simpletypes, and the burials are accompanied by ew and unspectacular o erings. It is, how-ever, possible that some o the individuals interred in the cemeteries were o higherstatus -or, that they claimed higher status by adopting more ostentatious practices.

Dr Sofa Voutsaki

Groningen Institute o ArchaeologyUniversity o GroningenGroningen

[email protected]

Dr Kalliope SarriThe Argos Tumuli Project

[email protected]

Dr Oliver DickinsonHonorary FellowDepartment o Classics and Ancient History Durham

[email protected]

Dr Sevi TriantaphyllouShe feld Centre or Aegean Archaeology

University o She feldShe feld

[email protected]


38/40


39/40


Dietz, S. 1991. The Argolid at the Transition to the Mycenaean Age. Studies in the Chronol-ogy and Cultural Development in the Sha t Grave Period. Copenhagen.

Divari-Valakou, N. 1998. Evrimata apo to Mesoelladiko oikismo tou Argous. Anaskaf

oikopedou B. Tza a. In: A. Pariente & G. Touchais (eds), Argos et l Argolide. Topogra- phie et urbanisme,85-101. Paris.French, D.H. 1972. Notes on prehistoric pottery groups rom central Greece.Goldman, H. 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia. Cambridge, Mass.Howell, R.J. 1992. The Middle Helladic settlement. In: W. McDonald, W. & N. Wilkie (eds),

Excavations at Nichoria in southwest Greece, II. The Bronze Age occupation,43-124.Minneapolis.

Kilikoglou, V., E. Kiriatzi, A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais & I. Whitbread. 2003. Potteryproduction and supply at MH Aspis, Argos: The evidence o chemical and petrograph-ic analyses. In: Foster, K.P. and R. La fneur (eds), METRON: Measuring the Aegean

Bronze Age. Aegaeum24, 131-136. Lige / Austin.Mylonas, G. 1973. O tafkos kyklos B ton Mykinon. Athens.Nordquist, G. 1987a. A Middle Helladic village. Asine in the Argolid. Boreas 16, Uppsala

Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilization. Stockholm.Nordquist, G. 1999. Pairing o pots in the Middle Helladic period. In: Betancourt, P.P., V.

Karageorghis, R. La fneur, and W.-D. Niemeier (eds) , Meletemata: Studies in Aegeanarchaeology presented to Malcolm H. Wiener,II, 569-573. Lige / Austin.

Papadimitriou, A. 1994. Argos. 49 , 128-132.Papadimitriou, A. in press. Oi anaska es sto Mouseio tou Argous. In: Philippa-Touchais,

A., G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki & J. Wright (eds), Mesohelladika: The Greek mainland in

the Middle Bronze Age. BCH Supplment.Papadimitriou, N. 2001. Built Chamber Tombs o Middle and Late Bronze Age Date inMainland Greece and the Islands. BAR international series 925. Ox ord.

Philippa-Touchais, A. 2002. Aperu des cramique msohelladiques dcor peint del Argos. I. La cramique peinture mate. BCH 126, 140.

Philippa-Touchais, . 2007. Aeginetan Matt Painted pottery at Middle Helladic Aspis,Argos. In: Felten, F., W. Gauss & R. Smetana (eds), Middle Helladic Pottery and Syn-chronisms,97113. Salzburg.

Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980a. Oi tymvoi tou Argous.Diss. University o Athens.Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. 1980b. La cramique prmycenienne des tumuli dArgos. In:

tudes argiennes, BCH Supplment VI, 4152.Protonotariou-Deilaki, E. 1990. Burial customs and unerary rites in the prehistoric Ar-golid. In: Hgg, R. & G.C. Nordquist (eds), Celebrations o death and divinity in theBronze Age Argolid,6983. Stockholm.

Sarri, K. In print. Minyan and Minyanising Pottery. Myth and reality about a MH type os-sil. In: Philippa-Touchais, A., G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki & J. Wright (eds), Mesohelladika:The Greek mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. BCH Supplment.

Siedentop , H. 1991. gina IV,2. Mattbemalte Keramik der Mittleren Bronzezeit . Mainz.Touchais, G. 1998. Argos lpoque Msohelladique: Un habitat ou des habitats? In

Pariente, A. & G. Touchais (eds), Argos et l Argolide: Topographie et Urbanisme,71-

84. Paris.


40/40


Touchais, G. 2007. Coarse wares from the Middle Helladic settlement of Aspis, Argos:Local production and imports. In: Felten, F., W. Gauss & R. Smetana (eds), Middle Hel-ladic Pottery and Synchronisms, 8196. Salzburg.

Voutsaki, S., S. Triantaphyllou, A. Ingvarsson-Sundstrm, S. Kouidou-Andreou, L. Kovatsi,A.J. Nijboer, D. Nikou & E. Milka. 2006. Project on the Middle Helladic Argolid: areport on the 2005 season. Pharos XIII (2005), 93-117.

Voutsaki, S., S. Triantaphyllou, A. Ingvarsson-Sundstrm, K. Sarri, M. Richards, A.J.Nijboer, S. Kouidou-Andreou, L. Kovatsi, D. Nikou & E. Milka. 2007. Project on theMiddle Helladic Argolid: a report on the 2006 season. Pharos XIV (2006), 59-99.

Zerner, C.W. 1978. The beginning of the Middle Helladic Period at Lerna . Diss. Universityof Cincinnati.

Zerner, C.W. 1988. Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I pottery from Lerna. Part II.Shapes. Hydra 4, 110.

Zerner, C.W. 1993. New perspectives on trade in the Middle and Early Late Helladic peri-ods on the mainland. In: Zerner, C.W., P. Zerner & J. Winder, Wace and Blegen, Potteryas evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 19391989 , 39-56. Amsterdam.

Zerner, C. 1990. Ceramics and ceremony: Pottery and burials from Lerna in the Middleand early Late Bronze Ages. In: Hgg, R. & G.C. Nordquist (eds), Celebrations of deathand divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid, 2334. Stockholm.

Zerner, C.W. n.d. Lerna V. Catalogue of pottery (privately circulated).

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sofia-voutsaki
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Voutsaki et al 2009 Pharos XV Argos tumuli report 2006-2007

Documents