Mortuary practices and the negotiation of social identities at lm ii knossos

The Annual of the British School at Athens

Volumn 94, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 131-143

  Preston, Laura ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009596384     PISSN: 00682454     EISSN: 20452403     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S006824540000054X     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. I should like to thank Cyprian Broodbank. Todd Whitelaw. and Oliver Dickinson for useful comments on drafts of this paper. Thanks go also to Sofia Voutsaki for help and advice on this subject. I am also grateful to Marina Gkiasta for help in composing the Greek abstract. The doctoral research from which this article derives is funded by the British Academy.
2. See P. Rehak and P. Younger. ‘Review of Aegean prehistory VII: Neopalatial. Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete’. AJA 102 (1998). 148 10.2307/506138. Also J. Driessen and C. Macdonald. The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum. 17; Liège. 1997). 106-8.
3. J. Driessen and A. Farnoux, ‘Mycenacans at Malia?’, Aegean Archaeology, 1 (1994). 55 J. Driessen and C. Macdonald. ‘Some military aspects of the Aegean in the late fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries BC’, BSA 79 (1984). 49-74 L. Baumbach. ‘An examination of the personal names in the Knossos tablets as evidence for the social structure of Crete in the Late Minoan II period’, in O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon (eds). Minoan Society: Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981 (Bristol, 1983), 3-10 : J. Driessen. An Early Destruction in the Mycenaean Palace at Knossos (Leuven, 1990).
4. Hägg and Sieurin have also proposed that the introduction of the wooden coffin or bier is a mainland inspiration. As these receptacle types first appear at Poros in LM I B. if not earlier, they may not be strictly relevant to the horizon of LM II innovations―alternatively, they may indicate that the changes described in the present paper were simply part of a longer process. See R. Hägg and F. Sieurin. ‘On the origin of the wooden coffin in Late Bronze Age Greece’, BSA 77 (1982). 177-86.
5. There is no concrete evidence at present that the pit-cave was introduced at Knossos prior to the LM III A period.
6. M. Popham and H. Catling and E. Catling. ‘Sellopoulo tombs 3 and 4, two Late Minoan graves near Knossos’. BSA 69 (1974), 255 Rehak and Younger (n. 2). 152; M. Popham, ‘A Late Minoan tomb on Lower Gypsadhes’, BSA 75 (1980), 171. Though, for the challenge to this hypothesis with regard to the chamber tombs, sec S. Hood and X. Coldstream. ‘A Late Minoan tomb at Ayios Ioannis near Knossos’. BSA 63 (1968). 205 A. Kanta. The Late Minoan III Period in Crete: A Survey of Sites. Pottery and their Distribution (Göteborg. 1980). 297 I. Pini, Beiträge zur minoisclien Gräberkunde (Wiesbaden. 1968). 39.
7. Squai alabastra and kylikcs. M. Popham. ‘Late Minoan pottery, a summary’. BSA 62 (1967). 344.
8. Popham and Catling (n. 6). 253 and I. Pini (n. 6). See also O. Dickinson. ‘Minoans in mainland Greece. Mycenaeans in Crete.’. Gretan Studies, 5 (1996), 66.
9. Macdonald in Driessen and Macdonald (n. 3) 58: S. Hood. ‘Another warrior grave at Ayios Ioannis near Knossos’. BSA 51 (1956). 81.
10. I. Kilian-Dirlmeier. ‘Noch einmal zu den ‘Kriegergräbern’ von Knossos’. Jahrbueh des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 32 (1985). 196-7. Macdonald. for example, has suggested that the Zapher Papoura and Sellopoulo cemeteries, established in new locations in LM III A. represented an intrusive mainland population, while burials withm the existing, Neopalatial cemeteries of Mavro Spelio and Gypsadhes were of Cretans. Driessen and Macdonald (n. 3). 65-6.
11. Popham in Popham. Catling and Catling (n. 7). 255-6. In the same paper. H. and K. Catling proposed that Zapher Papoura tomb 14 and Sellopoulo tomb 4 could only represent mainlanders. This opinion appears to have been modified, however, since H. Catling expresses seepticism in a later publication regarding both the presence and political dominance of Mycenaeans at Knossos. H. Catling. Some Problems in Aegean Prehistory c.1450-1380 BC. (Oxford, 1989), 6-7, 20.
12. Kilian-Dirlmeier (n. 10), 208-9. 211.
13. Dickinson notes the occurrence of mortuary symbolism of mainland and Cretan origin in the same burials, though for the example of the chest larnax as a Minoan artefact, it should be noted that this was only reintroduced at Knossos in LM III A. Dickinson (n. 8), 66.
14. Pace Maedonald (n. 3), 65.
15. S. Shennan, ‘Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identity’, in S. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity (London, 1989), 56 : S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present (London, 1997).
16. M. Parker Pearson. ‘The powerful dead: archaeological relationships between the living and the dead’. CAJ 3:2 (1993), 203-2910.1017/S0959774300000846 M. Shanks and C. Tilley. ‘Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices’, in I. Hodder (ed.). Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge, 1982), 129-5410.1017/CBO9780511558252.013.
17. J. Thomas. Rethinking the Neolithic (Cambridge. 1991). 104-5: M. Parker Pearson. ‘Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study’, in Hodder (n. 16), 112.
18. Voutsaki (n. 18). 57; Cf. I. Hodder. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture (Cambridge. (1982). 201.
19. Voutsaki (n. 18).57; Parker Pearson (n. 16).
20. O. Dickinson. ‘Cist graves and chamber tombs’. BSA 78 (1983). 56 W. Cavanagh and C. Mee. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece (SIMA 125: Jonsered. 1998). 43-4. Cavanagh and Mee note that two of the shaft graves in Grave Circle A had rock-cut ledges, though these ledges supported wooden beams, as opposed to the stone slabs found at Knossos.
21. Macdonald in Driessen and Macdonald (n. 31). 65: O. Dickinson. The Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge. 1994). 230 Dickinson (11. 21). 65. However, it should be noted that the numbers buried in the early chamber tombs are greater in Mcssenia than in the Argolid (O. Dickinson, pers. comm.).
22. A. Evans. ‘The prehistoric tombs ot Knossos’. Archaeologia, 59 (1905), 526-6210.1017/S0261340900027612. In this publication (p. 560). he proposed a MM III date for the construction of this tomb, on the basis of presumed architectural parallels in Egypt, the mason's marks and the monumentality of the structure. However, he later revised this to LM II. a date in line with the earliest of the ceramics found within it (Evans. PM iv. 774).
23. A. Evans. ‘The Tomb of the Double Axes and associated group’. Archaeotogia, 65 (1914). 1-59. Isopata V is the only tomb of these three whose date of use is uncertain. In the original publication. Evans argued for a LM I date on the basis of the ritual vessels in the assemblage, pointing to parallels from a LM I context at Agia Triadha (p. 27). but overlooking the occurrence of a vessel of similar form in the LM II Isopata tomb II in the same cemetery. However, Evans appears to have changed his opinion subsequently, assigning a date of LM II in PM iv. 881. This dating is supported by the squat alabastron and high-beaked jug in the same assemblage.
24. R. W. Hutchinson. ‘A tholos tomb on the Kephala’. BSA 51 (1956). 74-80. Although the excavator preferred a LM I date for the original use of this tomb. I shall follow Popham's dating of LM II. on the basis of the Palace Style jar fragments, and the location of a Neopalatial structure in the vicinity, from which the earlier material could have been introduced. See M. Popham. ‘Review of R. W. Hutchinson's Prehistoric Crete ’. JHS 86 (1964). 209-1010.2307/627767.
25. The areas of the main chambers of the other tombs are as follows: Isopata tomb II. roughly 40 m2; Isopata tomb V 28 m2; the Kephala tholos 24 m2; Isopata tomb I. at 10 m2, is the smallest.
26. While the Temple Tomb has been cited as a Neopalatial burial place, it is not architecturally related to any of these five tombs. It should also be noted that there is no direct evidence that this building was actually constructed for such a purpose, although its location beyond the settlement limit and spatial association with Neopalatial chamber tombs suggests that it may have had mortuary connections at this time. Evans, PM iv, 973 J. Soles. The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (Hesp. Supplement 24: Princeton. 1992). 151-5.
27. Compare the architecture of the Middle Minoan multiple chamber tombs at Mavro Spelio. E. J. Forsdyke. ‘The Mavro Spelio cemetery at Knossos’. BSA 28 (1927). 243-96.
28. Evans (n. 24). 36. Evans also notes, however, that such representations usually depict a column which tapers towards the base, whereas this carving has parallel sides.
29. J. Younger, The Iconography of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Sealstones and Finger Rings (Bristol. 1988). 278-9.
30. See G. Mylonas. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton. 1966). 173-5 for a similar interpretation of the column depicted on the Lion Gate.
31. Evans also notes, however, that such representations usually depict a column which tapers towards the base, whereas this carving has parallel sides.: G. Gesell. Town. Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (SIMA 67: Götoborg. 1985). 26-9: N. Marinatos. Minoan Religion: Ritual. Image and Symbol (Columbia. 1993). 93-4.
32. For example, the built tomb at Myrtos Pyrgos. Building Four at Archanes Phourni. Tomb 5 at Agia Triadha and the Temple Tomb at Knossos. Soles (n. 27). 120-5, 139-42, 176-9. For the Temple Tomb, see references in n. 27.
33. See n. 27, for a contrast with the Temple Tomb.
34. W. Cavanagh. ‘Innovation, conservatism and variation in Mycenaean funerary ritual’ in K. Branigan (ed.). Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield. 1998). 106 Cavanagh and Mee (n. 21). 50-1.
35. C. Schaeffer. Ugaritica I: Études relatives aux decouvertes de Ras Shamra (Paris. 1939).
36. In fact, they are usually dated to the late 14th-13 cent. BC. J.-F. Salles. ‘Ritucl mortuaire et rituel social à Ras Shamra/Ougarit’. in S. Campbell and A. Green (eds). The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (Oxford. 1995), 173.
37. Schaefler (n. 36), 92.
38. It should also be noted that the Ugaritic tombs were invariably intramural, in direct contrast to those at Isopata, and that they had much shorter dromoi.
39. That in Isopata tomb I was on a stone found in the burial pit of the main chamber. Those in the Isopata Royal Tomb were more prominent, on the walls of the main chamber and forehall. as well as in the burial pit. One block, remarked upon by Evans because it had a series of four mason's marks on one face, may have formed the coping stone of the niches at the back of the main chamber. Evans (II. 23). 557.
40. Evans (n. 23). 554-6. Warren supports this identification. P. Warren. Minoan Stone Vases (Cambridge. 1969), 105.
41. See n. 42.
42. Squat alabastra are found in the Acropolis tomb. Tombs I, II, III, and V at the New Hospital Site, and the Gold Cup Tomb at Gypsadhes. See Hood S and D. Smyth, Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area. (London, 1981), nos. 71. 149, 324.
43. See n. 24.
44. For references to this extensive subject, see Rehak and Younger (n. 2). 134 41.
45. Hutchinson (n. 25). 74.
46. e.g. S. Youtsaki. ‘Mortuary evidence, symbolic meanings and social change: a comparison between Messcnia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean Period’, in Branigan (n. 35), 41 58.
47. e.g. A. Peatfield. ‘Palace and peaks: the political and religious relationship between palaces and peak sanctuaries’, in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos. The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm. 1987). 89-93 Rehak and Younger (n. 2). 141-2. For other references, see Dickinson (n. 22), 274-5.
48. Hood (n. 42). 137.
49. R. Torrence and S. van dor Leeuw, ‘Introduction: what's new about innovation?’, in R. Torrence and S. van der Leeuw (eds). What's New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation (London. (1989). 10-12.
50. Dickinson (n. 21). 60-1.