Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:50:08.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mortuary practices and the negotiation of social identities at LM II Knossos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Laura Preston
Laura Preston
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, University College London
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article explores expressions of cultural identity in the LM II mortuary data from the Knossos valley, in the context of the issue of a ‘Mycenaean’ presence there. It proposes that the burial record is less useful for trying to establish a mainland origin for the people interred in the tombs, than for exploring how people chose to represent themselves and each other in death. In this light, the cultural influences in the tomb architecture and assemblages of the Isopata and Kephala tombs in particular are examined. The experimentation apparent in such tombs suggests that the mortuary sphere was employed as a forum for status display in the context of a social transition at Knossos, with mainland traits being one element in a range of options that were selectively taken up and adapted.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 94 , November 1999 , pp. 131 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1999

References

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 Rehak, P. and Younger, P.. ‘Review of Aegean prehistory VII: Neopalatial. Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete’. AJA 102 (1998). 148Google Scholar. Also Driessen, J. and Macdonald, C.. The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum. 17; Liège. 1997). 106–8Google Scholar.

3 Driessen, J. and Farnoux, A., ‘Mycenacans at Malia?’, Aegean Archaeology, 1 (1994). 55Google Scholar; Driessen, J. and Macdonald, C.. ‘Some military aspects of the Aegean in the late fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries BC’, BSA 79 (1984). 49–74Google Scholar; Baumbach, L.. ‘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 Krzyszkowska, O. and Nixon, L. (eds). Minoan Society: Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981 (Bristol, 1983), 3–10Google Scholar: Driessen, J.. An Early Destruction in the Mycenaean Palace at Knossos (Leuven, 1990Google Scholar).

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 Hägg, R. and Sieurin, F.. ‘On the origin of the wooden coffin in Late Bronze Age Greece’, BSA 77 (1982). 177–86Google Scholar.

5 There is no concrete evidence at present that the pit-cave was introduced at Knossos prior to the LM III A period.

6 Popham, M. and Catling, H. and Catling, E.. ‘Sellopoulo tombs 3 and 4, two Late Minoan graves near Knossos’. BSA 69 (1974), 255Google Scholar; Rehak and Younger (n. 2). 152; Popham, M., ‘A Late Minoan tomb on Lower Gypsadhes’, BSA 75 (1980), 171Google Scholar. Though, for the challenge to this hypothesis with regard to the chamber tombs, sec Hood, S. and Coldstream, X.. ‘A Late Minoan tomb at Ayios Ioannis near Knossos’. BSA 63 (1968). 205Google Scholar; Kanta, A.. The Late Minoan III Period in Crete: A Survey of Sites. Pottery and their Distribution (Göteborg. 1980). 297Google Scholar; Pini, I., Beiträge zur minoisclien Gräberkunde (Wiesbaden. 1968). 39Google Scholar.

7 Squai alabastra and kylikcs. Popham, M.. ‘Late Minoan pottery, a summary’. BSA 62 (1967). 344Google Scholar.

8 Popham and Catling (n. 6). 253 and I. Pini (n. 6). See also Dickinson, O.. ‘Minoans in mainland Greece. Mycenaeans in Crete.’. Gretan Studies, 5 (1996), 66Google Scholar.

9 Macdonald in Driessen and Macdonald (n. 3) 58: Hood, S.. ‘Another warrior grave at Ayios Ioannis near Knossos’. BSA 51 (1956). 81Google Scholar.

10 Kilian-Dirlmeier, I.. ‘Noch einmal zu den ‘Kriegergräbern’ von Knossos’. Jahrbueh des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 32 (1985). 196–7Google Scholar. 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. Catling, H.. Some Problems in Aegean Prehistory c.1450–1380 BC. (Oxford, 1989), 6–7, 20Google Scholar.

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 Shennan, S., ‘Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identity’, in Shennan, S. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity (London, 1989), 56Google Scholar: Jones, S., The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present (London, 1997Google Scholar).

16 Pearson, M. Parker. ‘The powerful dead: archaeological relationships between the living and the dead’. CAJ 3:2 (1993), 203–29Google Scholar; Shanks, M. and Tilley, C.. ‘Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices’, in Hodder, I. (ed.). Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge, 1982), 129–54Google Scholar.

17 Thomas, J.. Rethinking the Neolithic (Cambridge. 1991). 104–5Google Scholar: M. Parker Pearson. ‘Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study’, in Hodder (n. 16), 112.

18 e.g. Voutsaki, S., ‘Social and political processes in the Mycenaean Argolid: the evidence from the mortuary practices’, in Laffineur, R. (ed.), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum, 1: Liège. 1995). 55–66Google Scholar; Wright, J. C.. ‘Death and power at Mycenae: changing symbols in mortuary practice’, in Laffineur, R. (ed.). Thanatos: Les coutumes funeraires en Égée à l'Âge du Bronze (Aegaeum. 1: Liège. 1987), 171–84Google Scholar.

19 Voutsaki (n. 18). 57; Cf. Hodder, I.. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture (Cambridge. (1982). 201Google Scholar.

20 Voutsaki (n. 18).57; Parker Pearson (n. 16).

21 Dickinson, O.. ‘Cist graves and chamber tombs’. BSA 78 (1983). 56Google Scholar; Cavanagh, W. and Mee, C.. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece (SIMA 125: Jonsered. 1998). 43–4Google Scholar. 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.

22 Macdonald in Driessen and Macdonald (n. 31). 65: Dickinson, O.. The Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge. 1994). 230Google Scholar; 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.).

23 Evans, A.. ‘The prehistoric tombs ot Knossos’. Archaeologia, 59 (1905), 526–62Google Scholar. 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. 774Google Scholar).

24 Evans, A.. ‘The Tomb of the Double Axes and associated group’. Archaeotogia, 65 (1914). 1–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 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.

25 Hutchinson, R. W.. ‘A tholos tomb on the Kephala’. BSA 51 (1956). 74–80Google Scholar. 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 Popham, M.. ‘Review of R. W. Hutchinson's Prehistoric Crete’. JHS 86 (1964). 209–10Google Scholar.

26 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.

27 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, 973Google Scholar; Soles, J.. The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (Hesp. Supplement 24: Princeton. 1992). 151–5Google Scholar.

28 Compare the architecture of the Middle Minoan multiple chamber tombs at Mavro Spelio. Forsdyke, E. J.. ‘The Mavro Spelio cemetery at Knossos’. BSA 28 (1927). 243–96Google Scholar.

29 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.

30 Younger, J., The Iconography of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Sealstones and Finger Rings (Bristol. 1988). 278–9Google Scholar.

31 See Mylonas, G.. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton. 1966). 173–5Google Scholar for a similar interpretation of the column depicted on the Lion Gate.

32 Ibid.: Gesell, G.. Town. Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (SIMA 67: Götoborg. 1985). 26–9Google Scholar: Marinatos, N.. Minoan Religion: Ritual. Image and Symbol (Columbia. 1993). 93–4Google Scholar.

33 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.

34 See n. 27, for a contrast with the Temple Tomb.

35 Cavanagh, W.. ‘Innovation, conservatism and variation in Mycenaean funerary ritual’ in Branigan, K. (ed.). Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield. 1998). 106Google Scholar; Cavanagh and Mee (n. 21). 50–1.

36 Schaeffer, C.. Ugaritica I: Études relatives aux decouvertes de Ras Shamra (Paris. 1939Google Scholar).

37 In fact, they are usually dated to the late 14th–13 cent. BC. Salles, J.-F.. ‘Ritucl mortuaire et rituel social à Ras Shamra/Ougarit’. in Campbell, S. and Green, A. (eds). The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (Oxford. 1995), 173Google Scholar.

38 Schaefler (n. 36), 92.

39 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.

40 This corbel-vaulted tomb, dated to LH II A or LH II B, has been compared with the Ugaritic tombs. Mylonas, G., Ο Ταφικὸϛ Κύκλοϛ Β Τῶν Μυκηνῶν (Athens, 1973), 221Google Scholar; Courtois, J.C.. ‘Ras Shamra’. in Pirot, L. et al. (eds) Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible (Paris, 1979). 1200–1Google Scholar.

41 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.

42 Hood, S.. ‘Cretans in Laconia?’. in Sanders, J. M. (ed.). Φιλολάκων: Laconian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (London. 1992), 137Google Scholar. One mainland parallel can be found in the LH I II Pensteria tholos. where two mason's marks were carved into one of the door jambs at the entrance to the chamber. AR 1959 60. 13.

43 Evans (n. 23). 554–6. Warren supports this identification. Warren, P.. Minoan Stone Vases (Cambridge. 1969), 105Google Scholar.

44 See n. 42.

45 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 S, Hood and Smyth, D., Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area. (London, 1981), nos. 71. 149, 324Google Scholar.

46 See n. 24.

47 For references to this extensive subject, see Rehak and Younger (n. 2). 134 41.

48 Hutchinson (n. 25). 74.

49 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.

50 e.g. Peatfield, A.. ‘Palace and peaks: the political and religious relationship between palaces and peak sanctuaries’, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N.. The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Stockholm. 1987). 89–93Google Scholar; Rehak and Younger (n. 2). 141-2. For other references, see Dickinson (n. 22), 274-5.

51 Hood (n. 42). 137.

52 Torrence, R. and van dor Leeuw, S., ‘Introduction: what's new about innovation?’, in Torrence, R. and van der Leeuw, S. (eds). What's New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation (London. (1989). 10–12Google Scholar.

53 Dickinson (n. 21). 60–1.