The Spatial Distribution of Mycenaean Tombs Author(s): C. B. Mee and W. G. Cavanagh Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 85 (1990), pp. 225-243 Published by: British School at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30102849 . Accessed: 15/02/2011 11:44 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual of the British School at Athens.
http://www.jstor.org
THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MYCENAEANTOMBS INTRODUCTION
The questions raised by the spatial distribution of Mycenaean tombs can be introduced by considering the site of Mycenae and its cemeteries scattered across the slopes west of the acropolis.' Clearly the location of a tomb at Mycenae was not dictated just by structural considerations, in the case of tholos tombs and chamber tombs the need for an outcrop of soft bed-rock. If geology was the only factor to be taken into account then the nine tholoi could have been built much closer together whereas in fact the Tomb of Aegistheus is 50 metres from the acropolis while the Cyclopean Tomb, possibly the earliest of the series, metres distant. The same phenomenon can be seen at Pylos. Tholos IV is 145 metres is 600oo from the acropolis and Tholos III iooo metres.2 In the case of Mycenae, Dickinson3 has of course suggested that proximity to the acropolis may have depended on status: of the six LHIIA tholoi, the Tomb of Aegistheus and the Lion Tomb can be identified as royal tombs by virtue of their position and size. This seems quite likely but does not explain the m from the Lion Gate, and while tholos location of the Treasury of Atreus which is 500oo tombs are often built close to or even on the acropolis - for instance at Kakovatos, Vapheio, Peristeria and Thorikos4 - at Prosymna, Dendra and Kapakli5 the distance ranges from 6oo-Iooo metres. If we turn to chamber tombs we might expect that there would be a correlation between distance and date: the earliest tombs should be those closest to the settlement, and we will assume for the moment that this was the acropolis, the more distant tombs will have been constructed later. If, however, we analyse the location of the chamber tombs at Prosymna in terms of their date of construction (FIG. I) we see that this model is not robust. The spatial distribution of Mycenaean tombs is not a function of their date. We do not, however, believe that the choice of location was more or less arbitrary. Given the effort and expenditure involved in the construction of chamber tombs and tholoi and in the provision of appropriate offerings, the Mycenaeans are unlikely to have behaved capriciously. Were religious beliefs crucial? Did tradition, the presence of earlier graves, and the desire for status by association, determine the location of a cemetery? Were tombs built beside roads? Were tholos tombs constructed as territorial markers on the border of adjacent polities or in prominent positions? Should we assume from the scattered This paper was first delivered as the Acknowledgements. Mycenaean Seminar at the Institute of Classical Studies, London, on Wednesday 30 November 1988. We wish to thank Professor Coldstream for inviting us to present the paper and all those present for their comments and criticisms. David Taylor prepared figures I, 3 and 4 and contributed to the others. Abbreviations R. Hope-Simpson and O.T.P.K. Dickinson, Gazetteer A Gazetteer ofAegeanCivilisationin theBronzeAge I: The Mainland and the Islands (Goteborg '979).
Origins Tholoi
O.T.P.K. Dickinson, The Originsof Mycenaean Civilisation(Goteborg 1977). O. Pelon, Tholoi, Tumuli et CerclesFuniraires (Paris 1976).
'A. Xenaki-Sakellariou, I ThalamotoiTaphoiton Mykinon (Paris 1985) P1. xiv. 2 C.W. Blegen et al., The Palace of Nestor111 (i973) fig. 30i.
3 Origins63. STholoi 183 (Vapheio), 207 (Peristeria), 219 (Kakovatos), 223 (Thorikos). STholoi 176 (Prosymna), 178 (Dendra), 243 (Kapakli).
226
C.B. MEE and W.G. CAVANAGH
PROSYMNA: Chamber tombs according to date of construction
A\ B
^/
2
\1
.A\
/Ak \T
\
2
2
2
22
A` 1 1 Ai
1AB` 12A2
\B 2 A Al
B2
B
2 AA 2 2
North
A
KB A\
AA AA.
0
50
A
100 Metres
FIG. i.
Location of the chamber tombs at Prosymna according to their date of construction.
cemeteries at Mycenae, that the acropolis was not the focus of a nucleated settlement; were the houses of the inhabitants as dispersed as their tombs? Might the distribution of tombs in a cemetery reflect the social hierarchy or the kinship structure of the community concerned? What can the location of tombs tell us about settlement hierarchies at the regional level? These are the questions which we will consider in this paper. RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
Persson suggested that the Mycenaeans located their cemeteries west of the settlement so that 'the living should not be troubled by the spirits of the dead when they travelled to
THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MYCENAEAN TOMBS
227
Hades'.6 However if we look at cemeteries in the Argolid we find that there is no consistency in their location vis-a-vis the settlement. Mycenae and Prosymna for instance obey Persson's law but at Berbati the cemetery is to the north of the acropolis, at Tiryns and Nauplia to the east and at Argos and Kokla to the south.7 Nevertheless we do accept that eschatology may have been a factor in determining the site of a cemetery. The problem is that our knowledge of the system of beliefs which sustained Mycenaean funerary practices remains so limited. The advances which have recently been made in the study of Mycenaean cult have not provoked comparable detailed research into their eschatology. At the moment we can do no more than suggest that there may be a link between the location of a tomb and Mycenaean beliefs but this has not been revealed by simple spatial analysis. TRADITION
We are more confident that tradition influenced the Mycenaeans. Sometimes of course a Middle Helladic cemetery simply continued in use. Thus at Ayios Stephanos, Malthi and Kirrha8 the practice of intramural inhumation in cist graves persisted. At Eleusis the West Cemetery remained in use until LHIIIB, Tumulus 4 at Marathon until LHIIIA2 at least and Tumulus 3 contained a IIIC amphoriskos.9 The case of the shaft grave circles at Mycenae is not so clear. The existence of the Prehistoric Cemetery on the west slopes of the acropolis must have been known and this may simply be an instance of continuity, but interlopers might have sought to legitimate their claim to authority by expropriating an ancestral cemetery. Admittedly this is somewhat speculative but the construction of Tomb Rho in Grave Circle B was surely not prompted by the availability of a disused shaft grave.'0 We would suspect that the motive was status by association. A desire for reflected glory may also explain the location of the Dendra cemetery which is over 1000 metres from Midea across rugged terrain." While we would acknowledge that the rock in the vicinity of Midea is not perfect for the construction of tholos tombs and chamber tombs, a more convenient site could have been found, and it does seem likely that Dendra is the cemetery for Midea since it is clear that the tholos tomb and the richer chamber tombs were built for individuals of high status. The initial attraction of Dendra for the rulers of Midea may have been the use of the cemetery by an earlier elite who were buried in the Middle Helladic tumuli.'2 These have not been published but are at the northern end of the chamber tomb cemetery, less than one hundred metres from the tholos. Horse burials were excavated just north of the tumuli but it is not clear as yet whether their proximity is significant or merely fortuitous. At Myrsinochori - Routsi the two tholos tombs were constructed beside three tumuli which would seem to be Middle Helladic and at Voidhokoilia the tholos was actually inserted into the tumulus.'3 Was this 6 A.W. Persson, New Tombsat DendranearMidea (1942) I52-3.
7 Mycenae: Sakellariou, op.cit. (n.i. above); Prosymna: C.W. Blegen, Prosymna(I937) plan I; Berbati: Frizell, OpAth
x5
(1984) 26; Tiryns: Rudolph,
Tiryns VI (i973)
23;
Nauplia: v. inter alia Kastorchis, Athenaion7 (1878) 183201; 8 (1879) 515-526; Lolling, AM 5 (i880) 143-163; Charitonidis PAE 1953, 195-204, Deilaki, ADelt 28 (1973) B 90-94, 29 (I973-74) 203; Argos: J. Deshayes Argos, Les
Fouillesde la Deiras (Paris, 1966) and Gazetteer 43-45.; Kokla:
Catling, ArchRep 1982-83,
26.
8 Origins65. 9 Gazetteer204 (Eleusis), 218 (Marathon), and Marinatos, PAE 1970, 9-18. 1o Origins 64.
i A.W. Persson, The Royal Tombsat Dendra near Midea ('93') 3-4. 12 E. Protonotariou-Deilaki I Tymvoitou Argous (1980) 197-200.
13 Gazetteer 145. Korres, PAE 1977, 293-295.
228
C.B. MEE and W.G. CAVANAGH
simply a case of convenience? otherwise.
The prominent location of the tumulus/tholos
suggests
Because of the effort invested in their construction, it seems legitimate to draw a distinction between tumuli and pit/cist graves in terms of the status of the deceased. Thus we would regard the juxtaposition of tumuli and tholoi as more significant than the presence of Middle Helladic pit/cist graves in chamber tomb cemeteries such as Prosymna and the Athenian Agora.'4 Nor should we overlook sites which changed the location of their cemetery. At Asine the Middle Helladic cemetery lay east of the acropolis whereas the Barbouna chamber tomb cemetery is north-west.15 ROADS
The location of cemeteries beside or along roads would primarily reflect practical convenience. In fact the evidence for the use of wheeled vehicles at Mycenaean funerals is not especially strong. The teams of horses at Marathon and Dendra were not accompanied by harness or the chariots.'" The models of chariots found inside tombs tend to be rendered with living occupants, and are better associated with the other types of figurine which do not seem to be explicitly funerary;'7 nor are we inclined to interpret the chariot craters in terms of funerary iconography.'8 Chariots are shown on some of the Tanagra sarcophagi, but again not in scenes of ekphora.19 Even so wooden coffins and clay larnakes20 were heavy and a journey of up to 1.5 kms would have been very tiring for human bearers.
Another possible motive for locating tombs beside the road is display. This is hinted at by Greek and Roman epitaphs which entreat the passer-by to pray for the soul of the deceased.21 Mycenaean roads or routes have been identified at a number of locations.22 Although their construction and maintenance is more easily explained under the full palace system, the very existence of chariots as early as the time of the Shaft Graves
probably implies the use of roads. That said there is little evidence to show that Mycenaean cemeteries were located where they could be served by roads. Blegen worked out the probable course of the LH road at the Argive Heraion but the chamber tombs
certainly do not line it, indeed they lie up to 300 m away.23The Kazarma tholos is close to the famous bridge, though the bridge is often thought to date to LHIII, much later than the tomb.24 At Mycenae the course of Steffen's roads I and 2 lies well to the East of the chamber tombs, whilst the road to the Argive Heraion would have served the Treasury of Atreus and the so-called 3rd kilometre cemetery,25 but not the major cemeteries of Mycenae. No cemeteries have been located beside the traces of mycenaean roads 14 Gazetteer 38 (Prosymna), 199 (Athens Agora). '5 S. Dietz, Asine II: I (1982) Io, fig. 2.
ti Vreserka Argolidos' in Eilapine (Iraklion 1987) 69-78; Mycenae, Prosymna, Dendra and Thebes c.f. M. Andro-
'6PAE 1958 15-17 and P1. I7A (Marathon); Deilaki
nikos, Totenkult (1968) 1o2-0o4; and wooden coffins or biers
loc.cit. (n.I2 above). 17 French, BSA 66 (I97i)
o07-1o8.
'8J.H. Crouwel, Chariotsand OtherMeansof Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece (1g81) 138-139.
19K. Demakopoulou and D. Konsola, Archaeological Museumof ThebesGuide(198I) pl. 42. 20 In mainland Greece clay coffins are known from: Tragana e.g. T. Spyropoulos Archaeology 25 (1972) 206-209;
Vreserka, K. Dimakpoulou, 'Pilini zographisti larnaka apo
at Mycenae, Dendra, Prosymna and Athens, c.f. R. Higg and F. Sieurin BSA 77 (1982) I77-186 with references. 21 Humphreys, JHS 10oo(Ig80) I03. 22 Crouwel op.cit. (n.I9 above) 29-31 and n.5 for further
references. 23Blegen, op.cit. (n.7 above) plan I. 24 Gazetteer 51 25 A.J.B. Wace, Mycenae (I949) 30/31, fig. 2.
THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MYCENAEAN TOMBS
229
identified in Phocis and Boeotia.26 Only at Nichoria were tholoi situated on a major road.27 TERRITORIAL MARKERS
The idea that tombs might serve as markers for the territory of a given group is one that has been especially prominent in recent discussion of the megalithic tombs of prehistoric Europe.28Renfrew has argued that the megalithic tombs in Orkney fall within agricultural divisions of the island.29 With reference to the early megalithic tombs of France Scarre has suggested that they 'may have been built so as to emphasise the durability of settlement or land-holding where other indicators such as substantial villages or fortified sites were lacking.'30 This last comment of course hardly applies to Greece in the Late Bronze Age,
but the question of territorial markers needs investigation. It has already been pointed out that in a number of cases tholos tombs are sited some distance from their associated settlement. Here it is possible that a claim was being laid to territory, even if the tombs were not actually marking the boundary of the village lands. The point cannot be overstated however since more than half of the large monumental tholos tombs whose settlements are known are situated less than 250 m away. Tholos tombs were imposing monuments and were made to be admired at least before the burial of their owner.3 At the same time they are not especially conspicuous in the landscape: only 25% could be said in any sense to be built into the summit of a hill, and some of these, such as Vapheio, would be better described as on a knoll.32 It is noteworthy that location
on hill-tops is more common in the S.W. Peloponnese, and the tholoi at Pylos and Peristeria, for example, must have been conspicuous in their original state. But these are just the cases which prove the rule for they are sited on the acropolis itself, which was already a visible focus of political power. Even in this region, however, some tholos tombs were deliberately not built in prominent locations. Thus the acropolis at Malthi makes a panoramic site, but in fact the tholoi were tucked away at the foot of the slope.33 Thus the theory of a claim to territory does not seem to explain the facts. On the basis of the state of research summarised by Hope-Simpson and Dickinson3482% of the Mycenaean settlement sites in the central Argolid have a known neighbour between I.5 and 4 kms distant; the median distance is 3 kms. In the case of the exceptions, Dendra, Argos and Asine, whose nearest neighbours are 5-8 kms away, it is not impossible that some unknown sites are yet to be discovered closer by. Indeed the findspots identified by Brommer on the basis of the sherd collection of the German Institute at Athens show there are sites closer to Asine.35 It may well be that intensive survey will reveal a closer clustering of Mycenaean settlements: the Southern Argolid survey data already suggest a median distance of I.5 km, half that of the conventional data.36 Chamber tomb cemeteries can be located up to I.5 kms from the settlement, and superficially this might suggest that 26Crouwel, op.cit. (n.19 above) 29. 27 Wilkie 'Burial customs at Nichoria: the MME tholos', in R. Laffineur, Thanatos,Les CoutumesFunirairesen l'Egie a I'Agede Bronze(1987) 127-136. 28A. Fleming, Man 8 (i973) 177-193. 29 C. Renfrew, BeforeCivilization(i973) 146-156. 3oC. Scarre, AncientFrance328-331. 31G. Mylonas, Mycenaeand the MycenaeanAge (1I966)
I24-I25. 32 Tholoi157-260. 33 Tholoi 213. 34 Gazetteer28-5I. 35 Brommer, AM 90 (i975) 163-179; Kilian, JRGZM 27 (198o) 167, fig. 1. 36 T. van Andel and C. Runnels, Beyondthe Acropolis:A RuralGreekPast (1987) 96-97.
C.B. MEE and W.G. CAVANAGH
230
the clusters of tombs could divide up the territory, in the way that Renfrew has indicated that the islands of Arran and Ronsey were divided up in the neolithic period. The clusters of chamber tombs would lay claim to tracts of cultivable land. On closer inspection, however, the distribution of clusters does not suit this interpretation: the groups at Prosymna and Mycenae, although distinct, are not widely distributed over the landscape,
and at most of the smaller sites in the Argolid the cemetery is close to the settlement, though of course we cannot tell how many cemeteries have not been discovered. This is not to say, of course, that tombs and land are unconnected. Rights of inheritance and to
property are frequently associated with the funeral and access to a tomb. It may be that in the Mycenaean period fragmentation of land holdings and scattered plots rendered the juxtaposition of tombs and land impracticable. Such a dispersion of land holdings is known in modern Greece, and is often ascribed to Classical Antiquity.37 Those linear B tablets (the E series) which have been interpreted as referring to land tenure, imply that parcels of land, often quite small, might be held and let in the Mycenaean Kingdoms;38 though the problems of interpreting the E series are considerable. DISPERSED
SETTLEMENT
Tsountas suggested that the cemeteries might have served the scattered villages, which went to make up Mycenae: 'in each of the villages there dwelt one of the Mycenaean clans and . . . each clan had its own common cemetery'.39 Tsountas consciously had in mind the komai and gene of ancient Athens, which has been construed as a 'cluster of villages' in the Geometric period.40 The idea has been revived with the proposal based on archaeo-
logical survey, that Mycenaean settlements may have been rather dispersed,41and it is not without support from earlier investigations. Thus Persson observed a pattern at least of interrupted settlement at Midea where the citadel is distinguished from the unexcavated area of settlement on the lower slopes of the acropolis and the low ridge beyond it, which is identified as the 'town belonging to the citadel'.42 Furthermore he reports Mycenaean buildings close to the tholos tomb at Dendra.43 At Argos likewise in addition to the occupation on the Aspis 'much of the population seems to have lived on the lower ground below the acropolises, perhaps in scattered groups of houses'.44 At the Argive Heraion Blegen noted a Mycenaean house close to his group V of chamber tombs and over 300 m from the acropolis.45 A situation not unlike that at Dendra/Midea has recently been found in the course of the Laconia Survey. At the Menelaion, settlement spread along the Menelaion ridge for a distance of nearly one km, and a further Mycenaean settlement has been found less than I km to the North.46 Although of course we are not sure where the cemeteries of the Menelaion site lay. Could it be that Mycenaean towns were exploded into fragmentary clusters and that the clusters of chamber tombs served such villages?
37R. Osborne, Classical Landscapewith Figures (1987) 37-40; S. Hodkinson, 'Animal husbandry in the Greek polis' in C.R. Whittaker (ed.) PastoralEconomiesin Classical Antiquity.Camb. Phil. Soc. Suppl. 14 (1988) 35-74, esp. 38f. 38Bennett, AJA 60 (1956) 103-I33; J. Chadwick, The MycenaeanWorld(1976) o8-I 19; J. Hooker, Linear B, an Introduction (I980) 133-150; Godart & Olivier Tiryns VIII (975) 43-50. 39Tsountas, AE 1888, 126.
40 A. Snodgrass, Archaic Greece (I980) 31.
41J.C. Wright, J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis and E. Mantzourani TheNemeaValleyArchaeological Project.InterimReport: 1984-r985. 15-I6. 42 Persson, op.cit. (n.II above) 3. 43 Persson, op.cit. (n. Ii above) 73. 44 Gazetteer44. 45Blegen, op.cit. (n.7 above) 21. 46 Catling, ArchRep1987-88.26.
THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MYCENAEAN TOMBS
231
We must await the results of further investigations, and in particular of intensive surveys, before a clear conclusion can be drawn. Nevertheless we are inclined on present evidence to reject Tsountas' hypothesis, whilst paying due respect to his prescience over the dispersed nature of Mycenaean settlements. Thus at Mycenae itself we now know that the main expansion of housing beyond the acropolis itself occurs in LHIIIA, that is to say considerably later than the earliest tombs.47 Likewise at the Argive Heraion the house at
Kephalari is LHIIIB whilst the nearby tombs have LHIIIA pottery.48In brief there is still no evidence tombs.
HIERARCHY,
to associated
dispersed clusters of houses with the dispersed clusters of
KINSHIP AND POPULATION
We have already seen that the chamber tombs were not located according to their date of construction (FIG. 2); there is no simple horizontal stratigraphy. Two other possibilities
15
10
U,
5
0
200
300
500
400
600
700
Metres
FIG. 2.
LHI
LHIIIA
LHII
LHIIlB
Bar chart showing the chamber tombs at Prosymna according to their date of construction and their distance from the acropolis.
47 Gazetteer 33-35.
48 Gazetteer 38.
C.B. MEE and W.G. CAVANAGH
232
clF~
5
6
9 3
A 7 1
28i
8i
FIG.3.
2
N 8i
Wealth groups
8i
0
400 Metres
Distribution map of the chamber tombs at Mycenae according to the four wealth groups.
suggest themselves to explain the distribution of tombs in discrete clusters observed within the cemeteries: (i) that the cemeteries were arranged according to wealth, with the richer tombs clustered together and (ii) that the tombs were grouped according to kin, or to put it more generally, according to some organising principle in Mycenaean Society. In order to investigate these questions we have attempted to distinguish richer and poorer chamber tombs.49 The analysis of the chamber tombs proceeded by means of 49In our opinion the use of chamber tombs was not restricted to an elite, see Mee and Cavanagh, OJA 3 (1984)
55-56.
THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MYCENAEAN TOMBS
PROSYMNA:Chamber tombs according to wealth groups
\ ,2
233
\\3
\T
/41
4/
13
4'(3
3
4\
44 31~43
\4 \1
1 1/4
3/ 12 2
North 4
0
50
j4
4\
13
100 Metres
FIG. 4.
Distribution
map of the chamber tombs at Prosymna according to the four wealth groups.
cluster analysis.50 First of all the tombs were clustered on architectural grounds according to their size and details of construction. The result here indicated four main classes varying from large magnificent chamber tombs to small modest ones. Then, independently of the first analysis, the contents of the tombs were also submitted to clustering. In this case the presence or absence of various types of find formed the basis of the investigation: pottery was disregarded but the presence was recorded of offerings such as metal vessels, jewellery, weapons, tools and so on. The two analyses essentially confirmed 50 For full details of the cluster analyses see Cavanagh 'Cluster analysis of Mycenaean chamber tombs', in Laffineur op.cit. (n.28 above), 161-170, and Cavanagh and
Mee, 'The location of Mycenaean chamber tombs in the Argolid', in Higg and Marinatos Celebrations of Death and Divinityin the BronzeAge Argolidforthcoming.
234
C.B. MEE and W.G. CAVANAGH
one another, and on the basis of the results we have divided the tombs at Mycenae and Prosymna into four wealth groups, and display them in the distribution maps. The maps (FIGs. 3 and 4) immediately dispel the idea that social status decided the siting of the tombs: the richest tombs are not, for example, located only by the acropolis, and tombs of each of the four wealth groups are associated together in clusters over the whole extent of the cemetery. A few of the peripheral groups have only poorer tombs, but in the majority rich and poor are associated. On these grounds we would support the second possibility, the explanation in terms of social organisation. Chamber tombs are usually interpreted as family tombs; correctly in our opinion provided that the term family is for the moment defined rather vaguely, and on the understanding that not every member of a family would necessarily be buried in the ascribed tomb. Thus the addition of a new tomb to a given cluster could be explained in terms of an increase in population. As each family expanded there would eventually occur fission and the newly created branch would require another family tomb. Two observations lead us to qualify this line of argument. Firstly if we look at the dates of construction of the tombs belonging to wealth groups I-4 we find that the richer graves tend to predominate in the earlier periods and the poorer graves form a larger proportion later, in LHIIIA and IIIB (FIG. 5). The natural interpretation is that the section of Mycenaean society using chamber tombs has changed over time. This conclusion does not fit well with an assumption of population growth as the only factor behind the increase in the number of tombs. We would suggest that burial in chamber tombs spread to sections of the community which previously observed other customs. Thus the conclusion reached in our earlier paper was that each cluster may have consisted originally of a nucleus of one or two tombs but by LHIII the clusters might comprise the tombs of up to a dozen families, rich and poor. Because of the disparity in the size and wealth of tombs, and thus in the status of the families concerned, we would propose some loose political alliance whereby the poor associated themselves with the rich in death. That side by side with the hierarchical divisions indicated by the tablets, there were local associations and alliances which bound together families of differing wealth and status. It has been suggested to us by Professor Chadwick that a hint of the mechanics of such patronage may be discerned in the mention of onateresin certain of the land documents.51 The second observation is illustrated using the cemeteries at Ialysos in Rhodes.52 Examining in the first instance the growth of the cemetery of Moschou Vounara a gradual increase in the tombs in use can be observed from IIIAI to IIIA2 and then a decrease in IIIB (FIG. 6). Macra Vounara, on the other hand, reveals an altogether different picture: the small core of 5 tombs established in IIIAI has rocketed sixfold to 31 tombs in IIIA2 (FIG.7). A similar contrast can be seen at Moschou Vounara in the change from IIIB with 5 to IIIC with 28 tombs (FIG. 6). In these cases too we would argue against natural population growth. Here it would appear not that the use of chamber tombs is widening, but that there are influxes of people; waves of colonisation associated with the I4th and 12th centuries.53
51 M. Ventris and J. Chadwick, Documentsin Mycenaean Greek(1973) 235-236. 52Maiuri, ASAtene6-7 (1923-24) 83-34I; Jacopi, ASAtene
13-14 (193-31) 253-345; C. Mee Rhodesin the BronzeAge (1982) 8-46. 5 Mee op.cit. (n.52 above) 84 and 89.
THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MYCENAEAN TOMBS
235
100
75 75 50
25
1
2
3A
3B
Date 1
3
2
4
Wealth groups
FIG.5.
Histogram of the graves analysed, according to the four wealth groups in order of their dates of construction.
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION
Having analysed the location of tombs within cemeteries, it is appropriate to look at the regional distribution of cemeteries. As Dickinson has demonstrated in his study of the political structure of Early Mycenaean Messenia, which was based on the evidence of the tombs, this can be a fruitful approach.54We have therefore compiled distribution maps for the Argolid, Messenia, Boeotia and Attica from our database of Mycenaean tombs. In the case of Boeotia (FIG. 8) this proved a rather inconclusive exercise, perhaps because the number of known cemeteries is not particularly large. On the distribution map we have included tombs irrespective of period but a chronological breakdown does not produce a more coherent pattern. If the eye of faith is permitted sufficient credulity two clusters can be discerned, centred on Thebes and Orchomenos respectively. However it should be pointed out that the two clusters are separated by Lake Copais, an unlikely location for Mycenaean cemeteries even if drained.
54 Origins91-93.
C.B. MEE and W.G. CAVANAGH
236
/93
.'60
/8,,
/86'
+,io er
/(6
~9t
/66 61
Rqi'
99 91
Aki G5
05
+, .t
I1.i
9t
St 6;1.
s`h~
\ 19jh\* 19
98
10 r 78
99
9( 02
96.
99 99
Soco'o
BtLtOT\l
ScA~vo
Moount
$A0~t1
Scnoo Jaco993
79
99
12
02
C.0
99 92
JACOoro
~?
P,6t
10
10,
n,
Ir O
$
is
to
so
,I;
69
. ,.
0
1
09
0o
99,
2o
as69
~o9\
st\
6s8
66B
LH3A
LH3A2
'93 .l 4(
/O,, ,ac
(,6
~es
La6
dS
B1
61
~iie'
03
85
I 11. 'i/
(t
St
6ZE
19 .. LB
99
99
P
Ir
92
94
0 StLvo
BIootr 93
SCAvo MASURt
99
c.r
SCAVO
SCAVO
\ \~\ fitl"!
90\~
JAcoft
71( 1in
92
uOTT \ 90
Ml^,uo,
ScAvo
90
a
SCAvo
d69
90
~6
jiootl
11)
0
'
to
Is
o0
6,a.
714 0
69 68
LH3B FIG. 6.
1~
99,j
6
tO
9s 9o
69
99,I.
~99\ F666
i,91
jC LH3C
Distribution maps showing the tombs of the Moschou Vounara cemetery, Ialysos, Rhodes, in use respectively during LHIIIAi, LHIIIA2, LHIIIB and LHIIIC (after Jacopi op.cit. n.5i).
THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MYCENAEAN TOMBS
rj r
?;,?
II
I:
?:
,,
237
It ((
O
51
ri
r
I!
(I ~1 bi
A
22 I,
1'
ct 21
SI 22 27
4.6 i:~ao 2i
0
22
22
G
52
t, 20
22
20
12
22
22
2I
LH3AI
r I;
'L?
Ir-
.t
'm .,
?f
1J
1PI
oI
'*
'1
t:
II
w/
g AI
II t(l r,
t,* %1.
52 10
2.'
I1
23
e1
22 'S
27
01
.6"
r A A
/.
,0
/i
'.too ~. ro I) ,u ?) to
LH3A2 FIG. 7. Distribution map of the Macra Vounara cemetery, Ialysos, Rhodes showing the tombs in use in LHIIIAI and LHIIIA2 (after Maiuri op.cit. n.5
C.B. MEE and W.G. CAVANAGH
238
Tholos
tombs
Chamber tombs
0
FIG.8.
10
20
KM
Distribution map of the Mycenaean chamber tombs and tholos tombs in Boeotia.
If we turn to the Argolid (FIG. 9) we do at least have more evidence and thus a denser distribution. The concentration of cemeteries in the Argive Plain offers no obvious hints as to the relationship of the major settlement sites, at least on the basis of a superficial analysis, but the lack of tombs between the Argolid and Corinthia may be significant. Again the explanation could be topographical, in that the terrain is rather broken, but we shall find that the distribution patterns in Messenia and Attica are similarly uneven. In Boeotia most of the Mycenaean tombs were cist graves or chamber tombs. Only at Orchomenos and Medeon were there tholoi. In the Argolid the tholos is much more common, although the chamber tomb is still the preferred tomb type. But when we turn to Messenia (FIG. IO) We find that the tholos is ubiquitous, attested at 27 of the 35 sites whereas there were only nine chamber tomb cemeteries. Of course we must acknowledge the possibility that the archaeological record is skewed, although this does not seem an entirely plausible explanation given the large number of sites. We believe that at an inter-regional level there were quite marked differences in the range of tomb types, not an altogether unexpected conclusion but there is a tendency to stress the cultural homogeneity of Mycenaean Greece. We would argue that this is over-simplistic. An analysis of the Messenian distribution map from an intra-regional perspective indicates two concentrations of cemeteries and, as in the Argolid and Corinthia, complete blanks. To some extent this mirrors the pattern revealed by the UMME55 which in turn reflects environmental constraints on settlement and the intensity of the survey. Nevertheless it is curious that the coast around Kyparissia and Western Messenia should be so devoid of cemeteries. Before we attempt to explain this phenomenon we shall look at Attica (FIG. I I). In the 5"W.A. MacDonald and G. Rapp, TheMinnesotaMessenia
Expedition (1972) map 8-I4.
THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MYCENAEAN TOMBS
Tholos
239
tombs
Chamber tombs
0
FIG.9.
10
KM
Distribution map of the Mycenaean chamber tombs and tholos tombs in the Argolid.
Athens plain and in the Mesogeion there is a fairly dense concentration of chamber tombs but it is only on the periphery that we find isolated tholoi - at Menidi, Marathon and Thorikos - and the border between Attica and Boeotia is a blank. In examining distributions at the regional level two issues are raised: can 'cultural' provinces be recognised, that is to say areas where different customs were practised, and secondly if so how are these differences to be explained?
Snodgrass has argued56 that the tholoi can be used to demonstrate that parts of Attica
56 Snodgrass unpublished paper delivered at Oxford University; we are most grateful to Professor Snodgrass for
allowing us to cite the paper.
C.B. MEE and W.G. CAVANAGH
240
) Tholos
tombs
) Chamber tombs
0
FIG. Io.
10 KM
Distribution map of the Mycenaean chamber tombs and tholos tombs in the SW Peloponnese.
were not united under Athens in the LBA; in other words there was not a synoecism of Attica in the Thucydidean tradition. Such an argument would help to explain, for example, the relative insignificance of Athens in later Greek myth and tradition, and the independent part played by towns such as Aphidna and Eleusis. It has been suggested that tholos tombs are not a type exclusive to royalty,57but the construction of the Menidi tholos as late as LHIIIB is suggestive that there might have been centres independent of Athens. Does the distribution of chamber tombs help? The map shows a restriction: 57Mee and Cavanagh op.cit. (n.50 above) 5-51; Darcque 'Les Tholoi et l'organisation socio-politique du monde mycinien', in Laffineur op.cit. (n.28 above)
185-206; contra Pelon in Higg and Marinatos op.cit. (n.50 above).
THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MYCENAEAN TOMBS
241I
Tholos tombs Chamber tombs
0
10 KM
FIG. I I.
Distribution map of the Mycenaean chamber tombs and tholos tombs in Attica.
chamber tomb cemeteries are common in the Athens basin and the Mesogeion, but are conspicuous by their absence in a northern belt spreading from Acharnai to Aphidna and Marathon, and in the southern part of Attica in the areas of Anavyssos (classical Anaphlystous) and Thorikos. At Eleusis chamber tombs appear only in LHIIIB. The distinction is based not only on negative evidence for there are independent types of tomb: the built tombs of Eleusis and Thorikos and the tumuli of Marathon, which are contemporary with the chamber tombs in the central Attic area. The archaeology of the tombs suggests therefore that there is a cultural divide between Athens and very roughly the Mesogeion on the one side, and a circle of major towns to the North and to the South. At the risk of stretching the evidence we would suggest that this cultural divide corresponds to the political division suggested by the tholos tombs. Of course the argument on grounds of grave type needs confirmation, though it is difficult to
242
C.B. MEE and W.G. CAVANAGH
think of other archaeological sources which might be brought to bear. In most of the regions we have examined there are marked discontinuities in distribution which in some cases reflect relief and geology, but in other cases seem to show cultural differences: a degree of regionalism which stands in contrast to the picture of a Greece unified under the control of the central palaces alone. SUMMARY
In conclusion the main questions will be reviewed in turn by looking first at the inter-regional, then at the territorial and finally at the cemetery level of spatial analysis. In
terms of regional distribution it is very clear that there are differences from district to district: the cases of Boeotia, Attica, the Argolid and Messenia each reveal a distinctive pattern of funerary usage which cannot be dismissed as a mere accident of unsystematic sampling. This variation in the use of chamber tombs and tholos tombs must reflect in part differing traditions, or rather different attitudes to tradition, for example in the
continued use of earlier tomb types such as the tumulus or the built tomb. But this is not to deny that these variations in practice also had a contemporary significance, not necessarily in terms of the social structure of each Mycenaean kingdom, but perhaps as a symbol or statement of cultural opposition and, as the other side of the same coin, cultural identity. Thus the close imitation of the Treasury of Atreus by the Treasury of Minyas at Orchomenos becomes all the more powerful a statement when it is realised that the tholos tomb had no place in the prior tradition of burial customs in Boeotia.
In terms of the placing of Mycenaean cemeteries within a territory it is possible to suggest the decisive factors in order of increasing probability. Thus location upon a road cannot be demonstrated to be of prime importance; certainly the tombs did not line the roads in a continuous ribbon. Nor does the evidence support the theory that the tombs acted as markers of territories or of plots of land and further research, in particular intensive survey is needed to test the hypothesis that a dispersed settlement pattern is reflected in the location of cemeteries. A prominent position does seem to have been important for some of the more imposing monuments, particularly where tholos tombs are located beside the acropolis. In terms of religious beliefs Persson's law is not always
applied; although special pleading could justify some of the exceptions: if the chamber tombs of Nauplia were located to the West they would require under-water excavation. Moreover the gradually increasing tally of rural sanctuaries helps to confirm the existence of a sacred landscape in Mycenaean as there was in Classical Greece and Minoan Crete. The religious aspects of Mycenaean eschatology are still not well investigated, but the tombs do seem to feature in that landscape. Finally, whilst exceptions can again be found, the evidence for tradition, the continued reverence of earlier cemeteries, perhaps in some cases the manipulation of that reverence, is quite strong. In the third place there is the question of the location of tombs within the cemetery. In this case we argue that the clustering of tombs into groups results not simply from the random operation of choice. The clusters of tombs served associations of the richer and poorer families which made up the fabric of Mycenaean society. At the risk of exceeding any inferences warranted by the data it is possible to speculate on the nature of these groups. The associations might well have been formed initially on the pattern of kinship relations, not too distant from Tsountas' conception of gene. But natural reproduction does not explain the pattern of growth and the wide spread of wealth which we have
THE SPATIALDISTRIBUTIONOF MYCENAEANTOMBS
243
documented. On the face of it the clusters of tombs consist of up to 17 'families', so that even on a generous estimate the total population of each group of chamber-tomb users would amount to less than ioo people. Despite the relatively small scale of a Mycenaean kingdom, this is not a substantial power base; indeed if a medium-sized settlement such as Prosymna could be subdivided into at least a dozen groups, this conclusion is unavoidable. It would be safer, then, to conclude that small scale alliances are represented, political building blocks rather than power blocs. In truth we still have a tenuous grasp of Mycenaean political and social organisation, more research and more evidence are needed, but we would hope that we have demonstrated the potential contribution of the tomb evidence. C.B. MEE W.G. CAVANAGH
